Sadly, Hangar 3’s owls are a serious problem.

Crikey, and thats only been in the hangar for ten days or so….

While I’d hate to see the owl(s?) harmed, surely there must be some form of humane deterent they can use – all those doppings can’t be doing the exhibits any good, let alone the ” ‘elf ‘n’ safety “aspects for whomever has to clear all the s**t off the airframes.

Can they scare the blighters away with a few days repeated deployment of a hired hawk, or use some form of tape-loop audio deterrent?

I guess living on the airfield provides the owls with plenty of food, and a nice dry, secure, roost, but there must be some way of encouraging them to relocate…

Unfortunately there is a new school of thought that appears to suggest that museums need to ‘wow’ people in order for them to engage with the exhibits.

Yes indeed, today’s visitors to museums tend to go there to be entertained, not to want to have to make a conscious effort to learn, especially if they have only a vague interest in the museum they are visiting… So any museum has to try to balance the needs of their “enthusiast” visitors who may well want to learn something new about their area of interest with the needs of the “casual” visitor who wants a good day out, but who may only have a passing interest in the musuem’s subject area(s).

Today’s youngsters (generally)have far shorter attention spans unless something is “happening” to hold their attention, so buttons to press, levers to move, TV-style displays that show the aircraft in flight are far more likely to draw people in that a few static aircraft that are gathering dust.

Duxford is IMHO a fairly good mix, some “touchy feely” exhibits to keep children entertained, but access to the restoration hangars and to the Fighter Collection hangars allows enthusiasts access to see the “nuts and bolts” that make up an aircraft.

As for the “hang or not to hang” aircraft from the ceiling debate…personally I’d prefer not to see real airframes “hung”, but if doing so gets a few more airframes indoors out of the weather, then I’m not going to vote against it… then it’s a question of deciding which aircraft in any collection should be hung. If aircraft is unique, or a rarer type, then I’d say leave it at ground level.

Some of those that are/were hanging at Duxford don’t worry me, they are not particularly rare IMHO (such as the Superhangar’s Strikemaster or the USAM T33), others are visible from elevated galleries though may not be readily visible, but the decision to hang one or two “unusual types” for UK collections, such as the CF100 did disappoint me.

A few “flying” aircraft (or FSM) suspended from the roof are likely to be welcomed by some visitors, but not all, equally, the ability to get up close and personal with somewhat esoteric types will attract enthusiasts, but perhaps leave casual visitors stone-cold….

Any musuem has to try to strike a balance, and as the old saying goes, “you can please some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but rarely please all of the people all of the time…”

Watched the clip this morning….. :-O

The climb out looks decidedly “sick” at one point – presumably the recently re-shaped/re-profiled propellor blades weren’t quite as efficient as usual :-O .

That’s one strong beast to take a hammering like that – and heaven knows why the (presumably) badly unbalanced propellors didn’t rip the gearboxes off the front of the engines, or rip the whole engines out of their bearers.

I’m surprised the aircraft actually had the ability to drag itself back into the air, let alone manage to fly on to another airfield. I always liked the look of the Aerostar, now I admire it’s apparent strength too…. would any other twin have let a pilot get away with that sort of error of judgement???!!!

Preservation of Engineerign/Industrial heritage

The lack of government interest in preserving historic engineering in this country makes me absolutely sick to my stomach; if it hadn’t been for dedicated volunteers hardly a single piece of our engineering or industrial heritage would have survived!

Agree with the sentiments CD, but there comes a point when the Government budget for “nice to do” items has to give way to the need to enssure we have enough cash for the “must do” items.

Preserving heritage is nice if a government can afford it, but how many people would be happy to pay extra taxes to preseve “an old battleship”…some posters on here might, but equally, how many of us on here would want to pay extra taxes to preserve some “old piece of china” or somesuch? Priorities will always be subjective, what some people view as “worth saving” others would view as “old junk”…

Beauty and, to some extent thus, “value” is very much in the eye of the beholder….

But I do agree that “engineering” and industrial heritage does always seem to come second to spending on “arty f@rty” heritage in UK, but then I’m a philisitine. I’d far rather look at an old machine (of pretty much any ilk) than look at what others tell me I should see as “a fine piece of art” :-), especially some of the modern “conceptual” art … a crack in the floor of an old powerstation, or a dirty unmade bed…nope, sorry thats not art, but a steam loco “in steam”, a preserved EE Lightning, or even an early printing press … well, they are real works of art in my eyes.

Cynics might say there is more “spare” money in the overhyped “art” sector than in the “hard graft” engineering sector, and as we all know ‘money talks’ – the movers and shakers in the art world may have more money to throw at preserving things, or more influence, and the thing they tend to “save” often take relatively little money to “maintain” for posterity, unlike most industrial heritage items/sites, that need constant “tinkering” to keep them up to scratch.

Add in the fact that UK has become a service-driven economy, so far fewer people get involved in making something “tangible” as part of their day to day job, and it is perhaps easy to see why “engineering” (and its heriatge) is not seen as important by many people. Although UK still has many Hi-Tech/Top end engineering skills and companies, they tend to employ relatively few heads unlike the past when many Brits built ships, cars, trains, or made textile products etc every working day. So, few of today’s MPs have much experience of engineering, or industrial operations, as few of them have much of it going on in their constituencies.

