JonathanFItalian Harvard, when you say IWM Bf109, do you mean Black 6? Because its an RAF Museum aircraft now, and was never IWM.
It doesn’t matter if you ‘can’t tell’ if something is authentic. It either is or it isn’t, by consensus of specialists in the field. If it isn’t authentic, or is no longer 100% authentic, its still of value to those interested, and to the historians. Old does not equate to ‘historic’. Its the difference between an antique teapot you take a liking to because its age lends it a certain feel, and an antique teapot that you have provenance for showing that it was used by Winston Churchill on D-Day. Look at the world of cinema props; you can have a perfect replica of a prop, and yes, it will still fetch a pretty penny, but a shabby, broken equivalent actually used by a film star (with the evidence obviously) will fetch a much higher price reflective of its place in cinema history.
Another analogy would be a sword brought in as an offered donation recently. The chap was convinced that because a relative had brought it back from the far east in 1946, that it was a genuine Japanese officer’s sword. Indeed, it was made (crudely) to look like one, and was as old as he believed it be. But it was not a Japanese officer’s sword, and as such was not historic. An old copy of something is still a copy. It may be of historic interest in its own right, but not in the same context as the original would be. Look at fine art; a perfect copy of an old master might be techinically even better than the original, and might even be as old. But if it wasn’t actually painted by the artist advertised, then it is simply not the same thing. You can clean the surface, you can even repair damage with clever work, but the latter still reduces the historical nature of the painting.
We should apply the same standards to any aircraft that is rare or has a rare, unique, or otherwise special past. Everything has something to contribute to the story of aviation, but its true nature should be clearly visible. People seem to think we ought to be able to get away with ‘passing off’ aircraft as *the* aircraft that shot down just because as a mechanical device, it has parts replaced and modified over time. You may well say ‘but it had parts changed in its service life after it shot down ‘. Yes, and that is a part of its service history, and is also out of our control. What is under our control when an aircraft is up for sale or donation is the chance to get it under cover, under conservation, under research. We should learn as much as we can about its history and proceed accordingly. If it turns out to be a composite aircraft or one that’s been heavily altered from any of its service configurations, then we have to consider a rebuild, perhaps to flying status.
The Fleet Air Arm Museum’s Corsair is an example of a true historic aircraft. ‘Excavated’ back to its 1944 paint finish, everything as it was when it was struck off charge. A wealth of historical information and a fair measure of spiritual inspiration. Who knows what else we could learn about the airframe with future analytical techniques? Meanwhile, we can still see and hear what it would have looked and sounded like thanks to composite and scratch-built aircraft. I’m not suggesting aircraft like TFCs Corsair be grounded and wrapped in cotton wool, as there is definitely something extra special about knowing that a substantial part of an aircraft you’re watching made some small part of history, and in any case such aircraft are privately held and a great deal of resources are already invested in them.
I suppose I’m advocating the use of composite and replica (full-scale, full-accuracy) aircraft to do the job that in x number of years the current crop of flyers will no longer be able to perform. As such they are fully worthy of discussion on a board such as this. Meanwhile, new airframes coming available should be looked at in a case-by-case basis involving enough research to make an informed decision on conservation vs restoration vs rebuilding vs scrapping/spares provision.
JonathanFI don’t mind how many warbirds get grounded as long as everyone gets a chance to see at least one of each type in the air. I’ve really gone past getting excited at the umpteenth Spitfire being made airworthy, as long as all grounded types are well looked after and in good condition kept in well-lit museums
Absolutely. I’d rather we made efforts to preserve a good cross-section of aircraft as ‘stock’, even if it meant keeping only one or two historic (I’d prefer composites) representative examples flying. Logically, by continually flying an historic airframe, maintaining it and even modifying it for safer flying, one is destroying it just as surely as if it were left outside or cut up for scrap. It’s the old George Washington’s spade/Trigger from Only Fools and horses broom argument ie ‘I’ve had this broom for 30 years. It’s had 7 heads and 3 handles…’. Unless you believe aircraft have a ‘soul’ of course…
Not to mention the old favourite method of destruction i.e. flying the things into the ground at high speeds. Don’t get me wrong, I love seeing the things in the air, I leap out of my office at every opportunity when I hear an engine! But we need a representative global collection of types that are as historic in terms of both ‘originality’ and context (ie mission history).
