Some very good photos there A-e!

Maybe next time try a few photos using a slightly slower shutter speed, so that the water and background is a little more blurred? That might add to a sense of movement and speed rather then the “frozen” water droplets you have captured in most of these images. However, I suspect it may be difficult to get the shutter speed just right, as too much blur would easily ruin the shot.

Please note, this is not a criticism in any way, merely a suggestion that might give a few pictures in a set like this a different “feel”.

Would be interested to know what camera/lens set up you were using….

Paul F

Andy mentioned on the other thread, the well meaning enthusiast changing all of a vintage vehicles drivetrain just to get it on the road. He mentions the use of B+Q to provide parts and materials. Is this real, does it happen? (Actually, I know it does, as I have seen it), but what effect will that have, long term on the artefacts we claim to preserve?

A valid question – maybe there needs to be some form of well documented “identity preserved” or “gold standard” example of key types that are pretty much “undiluted” by improper renovation or restoration. They would then serve as “master reference” for that type – along with as wide a selection of manuals, documents, phots etc as can also be found and proven as “original”. I assume this should be a key part of the role of established museums, to preserve the “DNA” of the article as much as to preserve the exterior appearence.

– From memory BAPC “list” all key or significant UK airframes, but their remit allows (or allowed?) them to list “replicas” alongside originals. So long as the register makes it clear which airframes are originals and which are replicas or restorations (that may have used non-original materials, techniques and fittings), then no problem.

This then leaves other restorers/preservers and operators a little more latitude to make do and mend to keep an item operational if that is their wish. So long as everyone knows that that piece of B&Q 4″ x 2″ isn’t the orignal main spar on a static Mossie, and that serious researches can prove this by reference to the Gold Standard example (and its supporting database of litertaure, drawings and photos) then what’s the problem ?so long as Mr & Mrs Joe Public see a “Mosquito” then they are none the wiser.

Over time it is perhaps inevitable that there will be a degree of dilution of the original items as things have to be repaired and original items, or original spec materials, are no longer available. I don’t see that as a problem so long as there is a”national reference” example somewhere that is stored or maintained such that it’s integrity is not compromised, or that where compromise is necessary, then it is properly documented for future reference.

I’d rather see a Spitfire airbourne in twenty year time with an incorrect mark of RR Merlin, and maybe even incorrect exhaust stacks and propellor than see none left flying by then at all, just so long as I know there is a “100% original” example somewhere to show how they were at the time they were built/operated or retired from service.

And that brings us back to the horny old chestnut of “What is “original”, and who and how would the “Gold standard” examples be chosen..?

Should it be an example exactly as the type/mark left the factory? (unlikely to be available)

Or an example showing state at point of acceptance into service? (again, unlikely to be available)

Or an example at some agreed/proven point in its operational life?

Or an example of the type as it was retired? (Most likely option, and perhaps best way of showing the “ultimate sate of development” of any particular type or sub-type?)

Bear in mind “consumable” components (tyres, brakes, engines) may have been changed many times due to wear and tear, as may some major components (wings, rudders, glazing etc) if there has been any accident damage in service, and there may well have been type- or fitted-equipment “Mods” introduced during it’s time in service – think of the Mew Gull G-AEXF – that went through many major “modifications” when Alex Henshaw owned and flew it pre-war, it has then been ‘restored’ and ‘rebuilt’ at least twice since the war, it is in no way the “original” airframe as built, or as flown by Henshaw, but it is still the same machine so far as most of us are concerned!

– And lets not even think about proving the originality/validity of any software package left in the circuit boards and microprocessors on more modern types as they are retired.

I think Trumper makes a good point in his post at 10:15 – National (and/or Service/) museums should perhaps only use original materials, components and techniques (with the proviso that any compromises they make are properly documented) to “restore” their exhibits, but other collections can be granted a little leeway in what is acceptable under the “conservation” banner (unless they are caring for the “Gold standard” example of course)?

As well as keeping conservation costs down for many collections, this approach will also allow many collections to rely on less-skilled volunteers for many tasks, which may attract youngsters – who may then be motivated to gain the necessary specialist skills via apprenticeshops at an established “centre of excellence” (E.g. Someone like John Romain at ARCo, who started off as an unskilled (IIRC?) teenage enthusiast helping on the first Blenheim restoration but who has since gone on to become a key player in todays UK aviation restoration industry etc).

