Indeed, the original proposal was for a tail-less delta with tip fins and without any fuselage. Of course the term “flying wing” and “delta” are in effect the same thing. The Vulcan’s final layout was in essence the original “all-wing” design but with the substitution of a conventional fin and a short nose fuselage section. The famous drawings are always credited to Chadwick but (after a lot of investigation) it seems that there is no evidence to establish the significance of those particular drawings. They seem to have drifted into common use as “Chadwick’s iconic drawings” but in reality they are not as relevant as people have imagined. More to the point, the person who did originally propose the delta, has stated quite clearly that when the idea was proposed to Chadwick, he thought it was ludicrous, and only pursued the idea after further investigation.

I’m not quite sure how any of this is even worthy of speculation? There isn’t even the slightest possibility of any “crisis” which would require the re-introduction of airfields or aircraft. We have what we have (and it isn’t much) and that’s it, really.

Nice programme but it’s rather out of date now. I’ve asked repeatedly about this matter but nobody seems to have heard anything more since the move. The poor Gannet still appears to be tucked-away in a hangar, sadly.

All well and good but it does rather look like a question of semantics. You know as well as I do that the reality of the museum experience is not what it was. We could argue about the rights and wrongs forever but I guess it comes-own to a question of what one expects from a museum. I’m with the “old school” who expect a museum to be a permanent repository of historical artefacts which are made available for the public’s perusal. Nothing more and nothing less.

Naturally, there are those who think that a museum should be something rather different. Modern thinking seems to be that a museum should be an “experience” or a source of entertainment. This has resulted in museums which (for many of us but not all, obviously) have become sterile showrooms full of gurgling kids running about, and touch screens, coffee shops, etc. One is tempted to run with fingers in one’s ears. It’s not an enjoyable experience.

But we have to accept what we have, good or bad. But when it directly affects the future of specific aircraft I don’t think it’s unreasonable to remark upon the absurdity of the situation. Whether the Shackleton goes or not, I think it fair to say that there should have never, ever have even been any question of it going.

As for Hendon’s Beverley, I think you seem to have a rather different recollection of the saga to mine!;)

Fair enough but evidently the Shackleton isn’t going to stay indoors forever. Point is, deteriorating outside is surely better than being consigned to a scrap heap? I accept that Duxford may try to find a safe home for the Shackleton but once it’s moved-on, who can predict what will happen to it in the future?

As for understanding the costs, work and policies of museums, that’s all very well but ultimately, as a visitor, I don’t care one jot. From my viewpoint, all I see is that a long-cherished exhibit is being disposed of. The reasons are irrelevant, it’s just wrong in my opinion.

As for the wider issues of museum style and content, I guess we have to agree to disagree. Personally, I think museums have become a chore rather than an enjoyment. No matter where one goes (Science Museum, Cosford and Hendon being recent examples), one is greeted by shiny exhibits all nicely warm and dry indoors, but the general atmosphere is one of screaming children, amusements, buttons to press, toys to play with and a sense that it is all about amusing the kids. I have no objection to kids being entertained but I’d be happier if they’d go to Alton Towers. I rather thought that museums were an opportunity to examine and learn, not fight through groups of children who would rather be outside playing.

If this is what museums are to become then it’s little wonder that some exhibits are dismissively removed as it suits. All very well to accuse me of hysteria or anything else, but all I’m doing is saying what I see. It’s not good, people do not learn anything from their experience and a lot of us don’t even enjoy the experience now that it is so different.

Whilst I didn’t enjoy seeing the Shackleton slowly fading away out in the weather at Duxford, I did assume that it would stay there for decades to come, even if it did become progressively untidy. I never imaged that it would be removed. Then again I never imagined when I watched the TV film of how enthusiastic the Duxford volunteers were about their “beloved” MRF Varsity, that it would be cut up some years later… Then people wonder why I’m such a cynic!:p

Don’t think anything is certain with Duxford. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone announced that because there are “so many” preserved Vulcans, it isn’t worth wasting space on the one that they have! I just marvel at this endless saga of museum exhibits being abandoned when somebody loses interest in them. It’s particularly shameful when the Shackleton was one of the earliest arrivals. You imagine that it is safely preserved for the future and then one day you suddenly find that it isn’t. Utter disgrace.

JDK What irony? If you mean that the notion of history being related to time periods is subjective then yes, I agree that it shouldn’t be. This is why I commented elsewhere that not taking a Nimrod is almost as bad as disposing of the Shackleton.

I can only assume that the underlying issue here is the way in which Duxford (and Cosford) have become somewhat obsessed with getting their exhibits indoors. In some respects this is a good thing of course but you get the impression that it isn’t about protecting the aircraft and more about presentation. There seems to be some reluctance to have aircraft scattered-around in the open. The days of slightly grubby museums with assorted “junk” laid around seem to be disappearing, in favour of shiny halls and gleaming exhibits. All very nice but not when so much is destroyed in the process. I guess it’s just a symptom of how museums have become “theme parks” to entertain rather than inform.