Snoopy7422Spot-on.
Planemike;- Thank goodness I’m not called Brian……lol…! :p….and no, none of the enthusiasts I know are Spotters, and I rarely see them. Maybe I’m not tuned-in. Not a negative view at all, just a dim view of certain aspects which can become intrusive. As I said Live & Let Live, – no problemo. I’ve frankly had more problems with people using the airstrip to walk their dogs…:rolleyes:
There is however a sort of bizarre mentality at work at times. I’ve shown spotters/enthusiasts around hangars and even taken them for a jolly, (Hardly a ‘negative view..!) but that weird ‘It’s my right’ attitude is going to get very short shrift anywhere. That’s probably why they suffer from the occasional wind-up. It’s not that funny really, but the reaction of the spotters is, lol. I think though, poor attitude is more evident on ‘Anorak Central’ (The web) than in ‘real life’. Likewise, my point was that someone who happens to have an interest in something doesn’t make them an expert. Not that you’d think that, reading the web, where merely having an interest rapidly confers ‘aviation historian’ status. 🙂 I do agree though, that some amateurs in any field can become hugely knowledgeable.
Incidentally, ‘Anorakism’ isn’t confined to spotters. Some pilots use the radio like a CB & not only use strips without permission, but can get quite miffed if they ask and permission isn’t given. It’s that ‘It’s my right’ idea again. There are often sensitive planning issues of which they are wholly insensitive and which they may not have experienced when operating from Licensed aerodromes.
We keep restoration work away from the airfield and register a/c obscurely – pretty standard fayre, for all the self-evident reasons mentioned in the previous posts. It’s not ‘anti’ anyone in the least, just a preferable modus operandi, especially for a small set-up. It’s all gravy when the things done, and folks can then enjoy or nit-pick to their hearts content. I’m past caring.:diablo:
I’ve actually long been of the view that there is a huge surplus of untapped energy and enthusiasm, not to mention talent, that could be much better channelled, rather than kept at arms length. Perhaps a sort of enthusists ‘volunteer corps’…? Museums, airfields, restorers and operators might benefit from thus tapping-in, and enthusiasts might get up-close and personal for free. Just my three ha’peth. The only problem is that the myriad of current organisations out there are not tapping into this huge resource. Maybe one of them could take-up the challenge. It worked for the clear-up after the recent riots, – ‘Blitz-Spirit’ and all that. It just takes a bit of organisation to square the circle. 🙂
Snoopy7422Great News.
Brilliiant…! 🙂
Snoopy7422The Clue is….
For the most part, these projects are private. The clue is in the word. The views expressed here that owners have some sort of ‘duty’ to keep-up some sort of running commentary are illogical. They are not run as some sort of public information service and there is no obligation whatsoever on the part of owners/rebuilders. As several people have said, – when the project is finished, ‘all is revealed’ anyway, so what is the problem? None, I would say, other than curiosity and impatience. It’s entirely obvious that builders/restorers don’t want hordes of people turning-up and wasting their valuable time. They don’t want their security compromised, and they don’t want the prices of parts to go up either.
As for this ‘custodianship’ talk, again, it’s illogical. Owners own the projects, and without their HUGE committment, things just wouldn’t get started, let alone finshed. In many, many cases, there was little or nothing to start with. Many projects are ‘created’ – by these very people. If you want to be a ‘custodian’, then you can put-up or…. Those that can, do… etc. Enthusiasts should be very grateful that there are people willing and able to restore old a/c, especially in the current economic climate..!
Lastly, in todays world, critique is a factor. Everything that gets-out will go onto the web and be the subject of comment from a raft of often embarrassingly uninformed people. The armchair ‘experts’ can pick-over the projects when they are finished.
Lastly, I’m not a fan of silly paint schemes, but – whilst some may defend their freedom to comment adversely on them, I’ll defend my freedom to say they are nit-picking anoraks. If they want it their way, let them build one and finish it ‘their way’. I look forward to seeing their finished projects. :rolleyes:
Snoopy7422What’s ‘Football’…?
