I for one do enjoy the film in the B.O.B. hall, yes agreed it may interrupt the viewing of these historic aircraft, but at the same time dosnt the film in its current format tell story of the Battle to its full potential,what can be better than having the likes of the Spitfire Hurricane Me 109 and the Heinkel 111 in the background whilst being illuminated in there different stages of combat and bombing,whilst the story unfolds.

By having the film shown separately (from the hall) wouldn’t this take away the atmosphere and the closeness of these aircraft?
Just my opinion…

Picking up and extending on from Hawkers comments above, and addressing the comments and attitudes of others….

I havent had the pleasure of visiting the UK and your many fine museums but you are blessed with many excellent and world class collections holding displays of international significance.

While it might be a pity that Hendon lost its runways denying flying displays and air delivery, it is a very historic site with extent built heritage such as the Claude White building.

I dont think the RAF could make the case to government to relocate it elsewhere given the previous investment in the site, and the cost of moving and maintaining a new site with runways to support airshows would not get off the ground I suspect?

That would only leave the option of consolidating onto Cosford and a likely rationalisation of duplicate airframes?

You already have Duxford as a working museum airfield in anycase and Cosford is clearly the place for the “larger” and more modern elements of the RAF collection and story to be told.(and gives the RAF two museum sites not one, and an occasional airshow option if that is their interest and core business?)

We have the AWM in Canberra with no runways, or openable hangars so aircraft can occasionally be put on grass or the flightline (The RAAF Museum at Point Cook retains that advantage), but the AWM then excells in using the aircraft in interactive displays.

If I want to see the only original WW1 aircraft on display in Australia, SE5A, Avro 504K, DH9 and some rare German types, I have to occasionally enjoy their use in a darkened room and wonderful spotlighted display while an impressive film by that evil dog renaming Dambusters Director Peter Jackson captivates the imagination of adults and children and brings these static aircraft to life as he tells the story of the WW1 airwar through the eyes of a young Australian in the AFC. The room and aircraft display seems somewhat less impressive when it stops and the lighting increases, but us Rivet counters and photographers get plenty of time to feed our passion.

Equally at the other end of the same hall, if I want to see the only WWII combat veteran Lancaster in Australia, and one of only two in the world, I need to occasionally enjoy its role in an interactive sound and picture display that has it start up, flying, encountering flak and night fighter attacks from a 109, 262 or 163 and equally those rare airframes are spot lit at their appropriate times in that entertaining and educational display that is watched by so many Adult and children visitors who come away understanding what the young Australian men who flew in the crews of G for George went through, not simply starring at a static airframe and arguing if the paint scheme is correct?

There is still plenty of non interactive time for a rivet counter to get up close to the Lanc or the three rare German types to count rivets or take photos.

The AWM has an excellent collection and an excellent display, and it is used in an entertaining and creative way to educate the visiting public in the rich stories that cause these airframes to be preserved and displayed in the AWM in the first place.

Its not an Aviation Museum, its a War Memorial, but holds one of the most impressive aviation collections in the country, and caters well to the competing needs of its general public visitors and us rivet counter enthusiasts.

While I personally prefer the ability for a museum to occasionally put a static airframe on the flightline during an airshow as is done at Point Cook, (thats not generally the case at most major museums like Dayton or the Smithsonian etc,) and the AWM gets far more visitors in the door due to its location and serves a different purpose to the RAAF Museum, and neither are “Aviation Museums” or solely there for modellers, enthusiasts, warbirders or rivet counters?

You have Hendon, Cosford, the IWM, Science Museum, Duxford and Shuttleworth, enjoy and support what you have got, and appreciate their different roles and approaches, and be glad of their separate existence’s as against there being just one large single site and a single example of each type. The important types are duplicated at a number of sites, each offering a different display aspect, visitor access and interpretation.

Be thankful for what you have got, support them and promote them , and encourage friends and family to do so too!

if you dont use them – you will lose them!

Hendon is an international treasure!

Look beyond its past problems and make constructive suggestions to make it better.

Above all, support it, treasure it and keep it safe!

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Being as Mr Hall has two Lancaster project’s on the go I would think the IIC that Bruce mentioned (Rather than the MkX of KB976) would be an Ideal candidate ?

Geoff

Geoff,

He has an excellent reproduction RAF mk I cockpit and now this RCAF mk X fuselage as shown on his webpage via the link posted above.

