You’ll go far young man! 😉

just one comment – my frustrations aren’t “ill-founded” because they are very real to me!

I still find it incongruous that say the Director at, say, IWM one day can move over to be the Director at Tate Britain the next. Call me old fashioned but I honestly think that the man in charge has to have a “feel” for the specialised subject rather than simply regarding it as a profession where the actual subject of the collection is to some extent irrelevant.

It’s all a question of balance – I can think of national museums still run by the old school (or corps)tie where you think “why the hell don’t they get a professional in”

But at the end of the day – whilst we enthusiasts are only a small part of the footfall, we are likely to be the ones who keep coming back….(or not)

I see your point, but I don’t agree. The director like everyone else in the modern (post-modern?!) museum, is there to do their own specific jobs, the most important of which is basically fundraising. Yes, an appreciation abd some sort of grounding in the subject is desirable and usually exists in some form (directors rarely take a job they have zero interest in). On a more general level, no one category of museum object should be viewed as subjectively superior than another. Therefore if a director is qualified to lead a museum whose main collection is archaeological, he should be equally capable at the head of an art museum or an aviation museum. If he knows the difference between a Hurricane and a Spitfire, so much the better.

A more pragmatic reason is that the director of a National just does not have the time to be more than superficially involved with the objects, their interpretation, or any other specialist area. This delineation allows those with the specialist training and knowledge to, simply put, get on with their respective jobs, without any interference from ‘higher up’ who might otherwise do things outside their remit. For example, (from my own sphere) they might accept items offered by the public off their own bat without documenting their entry or letting me know, because they think they know what’s best for the object and the museum. They may in fact know what’s best, but if responsibities are apportioned correctly (ie all objects offered pass through Collections), there can be no room for error (e.g. losing said item…).

Finally, a director not already part of an existing ‘community’ (object specialisms of all kinds can still be elitist and self-aggrandising) is not subject to the politics and intrigue involved. These (s)he can take or leave as necessary with the advice of longer-standing staff members.

I will say that a Director with an affinity for the objects is a major plus in my book, as it means more effort to raise money specifically for objects already in collections rather than for new whizz-bang developments. Or, if whizz-bang is the way to go, that there is enough money to provide for existing (and any new) objects (ie aircraft!) within that development. I think and hope that Richard Ashton, despite his radically different (ie non-museum, not just non-aviation) background is the man for our Director’s job.

Well said Nick.

So Jonathan, are you ready for a few beers and roadkill platters in the name of education?

I appreciate the invitation, and I hope I can catch some of you in the pub in the new year (airshow times perhaps?). Sadly, beer and driving 100 miles a day just to get here don’t really mix 🙁

PS Is the Red Lion that bad? The conservation guys seem to like it!

Those are wonderful. Yes, any details on context would be great. Those engines make me think we could learn something from the modellers in terms of distressing our restored aircraft as they would have been in service. I’m sure its done elsewhere but I’m struggling to think of Duxford examples as I write this. Our B-17 is getting there I suppose, with the cowlings open and guys working on the engines. But you rarely see the really dirty stuff that’s evident in photographs and video.

Not sure about the airshows, but Duxford falls victim to both vandals and component thieves as I imagine similar sites do.

Regular visitors; our MAs can’t be everywhere at once. If you see anyone acting suspiciously feel free to politely ask what it is they’re doing. If you’re concerned, find someone in red and white or wearing a coloured lanyard with a pass on it. All assistance much appreciated! Our airshows should be extra secure due to the way they’re organised and staffed.

Museums only have so much money, and pressure from all sides as to how to use it. A lot of the money they raise is only accrued because of swish ‘sexy’ developments like AirSpace at Duxford. It’s then up to the museum to try and manage the budgets such that the existing exhibits benefit. I can’t speak for Hendon, but funding is pretty much the driving force for any museum, especially one as resource-intensive as an aviation museum.

Jonathan,

Try looking up G-USTV on the CAA registration database. 😉

Mike, having looked into this (I’ve only been at Duxford for 7 months or so), in a way we are both correct. Though operated under IWM auspices (most unusually) Black 6 remained at all times the property of the MoD. All resources provided by the IWM were done so under a short-term loan agreement of 3 years (later extended) administered by the curatorial staff of the time. Although operated under our auspices, the actual operations work was carried out by a group of volunteers under our direction as airfield operator and aircraft custodian. We acted as agents for both the MoD and the volunteers, providing for its accommodation, maintenance and repairs (including the final semi-rebuild).