I’m pleased to say that I have no interest whatsoever in either TV soaps or football, and, as far as I recall, there have been very few incidents of alcohol – crazed aviation enthusiasts fighting in the streets or invading airfield if their favourite machine didn’t turn up…! I think interests and hobbies are psychologically positive and therapeutic, especially as age strips away some of life’s other stabilising influences. Anyone who drops-in to forums like this is almost certainly, by definition an ‘enthusiast’. It’s all a bit ‘anoraky’ at times if truth be told. Spotting just naturally fits into the OCD category more easily. In my experience Spotters don’t normally cause major issues, nor is antipathy towards them manifested to any meaningful degree. Live and Let Live.
Mr. Tweeds comments above are, however, the most telling. Spotting may be entertaining for some, but ‘History’ it surely ain’t. It’s a normally very minor detail as Tweed says. Likewise, a growing number of enthusiasts are referring to themselves with the soubriquet of ‘Aviation Historian’. Er, no. We’ll leave the capitals to the true academics thanks. The rest of us are simply ‘aviation enthusiasts’. Spotters just tend to be more noticeable by choice. The assertion that the Spotters are some sort of fiscal keystone to what we might term as the ‘movement’ is patently fanciful too. I know a lot of aviation enthusiasts, and not a single one is a ‘Spotter’.
The notion that owners or operators of a/c owe any duty whatsoever to Spotters not to mess with a/c serials etc, is ludicrous in the extreme. It may be irritating to some who have a mental logjam, however, one might argue that it actually spices Spotting up..! 🙂
Here’s an interesting thought to end with though;- What if, all of a sudden, there was a group of ‘automobile enthusiasts’ who were (Automobile) ‘Spotters’. What if they stood outside your house, noted your every movements, took photographs of you, and then posted all this information about you on the web..? Actually, a lot of people would get pretty hacked-off with that, and a few cameras might well get….well…you get the idea…! Try doing that in Brixton or Toxteth….:rolleyes: So, if people have a Private airstrip, it’s just that. Having some berk list what is kept there, how to find it (No matter what huge lengths the owners have gone to to hide or conceal the hangar etc), and when it is used IS a security issue (Plenty of examples on the web if you look.). That’s actually not a rant against Spotting or Spotters per se, far from it, – but it does illustrate that fastidiously noting traffic at LHR and a PRIVATE strip are chalk and cheese.
Snoopy7422It might have been once.
Its a different world nowadays, and that is not always a bad thing.
For example, a significant project I am currently working on actually involves MOD archaeologists, service personnel, MOD/JCCC and a registered (aviation related) charity who will solely benefit from the recovered finds – but the project “ownership” and licence holding will be by a privately organised and funded recovery team comprising those individuals who you criticise.
It always pays, I find, to make pronouncements on such matters from an informed viewpoint Snoopy7422…rather than one where bald and baseless assertions are made.
I’m all in favour of sensible regulations and in this area, as they were lacking in the early days. I’ve been accused here, rather rudely, of things which I didn’t actually say. I’m not against ‘wreckovery’ (Archeology is a somewhat overblown term for such recoveries – even the Time Team, bless them acknowledged that.) per se. I just think it needs good justification. (Hardly a revolutionary concept…!) So do plenty of other people by the way, so I’m far from alone in that opinion. I didn’t mention any individuals either, nor did I even have any in mind. I was talking about a principle. If you disagree, fine. We live in a democracy, – for now at least.
I can understand those wishing to build a facsimile of an extinct a/c for which no records exist, such as the Whirlwind for example, being more keen to acquire rare data. This does not apply to many other types, such as for example, the Spitfire, for which a stupefying amount of data exist, in sufficient detail, should one desire, to build an airworthy example of any one of a myriad of versions. Actually, folks already do. Either way, I still don’t think it’s worth disturbing human remains if there is any risk this may happen. That’s not a ‘pronouncement’, bald or otherwise, it’s a freely-help opinion, from someone with no vested interest, which many others share. Or is no one permitted to disagree? :rolleyes: Either way I think we’ve exhausted the topic now.
