Doughnut, Yes the spotlight does look bad in that photo. I agree. But the photo makes it look worse than it is in reality because there was a fairly long exposure on the photo causing the flared look. When you’re actually there in the museum you don’t notice any glaring lights like the photo shows. When the museum was set up there was absolutely no photography allowed at all, so it has to be remembered that they obviously didn’t set up the lighting with photographers in mind and that effect the light had on my photo is something they would never have considered. On the most part, the museum’s lighting is very condusive for non-flash photos in any case.
When you’re actually there you are not presented with harsh glaring lights, not that you would conciously notice anyway.

I think their lighting set-up gives a moody, nostalgic feel to the aircraft. It is more artistic, and the darkness around them disguises the hangar walls and ceiling, giving an effect that each aircraft is in a little space of its own away from the ‘hangar environment’ and the lighting draws you into each vignette in a really different way from how you’d see the aircraft in a fully lit space.

I think the darkening down of the RAFM Bomber Command hall has attempted some innovation along the same lines, but it would work a lot better if they set up the spotlights better to create a more dramatic effect, like in the RNZAF Museum and in the Australian museum where they’ve done the same with their Lancaster.

One thought, I wonder if the museum would consider setting up a ‘photographer’s hour’ each day, where say at 9am-10am they turn all the lights on and allow the tripod-bearers to go for it. The mad keen photogs could get their shots in that advertised hour each day, and after 10am the lights could be dimmed again. Just a thought. Maybe one of you could suggest it.

Ashley, thanks for your thoughts. It is interesting that some big museums allow in sunlight, and I really wonder if many museums consider the issue of UV light as irrelevent. All museums have different policies and philosophies despite how much information is available to them. All I can say is what I wrote earlier is what I was told about the RNZAF’s policy, and I guess that their policy might well be overkill in other museum’s opinions. Maybe they’re all aware of UV effects but consider the effects are not worth doing anything about as they are so gradual.

Some of the RNZAFM’s spare planes that have been stored in hangars lit by both artificial and natural light for a couple of decades do look decidedly faded – the Bristol Freighter is one which went straight from service to the Museum. So its paintwork would have been pretty much ok when it got there as they usually select the best example to preserve. But the paintwork looks decidedly shabby, and has faded considerably. It actually looks like it has had a bit of outdoor storage but I don’t believe that is the case at all. (can anyone argue/correct this?). Whereas planes in No 1 hangar, the main museum, look as good as new after 17 years in that environment.

On the aircraft mentioned as deteriating at Duxford, aircraft can be stored outdoors for a considerable time. Yes they do deteriate over that time, but they are always repairable and restorable. There is no need to scrap them. If they can rebuild Hurricanes, etc, that crashed 60 years ago to flying, etc., you can restore a largely complete plane that has been stored outside to static condition.

A curator at Motat in Auckland recently pointed out to me that aircraft are meant to be stored outdoors. That’s what they’re designed for. Hangars are mainly for maintenance, not storage. Just the fact that the storage does some harm doesn’t mean it cannot be rectified. Motat’s Solent and Lancaster are very good examples. They were outdoors for decades, and were in a much worse state than the Duxford examples – particularly because they were in sea air and humid wet Auckland weather. Now both are restored to immaculate condition and will remain so since they’re now inside and cared for. The Sunderland has been outdoors for over 10 years more than the Solent and is worse, but it too is now being restored. That plane literally had grass growing on it, but in a year or so I believe it’ll look as good and be as structurally as good as when it arrived there in the 1960’s.

Those B25’s seen recently on here are another example. Many here showed outrage and there was talk of scrapmen soon, but I thought, “They’re not as bad as some I’ve seen that are now back to pristine after some TLC.” They can be restored, anything can.

