TwinOtter23Bruce
In my first post on the Cosford thread I noted, “I read somewhere that Newark Air Museum used the BAPC [British Aviation Preservation Council] produced National Aviation Heritage Register when deciding that the Varsity would go inside their new building; rather than the Vulcan, Hastings and Shackleton. As these types were already displayed under cover in other collections”.
I understand that the NAHR and the aircraft status on this Register was one of the main justifications in their Heritage Lottery Fund [HLF] application, along with developing the training theme, which is not covered elsewhere.
I guess the Jetstream going inside follows the training lineage from the Varsity and I believe they are using the Sea Harrier to complete the VTOL lineage that started with their Meteor FR.9 test-bed that has local significance with Rolls Royce Hucknall.
I guess options would have seen the Heron and Dove also go inside, another project for the future perhaps!
JDK & Bruce
One other point of clarification to my earlier post, to attain Registered Museum Status any museum must have an approved Collections and Disposals Policy. So I guess as Newark are a Registered Museum the Jetstream and Sea Harrier were covered by their C & D Policy.
TwinOtter23There is little doubt that someone could write a University thesis on this topic and still leave much ground un-touched. Here are a few of my thoughts and a couple of question questions.
Several years ago I attended a seminar organised by the British Aviation Preservation Council [BAPC] at Duxford in the summer of 2000. The seminar reviewed the way forward to protect the Benchmark and Significant airframes on the National Aviation heritage Register [NAHR] and one very interesting figure emerged from the review. Assuming a typical cost of between £250 and £300 to provide one square metre of basic under cover aircraft accommodation, it would “only” cost between £35 and £40 million to get all the Benchmark and Significant airframes listed on the NAHR under cover. I highlight the word “only”, because this is a small amount when you look at what has been poured into ventures like the Millennium Dome, etc.
For up to date costing data refer to Flypast – March 2005 and Newark’s Heritage Lottery Funded Hangar, project cost £533,000 to provide 2,400m² of basic under cover accommodation at a cost of £222 per m². Admittedly this does not provide accommodation to the standards being achieved by the national museums with their environmentally controlled facilities, but it certainly slows the deterioration to a more manageable level.
In the drive for funding opportunities many independent museums have become Registered Museums through the Museums and Galleries Commission Registration process [now called Resource]. This means that many voluntary managed museums are already working hard towards, and achieving standards similar to those attained by the national museums.
My first question would be why have the national museums like Duxford, Hendon, Cosford and the Fleet Air Arm Museum been forced to seek HLF funding to complete their building projects?
I think that if this money had been directed at the Independent museums, many aircraft could already be under cover. I guess the answer surly comes down to Government funding or more precisely the lack of appropriate funding for the national museums.
The Government have already diluted the effect of money the public contributes via the National Lottery by widening the causes that the Lottery supports. This problem could be further exaggerated if the current review of the HLF comes up with the wrong conclusions. HLF are currently undertaking their strategic planning for the period 2008-2013, the consultation closes on February 28th 2006 and I urge every who has concerns to check out their website and comment http://www.hlf.org.uk/future/
Another Government policy has contributed to the lack of funding for the national museums and has a creeping effect on many voluntary / independent museums across the country and is not just pertinent to the aviation sector. The Government’s policy of reducing and in some cases eliminating admission fees at many national museums has not only reduced income at the nationals but also impacted on the independent museums. I’ve heard many people question why they should have to pay to visit independent museum when other “larger” venues are free.
Many venues in the voluntary / independent sector only exist thanks to admission fees and limited shop sales, hence the need to secure attention grabbing airframes to draw in the public. [I appreciate this cross thread issue that is also covered by the ongoing Concorde debate].
Various factors influence people’s interest in aircraft and aviation. Back in the sixties and early seventies there was often a degree of mystery surrounding aircraft, which I personally believe for the most part has now disappeared thanks to package holidays and more accessibility to aircraft in general.
Also I believe that the general public’s expectations are different to many enthusiasts, especially in this fast changing technological age, often the major driver is the desire to see something new! Be it a new exhibit or a more current airframe.