Snoopy7422Yeah, but think of all the eBay sellers that would go out of business without a steady stream of mangled, corroded scrap metal (with authentic BoB provenance, of course ;)) to flog off!
Quite. It’s a cottage industry don’t y’know. Now, where’s my scrap bin……:rolleyes:
Snoopy7422How else are groups like ourselves going to be able to create an extinct type other then by trying to track down crash sites.In our case with only 118 aircraft actually built and the majority or crash sites under water it is to say the least a challenge and for most of them there is not a great deal of detail on the location and in the case of 5 of them we are having to go through German War time archives.
Recovery of wrecks has its place provided it is done correctly and what is recovered is treated properly if not leave it where it is I would agree as without proper preservation it wont last very long.
Mike E
I sympathise greatly, but if you have drawings, you are sorted. It’s all do-able with enough time and effort. If you don’t, then you are going struggle bigtime, and a few bits of mangled scrap wont tell you enough, just enough to tease you…:dev2: Either way, it’s a huge challenge and good on you for taking it on. I’m working on a/c to fly that were almost unique and with no crash sites at all to fall back on. It’s tough. I’m not criticising recovering a/c per se. Just questioning digging a hole when one already knows what’s in it, when it will add nothing to what is already known. I’ve obviously touched on some raw nerves with my comments.
Snoopy.
Snoopy7422Sleeping Dogs.
B.W;- Everyone IS entitled to their view, and I stand by my comment. There’s also a world of difference between documenting and digging……:rolleyes: Even from my isolated experience, there are a surprising number of sites which do not feature in the current consciousness, so you’ll have years of healthy rambling ahead yet. As for relatives, well, once the bodies, or body-parts are exhumed, it’s a done deal that the issue has to be addressed. They are all effectively War Graves when there are remains. It doesn’t mean there’s a need for a Cenotaph over every one, but out of respect, I think it more dignified to let sleeping dogs lie. I had relatives and friends who were at the sharp end of these incidents in the war. Jam jars and hoses wasn’t just a turn of phrase. As for those without remains mixed-in with the shredded debris, well, why dig a hole when one already knows whats in it..? On the other hand, there certainly amazingly whole aircraft that still turn up from forests and lakes in Russia and such like, which is a whole different ball-game.
Snoopy7422Third Man.
Well said Harry Lime. Far too much twaddle talked in forums generally by people whose knowledge is zip. This is especially the case before any official report is published. :rolleyes:
Snoopy7422..then again…
…not all crash sites are military…
I sounds as though this whole process is suffering from the the ‘Dead hand of bureaucracy’ malaise. A clear, simple, concise process is always preferable. Certainly, in the early days of ‘wreckology’ it seemed any fool with a JCB was digging-up wreckage, often with remains still inside…a ‘free for all’.
However, even today, it does rather beggar the question in many cases…just what is the point of digging-up yet another wreck-site? More often than not, there are many complete, preserved examples. There is a fairly comprehensive document trail too, with records available to all. There is nothing to be learned. One mangled Spit that went-in at 500mph looks much like any other. If there are remains, it’s normally a matter dealt with seventy years ago and settled. Frankly, just carrying-on digging-up any and every crash-site found seems a very fetishistic and obsessive exercise.
Of course there are exceptions;- Found a complete Stirling in a cold freshwater lake on the Russian Tundra….? Great. Go for it. One more mangled Hurricane or Spit with the teeth of some poor ****** embedded in the gunsight..? Utterly pointless and vulgar, leave it alone;- a point that long overdue to be made.
