DOUGHNUTWow !! That looks good, Take a look at http://www.jetagemuseum.org for some photos of its construction. Does this project share parts made for the replica’s on show at Lutterworth and Farnborough ? I see from the web site that the replica will be at RAF Cranwell on 26th June for a private event, is it to late to arrange for it to be displayed at Waddington during their airshow on 30th June ? It could be a win win situation, the replica is already in the local area, transport is avialable for its return to Gloustershire, the Jet Age Museum gets a wider audience, the public and enthusiasts get to see a unique exhibit. Obviously there will be aditional costs, transport to Waddington, cranage etc, how about a bit of sponsership from a well known aviation magazine ?
DOUGHNUTHave already signed the petition, so hope that helps, but it sounds like the powers that be have already started the move. You say that airfarmes have been damaged, who are handleing the move ? Does the Belguim armed forces have a logistics team you could help, Also where is the storage site and what else is already there ?
DOUGHNUTWhat / where are the storage areas ? Could these be refurbished first and made secure before exhibits are moved, then used for a future aviation museum / restoration site. Hopefully some ‘joined up thinking’ can bring together a new long term result. I think I am correct in saying that the Belgium Air Force cares quite well for its old aircraft but there is not a ‘BAF Museum’.
DOUGHNUTI wish to add my support to the campaign to keep the aircraft at the Military Museum, indeed expansion should be a long term consideration. The building itself is a magnificent exhibit and deserves conservation, moving of some aircraft and temporary close of the display hall will be neccessary. Surely the best solution would be to erect a temporay structure, in front of the museum to to house some of the smaller aircraft, ie the jets on the ground floor, this would allow refurbishment works to the carried out in one half of the building. The more fragile WW1 types displayed on the first floor could be protected ‘insitu’ thus avoiding the cost, and risk of damage, during a move to storage. Let all hope for a statisfactory conclusion.
DOUGHNUTGiven the present force reductions and squadron movements further East, it is by no means certain that within the next few years that flying will cease altogether at Mildenhall. Most transport flights already use Ramstein, base ops could move to Lakenheath, and tanker ops from Fairford. Bye bye Mildenhall.
Like most things in life, things were always better in the past, and we only really appreciate them when there gone.
DOUGHNUT
DOUGHNUTAnother Forum says that Fort Paull, home of the Beverley, and a short distance from Marfleet are interested in aquiring it. Hope the adminstrators dont think there is going to be a bidding war for this one. Same thing happened with the Beverley if I remember, two groups unnecessarily out bidding each other. If you spend too much to buy an aircraft, you find out that you can afford to look after it.
DOUGHNUTExcellent project for restoration. Relatively simple in engineering terms, all metal held together with nuts and bolts, should provide good training for the team at Millom. The Short series of aircraft (Skyvan, 330 and 360) really do deserve preserving, its such a shame that aircraft have to be recovered from fire dumps went with a litte more planning airframes could move from in service to training aid to museum exhibit.
DOUGHNUTI guess that the people who run the Duxford are simply civil servants and will be working thier normal Saturday hours. In affect the BBMF are the same as any other corparate sponsor who has highered the airfield for the weekend. No special arrangements would be made for early openning unless somebody (BBMF ?) would be prepared to pay for them or suitably trained volunteers were available to help out. I would guess that the additional entrance fee is designed to cover for extra manning costs, or are BBMF getting a share ? I assume that BBMF would have prefered to have had the show at Coningsby but security and space would be an issue.
Another point does anybody know if any of the regular airshow/model sellers will be at Duxford on the 5th ?
DOUGHNUTAre you able to give any details of which airframe your group has aquired, where it is current located and what time scale you have for movement and restoration, made be forum memebers would be able to help out with the move. I understand that the restoration team memebers require special skills 😀
DOUGHNUTFinally got around to scanning the old slides of WA662 at Greenham Common 1983. PM me if you want better jpgs.
DOUGHNUTI agree with Kodak, it not as though Vulcan558 has made a million pound by selling the pictures or compromised national security. I was fortunate to be at Coningsby yesterday (Thrusday 27th) and the Lanc did an air test and display. the results are attached. please look away now if your offended.
DOUGHNUT
DOUGHNUTRoobarb wrote
“in exactly the same way as the disposal of the Pucara won’t be either”
Have I missed this piece of news. Is it true ???
I agree that IWM collection policy is at times very strange. Surely the forces that were once opposed again Britian should be preserved in equal measure to our own forces
DOUGHNUTHi all just got back to looking at this thread again.