I cant speak of Jeremys reasons or plans, but its perfectly logical to present his fuselage reproduction as “KB976” as otherwise its original and unique Canadian “long nose” would be inaccurate and a distraction on any other wartime RAF identity or model presented.

This is why KB976 shed the RCAF “long nose” in the first place.

Jeremy single handedly has increased the “Lancaster” display population from 4 to 6 through his very impressive RAF mk 1 cockpit and now this RCAF fuselage mk X mockups.

Through my involvement and acquisition of the Lincoln RF342 and Lancaster fuselage of “KB994”, I have come to admire the achievements of this Avro design, and been dismayed at how little made it into preservation, and then often only through luck and the efforts of individuals, not by government intent or planning.

It is surprising and sad that of the @3,000 Lancaster aircraft built in the UK to serve in Bomber Command, and that played such a big part in suppressing Hitlers war production, only 4 complete examples remain preserved in the UK, and Jeremy’s efforts therefore make a significant contribution to expanding the reach of the Lancaster story to a wider audience.

Its sobering to think there are more wartime Avro Yorks preserved in the UK than there are of wartime UK built combat veteran Mk I Lancasters, and the Duxford Canadian Mk X with late war Ops service is not a product of government preservation planning but more a result of a rich mans hobbie and dreams in acquiring and importing it from Canada in the 1980’s that gave the IWM an opportunity to later acquire it for long term preservation and display in the UK while its twin sister KB976 has had a much harder and sadder life but still holds onto hope dismantled in the USA.

The display of a combat veteran mk I at Hendon, a late war ops veteran Canadian mk X at Duxford, a post war French mk VII at East Kirby and the flying mk I with BBMF give the UK at least ONE example of each major Lancaster model other than the mk II, and a mk II fuselage mockup still doesnt present the primary point of difference (ie the radial engines) in any case.

So the construction of an FSM / reproduction Canadian mk X “long nose” using the original “long nose ” from KB976 and presenting it in RCAF “KB976” markings is very appropriate and fills in and examples that final post war technical evolution of the basic design, as against the Lincoln and Shackleton offsprings.

RAF Bomber Command played a very important role in the war and in my opinion the lost crews and vets have been treated poorly by a political correctness attitude over civilian losses in wartime that has overshadowed its contribution and the personal sacrifices (a bit like the way Vietnam vets were treated on their return from an unpopular war.

The refusal to issue a medal extends that, but the new memorial at least tries to redress that.

That apparent attitude saw only S for Sugar be preserved in the UK (and even then really only by luck) as a combat veteran and luckily Australia separately saved G for George. (Sadly a Stirling selected for preservation by the AWM was not brought home and a Hampton that was, was latter scrapped.

The same disinterest resulted in no Stirling being preserved in the UK or for that matter no Halifax either, and this is why the construction of the “Friday the 13th” reproduction at Yorkshire is such a wonderful and important project as was the later RAFM recovery of a sunken Halifax.

In fact the Spitfire was made the UK wartime “hero” and Hurricanes headed for extinction too, and the Wellington in the RAF Museum was for a while a sole survivor also dodging the axeman.

So we and the world are very fortunate that the BoB film in the 1960s kick started much of the aviation preservation movement and caused many of these airframes to be appreciated and preserved before they too were lost for ever.

There would be nothing (other than decision, time, money and resources) that would preclude Jeremy building his RAF mk 1 cockpit into the Dam-buster display you propose, but I suspect given its internal completeness, Jeremy has been more content to limit it to a more manageable and transportable cockpit display, that allows for easy viewing and entry.

There is nothing to stop someone else following in his footsteps to create a full length Dambuster fuselage display ( and I suspect one is actually already underway or planned based on original fuselage remains).

Others (such as Norman Groom) have followed Jeremy’s lead and built complete reproduction cockpits (we have two here in Australia, a third is in storage in NZ).

But a reproduction of that full fuselage length to cover the bomb bay mods etc is a serious undertaking and would need another effort of vision, time, money and material by “someone”?

Do you have some spare time on your hands? – smiles

Regards

Mark Pilkington

I must post a picture of the Thorpe Camp fuselage that is the main bulk of this machine as it makes an interesting contrast.

Please do David, as I admire Jeremy’s efforts and only know of the provenance of the Canadian nose section forward of the windscreen?

I would be very keen to know more about the “Thorpe Camp” Fuselage that you refer to?