As a realist I know that some of these airframes may eventually be lost and they may even be the ones that have attracted the public. However enthusiast should remember that when people visit a museum to see the new airframe they pay their admission fee, thereby generating the income that in the long-term may help save those other more significant airframes in the eyes of the enthusiast or the NAHR.
Everyone can be of help to many of the museums out there, but especially those in the voluntary / independent sector. Ultimately their fate may rest in your hands and your desire to keep on visiting them. So please don’t just lean over the fence to take down the numbers or get that snatched photograph, pay your admission fee, go inside and take a close look at what’s going on.
Are you supporting your local aviation museum?
TwinOtter23In view of the uncertain future of the BA Collection at Cosford, perhaps someone should tell the IWM that airliners are not really “flavour of the month!”
Let’s hope IWM see the project through to a positive end. I guess it is due to go into the Air & Space Hangar.
TwinOtter23If you scroll down on the link below there is an update about Cockpit-Fest 2006 on the Newark Air Museum website.
TwinOtter23I like you JDK [and others earlier in the thread] suspect the News Release text was “leaked” to test the water about the possible loss of the BA Collection.
As far as Key Publishing removing the threads and texts, I personally do not doubt that they had very good reason for doing so.
A point of interest – the first two editions of the National Aviation Heritage Register [NAHR], were compiled by Ken Ellis when he was on the BAPC Executive and I believe their publication might also have been sponsored by Flypast.
I also know that at least one volunteer managed collection has used the NAHR to help secure significant funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund and construct a Hangar to house twelve airframes [see Flypast March 2005].
I urge anyone thinking of writing to their MP, Secretary of State, RAFM, BA etc, to mention the NAHR and the status of the BA Collection aircraft on it [see the earlier listings by R P Smith].
Perhaps a list of useful names and addresses should be issued to make it easier for people to write to the correct people.
TwinOtter23[QUOTE=JDK
By all means lament on this thread about the potential loss of aircraft the BA aircraft or inapropriate collection poicies. Is that your best effort? I know Kev35 has written and acted. I know David Burke has done so, and others. However, unless you’ve written or acted, (in this case BA and the RAFM) I suggest you review your commitment to preservation. You are welcome to act, or be an armchair expert. Personally I’m tired of armchair experts.
What have YOU done for vintage aviation today?
(Yes, I’m fed up with inactive self-defeating bitching. Apologies if that’s not you, and your concience is clear. I’ve written to BA and to the RAFM. Have you?)
Sheesh.[/QUOTE]
Could I respectfully suggest that JDK ought to try reading between the lines on various posts on this thread and through some of the direct comments that have been made? JDK then might appreciate that there are several contributors that are actively involved in aircraft preservation across the UK, some who have undertaking this role for many, many years. I suspect most come from the independent [volunteer] aviation sector, which I know from experience struggles week in and week out to generate the revenue to keep collections open and moving forward.
As mentioned in previous posts there is a National Aviation Heritage Register, which was complied by BAPC. I believe that not enough reference is being made to this document to support the need to secure the future of the BA Collection.
From my experience I believe this Register has not been fully embraced by the national collections, as it did not give them exclusive claims to all of the “important” airframes. This means that several volunteer managed collections hold National Benchmark aircraft, the top listing possible and the Register.
JDK’s idea of writing and lobbying is a good one, perhaps it should be widened to include MPs etc. The Register was actually designed to be used in situations such as this, i.e. when aircraft are at threat.
P.S. Sorry for making the quote bold, I’m relatievly new to this posting business!
TwinOtter23From how I understood the Register operated if the Significant aircraft went inside they would attract additional points [merit], so I guess that they would become National Benchmark airframes. Back in 1998 they were judged to be pretty important. Shame about the 707 being unclassified.
TwinOtter23I presume that Hendon / Cosford are Registered Museums and as such they will have a formal Collection & Disposals Policy, which will cover what they collect and display to the public. From looking at their website I guess the F111 would be covered under the “Cold War” theme and their “American Foundation”, which seems to focus on combined RAF and USAF operations.
