It wouldn’t surprise me at all, we don’t want to push anything relevent to aviation heretage do we, or anything the public would like to see.

mick

Now, I dislike flourescent erasers and annoying sound-effects filled plastic F-16s as much as the next man, but the moon on a stick? Who wouldn’t want that?

In seriousness, I really don’t think that (on balance) you can accuse Duxford of either not being relevant to aviation “heretage”, or of not showing the public what they want to see. There will always be things that can be improved, but there are more constructive ways to go about doing so than by sniping on internet message boards.

Keeping this relevant to the topic at hand, I think it goes without saying that the “public” are not, as a rule, Avro aficianados. A majority are clearly not aviation enthusiasts as such. They visit to be entertained, informed, inspired, in an area with which they have a passing familiarity at most. The enthusiast, as a repeat visitor, is important, but in the scheme of things it achieves very little in terms of income generation or even PR to actively try to “please” us as a stakeholder group. And yet I would argue that this is still done. This rollout is evidence of that.

I suppose I’m just a bit surprised that you aren’t even a little chuffed that this occurred, despite the (to you) obvious omissions.

There’s a similar clip, with some footage the same, some different, here.

It also has a modern soundtrack I’m afraid. Much as I love Disturbed, and to a lesser extent, Bruce and the gang, I can’t help but feel that metal music isn’t quite appropriate!

Had a day at duxford today doing the NAHSI

Churchill would approve.

There is nothing anywhere that says that a museum MUST be a static collection of artefacts. There are times and places for that, but I believe that by having a working exhibit it allows people to imagine what they would have been like much more easily. The Tank Museum at Bovingdon operates on this policy, the National Railway Museum at York also appreciates this.

Although I appreciate that there already a taxiable and a flyable Lancaster already operating in this country, there is also already another static example too. Perhaps the York could be restored to taxiing condition instead. 😀

And all this without mentioning a certain privately owned collection renowned for keeping things working!…. 😉

You do have a point, and as I said above, IWM do run their permanent vehicle collection on a limited basis. I would suggest that the situation is a little different vis aircraft, at least as far as actually flying the things goes. The level of risk involved in flying is far greater than pootling around at 10 or 20mph in a restricted area. In addition, the amount of change an airframe must go through to render it fit and safe to fly is likely to be much greater than that necessary for a static restoration.

Admittedly I am presenting my own ideal of how things should be done, which errs firmly on the side of caution. Various institutions follow this, IWM included. That said, many museums do operate parts of their permanent collection, but they [b]minimise the risks[/i] involved. This is far easier to do with, say, a spinning machine or a beam engine, than it is with an aircraft.

You are quite correct that within the current framework of rules and best practice, operating your exhibits is essentially up to the discretion of your stakeholders (trustees, government, management etc). It would not necessarily preclude you from meeting registration or receiving funding (dependent upon the setup of the museum). But, you would have to demonstrate that you were deriving sufficient benefit whilst simultaneously causing a minimum of wear and exposing the exhibit to a minimum of risk. Operation should be closely monitored and controlled. The benefits of operating have to be weighed against the complications, and I think that with regard to aircraft, it’s a no-go. If a museum has the resources to acquire an airframe specifically to fly it, that needn’t present a problem.

Whatever the pros and cons, all of this is academic; the trustees and management of the IWM have decided that the risks, costs and staff time involved in flying aircraft are too great. As long as there are private owners on site, this has zero chance of changing.

The preservation, conservation and exhibition of historic or memorable artifacts. It says nothing about them having to be lifeless hulks, East Kirkby for example. An exellent airframe being conserved and preserved and exhibited to members of the public, therefore educating them as to what a Lancaster looks and sounds like while moving under its own power. Please don’t try and tell me what a museum is for.
By the way, I’ve never seen a sword or move unless a human hand is making it do so. And Lancasters never clashed into each other ( diliberatly anyway)

mick

Clearly my analogy is either too superficial, or you’ve taken it too literally. If I might explain; the common reason given for museum aircraft being operated is because “that’s what they were designed to do”. Edged weapons were designed to be fought with, hence the parallel I drew. You would not expect the Victoria and Albert museum to have costumed interpreters wearing original Elizabethan clothing, because it puts the exhibits at unnecessary risk in terms of potential physical and environmental damage. I realise that this is a rather extreme example; clearly 60 year-old airframes of aluminium and steel are somewhat more robust. But the principle remains the same. If we play “fast and loose” with our museum pieces whilst they are “young”, future generations will lose out.

As to the role of museums, you have it largely correct, but your emphasis is different to that of a responsible museum, because you are used to thinking of aircraft in a certain way, as distinct from their role as exhibits or artefacts. I’ll attempt to explain.

This is the Museums Association’s definition:

‘Museums enable people to explore collections for inspiration, learning and enjoyment.

‘They are institutions that collect, safeguard and make accessible artefacts and specimens, which they hold in trust for society.’

In line with this, it’s a matter of policy for IWM and other registered museums to NOT run industrial exhibits that are accessioned, i.e. the key words above “hold in trust for society”. There are several important implications to operating an aircraft that mean a museum doing so is abrogating its responsibility to the public:

1) Original parts must be replaced initially to gain airworthy status, and more will have to “go” the longer the aircraft is operated. There has been much discussion about the merits of a true “conservation” approach to aircraft restoration (e.g. the FAAM Corsair); the work needed to get an aircraft in the air runs entirely counter to this philosophy.

2) The increased risks of damage occurring due to movement, whether under the aircraft’s own power or whilst being moved into place for taxiing or takeoff. The most obviously worrying of these is of course flying the things; with the best will and expertise in the world, accidents can and do happen.

There is no argument that the authenticity of the exhibit will be compromised to some degree by either of these factors, with the possibility of total destruction in the case of flight. So any decision to operate is effectively sacrificing some element of originality.

All of this is quite apart from the cost issue already mentioned.

This said, it’s perfectly acceptable to either:

a) Make a case for an accessioned object to be operated on a limited basis for a limited period of time for a specified purpose.

or,

b) To acquire another, sacrificial example (or in extreme cases deaccession an item from a permanent collection) in order to run that, satisfying the needs of the visitor for better understand the operation and historical context of the object, whilst preserving the “designated” airframe at whatever level of originality it is at, for posterity.

The “third way”, we have already seen: to partner with individuals or groups with similar, privately held objects that they run, such that you can have your cake and eat it; Duxford is the premier example of this in my opinion.

As a postscript, I would challenge your definition of “lifeless hulks” for static exhibits; each visitor breathes their own “life” into an exhibit, aided by whatever interpretation the museum is able to provide. Imagination, tempered hopefully by some background knowledge and interest, is an important tool for this. For those that really struggle with the meaning, operational exhibits are another great tool, but these should not be elements of the museum’s permanent collection, unless the risks can be mitigated to a level acceptable by the staff and trustees of the museum, taking into account professional best practice and the requirements of government (e.g. registration/accreditation).

Not sure, but have a free bump. Interesting to see the notation for the types on that last page – not only “Me” instead of “Bf”, but a space between the letters and the numerals too.

Thanks both. But that’s as I thought; there hasn’t been a VTO-conventional flight-VL hop, only STOVL-CTOL-VL. Which whilst completely relevant to the aircraft’s intended mission profiles, isn’t the same thing as VTOL operation (what was claimed earlier). I can’t see a need to “certify” the F-35B for true VTOL operation, as it will never need to do this outside of an airshow display. But still, being pedantic, you can’t describe it as VTOL unless it’s demonstrated the capability to transition from VTO to conventional flight.