Snoopy7422Oh The Irony Of It…
Great efforts were made in the war to protect the likes of Brummagem from bombing. After the war, the council, working hand in hand with the property developers, did far more damage than the Luftwaffe ever did. Often the baby very much went out with the bathwater. The old Birmingham Lending Library would be a classic example, or Snow Hill Station. This is just a continuance of that trend. They will destroy genuine heritage, then create false plastic ‘Heritage’, and ‘Heritage Trails’, and silly little brown sign that state the bleedin’ obvious, such as when we are entering Warwickshire – it’s ‘Shakespeare Country’ – no kiddin’……really…??? Such people know the price of everything, and the value of nothing. Castle Bromwich quite rightly has had it’s fair share of the plaudits for it’s efforts during the war. Sadly, the many other complexes who toiled away during the war to produce a/c have been neglected, Longbridge being a prime case in point. Cofton Hacket was also used regularly by the likes of Cobham too before the war.
Snoopy7422…
Steve Noujaim flys/instructs for Ultimate High at Kemble, flies warbirds at Duxford and pays for his beer as an airline pilot, not to mention doing a bit of record-breaking……! 🙂
Snoopy7422Phil Meeson.
Phil is still with us. He went off and started his own airline as I recall. I remember his Displays at Sywell in his little red S1 when he first started. Lovely feller.
Snoopy7422Snoopy – I should imagine the RAFM has a constitution which sets out what its aims to do. Judging by its title its pretty clear cut what would tend to come within it’s remit. Of course it would be easy to expand its remit – however where do you draw the line ? Should for instance it include a Cessna 172 at Hendon if its my wishes when I die and I give it a lump of money?
With some big gaps still in the collection and the evolving RAF to commemorate i think the RAFM has enough on its plate just trying to portray what has flown with roundels on.
Essentially I agree, but there is always crossover for many reasons. Factually, the RAFM is almost exclusively made up of ex-RAF items. Then again, will you exclude the USAF and German a/c etc…? Just because it’s called the RAFM does not have to wholly restrict it’s content. Neither are the RAFM coerced. They make balanced decisions and by and large they get it right. Staff sponsored by generous donors benefit all of us. Have you made such a donation? Neither have I. I’m merely pointing out that there have been some rather idealistic comments and that exactly what is, or is not included in a museums collection is not enshrined in Law.
.
There have been many critical comment on the web about what is and is not included in the Shuttleworth Collection, but it’s not a State-owned concern. They may (..and must) do as they see fit and act as required in order to ensure that their finances remain viable, which has not always been the case. Now, more than ever, the financial aspects must take front of stage. In an ideal world, sure, I’d swap a few a/c around, but all things considered, the UK enthusiast is VERY well served, so personally, I’m very relaxed about such matters.
Snoopy7422Perspective.
Factually speaking, the UK is pretty-well served by aviation museums, and I’m sure that many nations must look-on with a degree of envy. Many are even FREE…! (Duxford isn’t, but I believe the RAFM is, which is amazing value…) No, everything isn’t 100.00% ideal, but that’s looking from a very ‘anorakey’ enthusiasts viewpoint. ‘We’ all seem to forget this sometimes.
.
BTW;- Some have alluded, directly or indirectly, to the RAFM’s inclusion of Civil types. I wasn’t aware there was a law proscribing such inclusions..? Hasn’t Civil and Military aviations progress been inextricably intertwined, especially in earlier years…??? (At least until the demise of all our late-great manufacturers.) Furthermore, for example, the Mew at Hendon and the Swift at Cosford were privately-funded. Offhand, I haven’t seen any thanks directed to the donors…. It’s nice to know that a/c are in safe stable hands in such unsettled times.
.
As we enter a period of huge unknown economic territory, possibly even leading to (Heaven forfend.) a Depression, we should be very thankful for what we have and for those who are prepared to contribute time and money to our heritage. I was out and about yesterday. Many empty shops, many pubs closed, those that are open with near-empty car parks, the streets eerily empty. We are a small country with a rich aviation heritage that is, in truth, predominantly, very well catered-for.
Sign In
