A10s always make me feel old. As a kid I was at Bentwa ters when the first three arrived (thanks dad) and now A10s are in museums all over the states and also at Duxford (the only preserved A10 outside the US?)

Don’t suppose I’ll get much sympathy from Moggy on this score though 😀

Willow

P.S. Have had to edit this because Bent waters contains a ‘naughty’ word. I hate this ‘PC’ crap.

Lakenheath ?

Kev35 and David Burke.

I now have a better understanding for you idea. I still don’t fully agree with it as every restored aeroplane has been derelict at some stage, but I do see some of the merits in what you say.

And yes, as long as the grass is cut and the aeroplanes are shiny, it is better for isolated collections to have airframes that they cannot look after. My reasoning is as follows, even though these airframes will probably be scrapped eventually, in the meantime they are probably the local areas only site of aviation interest and hence the only place where local schools can visit to give kids a chance to see REAL aeroplanes. It’s the same as with dinosaurs. A kid will have seen Jurassic Park etc, but will never understand the size and presence of a T-Rex unless confronted with a full size skeleton. The same would be true of a Lightning (jet). In a book it is just another aeroplane, but when confronted for real, it has a fantastic appeal. It is every inch a fighter, it’s doing Mach2 when it’s parked. It doesn’t matter to a 7year old whether the Lightning is rotting away under the paint or not, it still looks the part.

OK, so it DOES matter to guys like us whether it’s rotting away or not, but in 10years time that kid has a greater chance of getting a career in aviation if he’s/she’s actually come into contact with the real thing.
There is also the ‘my dad used to be an armourer on Lightnings…. oh, would you like to see one?’ argument. No Lightning, no chance to see.

I’m going on a bit now so I’ll stop, but you see what I mean and I’ll even back you up a bit. I agree that a small collection does not need 2 identical airframes, both rotting away. If you dismantle one you have a greater chance of saving the other.
On the other hand though, have you ever visited Aeroventure at Doncaster? It’s full of the bits other museums throw away, and it’s absolutely fascinating!!!

I will stop this time

Willow

Droptank, I think you’ll find that all of Kermit Weeks restorations are airworthy. It’s the number of unrestored aeroplanes which is the problem, of which the Tempest is one. It was on the flightline at the Lakeland Sun’n’fun show last year, and if I had the technology I would post some very nice shots of it but I haven’t so I can’t!!
It still looks just as good as when it left Duxford, so at least it is being looked after and not just stored in a box.

As for TFCs Beau, I agree with Yak11fan, it will fly eventually, and I look forward to it.

Does anyone know what the longest running airworthy restoration project is?

My vote is for DH Rapide G-AGJG at Duxford which has been under constant restoration since at least 1976!!

Willow

A cull of airframes would cause a number of problems.

Firstly, who is going to decide which airframes to scrap? You can’t just turn up on an owners doorstep and tell him to scrap his Hunter, Vampire, Vulcan etc,etc. The aircraft are private property after all.

Secondly, an decision process is going to take into account the availible resources to look after the airframe. This will naturally rule out culling any airframes within major collections such as the RAF Museum (at Hendon or Cosford) or the IWM. It will therefore be smaller collections that get hurt. Not everyone has easy access to major museums.
I’m sure that anyone who lives in Dumfries would be somewhat annoyed to lose any of their local collection (very nice it is too – well worth a visit if your in the area) simply because another museum near London was better able to look after a similar example.

Thirdly, you lose the chance of saving any spares or components which may be of use in the restoration of other projects in the years to come.

Fourthly, any aircraft can be restored if the money exists, but the aircraft has to exist as well. If I win the Lottery this weekend, I can hardly go out and sponsor the restoration of the RAF Museum Beverley, or Duxford Convair VT29 because they don’t exist, but I could put the money into the IWM for them to restore their Shackleton and Varsity, because at the moment they do still exist.
This situation would only be made worse by further culling.

In conclusion, I am not in favour of an historic airframe cull.

Willow

Thanks Moggy, glad I’m not alone.

Snapper, to which ‘Shack’ are you refering?

Willow

I cant’ be the only person who actually liked Spencer Flacks red fleet can I? The Spitfire ‘G-SPIT’ in particular looked fantastic.

While it is best to have an aeroplane in authentic colours, a good civil scheme can be very attractive. The worst thing to have is a bad reproduction of a military scheme. I’m trying not to take too harsh a line here because, as has been said about TFCs Corsair, mistakes can be made, but I’m talking about the ones where very little effort has been made to be accurate. You see a lot of this with US based warbirds. The ‘as long as it has roundels on it, it’ll be fine’ sort of thing.

A good (I stress, good) civil scheme is fine by me, as long as it isn’t on the only airworthy example of any type.

Willow

The art of 3-pointing a taildragger seems to be almost dead these days. You certainly don’t see much of it.

It was entertaining at the Mustang meet at Kissimmee in 1999 to see nearly the whole length of a massive concrete runway being needed for landings. We said at the time that we’d like to see some of these american warbird pilots try to land on the grass at Duxford without ending up on the M11!!

Apparently (rumour only) Steven Grey was present at this event, and had quite a discussion about ‘wheeling it on’ with some of the local P51 pilots who were adamant that it is much safer to wheel than 3-point.

Willow