It had been my assumption that this fuselage from windscreen back was actually a mockup built by Jeremy?

​

KB976 Scampton 18AUG2014 Tom Allett.JPGRAF

Scampton’s Heritage Centre received a terrific boost on August 18 when the nose and reconstructed fuselage of Lancaster 10AR, KB976, arrived by road from Brooklands.

Owned by Jeremy Hall, KB976 has a notable history. It is one of only three so-called long nose Lancasters (designed to carry an early warning radar) ever built and it was also the world’s last operational Lancaster; retiring from service with the Royal Canadian Air Force in 1964.

Its certainly not KB976 other than having the original Canadian long nose from KB976, which for a period sat on the front of the derelict fuselage of KB994.

The Majority of KB976 sits with Kermit Weeks, other than its damaged centre fuselage which is down under and its rear fuselage which is in the UK.

Of course the mortal remains of KB994 sit in a few places.

Its (KB994’s) cockpit is downunder along with I believe its cut off Covered Wagon centre section portion. (one is here and I assume it is KB994)

Its (KB994’s)centre fuselage is with Kermit for a future KB976 restoration, in swap for the damaged centre fuselage of KB976 which is also down under.

Its (KB994’s) rear fuselage is also with Kermit in swap for the damaged rear fuselage from KB976 which remains in the UK, which would be a fitting addition to this Lincolnshire display to complete the end to end fuselage.

I understood Jeremy acquired the Canadian long nose, then build a Lancaster Mk X Reproduction fuselage to sit behind it, and if so, that’s a magnificent effort on top of his mark I cockpit reproduction.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Thanks Mark – The fin in the container does not have the Rhino Horn section on the top as a Beaufort should do, hence the Beaufighter ID. So we probably have a bit more work to do yet – but at any rate thats down the track 🙂 !

I think you will find the rhino horn and larger area fin is a later Australian mod introduced after the mark V model, (although later retrospectfully fitted as a mod to those early examples) and that the earlier Bristol and original DAP Beaufort fin is very similiar to the Beaufighter fin as I understood from Ralph and A9-13’s previous owner Monty Armstrong, hence the acquisition of that fin.

I think we have the remains of two under cupola aft facing turrets, one via Ralph and one with A9-13, this simply replaces the solid escape hatch in the lower floor of the nose and is a simple installation, other than reproducing a complete one from the remains we have.

The other issue is the deletion of the two forward facing gun gimbles on the nose of A9-150 as A9-13 did not have these.

Nothing that cant be done over time with a good plan and resources.

Its great to see such rapid progress on this significant airframe, having been in storage for nearly 20+ years.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

I would suggest you contact Andrew Willox c/o the Friends of the RAAF Museum as he has just completed his BE2 reproduction for the RAAF Museum at Point Cook for the 2014 Centenary Celebrations, inclusive of a static reproduction (metal) Renault V8, and should be able to assist in a number of ways.

Regards
Mark Pilkington

Some photos of Andrew’s BE2 Reproduction and his Renault V8 Reproduction within it, in March at the Centenary celebrations of Point Cook.

Andrew is the editor of the Aerogram magazine for the Friends of the RAAF Museum, and could be contacted via their website.

http://www.form.asn.au/contact

Regards

Mark Pilkington

If the elusive Lincoln instrument panel surfaces again on a table this year would someone please obtain the seller/buyer contact details for me please?

Regards
Mark Pilkington

I don’t think that’s how the film industry works.
When someone spends millions, they want a reasonable assurance that they’ll maker it back. So they have to gear it towards the audience.

Yes they do have to ensure the investors get their money back.

I’m happy to trust that Peter Jackson and even Stephen Fry know enough about how the film industry works for us to safely leave the making of this film in their hands rather than them needing a straw poll of this forum respondents as a quasi proxy for the world wide movie going audience.

I suspect they consider they are likely to loose more audience due to boycott from the use of the word “Nigger”, than they will due to boycotts by modifying it to “Digger”.

Their money – their decision.

Its clear “something” has informed/influenced their decision, and “something” clearly caused overdubbing of the original in the USA in 1955, clearly thats not able to be understood from a UK perspective but that doesn’t dismiss its relevance.

This is becoming circular and is redundant, the film makers have made their decision, they don’t appear to need our assistance.