Such an ambiguous agreement would not be acceptable today; the operation would have to be wholly under private auspices. I am unsure as to why the aircraft was registered under Mr Henchie’s name (former head of Airfield Services for IWM Duxford), as he was certainly not its owner as the CAA registry entry implies! It would have come about through his specific responsibility as the operator of the airfield, which would also apply for insurance purposes.

All of this might sound like semantics, but the G was never our aircraft, as evidenced by the honouring of the MoDs promise to gift it to Hendon rather than ourselves, as was always intended when flying was to cease.

I also have cleared up the reasons for my other misunderstanding re Black 6. As for thinking G-USTV was out of airframe hours, clearly that wasn’t even close to being the case (just 73 on her!), but I have confirmed for myself and any others that were unclear, my main assertion that the MoD had indeed already taken the decision to ground the aircraft well before the accident and that the 12 October 1997 flight was indeed intended to be its last. My primary source is our own documentation, but secondary evidence can be seen in Flypast Dec ’97 as well as this post on the forum: http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=30969

Sorry to harp on, I just felt a bit daft having opened the old mouth before engaging the common sense filter 😮 and its also good to know I wasn’t talking *total* rubbish. It’s a salutary reminder to beware of passively absorbing gossip and combining it with the facts (hello the Internet!); its amazing how the basic facts can be stretched Chinese Whispers style. I.e. ‘possible reduced coolant flow’ becomes ‘no coolant>wrecked engine’ and ‘last planned flight’ becomes ‘being retired>must have run out of hours’. It irks me particularly because I don’t normally work this way! I would also point out that I was never under the impression it was in any way unsafe to fly (beyond the inherent handling issues), just that between the decision by its owners to ground it, and the damage/repair resulting from the crash, I didn’t understand the desire to keep it in the air. ‘Pushing ones luck’ came to mind. I appreciate many think it sad, indeed our paperwork indicates the arrangement was such a success that it lasted twice as long as originally envisaged. Furthermore, museum theory to one side, I would give certain parts of my anatomy to see a Luftwaffe configuration 109 fly! My professional side would insist that it was composite, scratch-built or at least lacking in provenance, but I won’t deny there’s something special about seeing a substantially historical aircraft in flight. Aviation masochism!

Finally, for those interested, having seen the forum discussions re the level of airworthiness of Black 6s current state, I can confirm that the aircraft as a whole was required by the MoD to be restored to static condition only, which meant preserving as much original and authentic componentry and equipment as possible. However, as pointed out by member ‘Fluffy’ the final restoration comprised a rear fuselage restored to airworthy standards and containing substantial portions of the original, a front fuselage requiring only redressing work, and an entirely undamaged engine (regardless of possible cooling problems on its last flight). I believe the replacement prop and spinner were sourced as original components from Germany. I have no evidence either way on CAA ‘signing off’, but regardless of how ‘ready’ to fly she is, the official word would have to be that she’s ‘static’. Not least because with rise of museum accountability, good practice and Accreditation, there is no way in the foreseeable future the RAFM could allow her to be flown, or deaccession and transfer her to anyone that would. Even if circumstances forced a deaccession, she would have to offered to another registered museum. For better or worse, only if no other museum could take her could she ever end up in ‘itchy’ hands again. Our collective ownership of both RAF and ‘national’ museum collections like Duxfords is theoretical and intellectual only I’m afraid. ‘In the public trust’ I believe is the phrase.

I appreciate all of this still doesn’t give you guys reasons as to why MoD grounded the aircraft beyond the obvious speculative ones of cost and desire to preserve the aircraft intact (ie not require replacement of parts through wear, or other work that might compromise its authenticity). Aside from cost, these would be my reasons for what they’re worth (I know they’re controversial in the aviation world), and they bring my dangerously wayward post just about back on topic. Phew! [final note; I wrote this in my lunch hour, and work caused me to forget to review and post it until now! Off North Side now to measure vehicles for AirSpace…]

I think the Black 6 team might have something to say about that… 😉

And, if you are going to apply that criteria as a rule, then what about the Blenheim, LF363, a good number of Spitfires and Mustangs, not to mention some of the stuff flying again in the USA … :confused: :rolleyes:

I apologise if my remarks were in any way offensive to anyone involved, and I’m not objecting to accident repairs per se. I was pointing out that in my opinion (and as far as I knew that opinoin of the CAA) Black 6 had had its flying time, and I didn’t understand the objections to it being placed on static display. Had it not run its airframe hours, in a way I would not have minded it being returned to the air as between being operated as a flyer and having serious damaged repaired, its ‘stock’ nature was already compromised.

I’ve not heard much in recent months about this, it seems to be dragging on with no firm plans as yet. I’ll let you know what I hear at the next staff meeting.