So don’t despair, yes it is sad and annoying that the planes are allowed to deteriorate, for whatever reason (and it is usually lack of funds), but they can be rectified. All you need is the right people with a vision and the money. Perhaps all who are so concerned should band together and form a restoration or fundraising group yourselves if you can. Whatever happens, in this day and age there is no need to scrap them, that is the real crime, not the fact that they got into such a state.

Andy, I would be disappointed if I made a special trip to any museum and found it closed. But then on both my trips to the UK this exact thing happened in many places, which really did pee me off. You see something in a guidebook or brochure, make the trip to it (usually costly on a train) and find it’s closed. Lots of Brits used to joke about coming to New Zealand on the weekend and finding it was closed. Well Britain closes most of its its tourist attractions for the whole winter it seems!! 😡 😡

All I can say is it was explained to me by a good mate on the RNZAF Museum staff at the time that I lived there that the lighting can affect the artifacts. His job meant he was responsible for such matters, and he knew his stuff, having studied the mistakes and triumphs of many other museums round the world.

According to what he’d found out from various studies, the interior lighting can indeed damage artifacts, albeit very much more slowly than flashbulbs and sunlight. It makes sense to me, UV damages almost everything. Yes UV from sunlight more is damaging, but think about it, those planes simply sit all day under hot lights blazing away for probably up to ten hours. Add that up over the years, and you’re soon going to have to do some repainting and repair. Paint, like almost everything, breaks down under UV eventually.

And remember, a museum is in the game for the long term, not just for the two hours you’re there with your camera.

Where’s our resident museum plane duster offer, maybe she can offer some thoughts????

As a small aside to this…Most aircraft hangars, certainly in the military anyway, use both flouro and sodium lighting, the former being very bright but the latter being constant to counteract the former’s flicker, preventing people walking into moving props synched with a stobe flouro light. How many museums do we see in ex-hangars using flouros, quite a few. They are much worse than other types of lighting I’m told. A hangar filled with flouros reaching every point in the room with its light is certainly more damaging than strategically placed spotlights, as you’ll see below.

Also I want to say that I think that the backdrop of wartime London behind the German stuff in the BofB hall looks great by the way, much more innovative in the display of the planes than when I visited 11 years ago. I was rather disappointed in some aspects of Hendon’s displays when I went there, though the fact that I was seeing the awesome collection at all was overwhelmingly more important and outweighed the lack of creativity in some of the displays. I do wish they’d ditch the fake grass blast pens that the Spit and Hurri sit in though, they look like an Airfix set.

Here is an example of the RNZAF Museum, taken hastily by me with my rather old non-digital camera on a rickety tripod without a flash… just to give you guys an idea of how it is lit in the main hangar.

How about this chap?
http://rogerbeckwith.members.beeb.net/dcs/rowe.htm

And this chap
http://www.bantamspast.co.uk/TheGloryFades/cityheroesofworkeeling.html

Here’s a link also to Stanley Matthews
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Stanley%20Matthews

Just a thought, maybe these chaps could come up with some names – the RAF Football Referee Association
http://www.footballreferee.org/web/raffra/

Perhaps James is in a rowboat making his way staedily across the Pacific after hearing a certain Walrus may be coming to New Zealand. 🙂

In a couple of years the Memorial Flight will have Dr1 wth a 130 Clerget, Morane AI with a 130 Clerget, SE5a with a 180hp Hispano, SPAD XIII with a 220hp HIsso and a DVII with a 185 BMW. Are we going to have fun?
Melv

Which Memorial Flight? :confused:

You surely can’t mean the BBMF? Is there another Memorial Flight then? 🙂 😉

You mention the SE5A and Snipe becoming standard British fighters. It’s funny, when I think of World War One British planes I always think of the Avro 504K and the Sopwith Camel and Pup. They were also pretty standard were they not?

Actually I lied a bit there, the first thing I think of is actually Blackadder and Baldrick arrsing about in some of the RFC’s finest! Then I think of the real RFC and their planes. (Adrian Edmondson played the greatest depiction of Richtofen I’ve ever seen!!) 🙂 😎