JonathanFCompared to rubbish like the Da Vinci Code, this *is* based on a true story, namely that there was a French squadron in the First World War that had some Americans in it. That’s pretty factual for hollywood. And they flew Nieuports. Oh, and they had two lion cubs.
We only get one lion in this version though, how unfair is that?
JonathanFI attended one of Dave’s lectures on this; hell of an achievement and an approach to be followed in future. I wonder what there is to discover under that outer coat of paint on the Spit I at Lambeth?
JonathanFSuperb, thanks for taking these. Might be worth alerting the modern forum residents too, at risk of inviting “Eurocanard” bashing!
JonathanFI think michelf meant that it was home to one of the best static collections, and that this was one reason that private owners remain located at DX. That and the fact that they are provided with hangar space, in return for their invaluable contributions of a) keeping their “living” aircraft there and b) flying them in easy view of visitors.
Duxford as the enthusiast knows and appreciates it is a symbiotic set-up; to remove either side would drastically change things for the worse. That much is obvious.
JonathanFJust to remind you the colours were chosen by IWM not the people who painted it……………..
I’m not sure you understand where I’m coming from here. I’m agreeing here with criticism of the chosen scheme by posters like Marks 12 and V, regardless of who is to “blame”. And if you look at my earlier posts in this thread, it should be clear that I’m not pinning blame on those that physically painted it, nor suggesting that they should have used their own initiative to make it correct.
As for you, Hi-Octain, I really don’t understand your problem. I said “the colours chosen”, no blame apportioned, none intended to be, no attack made. By implication it was a criticism of IWM any way you cut it, and one I would not have made whilst I was employed by them. I am most certainly *not* about to join the bandwagon of slagging off IWM or any other museum for sport; I will call things as I see them where I feel there is a point to such comment. You may not feel there has been one here, but I disagree.
Regardless, I would appreciate an apology for your unwarranted and frankly bizarre rant; you were good enough to provide one last time you misinterpreted the situation, I will give you that.
JonathanFJohnathonF
Well actually, if I recall correctly, salaried Government officers.
I am assuming you did not see the programme?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_world/4758847.stm
Thanks for the links Paul.
Mark
I didn’t, but I was aware of their “activities”. Their government credentials are, to me, palpably worthless if they claim to be psychic. Psychics here in the UK frequently claim to have worked with such-&-such Constabulary, but more often than not these claims are at least exaggerated, if not entirely fabricated. But even the UK police are just people, and are sometimes susceptible to phenenomena like subjective validation and communal reinforcement which boil down to “he/she can’t have known that!”. In reality, they are remembering the lucky “hits” of one or more cheap parlour tricks.
And without wishing to appear condescending to other cultures, you must realise that people of countries like Vietnam are far more likely to have the kind of deep-seated beliefs and superstitions that might support and propogate use of self-proclaimed “psychics” by those in authority, who may even believe or be susceptible themselves. The reported statement that they are “Accepted, if not approved of, by the government” suggests that the government knows what’s good for it, and won’t risk challenging the established belief systems of its people, no matter how poorly founded and dangerous they might be. It lends them authority, sure, but only the level of authority carried by their “reluctant” paymasters, the Vietnamese government – not known for their patronage of (truly) scientific work.
Sorry if I appear to sabotage your thread; no doubt the programme content is of interest and value in various ways. I just question this wholly anecdotal evidence for such a phenomenon. If these psychics can really do this, let’s see some double-blind controlled testing of their “abilities”. If they can pass a simple test, they can win a million dollars.
[edited to add] Let’s not forget that if this is indeed the work of con-artists (whether they act knowingly or not) then it is hugely inappropriate and disrespectful, and misleading and hurtful to their loved ones.
JonathanFYes, the wing is long gone, sadly. No details I’m aware of, but whatever happened, happened before the Sherpa entered the IWM’s collection (who it still belongs to).
JonathanFIf you can’t house an expanding collection and increase visitor numbers, both of which require sizable modern (at least internally) buildings, you’re dead as a museum.
I assume Moocher would prefer only 1910s or 1930s airfield building replicas to have been built instead of LWH, AAM etc? How, then, would the visitor have known the difference between old and new? This isn’t even the rebuild-the-Parthenon argument, it’s like building period outbuildings on the back of it!
JonathanFMk 12 May I defend the Painter chap ” Had to Follow the outline on the GRP “
J F Customer Allways Right
Micky! Handwriting showing so soon!people who know have spoken! people who Guess Have done so! Now we have those looking for afight!!!!!!!!!!!!! Must be LEGENDS TIME such fun.
doG hates rain organise weather please
I recall (raised?) lines being on there for the disruptive camo, but not for the roundels. Even if there were, it doesn’t affect the colours chosen.
JonathanFI would call people that are able to show you where war dead are buried “locals”, not “psychics”. Or perhaps in this case, “con-artists”.
