What’s the chair thing actually for then? Think i’ve seen a similar mount used by the Home Guard during 1940 as an improvised aa gun, but also reminds me of a similar mount used on armoured cars

It’s not improvised, it *is* an AA mount. Two Brens with 200rnds and a ring and bead are better than a poke in the eye with the proverbial. Similar seated twin mounts were mounted on vehicles, but I understand they could be used wherever basic AA capabilities were needed. The single tripod type is the one more commonly found in photos of the time.

As for “motley”, it pretty much is! Actually I think it’s named after the guy that invented it – not sure.

In order to preserve the aircraft in the best possible conditions they would need to be in individual chilled black boxes with only limited number of visitors per year and then only on certain climatically acceptable days….As were some of the exhibits at Silver Hill….

No. Best possible conditions for your visitor-free black box (which as we both know would fly in the face of a museum’s remit just as much as leaving exhibits open to the elements) would be something like 40 degrees and 20% relative humidity. Coming back down to earth, and as I understand things, IWM do not consider the current climate control to be adequate and are seeking to improve it post-AirSpace.

The balance between show and save is a very difficult one to find.

As for corporate events….damage to airframes and so forth…its a philosophical dilemma. The amount raised by such events in both cash terms and long term goodwill are very very hard to discount. They do contribute to the viability of the entire operation. That they are potentially damaging is not in doubt…nor is the ammount of money they bring in which is added to the budget of the museum as a whole, allowing the offer to be improved and attract a greater number of visitors. So another compromise needs to be sought…..

Points taken. Except that, as I’ve said to you before, the departments that directly look after and interpret the exhibits, receive *no more funding* due to large developments. In my experience, they receive a damn sight less each year – a pattern little different from a local authority museum that lacks the resources and clout to even attempt a big showy building. In terms of events etc, if these generated enough money to provide security to prevent abuse of exhibits, I would be more comfortable with their use as a fundraising tool.

The balance is being found. The creation the IWM North was the second phase of that, the Cold War at Cosford is the third phase… (I’m ignoring the Milestones at Hendon and AirSpace because they are too bland to count),

I’m afraid you can’t ignore Milestones and AirSpace purely on grounds of their not being amphibious landing craft-shaped (though many here would disagree). They are a step on in terms of the lessons learned and the attempt at interpreting the themes behind aviation, inspiring youth and so on. AirSpace is ambitious not just in terms of “star” exhibits and cost, but in what it aims to achieve inside. How your third phase facilities succeed at this remains to be seen. But to me, the very nature of high-capital high-profile means that some “mistakes” and criticisms (the valid ones) are very difficult to avoid. I would prefer more modest buildings, but as I’ve also said, I don’t have the creativity to come up with a way of funding an aviation equivalent of the Darwin Centre or something else collections-focused (I would prefer rather more interpretation than that, but you see what I mean.)

My personal favourite self-contained building in this context is the aircraft carrier experience at Yeovilton. Though not aviation related, I also rate DX Land Warfare for the way it puts virtually every exhibit in context.

And by way of reference we build sheds as well… if you take the base cost…and add the necessary bits and pieces that are inherent in the AAM, such as a dehumidification plant, finishes , display lighting etc etc the price comes in at something like £900/m2…( £450 for the basic shed, £300 for services, £200 for display lighting, finishes, equipment)

Add sufficient insulation and climate control and you are increasing the cost again…

I agree with much that you say, but I have to point out:

a) The AAM may have dehumidifying equipment and heating (unlike the Belfasts), but it sure as hell doesn’t have adequate (or indeed any?) cooling. Placing any other type of museum object in a concrete, glass-fronted, south-facing building without cooling would have been unthinkable. Yes, the “older” exhibits all have recent paint finishes, but what about the original finish on the B-52, the SR-71 and so on. Plus the upholstery and other interior fabrics in the older aircraft.

b) Re your earlier point about the AAM being designed to light itself with natural daylight; high lux and UV light levels are, as I’m sure you know, very destructive on a cumulative basis. Buildings like the Bomber Command Hall and DX Land Warfare are perhaps extreme examples, but the low lighting is a positive thing.

I personally like the overall design and effect, and have heard by far more positive comments from the general public about it than negatives. But as it was obtained at the expense of installing full climate control and UV filters to the glass front, I view it as less than 100% successful. Hopefully these points will be addressed retrospectively in the coming years, but high-capital projects like this really need stop putting collections (ie aeroplane) care on the back burner. Lessons are learned each time, I know, and I also know that it’s not for a lack of will or regard for our past that negative things occur. It has more to do with the complex financing and logistics of these “flagship” developments – they are the only current way to attract significant funding and PR to keep air/tech museums going, and yet inherently result in “value engineering” in order to provide the development on time and budget. In that context it’s easy to see why things like the above do occur, but it doesn’t make them right. That huge projects are a great risk to museum financial security, and sometimes to collections, must be considered and mitigated as far as practicable by the institutions with the wherewithall to make them happen. I’m sure that’s what’s happening with the current crop of developments.

Good job … but It can’t be read by Firefox, it’s become too confused !! :-)))))))

Works fine in v1.5…

I presume these are the “Wing Commander” cockpits? If so there was a thread on these only a few weeks ago – do a search perhaps.

JonathnaF et al…

The smaller museums often operate of a negative funding basis.. as staff costs are not often included (volunteers) so entrance a low volume sales are the only income.. plus afew teas and coffees etc…

So we should look more closely at the income streams of the larger, ‘national museums’…those that recieve direct state funding for essential budget items such as restoration and maintenance plus running costs.