The arguments “for” and “against” have been repeated and exhausted, there is no value in persisting such a pointless debate, – – write to Stephen Fry and Peter Jackson if you feel the need to make the case.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

There’s nothing new about the “problem” with the dog’s name. The original film had it dubbed by Warner Bros as ‘Trigger’ in some releases as even back in the 50s and 60s it was sensitive.

http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article/218251%7C0/The-Dam-Busters.html

When The Dam Busters was released in the U.S., “Warners employed an editing short cut,” according to Peter Van Gelder in That’s Hollywood, “that raised questions in the House of Commons. In two years of preparation for filming the makers aspired to absolute accuracy about the raids, even going so far as to send a copy of the completed script to every surviving member of the Squadron for vetting. But in trimming the action down for the American market the Warners editors spliced in an extra shot of a plane crashing. The only example they could find was a USAF Flying Fortress. This was immediately seized upon by pedantic, mid-fifties Can You Spot-ters and the two offending seconds were promptly excised.”

There was one more minor detail about The Dam Busters that gave Warners pause and it was Guy Gibson’s devoted dog who was beloved by the entire 617 squadron and was named Nigger. In some markets the hound’s name was dubbed as Trigger for obvious reasons.

Apparently “obvious reasons” to most, other than to “pedantic mid-fifties, Can You Spot-ters” smiles,

So it seems sensitivity about the word “Nigger” is not a modern case of PC, but simply recognition of an ongoing offensive word in at least one part of the world, and most likely was considered offensive by many in that part of the world back in 1943 too, as it clearly was in 1955, and is still in 2014.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger

Nigger was the name given to a black Labrador dog that belonged to British Royal Air Force Wing Commander Guy Gibson in the 1940s.[39] In the Second World War Gibson led the successful Operation Chastise attack on dams in Germany. The dog’s name was used as a single codeword whose transmission conveyed that the Möhne dam had been breached. In the 1955 film The Dam Busters about the raid the dog’s name and codeword were mentioned several times. The name was not chosen to be insulting in real life or the film. It was a word common at the time.

Some of the scenes in which the dog’s name is uttered were later shown in the 1982 film Pink Floyd The Wall.[40]

In 1999, the British television network ITV broadcast a censored version with each of the twelve[41] utterances of Nigger deleted. Replying to complaints against its censorship, ITV blamed the regional broadcaster, London Weekend Television, which, in turn, blamed a junior employee as the unauthorised censor. In June 2001, when ITV re-broadcast the censored version of The Dam Busters, the Index on Censorship criticised it as “unnecessary and ridiculous” censorship breaking the continuity of the film and the story.[42] In January 2012 the film was shown uncensored on ITV4, but with a warning at the start that the film contained racial terms from the historical period which some people could find offensive. Versions of the film edited for US television have the dog’s name altered to “Trigger”.[41]

In a remake of The Dam Busters by Peter Jackson announced in 2008, Stephen Fry, the writer of the screenplay, said there was “no question in America that you could ever have a dog called the N-word”. In the remake the dog’s name is “Digger”.[43]

Peter Jackson and his producers are making an entertainment film about an historical event, not “remaking” a 1955 UK Fiction story, and not making a documentary.

They could, as others say, tell all of the important elements of the story without anyone uttering the name of the dog in the film, even if the dog featured heavily in the plot.

They will make it how they see fit, and be judged in the box office, with those offended that the offensive word is replaced, able to stand out side the theatre with placards and protests to bring attention to the massive in-accuracy being portrayed on screen. Somehow however I suspect the film will not be a flop due to inaccuracy over the dog’s name.

There are 44M African Americans in the US population of over 250M, they nearly outnumber the entire 50M population of the UK in their own right as a set of customers to consider, and it would seem from some past comments, a number in the UK wouldn’t go and see a “remake” of the 1955 “original” regardless of the dogs name in anycase, where-as most of those 250M and 44M in the US probably haven’t seen the 1955 “original” and hopefully will want to see the film for its quality and true story.

The investors, producers and director are right to consider the reception of their production in all markets and their largest markets, and not just in the UK.

Its time to move on from the dogs name, that decision has been made.

The real question is, will CGI in the air, and 12 mockup Lancasters on the ground, be realistic enough for some?, or do you just cut your losses and film it in the USA using B-17s painted black with RAF roundels on them?, particularly given the more obvious recognition of that type by the majority of expected viewers – lol

Smiles (with his tongue firmly planted in his cheek!)

A Happy Easter to all.

Mark Pilkington