Read the forum code of contact
By: - 19th February 2004 at 19:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes - too precious to leave outside. I don't like hung aircraft; bad idea. But it's a better idea than leaving them outside to rot, which is the alternative. If you have concerns, discuss it with IWM Duxford - they've learned a lot and are a more listening culture. If you feel so strongly about it, give 'em enough dosh to build a big enough hanger to put them all inside on the ground.
Cheers
By: - 19th February 2004 at 19:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Quite agree! :eek:
Stupid plan!
By all means hang stuff up there but not planes which people want to get close to and see properly. Is this the one that was hung un the science museum?
By: - 19th February 2004 at 19:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Of course it's a stupid plan. Probably ranks up alongside the Blackpool Vulcan, the A1 Lightning, Duxford's Shackleton and God knows how many other airframes which are outside, neglected and rotting away. I don't see a particular problem in hanging an airframe if it ensures its safety. Robbo's right about the way in which an exhibit is posed. That makes all the difference. I know the purists will say they are badly damaged when they are rigged for hanging, but they're not as badly damaged as any of the examples I've given above.
Regards,
kev35
By: - 19th February 2004 at 19:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ok, I've carmed down abit since I came home and read my post. I agree that there is a problem with available space I just wish they would hang something less precious like the Tornado. I don't think 'modifying' something as rare as a Mossie or Lysander so it can be hung is the best way forward.
By: - 19th February 2004 at 21:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Cheers Adam, the 3rd point you made about the airframes not being damaged has put my mind at ease alot more. Guess I should follow my own advice in life and stop reacting and ask some questions first!
By: - 19th February 2004 at 21:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
OK
Here's some facts from the IWM (not speculation) as from a press conference on AirSpace held which I attended. The aircraft suspended will not be modefied or damaged in any way. Any changes made will be reversable - some extra innovation has been thought of, such as sourcing 'new' u/c legs for the Dove so they can be modified for the suspension, the aircraft's own legs going into store.
The American Air Museum aircraft all have reverseable susspension methods - however, those ugly appaling collars* around some are to do with the dynamics of the AAM building - if they weren't there, the a/c would be 'pulled apart' by the hanging cables. This is another strike against the AAM, but IWM have learned thewir lesson, so the hanging process for AirSpace will be different.
I suspect that the Mozzie is being hung because it's missing engines and other parts, and, after it's accident, is a bit of a 'bitser'.
Original plan was to hang the TSR2; not done because some key bits (I think 'holding the wings on'!?!) are missing. The heaviest a/c to be hung, with it's engines is the CF100 at 11 tons - I dunno what a MCRA flick-knike weighs, and I don't care, but I don't think it was an option.
The Mozzie hung at Lambeth had the wing cut off inboard of the stbd engine. The whole thing (both wing bits and fuse - dunno about engines - I presume them too) were sold to TFC at DX. Aparently it's now gone to the US, and I'm not clear there's any real facts on it's status there... That was discussed in another thread sometime earlier.
Hanging is usually and in my opinion always a bad compromise, but I support IWM in their efforts, through AAM, AirSpace etc in getting their a/c inside asap. I agree with MikeJ in that La Grande Gallerie is the best example of this method - but it is simply not possible for (say) a researcher to get access to the a/c without it being lowered to the ground which does not happen for this kind of requirement. Milestones is flawed, as will AirSpace be, by inadequate walkways to see the a/c from different angles. In Milestones, the very important and rare Sikorsky R-4 is almost impossible to get close to; the equally important and rarer Tempest TT has only a limited number of angles to view it from. The walkways in the GG at Le Bourget would not be an option in the UK today (rightly) because of H&S legislation and 'adapted access' - something I support, but raises the cost of putting such things in, and in this case (AirSpace) rulled it out. (I neally slid off one of the GG walkway ramps!) I'm glad I have my pics of the R-4 cockpit already; cos I'm not getting any from there for the next few years! The plastic 'Typhoon' in Milestones shouln't be there, and it looks like a plastic replica - minus points.
HTH,
Cheers
*My adjectives!
By: - 19th February 2004 at 21:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And welcome to the forum, DGH! :)
Cheers
By: - 19th February 2004 at 22:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A: Get those aircraft inside!
B: Those aircraft that are hung - preserve the integrity of the airframe.
I understand that Duxford is doing both of these.
WELL DONE DUXFORD. My kids and Grandkids will get to see anything under a roof.
By: - 19th February 2004 at 23:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My understanding is that the airframes to be 'hung' will be modified in a way that won't effect the airframe should it ever be brought down. Original parts will be recorded and stored away. A proffessional job mr thinks
The only thing that upsets me about hanging aircraft is that they can't be brought out in to the sunshine once in a while!:(
By: - 20th February 2004 at 00:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Duxfords Mosquito TA719 October 15th 1989, prior to painting, showing the fibre glass cowlings and props.
By: - 20th February 2004 at 02:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Interesting theory, being able to take bits of the skin off a Mossie.
Does anybody there know it's made of wood?
No, I don't like aeroplanes being hung up.
By: - 20th February 2004 at 09:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
C'omon DHFan, your comment does you no credit. :rolleyes: ;)
I rather think that IWM DX is quite well aware of the construction of the Mozzie. Perhaps you'd rather they scrap it or leave it outside?
No, I don't like hanging a/c either, but I'm not a luddite - compromises are often the only way ahead.
As our resident dH (sic) Fan, wouild you like to let us know where the slinging points are on a Mosquito for aircraft transportation & recovery? Or Bruce may wish to comment.
Let's be constructive here.
