Many thanks for these detailed updates and photos they are interesting and much appreciated. Following WR963’s progress with interest.

Sadly I have never been involved in aviation in any way so that firmly puts me in the “armchair”. I do have a keen interest in our (UK) engineering heritage in all its forms and I come to this forum to learn from members who do know about such things and who freely pass on their knowledge. Having no experience in aviation, restorations or museums does not mean that one cannot have opinions on some subjects as long as they are well reasoned and constructively add to the thread or are even suitably humorous. Surely when there is a debate between parties with differing views the object is to put forward a reasoned case in order to come to an agreed decision and this is achieved by convincing the undecided or uninformed that they have the best solution until you have the majority view.

As far as I am aware there are only two examples of aircraft built using Geodetic construction and only one where this construction can be clearly seen. In view of the significance of this design and of the designer I would have thought there was a very strong case for leaving R Robert unclothed. Further Mark Pilkington has very kindly posted much about Mikesh’s book in relation to static museum restorations together with his views on the “RAFM Wellington” thread, posts #77 & #86, and and I would find his conclusions hard to disagree with. I have certainly learnt a lot.

Thank you Mark for your excellent post.
The Wellington clearly fits into Cat III however, could it not also fit into Cat II because of its geotetic construction? Whilst it was not the first aircraft to use this construction would I be correct in thinking it is the only examples we have left? Of course. the Brooklands machine covers this aspect perfectly and possibly this is a good argument as to why it should stay uncovered. If not too much of an imposition perhaps you would outline what is “under” category II in the book. it would certainly be of great interest to me and very pertinent to N2980, R Robert and the debate regarding cover or not to cover.
Regards Paul

To me the question of how aircraft should be displayed depends very much on the story the museum is trying to tell, but also related to how many other survivors of the type exist.

{snip}

Sure, if you had ten surviving Wellingtons I’d say paint one as a trainer, but at the end of the day a major aim of a museum should be to tell a story with its artefacts, and leave the viewer with a better understanding of history. Leave it as it is.

Thank you for a well reasoned argument, I think you have hit the nail right on the head.
That said many lost their lives in flying accidents in all parts of the service and they should have our respect and be honoured as well, trouble is just two few Wellingtons.

Like many of us here, I am sure, I am really fascinated by “Then and Now” pictures often using Street level to some effect! Your pictures, presentation and descriptions are truly superb and are very much enjoyed. Thank you for taking the considerable trouble of producing this thread it is much appreciated. I do hope there is more to come!
Paul

Very many thanks for posting and sharing, brings a lump to the throat.