Originally Posted by TwinOtter23
IMHO long-term aircraft preservation also may be questionable with the possibility of corrosion from the rusty building frame dropping onto the airframes.
With my Structural Enginners hat on I did notice the internal steel frame at Cosford was of a ‘rusty’ appearance, do not be alarmed. This is common practice in the USA, the material is called ‘Corten Steel’ sometimes refered to as weathering steel, its most commonly used outside were its appearance changes as the years go by, I have seen it used on bridges and sculptures but never indoors. I think that the designers are using it as a cheaper option than painting. From a structural point a wonder how long it will be before barriers or an internal screen needs to be erected in front on the Teflon gable ends. It looks to me as though the gable ends (where to hangar doors should be) are made of the same stressed fabric as use on the roof of the Millenimum Dome, this stuff is water proof and very strong, but can easily be damaged by constant rubbing of thousands of little fingers.
Something I did not notice was any form of fire supression equipment, maybe a water sprinker system is there somewhere but I would doubt that a roof level system would have enough clout if a fire were to start at ground level in one of the Video display units or the Kitchen (another reason to relocate that ASAP). Come to think of it I did not see any emergency exit signs either, so in my opion thay are not doing there job properly.
Comments about missing items makes me think why has Cosford not yet got a Hercules ? Several have been used for spares at Cambridge and a least a dozen went back to USA. Obviously there is no room in the new building but not allowing for future exhibits is very short sighted.
DOUGHNUT
DOUGHNUTI agree with Kev35 view that the new building at Cosford is not a traditional aircraft display location, but I am not totally against that. My biggest concern is that the aircraft are being used as a backdrop to the display of other items, indeed they appear almost to be in the way of a bigger picture, even the building it self seems to be more important than the aeroplanes. I visited last Saturday and the girlfriend, who has visited enough aeroplane museums in the past, complained that she could not see the larger aircraft. Also she was confused at the inclusion of the three cars (VW, Mini and Trabant), the odd unrelated tank, and what on earth are the Russian Dolls about. As for hanging planes inside the building, well if it has to happen then so be it, but Cosford have gone to far by using the Hunter, Lightning and Sabre like Airfix Kits hung on bits of string at wierd angles.
One further complaint concerns the building. As a Structural Enginer I often view new buildings with professional eye and I really can not agree with the structure and the use of internal space. The entrance not grand enough, externally the shape has a wow factor that is totally missing from the inside. The two glass sliding doors lead to a dark corridor with diagonal steel bracing passing across the entrance, you are protected from hitting your head by red/white barriers that project into the corridor, very bad design. This problem also appears on the balcony and access routes to the lift. Within the building there seems to be no direction, I believe some instruction should be given, such as ‘turn right’ and try to place exhibits in a cronological order.
The use of a spilt level is good, especially as the site allowed such a construction and the overhanging Vulcan makes good use of this. Access to the balcony is difficult, and once there the space is very limited and sightlines are not as good as I would have expected. The use of ground floor space for retail and food is totally unnecessary and the shop and resturant should be relocated to the central admission area as soon as possible. The ‘Hot Spot’ towers are too small to be of use and I didnt even wait to see the video display, externally these towers look like public toilets and I would like to see them removed and the video display used else where. These last two changes would give more space and better sightlines thus making the building feel bigger, ligther and more airy.
These are my personel thoughts so no mud slinging please.
DOUGHNUT
DOUGHNUTSad to say that the last one is NOT an April fool, MOD seem to think that the red/white/blue roundel is a copy righted item and can not be used without permission (and a liecence fee) hence there recent range of clothing feature the roundel.
As a model maker this is a worrying trend meaning to finish a model in authenic markings the decal maker needs permission to use the image and may be required pay for it. Some airlines given this permission free of charge, others have been very stubben and refused permisson to use there images. The decal maker would risk illegal action if they continued. I think that some decals for BEA / BOAC were stopped because British Airways, who own the rights to such ‘historic’ brands either said no or wanted a hugh fee.
Along similar lines in the US Pratt and Whitney (or who ever own the brand) stopped a company from selling 1/48 scale resin engines as ‘Pratt Whitney’ because of copyright. I think they were repackaged as ‘WW2 engine’
Well know manufacture Trumpter have recent issued excellent 1/72 models of Gannet and Wyvern, the box refers to them as ‘British’ and there is no mention of Westland, presumably for similar reasons.
Sign In