JonathanFBetter sit down Daz, we agree on something 😀
Promotional item taken out on road = potential to encourage people to visit Duxford = may lead to an interest in aviation and military history for some. Is that such a bad thing?
No further comment from me.
Hi Ashley, hope things are ticking along nicely down south!
No, it’s absolutely not “a bad thing” in my opinion, as I hope I’ve made clear. The fact that it exists and is being put out there is not the issue. I just think that a little bit more thought or communication could have achieved both the stated aim, and maintained a degree of historical accuracy. To me this is the equivalent of the British Museum sending out costumed interpreters in (say) Roman military gear, but who are wearing Reebok trainers or digital watches.
Looking at it another way, when museums send out handling materials to schools, they send genuine items or accurate replicas, even though most children would/will never know or care for the difference. There’s a reason that the term “museum standard” exists – they are supposed to uphold the highest standards across the board. As we all know, this isn’t always achieved or even achievable given the time and resources available, but it seems to me that in this case, it was avoidable with only a negligible amount of extra work.
Why apply different or lower sets of standards to those applied to genuine objects, models, or graphics, for no reason or benefit?
JonathanF‘fully subscribed to our standards’ – I guess Jonathan you better not look at the IWM Wessex HAS.1 ex of the A&AEE now painted in a Royal Navy scheme it didn’t wear!
She certainly was RN at one time, with three different squadrons (815, 706, and 826).
Regardless, the fact that DX has aircraft in schemes that the individual aircraft never wore, is not quite the issue here (though clearly there is a separate argument to be made). There are plenty of exhibits in such schemes (Mary Alice, the Avenger, the Lysander etc etc), but they are all (to the best of my knowledge) accurate representations of the markings selected.
JonathanFIf it attracts a lot of interest it’s a good thing IMHO.
Without doubt. But it could have done that *and* be correct, with very little extra effort.
JonathanFBut its all right to dispose of a genuine Me163 that was a war prize of the nation, gifted to IWM but high on someone elses shopping list. Oh yes, we are getting a “genuine” DH9 for DX……….only 99.9999% new structure…..
As you’re quoting me, I will say that I’ve never said that. I personally believe it should have been retained. However, previous DX directorship and the Dept of Culture, Media and Sport certainly have OK’d it, for whatever that’s worth to you. There were valid reasons for going ahead with the disposal and DH.9 acquisition.
JonathanFIt always matters Jonathan, we are talking about priceless historic aretfacts.
I take your point, and having worked for various UK museums, including two nationals, I hope I’m sufficiently aware of the importance of such things. The thing is, it’s only the public institutions that have a defined responsibility to maintain standards in the way you (and I in this case) advocate. Private owners are just that; private. And their possessions, historic and priceless or not (and there are varying degrees of originality as you are aware) are still possessions to be used and modified as the owner sees fit. I fully understand the urge to strive for accuracy and to preserve originality; those coming from a museum training might even argue that, let alone being “allowed” to apply spurious or incorrect markings, they shouldn’t even be allowed to fly the aircraft due to attrition of parts and the increased risk of damage or destruction. But most recognise the benefits of “allowing” (as if they have a say!) private citizens to “curate” a large proportion of our heritage, not least because heritage organisations don’t have the resources to take care of everything (and certainly not to recover and restore wrecks with any great frequency). The downside of this to which I am at least partly resigned is that we must allow a degree of leeway to those who are not fully subscribed to our standards. It’s a little like the archaeologist/metal detectorist relationship in that respect.
My point is that we here can give friendly advice, but we can’t influence the private sector to the same degree as we can the public sector, and we can’t *expect* it to respond to our efforts as we can the public sector (ie museums). This is why I agree regards the spurious scheme on the DX FSM. I feel that for “working” aircraft and models, there are also degrees of acceptability that I would not apply to museum exhibits. Likewise, I view Hendon’s grey/silver FSM as a piece of set-dressing; it should be clear that it is not attempting to represent any historical scheme. This FSM however, as *some* effort has clearly been made to have it appear historically accurate, goes well beyond these (to me) acceptable limits on many counts: We are both agreed on that.
I suspect the DX FSM comes down to a lack of awareness and communication on the part of the idea’s instigator. If you don’t ask, you don’t get, as a poster has remarked, and if you’re not even aware of the issues, you don’t think to ask in the first place. The answer would have been to consult those with the knowledge within IWM and at DX at large; clearly this was not done. I don’t know that we can say that those painting it should have gone out on a limb to make it fully accurate.
As to arguments of DX spending on things that aren’t collections or conservation orientated, that has been explained countless times on this forum. In this case, I believe the FSM was gratis to IWM. No doubt there will be further costs incurred e.g. in relocation, but the idea will be bring in more money for the museum which can be used in all the necessary areas.
Sign In
