That is certainly one of the reasons Dave. Also, these museums might just want to keep their hidden secrets. If a lot of the collection is photographed and these pics reach the net in numbers, a lot of visitors may choose to visit the museum ‘online’, rather than to go there. (just a thought)

J.V.

Just an edit to more directly answer this post. The idea that museums may lose visitors to online material is not only unlikely, but were a museum to think in this way they would be flying in the face of their moral, ethical (and registration/funding-based) obligations to provide access to their collections. Most museums indeed think the other way around, see the British Museum’s Compass website as well as IWM’s http://www.iwmcollections.org.uk. Though some currently lack photographs, the idea is to have a shot of everything. As you’ll see from Compass though, the BM like others, offers better quality images for a fee.

Both ‘normal’ and UV light damage any kind of object NOT just paintings, and clearly the older the object the more vulnerable to damage it is. Museum environments are supposed to be environmentally conditioned to certain specifications dependent upon the collections being housed, and lighting type, level and exposure are closely controlled and monitored. Therefore the idea is to keep as many outside variables out of the equation as possible. This includes such rules as no touching and no flash photography. The postcard reason may also be valid for reasons of income generation….

Aviation museums are usually less strict on photography and sometimes touching by virtue of most paint schemes etc being recently applied, among other reasons.

Having never been to Duxford unless when I was a small bairn when I was living in the uk and only going by what I have read or seen on the internet, it looks like a definate “must see” when visiting the UK.

Now for the improvements. If only something can be done to better preserve the Victor and Shackelton both of which in my mind are benchmark airframes with the Victor being the only surviving aircraft in a Bomber command paint scheme. It wouldn’t take much for a couple of weekends of TLC to make them look more presentable. I wonder what difference it would make if they were American aircraft? Would they have ben neglected for so long or would they be spit and polished and housed indoors by now?

The perceived bias towards American airframes at DX simply doesn’t exist in my opinion. Obviously when the AAM was being set up and then redisplayed, that where the resources went, and yes, had there been US aircraft sitting outside they may well have received attention. Hence “American Air Museum”. Though this was a period of several years, it hardly constitutes an institutional bias against British aircraft. Now we are working on the history of British aviation i.e. AirSpace, our British airframes are receiving the attention. Though not part of the core AirSpace collection, the Victor, the Shackleton and others will receive covered space where they will be stabilised as far as possible.

Duxford is very much ‘live’, but IWM Duxford is a National Museum, and an Accredited one at that. The respective operators (notably TFC) use words like ‘collection’ in their title, because, well, they are! The distinction isn’t often made but is important in terms of what flies and what standards of restoration/conservation are employed due to the public responsibility, ethics and museum theory/practice that IWM have to (and want to!) adhere to.

We already have our Firefly on loan to Yeovilton and our Sea Harrier with Flixton, but I personally would rather we work on interpretation for the Navy stuff rather than hand it all over to a dedicated museum.

The Pucara we have most of the bits for in store, and we still plan to restore it as the old chestnuts of time and resources allow. We are also assessing action to be taken in future with the other airframes you mention that don’t quite fit the collecting policy.

Trust me, complacency is not an issue here at the moment!

As other people have commented, as Duxford is “live” perhaps Museum is confusing to the public (dry, dusty, static). Perhaps Collection might be a better description? When the hangars get sorted I’d like to see the aircraft grouped in a more meaningful way. There’s the basis of a good NATO/Cold War collection i.e Mystere, Draken, Sabre, Hunter and Mig. I’m also confused about the Navy fighters which seem to be poor relations. As Yeovilton is so good why don’t you rationalise what you have with them? As to the ongoing debate about the AAM, well it is a fine bit of engineering and has won many awards so it can’t be all that bad. It also houses some very worthwhile airframes even if it is crowded. One final point, can’t something be done with the Pucara? They’ve managed it at Cosford. The bottom line is of course that the whole site is irreplaceable but that shouldn’t lead to complacency.

Good to so many constructive and so far largely positive comments. Keep ’em coming folks, it all helps us improve.