Cheers
By: - 20th February 2004 at 09:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Mossie is relatively easy to sling, especially when all the engine panels are fibreglass anyway (!)
The slinging points are the engine bearer pick ups, that bolt to the main spar, and also the flap ram pick ups on the rear spar.
I'm not sure where the CoG will be with no engines in it, but it should be possible to use those points without worrying about a sling on the tail. If the tail is used, there is a hatch on the tailcone (fibreglass), through which you can gain access to the tailplane support tubes. Should be simple enough.
Bruce
By: - 20th February 2004 at 09:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks for that Bruce.
IIRC, the big risk with Mozzies is if you take the wing out, but don't brace across the bomb-bay doors, you end up with a 2 part fuselage with fold option?
By: - 20th February 2004 at 09:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ha - something like that
In fact the fold option is deleted in this case. It becomes a horrendous splintering of wood option, with expensive repercussions.
Ask the guys who moved TJ138 (now in Hendon) to St Athan....
Bruce
By: - 20th February 2004 at 10:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Fan, not expert.
What with the one at Hendon perched in Milestones, IIRC, it's a good job MAM are going strong.
I know there's one at Cosford, before anybody says anything.
By: - 20th February 2004 at 18:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The arguement 'hang it or leave it outside to rot' is fairly illogical.
The Mosquito at present is inside and has been for a long time.
Are they considering pushing it outside if they cannot hang it up -no ! The Air-Space extension is to allow further aircraft inside - however the vast majority of aircraft that are to be hung are already inside in.
The premis should be that you have sufficient space for something before you acquire it - if you havn't and continue to acquire aircraft you are always going to have a problem.
Aircraft arn't supposed to be hung . They should be on their undercarriage or flying. I hasten to add that the compromise of having them on poles does have it's advantages. Hanging aircraft on wires was great when I was seven - you grow out of it though when you become an adult.
By: - 20th February 2004 at 22:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Burke
"The arguement 'hang it or leave it outside to rot' is fairly illogical...."
David, I think you may be taking the above too literally. It's the eventual result of not hanging some aircraft and thereby leaving others to rot outside because there's no room for them inside. I'm sure that displaying the Mosquito outside would not be contemplated.
"...The premis should be that you have sufficient space for something before you acquire it - if you havn't and continue to acquire aircraft you are always going to have a problem....."
In the case of Duxford there were already a significant amount of aircraft that needed to be bought in to the cold. I would rather a major collection aquire more aircraft than it has hangar space for, as long as it, as Duxford does, has a long term startegy to get them housed inside. if you have to hang some aircraft to effect that (and as long as they are not damaged in so doing), that's fine by me.
By: - 20th February 2004 at 23:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Seafury - It's incredibly rare where displaying an aircraft hanging from wires has actually allowed for more to come in from the cold. The AAM for example elevated aircraft because of new additions
for which the was no intention of them going outside.
The technical effort to hang aircraft is quite large - the cost is even more so . While I would applaud the intention to get everything inside the are aircraft which will decease no matter what. The Comet 2 ,Convair and Varsity are examples of aircraft for which the was no indoor space available. They are now gone.
Some would argue that the remaining Varsity will go the same way. Futuristic buildings have been a feature of Duxford - some would argue that more practical buildings would have allowed more aircraft inside for the same cost.
By: - 21st February 2004 at 00:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
DH Fan - no offence intended!
David,
I have to disagree with you. First I don't like hanging a/c. But I like existing collections being left outside to rot a lot less. Yes, several a/c at DX have now gone, due to rot, and that's wrong.
However, we should give credit for a savvy approach. Key points of which are:
Unusual / wacky* buildings get funding and PR. Hangars don't. (*Delete terms for preference ;) )
Putting up the AAM took dollars from US into UK economy - but the UK moaners never mention that - it's always Spits going US (sorry hobby horse here...)
The AAM got a significant No. of a/c under cover, directly or indirectly - inc the B-52, one of DX's most important airframes.
It then alowed for the current AirSpace project, again, to get more aircraft under cover.
Important though it was, the Superhanger never got the column inches, PR and thus visitors and revinue that the AAM did. On that basis a makeover for the Superhanger into AirSpace is a smart move. With money, DX can do things. Without, it can't.
There were flaws with the AAM, which we now know about, and were revealed by trying the building. What is important here is that the IWM have learned, and are moving on, with better developments. Don't knock them because it wasn't 100% - at least they are trying and learning. Also, they are keen to listen - see Ashley's post refeedback from staff on the AirSpace project.
The IWM can't 'magic away' airframes because they can't house them - but they can decline to take more they can't cope with - hence (my guess) no Beverley tender.
You may be right that a 'standard' building will house more and cost less. But PR is a factor of the game today, like it or not.
I'll be first to criticise the IWM if I think they deserve it. However, here they are navigating the rapids of their job remarkably well. Let's be thankfull they are doing as well as they are.
Still, lots of us know better than Ted Inman & his team, so let's play a game. Anyone can come up with a better plan, and (guess what) someone else here will point out what the fundimental flaws are. Of course, if someone comes up with a magic answer, IWM can take it, and everyones' a winner!
Did I say I don't like hanging a/c? Yes? Can I say it again? Fine. Are IWM doing the best they can? Yes.
Cheers
Posts: 1,106
By: DGH - 19th February 2004 at 18:59
I must admit that even though I know they are planning to hang planes in the new Air Space hanger at Duxford I didn't realise until know that they are planning to hang the mossie, the Lysander to! They've just wrote to ask me if I would like to give them money to help them do it! I'm not going to be a partner in crime, are these aircraft not to precious?