I for one have never said nor thought that the story of training aircrews is unimportant. However I don’t think it’s anywhere near as important as the story of the wartime operational crews who flew Vickers Wellingtons in Bomber Command and Coastal Command.

I would far prefer to see this aircraft used as a ‘prop’ in a ‘theatrical’ way, as Eddie puts it, to tell the story of what many thousands of men did in WWII for our freedom, the sacrifices they made and the experiences they endured against the flak, searchlights, night fighters and other rigours of the bombing campaign. Peacetime training’s story doesn’t come anywhere near that in historical importance, no matter where you’re from.

Surely the Wellington will educate people about this much greater story if they left it in wartime Bomber Command colours. Removing the colours and focusing on training detracts from the Wellington’s primary and most important role. Do we want future generations who visit the museum to think it was a mere trainer?

As for the idea that the RAF Museum’s policy has changed on theatrical props, if this is the case then why is it very recently they have purchased several replica aircraft from New Zealand rather than rely on displaying purely genuine artefacts? Perhaps some replica training postwar aircraft could fill the gap they feel they need to fill, however there are loads of Devons and Chipmunks around to do this, surely?

It just seems to me that taking this aircraft away from representing a wartime Bomber Command aircraft is yet another of these revisionist, apologist moves to appease the vocal minority who think Bomber Command were evil. It stinks. The Wellington was the backbone of the RAF through the first half of the war, flown by those who fought for our freedom. Representing the Wellington as a mere trainer from the postwar period means so much less. If there were fifty of them around in museums it wouldn’t matter. This is the only complete example though.

The section of Wellington on the wall was one of the things that intrigued me, as its the piece removed from the top of the tree at Wandlebury woods that it had crashed into fifty years previously. I had heard about it but it was the first time i’d actually seen it.

I believe that section is from the No. 75 (NZ) Squadron aircraft flown by Brian McNamara from here in Cambridge, New Zealand, which hit the tree and high ground on approach to Bassingbourn where he was to drop off a pilot and pick up another to return to Feltwell. Sadly all aboard except the Rear Gunner perished. It’s amazing to me that the section of Brian’s aircraft is preserved, a reminder of the sacrifices made by the young men from my home town. You can read Brian’s story on my website here:
http://www.cambridgeairforce.org.nz/Brian%20Mcnamara.htm

The whole thing – Flying Legends – is lazy use of language. A legend is a tale, not a thing like an aeroplane.

As the airshow is designed to use aeroplanes as a way to tell the history and stories of the various aircraft to the public and pass on the legendary stories to future generations, I see nothing wrong with the title. The airshow does so using the aircraft as props to illustrate the stories, which are told by the commentators, the programme, the website, the DVD’s, etc.

The same stories could be told without the aeroplanes and the legends passed down but I doubt as many people would turn up to hear them without the fighters.