My personel opinion is that their money should be spent on their aircraft instead of the Battle of Britain Beacon!
If they want more visitors they should put up larger & more roadsigns to the museum! Make it easier for those to want to find the place!
The Museum Kbely in Prague built several older aircraft (biplanes) that did not survive through the years in order to fill in the missing links in Czech aviation history. I think the Avia 534 is a good example of a beautiful aircraft that was completed by the museum.
The GAF Museum Gatow did the same with their WW1 aircraft.
We all know there are several missing RAF aircraft from the early period that one could now build for display only.
Don’t waste the money on frivolous projects, ie the “Beacon”.
AGREE 200%!!!
The Norwegian air museum in Gardermoen has some of the rarest of aircraft (He-111P-2, Ju-88A-1, Farman WW1 bomber), but is practically unknown.
Their collection was moved to what looks like a beautiful building, but is 100% terrible design for a aircraft museum.
Jeepman i think you raise a very valid point. There are some very deserving and, aguably more important projects on that list in my view!
They are all important, but they can wait!
Protecting from elements for later work is critical if you want to keep any aircraft in existence!
I think the “Beacon” would be a poor choice to display ANY aircraft. I have to agree that a hangar wins all round as the same cost would probably buy far more display space for airframes than an “icon” building and would give more scope for moving around and alternatiing exhibits to keep the museum fresh and encourage repeat visits.
I think the idea of the Beacon was lost in making it an art piece.
Hangars are too ‘boring’ for most, so something needs to be different.
the Smithsonian U-H museum looks to be a really great design.
A couple of thoughts:
As a general observation, recovering an aircraft like the Dornier has a couple of cost /effort factors not made explicit so far in the recent discussion:
If you leave the aircraft there, it will continue to decay, at a hopefully known and assessed rate – that may actually be slower than we think, but in an environment where that rate can suddenly change (or the aircraft be disturbed/removed deliberately or accidentally). However it will not cost you anything.
Before you recover it you have to (among other things) sort out the recovery, and prepare for the unexpected, including additional costs. As well as that obvious element, you then need to prepare space for the wreck and set up the long term salt-water remedial treatment process (think Mary Rose, but smaller) – that’ll cost, a big initial element then an ongoing one for a period of 6 months to maybe five years. After that, the rest of the conservation and display preparation process can start…
Right on!
Pity the RAFM Hendon didn’t (and doesn’t) want to display the immaculate WW2 Dornier they already own! :diablo:
Ah, which??
I have seen all the video of the wreck shot last year, and the 17 has suffered some serious decay, and working on a Ju-88A-1 fished out of FRESH water, it can look pretty terrible. Guttorm told me the 88A-5 they pulled out of SALT water was in terrible condition, and the 190 from a different part of the cost (2009 I think) had paper thin fuselage.
Oh, not to mention the souvenir hunting scuba drivers.
Honestly, I bet then they do get her out of her grave they might be quite disappointed in what they get. Still, she will be the ONLY 17 left in world on dry land, so they will have to accept what they get. How they choose to display it will be the big question, and an “As is” may be not be acceptable.
Will see.
Sign In
