TwinOtter23Back in 1977 I worked with someone whose sister was a teacher working at Akrotiri who dated a “US civilian who flew aeroplanes wearing an astronaut’s suit!” At the time this resulted in a nice ‘Snoppy’ patch and a gold tie pin.
I understand the U2 operations at Akrotiri had been very low key and after the incident HM Government has to admit to US usage of the base. Shortly after the incident U2 operations moved to a certain airbase in East Anglia. This secret deployment was most amusing because of the number of spotters that were out to welcome to U2’s to the ‘Hall’. Me included.
TwinOtter23To stand any chance of succeeding any project requires major sponsorship, but the availability of big money to sponsor aviation projects seems to have gone. Indeed was it really there in the first place?
Whilst there is money around for the small warbird projects, funding for the general preservation movement is currently stretched to near breaking point.
So is there any realistic chance of another fantastically expensive RTF scheme getting off the ground when the first such scheme, VTTS has still not been successfully completed?
As I understand the VTTS situation they have struggled to achieve their partnership funding requirements for their HLF backed Project due to the lack of “anticipated” sponsorship for the project. They are now trying everything possible to raise the money required from other sources, but it is a slow process.
People should also remember that the HLF rules were “adapted” to accommodate VTTS as the Lottery funding didn’t apply to flying projects. The recent Lottery Review relating to future funding seems certain to dilute the funding available even further and would they support another RTF scheme?
I also understand that the Duxford Air & Space Project has a shortfall in their partnership funding, again caused by the lack of “forecast” sponsorship for the project. They too are looking at many funding options to bridge the shortfall.
Is there really room for another major project of the type being mooted for a Concorde RTF Project? Personally I think not.
TwinOtter23Canberra PR.7 WH791 is currently displayed at Newark Air Museum. http://www.newarkairmuseum.co.uk/aircraftlist.cfm
It is reported that the airframe is currently undergoing restoration by members of 31 Squadron Association as part of their 90th Anniversary celebrations.
TwinOtter23A society of enthusiasts could help steer people towards museums or other activities in their area that need help. Just as the BAPC network groups now, the society could help focus individuals.
To summarise my various posts on this and the Society for the Protection of Aviation History threads.
Please do not under estimate the time, commitment and paperwork involved in becoming a properly constituted Society that will be required if you are to be taken seriously as a campaigning group.
Perhaps the existing structures / museums provide the quickest and cost-effective route.
TwinOtter23So the BAPC is of little use to an induhvidual then. Apart from the H&S aspect.
No indiviudals can become members.
Another initiative I forgot is the National Aviation Heritage Skills Initiative, check out http://www.nahsi.org.uk
TwinOtter23I would like to answer some of wv838 questions and in so doing raise a few points that need to be considered, I do appreciate that these also cross over onto the separate Society thread.
I believe that BAPC membership costs £30 per year.
Membership would give you the benefit of learning from the experiences of other museums / groups about:
1. Becoming a registered charity and all the legal / financial obligations such status brings.
2. Perhaps becoming a limited company to limit the liabilities you may otherwise personally incur if something goes wrong with the society / group.
3. Advise or offer group savings on insurance premiums incurred from being a properly constituted organisation.
4. Lobby and advise on planning issues, simply placing an aircraft on a piece of land brings many implications for change of use, planning approval etc
5. Offer advice on the Health and Safety obligations such a group would need to comply with.
6. Offer advice on the Radiation Protection issues that are now coming to the forefront and may have even been expedited by recent issues with the scrapping of cockpit Vulcan XL391.
On the face of it forming a Society is a great idea, but please recognise it potentially raises far more questions than it may help solve.
I reiterate thoughts from an earlier posting. I would urge everyone to focus their efforts in supporting their local independent aviation museum.
The infrastructure is already there and for the most part working well. With a little more assistance it can work even better.
TwinOtter23I would like to use part of my comment on the State of British Aviation Heritage thread to reflect my views on this idea.
I believe the system already exists for British Aviation and although not perfect it has done a pretty good job over the last 30 years or so. This is each of the independent aviation museums across the UK, which outside of the USA is perhaps the most active aviation movement in the world.
Over the years hundreds of at risk airframes have been saved and most are now listed on the National Aviation Heritage Register [NAHR], compiled by BAPC. The NAHR has even been used as an example of good practice for other British transport Registers of significant artefacts.
As far as the Upper Hill Swift goes I think it would be naive to think that NO museums have tried to save this airframe. Perhaps previous bad experience with the Spitfire has dissuaded the owner from parting company with the airframe.