I’m done….sorry to have taken up so much space/item on the thread – especially as I have no direct experience of restoration, preservation or operation of any thing older than a ten year old Vauxhall car!

Preservation – tough choices ahead?

Its a very valid argument/question, and Andy in Beds makes some valid points in terms of changing population demographic, loss of skills base, and “interest” and “view” on our history.

Skills base is a real concern – UK plc has a much reduced engineering sector from which to attract skilled volunteers to the preservation movement. There are skilled engineers out there, but they are probably fewer than ever before, and as technology moves on they are probably also less likely to have experience of older technologies and practices – e.g. doping airframe linen etc.

There are centres of excellence out there, some private companies, some registered “museums”, and no doubt they will do their best to hand on the specialist skills via apprenticeships etc, but will they be able/willing to provide a large enough pool of expertise going foward?

I guess some organisations will be able to maintain the “cosmetic appearance” of exhibits for a while yet (whether a steam loco or an aircraft) to a satisfactory standard, but it is maintenance and support of the “working” exhibits (locos that haul passenger trains on heritage railways or on the main rail network, or historic aircraft as airshow display items etc) that will be the challenge, especially where the dreaded Health and Safety mindset of today starts to be forced upon equipment of yesterday, equipment designed to be built and operated when attitudes to what would be considered a sensible level of “risk” was very different, and when engineering sklls and understanding were also very different.

The changing demographic may well lead to a shift in popular “tastes” in terms of items deemed worthy of preservation too. Political correctness, plus the ever increasing time gap between the present and the period when the artefact was in use will almost certainly lead to a “streamlining” of artifcats felt worthy of preservation. WW1 is already beyond living memory, WW2 is not far behind, so at what “age” do artefcats cease to be so relevant to the wider audience of the day? One generation after they were in use, two, three – who knows? At what point does a family “forget” that their uncles or grandfathers used this or that piece of equipemnt to do their job?

There will always be people with specific areas of interest such as historic aviation, or steam railways, but these will be in a minority, the vast majority of potential “visitors” will have a less-specialised interest, so will probably be looking more for a “good day out” attraction rather than an in depth specialist attraction. That may well lead to a loss of interest in depth of detail preserved by the next generation(s).

I know there are many other factors involved, but I suspect aviation history will go the same way as say British Naval history – there will be one or two centres of excellence centred on well-maintained key exhibits, but a loss of many larger “older” exhibits as they become too expensive to maintain and their relevance fades from living memory, even fewer “working” exhibits that still take to the air (in case of aviation history), and an increasing reliance on models and audio visual “re-creations” to flesh out the story around the fewer exhibits. In essence, I suspect many collections run be what I would term “enthusiastic amateurs” or “part time ex-professionals” will eventually wither and die, leaving a few major centres with access to full time “professional” (by which I mean fully and properly trained) expertise.

Maybe it is time to take stock of what we have, and what skills we will need to preserve them in the future, and to manage resources ina more co-ordinated manner so as to preserve the key items, but maybe we also need to accept there will be a major shift in emphasis over time, and that what we consider “important” and worth conserving today, may well seem irrelevant to future generations.

Isn’t this what the BAPC did/do via their BAPC register of significant airframes?

Maybe that approach needs to be taken a step or two further with active steps taken to record and preserve key “traditional aviation engineering” skills, and to build an archive of “how to…” documents and audio video files to show how to undertake some fo the dying arts. Of course, this will probably not provide sufificient data to keep skills alive to the extent that they would satisfy CAA regarding maintenance of airworthy airframes/engines, but it might help keep static exhibits or ground-runners alive for the next few generations.

Don’t forget that in time the Battle of Britain will be as distant to our descendents as The Battle of Trafalgar is to us today…. how many ‘ships of the line’ are preserved today? And looking even further back, what is left of the Battle of Hastings apart from the battlefield itself?

While we might like to see multiple Lightnings, Vulcans, Vampires and, dare I say it, Spitfires around today, in 100 years time will people need (or even want) to see more than one or two of each? They will no longer have the direct familial link/loyalty to them.

One advantage we do have over our predecessors is that modern technology does allow us to make very detailled records of artefcats and procsses needed to make/preserve them, as well as our ability to store countless accounts of participants and users of such aretfacts, and to do so very quickly and accurately.

Where we cannot hope to preserve the items or processes themselves, let us at least make sure we record them for posterity.

Well, thats my two-penneth worth…. what do others think?