TwinOtter23I agree with WebPilot re the F111s.
At least with the Swift there are three already inside – North East Air Museum; Tangmere [on loan from Hendon I think] and Newark.
TwinOtter23I read somewhere that Newark Air Museum used the BAPC [British Aviation Preservation Council] produced National Aviation Heritage Register when deciding that the Varsity would go inside their new building; rather than the Vulcan, Hastings and Shackleton. As these types were already displayed under cover in other collections.
This register categorises aircraft as National Benchmark, Significant and Noteworthy.
What is the status of the BA Collection aircraft on the Register?
TwinOtter23Keep it at MAM, but it would be 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!
TwinOtter23A few years ago BAPC [British Aviation Preservation Council] surveyed all the aircraft in UK air museums and produced the National Aviation Heritage Register. This categorised aircraft as National Benchmark, Significant and Noteworthy. What is the status of the Boulton Paul P111a and T33 at the Midland Air Museum? Could this be used to help justify funding for under cover aircraft accommodation?
TwinOtter23I have been to every Aeroboot and Cockpit-Fest and as I understand the situation the events have evolved after input from the cockpit owners, the sponsor, Bill O’Sullivan and the museum.
Up until 2003 I understood that the Aeroboot was a separate event to Cockpit-Fest. The events were combined in 2004 to make a single large event with public access arrangements changed to reflect the opening of the new hangar at the museum.
For the event last year I understand that some of the issues that arose in 2004 were addressed in association with the sponsors and this resulted in the revised layout for the event. Also some cockpit owners wanted to display on concrete and others on the grass.
I would expect that this type of issue could be addressed with the organisers, has anyone raised them with Bill O’Sullivan or with the museum?
Having been to the museum recently hangar 2 was pretty full and there were some aircraft parked in the area described by Stuart Gowan, perhaps the whole layout might be changed this year.
As for the success of the event in 2004 there were 19 cockpits listed in the Flypast write-up and in 2005 at the event the Flypast voting slip numbers went up to 25, so I guess more attended in 2005. The Wrecks and Relics listing showed only 9 cockpits there in 2003 so things seem to have improved over the last three events.
I understand that visitor numbers have remained about the same; hopefully the World Cup won’t affect the event this year.
It is a fact of life that what ever is done it will not suit someone. With other venues now copying the event something must be being done right.
As for the theme the Chipmunk seems a good one, perhaps the museum could be asked to display their restoration project.
TwinOtter23The main engines on XM594 have been inhibited but they are not run, only the Rover APU as previously stated, which at least keeps most of the electrical systems for the bomb doors, air brakes etc active.
As far as the jet pipes go, one has recently been removed for repair. Badly corroded sections have been removed; the surfaces cleaned, primed and extensive skin repairs are also underway. A set of jet-pipes had been promised in exchange for documentation to help another Vulcan project, but this fell through with the promised jet pipes going elsewhere.
TwinOtter23Cockpit-Fest Clariffication
I would like to try and clarify the Cockpit-Fest situation.
1. The date is chosen jointly by Bill O’Sullivan in consultation with the sponsors Flypast and advised to the museum trustees.
2. The main choice consideration as I understand it is to try for a date two weeks before Waddington Air Display, as in the past some cockpits have remained at the museum before going on to Waddington.
3. Past experience shows that you will always clash with another event somewhere.
4. The sites for Aeroboot and Cockpit-Fest have been split to give more space to Cockpit-Fest after some space issues at the 2004 event
5. Also the lease on the main museum site unfortunately forbids sub-letting the site, hence why the Aeroboot has always been run on the new Southfield part of the site and always will be.
6.At the 2005 event some cockpit owners requested under cover display space, hence why they went into the new display hangar. This year it is likely that any such requests will have to be accommodated into the original hangar, thereby bringing them closer to the other cockpits.
Due to the date already being widely promoted it would not be wise to change at this late stage. Perhaps these issues could be aired during the International Cockpit Club Meeting that usually takes place on the Saturday evening. The museum trustees are not unreasonable people and I am sure would be willing to take on board any suggestions for the 2007 event.
Sign In