With the scope of coverage provided by Wrecks & Relics there are very few airframes not known about by the movement.
I would urge everyone to focus their efforts in supporting their local independent aviation museum.
The infrastructure is already there and for the most part working well. With a little more assistance it can work even better.
TwinOtter23I believe the system already exists for British Aviation and although not perfect it has done a pretty good job over the last 30 years or so. This is each of the independent aviation museums across the UK, which outside of the USA are perhaps the most active aviation movement in the world.
Over the years hundreds of at risk airframes have been saved and most are now listed on the National Aviation Heritage Register [NAHR], compiled on behalf of BAPC. The NAHR has even been used as an example of good practice for other British transport Registers of significant artefacts.
Would it be better to focus efforts in supporting the local independent aviation museum?
The infrastructure is already there and for the most part working well. With a little more assistance it can work even better.
The difficult part comes when you move away from the machines and look to airfields and production facilities. Then English Heritage may be the way forward.
TwinOtter23On the face of it owning or helping to maintain a cockpit, aircraft or a number of aircraft is often viewed through rose tinted glasses but in this day and age the reality is different. Health & Safety, COSHH [Control of Substances Hazardous to Health] and now Radiation Protection all have to be fully considered.
Any Vulcan owner should have undertaken a Risk Assessment of the airframe, cockpit etc and now with Radiation Protection they should have checked and recorded radioactivity levels.
Bruce made the point about instrumentation, which for Vulcan’s may be valid. Indeed many intact instruments are relatively safe it’s only when they are damaged that major problems can occur. However there may also be other items that have to be checked for radioactivity e.g. luminous exit signs, luminous tabs on aircraft fire extinguishers are also potentially radioactive, as are some hardened engine parts as mentioned by David Burke.
When an aircraft like XL391 is scrapped in the way it has been, instrumentation or other items may have contaminated whole areas of airframe and metal.
TwinOtter23Go to http://www.bapc.org.uk and check out the Register & Publications button – “Radiation Protection for Aviation Museums”. This is an important Health & Safety topic that is starting to have an impact on all aviation museums and may soon have an impact on the second hand sales of instruments and many other aviation artefacts. Certain pre-1960s aviation instrumentation can be of special concern.
From a waste recycling point of view many major scrap yards will routinely scan large scrap deliveries for radioactive contamination and not just aviation scrap.
TwinOtter23Swift WK277 at Newark Air Museum has been inside since summer 2004. It was still under cover when I last visited a couple of weeks ago, tucked up alongside the Meteor NF12, Hunter F1, Javelin FAW.8 and Jet Provost. I seem to remember that the Swift was featured in the aviation press back in 2004 with a Japanese volunteer working on the aircraft inside the hangar.
TwinOtter23I know for a fact that Sweden did this regularly with their Viggens, as a central part of their air defence strategy. A very good idea if you ask me.
Perhaps Newark Air Museum could have considered a road landing delivery for the Saab Viggen that has just been flown in to RAF Cranwell? See Joe Petroni thread on the Historic Aviation Forum for more details.
TwinOtter23An excellent programme, with a moving and appropriate ending with the pilot “landing” the RV on the flight deck. Well done the BBC.
TwinOtter23In reply to HP81 – I think that you will find that the fuselage of Avro Ashton WB491 was donated to Newark by BAE Woodford in March 2003.
TwinOtter23My sources advise that Newark encountered wing-folding problems with the Gannet and Buccaneer; I guess as a result of being outside for so long. This caused changes to Hangar 2 content and work is ongoing to resolve the issue on both airframes.
Also the T33 is likely to remain outside and the final location of Lightning T5 still has to be resolved.
MiGs are listed for repaint but the loan agreements have only just been renewed.
I understand that a large allied fighter / bomber has been on their Acquisition List for many years. Other possibilities not secured included F4 and or A10 but the Viggen, which is on long-term loan, fills that gap. I am told that temporary moves may be made to allow Viggen to re-built in Hangar 2.
Perhaps with the Viggen they may apply my logic from one of my post on the Midland Air Museum thread i.e. “…. even better if the Boulton Paul P111a were inside. That way people would definitely have to pay to see it rather than using the traditional ‘spotting technique’ of looking through or over the fence!”
One other food for thought comes on the Cold War theme, this seems to be flavour of the month, because in the Government Education White Paper I understand that it could become a National Curriculum topic!
Sign In
