Kev35,

I apreciate your ’emotional’ response, but my point is that that is just what it is – emotional, ie all in your head! You don’t need to actually touch the object to make a connection with it. I get just as much of a buzz by being able to say “today I saw a wartime Spitfire” as by saying “today I groped a wartime Spitfire.”

I also agree with you as regards veterans. I don’t have a problem with someone like that getting into an aircraft. However, if they were do to so, it would be with appropriate staff on hand (not least so that any recollections which resulted could be recorded). The veteran would ideally be given cotton gloves (no more of an inconvenience than flying gloves) which would therefore eliminate the potential damage of the object being touched. However, even if gloves weren’t worn, the number of veterans are tiny compared to the overall number of visitors, so any damage is minimal. Whgat I’m trying to get across is that the huge number of people who have a surrepticious touch are the ones doing the damage. You might see this as an acceptable risk, but you’re not the one spending thousands of pounds every year repairing the problem, when there are plenty of airframes that desperately need that cash spent on them instead.

AS JDK so rightly notes, even if you provide something nearby that can be touched (with I think is the best solution), there will always be a few idiots who break the rules. Such rules aren’t there to deliberately ruin someone’s run. They’re there to preserve our aviation heritage and we should all be comitted to that aim. Not undermining it for a tactile thrill that achieves nothing.

I do agree with engaging kids. To me that is probably the primary aim of a museum. But kids will enjoy handling replicas and if they are taught not to touch the real objects and why, and not told by ignorant parents that it’s OK to touch and that it doesn’t cause damage, then the kids won’t mind and they’ll still make that lifetime connection that we all want to see.

And lastly, flying aircraft are a different kettle of fish, because they are always going to have parts replaced in order to keep them airworthy. The simple act of flying means they are out in different weather ocnditions, heat, etc, but the airframe is constantly maintained. Originality is a different issue between a warbird and a completely original museum aircraft.

Alastair,

If you ever get a chance, visit the National Museums of Scotland’s conservation and storage facility at Granton. They do free tours every Tuesday. There’s a display there (which used to be in the Museum of Scotland) with bits of plaster, paper, cloth, metal, etc with one half covered adn the other exposed. Every time each item is touched, it adds one to a digital counter. It’s frightening to see just how few touches it makes for even the metal to degrade. When you think about the millions of visitors somewhere like Duxford gets every year (with each visitor thinking “I’m only one person. It won’t matter if I touch”) the damage done by touching such objects can be tremendous.

DamienB,

As regards your comments. Yes a patch can be used to replace the damaged part. But this means the museum has to constantly keep spending money to repair aircraft for no good reason when they could spend that money on more important projects – like saving Beverleys or whatever.

Also, the further we get in time from the original date of the aircraft’s construction, the less original an aircraft is gonig to get, with more and more patches. You eventually end up with nothing more than a full scale model, rather than an original aircraft. Musuems such as Duxford have a legal responsibility to preserve these objects and touching them does not do the objects any good.

At the end of the day, they feel like metal. The spirit of an aircraft can be just as easily gleaned by looking at it and letting your imagination run away, rather than giving it a good old grope which does no-one any favours.

I take your point, Moggy, but I didn’t class her as the presenter, in the same way that the German pilot and the chap who helped build the decoy weren’t the presenter either. They were individuals brought in for that specific programme (and no other) for their knowledge. The lady in question was, IIRC, an ex-photographic interpreter.

To me, the presenter is the person or persons who front the programme for the whole series. I admit there are exceptions, but generally these days they are mostly pretty thick (or is that pretty and thick 🙂 ) and just there to provide a nice face and some banal commentary.

Originally posted by AdamK
do people really need to touch the a/c? they’re nearly all made of metal, like any car etc.

Whilst I agree with the comment that aircraft shouldn’t be sterile objects, it is indeed vital that people don’t touch them. What the general public don’t realise is that the sweat on their skin is mildly acidic. After several thousand peope a day have touched an object, it’s basically like pouring diluted acid on it. The latter wouldn’t be allowed, so why the former? We of all people should be supporting the no-touch policy, since we are supposed to be the ones most in favour of the preservation of aircraft.

Certainly, there should be replicas and other objects which can be touched, but it has to be clear what can be touched, and what can’t. I strongly sympathise with you, AdamK. I know only too well how difficult it is trying to stop people damaging irreplaceable objects against a museum management who are disinterested in the problem.

Lastly, I agree 100% with your comment about what’s the point in touching. If an object is made of metal, what do people really expect it to feel like? The stupidity of people never ceases to amaze me. 😡

For anyone interested in the subject of bombing decoys, it might be worth getting ahold of an excellent book on the subject, Fields of Deception. This book, by Colin Dobinson, was published by Methuen on behalf of English Heritage. Although it has apparently been selling well, it was remaindered quite quickly and can now be picked up for a few quid. It has details of all the sites, drawings of what they looked like, etc.

Incidentally, there is a companion volume entitled AA Command, dealing with anti-aircraft defences and other books in the series covering most of the types of wartime defences in the UK are to come. The next is due to be about radar. Needless to say, I can’t wait!

Originally posted by Bruce
Malt Whisky – anyone tried ‘Caol Isla’ – deadly….

Sorry to be a pedant, Bruce, but this should be Caol Ila. It’s the best Islay single malt by far. And co-incidentally I just happen to have an almost empty bottle of the stuff sitting in front of me right now! How did that get there? 😀

Originally posted by EN830
The SBO actually called it a Stalag ‘Luft’ at one point

I thought he had said something along the lines of “I know you think you should be in a Stalag Luft, but I should be in an officer’s camp. We all just have to make the best of things.” Not an exact quote but the gist of it. Perhaps I misheard, but I didn’t think he was referring to that camp as a Stalag Luft. Certainly, the board placed round his neck for the ID photo said Stalag XXXIX (or was it XXIX).