Thank heavens for the likes of James Dyson (though it is a shame he outsourced his manufacturing to Far east IIRC), and Pete Waterman (check out his investment in engineering apprenticeships), who do see the value of engineering, and try to ensure UK retains skills in that area!

The list of things we Brits invented, or played a crucial role in design/development of, is impressive, its a crying shame few of todays youngsters seem to know we had leading roles in things like Steam engine, railways, Computers, navigation systems (reliable timepices, concepts of latitude/longitude etc), The connected internet, Jet Engine, Mobile/Cell phone systems, Cast Iron, Powered weaving looms, genetics, etc etc – the list is long, and many of them (or their derivatives) still underpin our modern lifestyle… shame todays youngsters only seem to want to find fame (and fortune) via sporting prowess, or as a “celebrity”.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSvMtRlezBM

T J

TJ, thanks for the link, I must now try and find time to watch it..and thanks for correcting the info on the pilots, I wasn’t sure my memory was correct when I originally posted.

Paul F

What that man (above)said …

Totally agree that orginal thread in question had reached the “handbags at dawn” stage for the umpteeneth time too many, and probably required locking and a decent “cooling off period” but I felt Andy Brockmans seperate new post made some valid points re robust argument being a valid part of any process (so long as it does not descend into personal attacks/slanging matches), which now also seems to have vanished – or do I need to visit the opticians?

AB did not, IMHO attack anyone, all he did was ask some valid questions, so why was his new thread/post deleted, and not allowed to run until Mods felt it too had reached the personal attack/total impasse stage…

Whether AB and his team’s report were “right”, “wrong”, “valid”, or “seriously flawed” is irrelevant, so long as the dicussion it provokes is carried out in an adult manner, then it can only help further the discussion/debate. I totally agree that petty nitpicking, or seemingly deliberate “obtuseness” does the posters, nor the forum as a whole any favours, but robust, maturely framed, debate is surely to be welcomed?

I fear Mr Brockman may now feel it is not worth posting on the forum anymore and that, surely, would be a loss to us all, as was the near loss of Andy S earlier on in the saga….

If legal action against Key has been threatened, then Mods, please make that fact clear in any “thread locked” post(s), or in a seperate “Why we locked the “XYZ” Thread” post.

Are those Sp****res that may, or may not be buring under My***ar now beyond any further/future discussion on the forum?

Anyone fancy starting a thread about a hypothetical(of course 😉 situation involving rumours, farmers, and digs to find incarcerated second world war fighters in a State (upper case S) that may, or may not, be in the Far East, and in state (lower case s)that may or may not be factory-fresh and ready to go…..

Thanks
Paul F

P.S. Ah, I see Moggy had replied while I was key-bashing…thanks Moggs….Please ignore most of this post….

The opening scenes in “Top Gun”… the steam, and dawn colours, plus some excellent “detail” shots of the flight deck activities are so well framed and cut together, especally the shot of the F14 afterburner nozzles closing down …

From “Always” the PBY taking off over the fishermen (as has been mentioned above).

The crop-sprayer scene from ‘Capricorn One’ where the Stearman is being chased by the helicopters… I still think this is a somewhat under-rated film.

The pre take-off taxiing shots of the B17s in the remade ‘Memphis Belle’ – the head-on shots of the B17s weaving their way towards take off, shot with a long lens to compress the depth of field.

The bridge attack sequences in ‘The Bridges at Toko Ri’

Some of the black and white air to air footage of the Swift (aka “Prometheus”) in “The Sound Barrier”

From “Bat*21” the low level flying shots of the Cessna 337 (acting as an O-2) ‘down among the weeds’.

The massed shots of the paratroop air-drop Dakotas/C47 streams in “A bridge too far”

Enjoy….

Paul F

Another British aircraft type that never really got chance to fulfill its’ promise?

Hi Topspeed

IIRC the Welkin was initially designed by Westland as a high altitude fighter, possibly it was designed even more specifically as a high altitude night fighter. I think it was intended to have superseded the DeH Mosquito in that(those) role(s).

So, it may possibly have gone on to become the most capable WWII high altitude/high altitude night fighter, but I doubt it would ever have been the most capable “all round” fighter as I doubt it would have been as fast and/or manouverable as some of the later single-engined fighters that appeared in WWII.

I seem to remember the high-altitude fighter requirement faded away before Westland got the Welkin up to the state where series manufacture could start, and in the end it never went into full scale production – but I may well be wrong.

There is some data around, I know Harald Penrose describes flying and crash landing (IIRC) one of the prototype Welkins in one of his book “Adventure with Fate” (well worth a read as it covers pre-war British aviation, and Westlands, who remain (IMHO) one of the lesser known, but very innovative, British aircraft designer and manufacturers of the period).

I suspect there will be others here on the forum who have more detailled knowledge of the Welkin if you want it.

Paul F