Sometimes the conflict between keepers and flyers comes when museums acquire an example as the best they can get hold of at the time, when it might have made more sense to let it go to the private restoration companies and wait for a more original but perhaps less flyable example.
Finally, re Black 6, I’m not sure why so many people lament its now static status. For one thing it was due for retirement by its owners, and for another it suffered serious damage and consequential rebuild following a major crash. By anybody’s standards, that’s time to call it a day I think.
[edited] to correct some facts
JonathanFHow many of you out there have seen the movie The War Lover?For me,One scene that I find to be most memorable and intense is where Steve Macqueen flys his shot to junk B-17 into the Cliffs of dover . .He is all shot to pieces(isnt his name Buzz?) and so is the plane.There he is behind the wheel of his B-17 G (the Body ?)The cockpit is hanging around his head from the ceiling,Wires,Cables,Controls,etc. He is begging the plane,”come on baby.Get me up! Come on,get me up!.Come on,UP Aaaaahh! The plane shakes and smokes and finally She she gasps and gives up the ghost right at the base of the cliffs. BOOM! SCREECH! BIRDS! He’s all over the white cliffs of dover !.wow .its too much .what a ride. what insanity.those poor *******s.
I must confess to not having seen this, and maybe its just me, but doesn’t that scene come across as just a little….erm…Freudian? 😮
JonathanFBlimey. I would say anything fitting historic specifications (and historic can be any age; a ‘Gulf War I’ Tornado is historic in museum eyes), be it a rebuild with any percentage of original parts, or a scratch replica, is worthy of discussion here. I don’t really see the problem. Even the 70% scale ‘funnies’ are surely worthy of a good laugh, whereas they might be posted and discussed in all seriousness on a dedicated board.
I’m not going to say ‘lighten up’ or ‘chill out’ as I don’t fully understand this here conflict, but also because the argument for me is different, and occurs where replica and rebuild supporters pass off their (perhaps even 40% original) as the plane that did ‘insert historic thing here’.
JonathanFHello Simon,
Just the first thought that occurs, but I assume you’ve contacted the Norfolk and Suffolk Aviation Museum, based in Bungay itself (as I’m sure you know)? I would think if anywhere has details it would be there.
Best,
Jonathan
JonathanFDave, that’s very kind of you to say, I appreciate the support from such a welcoming, polite and knowledgeable online community. I am primarily a museum person (and archaeologist funnily enough) by training rather than an aviation specialist, but hopefully I can answer questions people may have about the Duxford collections. We do of course also deal with general enquiries, many of which are shall we say ‘googleable’.
As to drawings, maintenance units would have used reference/construction drawings (but not full-on blueprints) but of course as with most obsolete documentation these would have been destroyed as a matter of routine, though there are always some survivors. We have some 1960s/70s reference posters of some sort for things like the Buccaneer; not terribly informative but rather more understandable than the ‘extreme close-up’ views of individual components.
Has anyone tried Air Historical Branch at Bentley Priory? I was there the other week and one of the things I forgot to ask is whether or not they look after any drawings. It wasn’t mentioned so I fear its unlikely.
JonathanFHmm. The only ‘she’s in the Collections team are the admin staff. One of the few people with the authority to erm, authorise that is John Delaney, Chris Chippington’s effective replacement (though he has a somewhat role in fact) who is the Duxford Collections Manager and my immediate line manager. I will have a word with him for you in the new year. The cockpit will have to an extent, its own microclimate inside the perspex, so that may have to be taken into account, as well as the difficulty of putting it back together. Fingers crossed, its conceivable that we may be replacing the perspex for AirSpace display, which would be a simple matter of you being there with your camera when its done.
JonathanFHi John. No, this was far less specific. It’s a request for everything we have on external stencilling. The tech library came up dry, and the guys that worked on our Sunderland are tricky to get hold of.
JonathanFI believe my colleague Peter Collins, who reorganised the drawings we have here, has an electronic list of some sort underway. When he comes back after xmas I will have a word for you.
Out of interest, who have you spoken to regarding the Typhoon cockpit and getting its measurements? I may be able to boot some bottoms for you.
JonathanFWhen I was doing research on surviving engines I found that the engine at Duxford was a gift from Cambridge department of engineering…there is a high chance that this engine is from a different airframe or it may never have been in an airframe at all.