Of those both the RAFM and Duxford havve activily sought to create new revenue streams in order to increase their annual budget and demostrate a commercial reality…

Both have rented display space to auctioneers for major car auctions…and Duxford promotes the AAM as a venue..why because it generates income and more importantly increases the exposure of the museum to a wider audience who having had a great time in the corporate sense will return with firends and family…and spend more money…

Whether or not we feel the artefacts are being damaged by this is irrelevant…if this does not occur then they will not survive…the museum will not survive…

Its the devil and the deep blue sea on that issue. In termsof sponsorship there does seem to be some potential.. although I recall the Lockheed Martin sponsored exhibition on the Merlin at the FFA museum was a giant advert for Lm and actually did very little to inform/ educate/ enlighten the visitor as to what the Merlin did..let alone why or how…

In one respect we (as aircraft enthusiats) are becoming less and less important ot aircraft museums.. as we do not consume enough whilst there…going often has a cost in itself, yet once there we are less likely to use the cafeteria and shop..and in all honesty the events that they can organise far outgross the entrance fee income over the year that we generate….the general public are the targets.. getting them in for the day.. spending money in the cafeteria, in the shop and so on are the financial fuel that is needed.

So whilst this means the purity of the museums may be lost.. it does mean more and better displays.. more use of advanced display materials and concepts and funding for the actual artefacts as the museums continue..but until a far higher sum is spent on the ‘academic’ side by direct central (tax payerbased) funding do not expect a change..

The criteria for any Lottery funding is totally reliant on the inclusion of a well thought through and credible BUSINESS PLAN…explaining why this project is needed in terms of operating a museum and how it will be used once completed to promote the museums’ aims and objectives….a simple.. becuase we have to preserve XYZ is not sufficient..

I agree that in the absence of government will (and let’s face it there are plenty of other worthy causes), the commerical route has to be explored. But if conservation and collections budgets continue to be cut year on year (true of virtually all types of museum), and even the money spent on the actual displays is a fraction of the other budgeted costs, then something is still not right. You could argue that there needs to be more vocal lobbying and promoting of awareness as to *why* consolidation should be the focus of Lottery and other bids, rather than big capital projects, but it would be a brave museum that took that stand considering the current climate demands something of media-worthy profile. It might seem navel-gazing, and I am for anything that keeps the whole sector alive and the greater amount of objects intact and accessible, but I think it’s important to consider which bits of the family silver we might be pawning, as it were, when we take the visitor attraction outlook, and whether there might be other approaches to take. Not that I have any to suggest right now!

Hi Michael,
I think you are making a good point, but you are setting a bar too low. If I may make some general points as a museum critic and observer. There is a ‘theoretically’ fixed leisure pot of cash, with Joe Public will spend. Some of it may get spent on vintage aviation, or Alton Towers as Joe sees fit. But Joe’s unlikely to spend more than he can – and in hard times that is less than good times.

But, first, as you’ve said, if you make the museum experience so fantastic, the museum will gain more of that pot. All those little things for the kiddies in the museum shop? All over the world they rage past the ‘more serious’ gifts and sell and sell and sell. A museum that’s not trying damn hard to separate me from the max amount of money is simply not competing well enough for the leisure pound.

However, gate and shop revenues are only two income streams for museums. Today, a good museum must be maximising it’s revenue from the state, in whatever form (HLF etc) and sponsorship. It’s very hard in both cases, but there is money to be got.

Museums should do three things – preserve, educate & entertain. Like it or not they have to compete within the leisure industry despite carrying the millstone of preservation costs – but so what? Cricket (for instance) is sponsored to the hilt. It has to be. No-one is suggesting gate revenue is the only income stream there. Formula 1 has a very different financial model, but it would not be happening without government support (e.g. getting race courses around the globe) and sponsorship.

In theory there is a finite amount of money in the world – a bit of a rough theory, but no matter. How much YOUR museum gets is up to YOU and it’s your efforts that gets the cash. There’s enough out there, it’s how…

Theoretically, museums can certainly compete for as much cash from the public (and private investment) as possible, but unfortunately many (most) in the UK are still reliant upon central and local government-derived funding, which most certainly *is* a fixed pot, and one that often shrinks regardless of the efforts the receiving museums make. “Joe” might empty his wallet on your flourescent Spitfire erasers, but he has zero say in where his taxx and lottery money goes. Heritage funding isn’t a democratic process, and it’s dependent upon the political climate and competing pressures as much as it is upon the economic situation.

In some ways, the push towards commercialisation for funding runs counter to the requirements of government funding bodies in terms of museums remaining publically accountable and wholly professional. If you turn your least well preserved airliner into a slide and swing-set, you’ve increased your power as a visitor attraction and therefore your potential pot of money, but you’ve also compromised your very reason for being. An extreme example, but there are other more common conflicts, such as using museum galleries for business functions, something most museums with the means to do so will take advantage of. If they do, they are essentially accepting accelerated damage to the collections for cold, hard cash. We have to weigh every commercial venture with the possible cons and not (IMO) turn museums into theme-parks unless we are 100% certain that that what it will take to enable them to survive.

The other thing to consider is the percentage of your increased takings that actually get ploughed back into collections care and interpretation. How is it that such budgets are slashed year on year, even at museums that embrace commerciality? Have they not gone far enough down the “zoo” route? Has there not been enough time to see a turnaround in fortunes? Or are they simply creating new projects and staff to spend money on rather than the exhibits and displays themselves?

Valid points, but if money isn’t ploughed back into collections storage, care and access but rather is diverted to simply keeping the whole dog and pony show (or visitor attraction if you prefer) ticking over, then frankly disposal of objects (in this case scrapping of aircraft) is just a question of time.

Then again with today’s level of transparency, if avoiding PR disasters by preventing exhibits from looking really bad gets things conserved, then that’s OK too. As long as they aren’t being cosmetically restored with untold horrors left beneath the skin that is.