Paul F

Whoo hoo, whoo hoo

The Lion Sleeps Tonight

We invariably sing this in the area around Wimereux on the Pas de Calais

Moggy

Glad it’s not just me that acts in such a childlike manner when in that area 🙂

Another strong candidate for the “Whoo hoo” singalong list:

Katie Tunstall – “Black Horse and a Cherry tree”..woo-hoo, woo-hoo..!

If the expenses paid are legitimate “relocation” expenses (i.e. to cover removal expenses, legals costs of selling/buying your main residence, temporary accomodation, etc) and the BBC felt that relocating staff was better than replacing them with local new recruits, then I would suggest that there is little to argue against in terms of the principles followed. As a number of posts above have said, private sector companies often offer to cover costs of relocation if they move the “job” you are doing to another site that is beyond a reasonable commute.

However, I have more of an issue as to why the BBC felt it had to move the set-up north in the first place?

I suspect it felt it was purely to silence the accusations that it was “London-centric” in operation deu to it being based in London – and I believe that pandering to the “politically correct” lobby just to shut them up cannot be considered a sensible way to spend my licence fee.

Does it matter whether a decision/spend is made in London, rather than Manchester, Salford, (or Stow-on-the-Wold, Belfast, Largs, John O’Groats etc….. )? Surely, so long as the decision is made on basis of “best value”/”best outcome” for the stake holders then the location of the decision maker is irrelevant. Why are decisions made in Salford any better per se than those made by the very same people if thy were still based in London?

Sorry, the whole relocation strikes me as a politicaly driven/justified exercise rather than financially driven/justified exercise – and that does make me angry.

Why couldn’t they stay where they were and just refurbish TV Centre (as was), and have a glitzy new outstation in the grim ‘oop North, plus one in the East, one in the West, one in NI, one in Scotland, one in Wales…. and one down South too, don’t forget, some of us live further south than London, and feel our local concerns and issues are not properly reflect either :highly_amused:

Nope, payment of relocation expenses is probably justified once the decision to move was made, but the decsion to relocate, that caused the need for expenses, probably cannot be justifed in the first place – IMHO.

Paul F (living in the softie Saarrf since 1968, but born and bred in the grim Norff 😉 )

Maybe those of us that live in the south should now complain that BBC is too “Salford-centric” :dev2:

Those of us who dared to challenge pious New Labour education ministers when they reeled off inexorably improving exam results were told to stop knocking the achievement of hard-working teachers and pupils. It is now clear that those exam results were a cruel mirage. Dumbing down is a real and present danger to this country’s prosperity.

Ah, but as we all know, statistics can lie – maybe the exam results were indeed “improving” amongst those that actually sat exams, but if there were ever more students not sitting the exams then the figures belied the truth, as the overall “average” standards were probably falling, even if the “eduated few” were gaining higher (or over-inflated :dev2:) grades.

Whatever the “politically manipulated” figures may have been telling us, the evidence is pretty clear, education standards have been falling for an ever increasing percentage of the population, albeit this had been hidden behind “smoke and mirrors”.

As ever, politicians were (and are still) simply trying to justify their next re-election, rather than admit the truth.

As a result, UK plc, and a generation of youngsters, now have to suffer the consequences, and another mess has to be unravelled by those that inherit the legacy.

IMHO too many parents seem to see education of their offspring solely as someone else’s responsibility, and they thus offer their kids little support, or discipline, at home. Worse still, those same parents are often the first to blame their kids’ problems the schools/teachers.

If more parents took an active interest in their offspring’s upbringing and education, both via offering direct positive help and support at home, and indirectly by taking Government to task over the UK education system (via lobbying/ballot box etc) then maybe things would be better?

Whatever happened to the days in UK when teachers saw teaching as a vocation to be proud of rather than just a job with generous summer hols and a route to early retirement (and generous pension scheme), when discipline at school (and at home) was fair – but where wrong-doing was clearly punished, and where parents took an active interest in supporting teachers and schools, and to the society where everyone realised that working hard and doing your best improved your chances, and that relying on the State to keep you in comfort was generally seen as “embarrasing” rather than a right?

Certainly does….. I had heard of the “Bloody Hundred” but did not know how thay had acquired their soubriquet…..

Planemike

If you ever get the chance Planemike, get along to the 100thBG museum in the restored control tower at Thorpe Abbotts – it’s a sobering reminder of just how many young lives were lost.

Paul F