Out of interest do Duxford find smaller items i.e. the Tiffy cockpit difficult to deal with? I spent alot of time there the cockpit a couple of years ago. I almost walked past it tucked away between the two pillars and only one other person stopped to even read the note on the firewall, and then swiftly walked away!!! Given the history of the airfield I would have thought more emphasis would have been placed on it…almost seems as though it doesn’t fit in with their requirements!! Any plans to restore it in the near future (I noticed it starting to get surface rust on the tubes)?
Sorry for all the questions….thanks for taking the time to answer my others!.
Dave
p.s. do duxford hold any Hawker drawings?
I would PM but I’m sure no-one minds the hijack as it will keep the thread active until the originator spots it again. Yours are also questions others might like to see answers to!!
I’m afraid the cockpit and many other ‘smaller’ exhibits have been neglected in the past, but this is set to change in 2006 with the creation of AirSpace. I’m pleased to say that the cockpit and the engine are currently slated to appear, although I have no information on any planned conservation for them. The priorities post-AirSpace are to be the Vulcan and Shackleton, not necessarily in that order. It’s not clear yet how they’ll be interpreted, but mention is sure to be made of the DX connections as well as the rareity of surviving Typhoon artefacts. The current thematic approach would tend to focus on its battlefield role, I can say that much.
I’ll see if I can put in a special word for it during the meetings!
We have the following Hawker drawings:
-Hundreds of Hurricane I & II drawings both original, copied and third party created.
-Hunter general assembly drawings
-Hart schematics (from an aviation publication though)
As well as various Hawker-Siddeley (and BAe etc), including Nimrod, Harrier and most interestingly (to me) a 3-view of the P.1127/Kestrel
Bear in mind that London may still have some such drawings that we aren’t as yet reacquainted with!
JonathanFHmm, don’t suppose they’re planning to fly over Duxford are they?
JonathanFJonathon,
Sorry to Cees and everyone for hijacking the thread but I was wondering if you may have any history on the Typhoon cockpit you have at Duxford? I have tried writing and calling Duxford on a number of occasions over the years and never got an answer, I think I was contacting the wrong people. I believe it may have been a crashed aircraft that became an instructional airframe when not repaired. I have also been told that the cockpit did include the engine bearers at one stage…these may still be at Duxford!!
More out of hope than anything…do Duxford have archive drawings for any Hawker Aircraft esp. the Typhoon?
Regards
Dave
Dave, I’ve enquired myself about the Tiffy cockpit; I’m afraid its one of those age-old inheritances about which we have very little object history or provenance. You know as much as I do in that its believed to be an instructional tool from an OTU or similar, and that the Sabre engine may or may not be from the same airframe. As to the engine bearers? Long gone I’m afraid, or deep in store. If its the latter, they’ll come to light as we work towards Accreditation.
JonathanFHi all,
Yesterday evening I had a very pleasant telephone conversation with Harry Fraser Mitchell of the Handley Page Association regarding the surviving drawings (Halifax ones in my case of course) in the care of the IWM.
As I was curious I wondered what happened to prevent the drawings to be burned as was ordered initially. Well, in february 1970 when the receivers came in and instructions were given to burn the archives, a lot of people suddenly took action and during the day and evening an enormous amount of drawings were taken away and they finally ended up with the IWM at Duxford (Ashley, can you confirm this?).
When asked he told me that drawings for the following aircraft are still surviving:
0/400 and V/1500 bombers, the early types in the twenties, very little of the HP42 (as you know) some Heyford, Harrow and Hampden drawings, a large amount of Halifax drawings, very little of the Hastings suprisingly and no Victor drawings. But there is a complete set of those extant formerly with the Air Ministry. So by quick action some very important drawings were saved. Pity that couldn’t be said about the Stirling drawings.
Cheers
Cees
Drawings are pretty much under my remit at the moment. We have incomplete sets of blueprints (blue on white paper) for the Halifax and Victor and a handful of construction drawings (b&w line drawings) of some sort for the Hastings. That’s all I could find on an initial look; it would be best if you could make an appointment through me for a day in the new year when you can come and look at them. I can then confirm what else we might have in the meantime.
[EDIT] I’ve just seen your location! In that case just let me know how you might want to proceed.
Best wishes,
Jonathan
JonathanFThere is an almost complete (original) one in storage in Holland. Unfortunatly, it is in open storage, which don’t makes me very happy. BW Roger
Thanks for the info. Do you have any details on who owns this ramp and where it is held? Photos would be great.
JonathanFRead, digested and appreciated!
Sign In
