By: David Burke
- 21st February 2004 at 01:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
JDK - whether you like modern buildings or not the practicalities of any building housing aircraft is that you might need to move aircraft in and out. If you comission a building for which it's hugely expensive to get aircraft in you immediately loose a massive amount of the ticket sales of visitors.
I would dispute the notion that you cannot get funding . The Superhanger was built with many sponsors. Similarily the Bomber Command Hall at Hendon was - so has there been a massive change of opinion since or are we lead to believe this by architects?
As for the B-52 - I don't think that it's terribly significant to the U.K. Certainly it was used during Vietnam but I guess there ae B-52's still flying that have a greater relevance to the U.K from their
role in Gulf War II !
Some would argue that the B-47 played a greater part in the
overall balance of power during the Cold War in Europe.
The Air-Space concept owes a lot more to the original concept of the Superhanger than the AAM. It's a re-modelling of the building to incorporate new ideas.
I am still of the opinion that a new hanger using principles of Belfast Truss construction could have been built on the base of
the destroyed example which was both faithful to the ideals of the site but using modern building principles.
New
Posts: 74
By: Hamtech
- 21st February 2004 at 03:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Its ironic that the subject of this thread provokes such reactions when the option to restore an aircraft with full intentions of flying it are met positively and often with an open wallet.
Never let it be said that the romance of aviation does not have a significant effect on the decisions made ;)
By: JDK
- 21st February 2004 at 10:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sorry David,
You misunderstand me. I don't particularly like modern buildings. (I don't particularly dislike them either!) I'm afraid you are quite unrealistic or uniformed of the real options as well.
To take your points in order. Modern museums do not see that they need to move a/c in and out often - they are wrong, but it's not a factor. However, AirSpace will have a public viewable restoration facility at one end, with the option of moving a/c in and out. (Did you know that?) Clearly IWM have learned from that error with AAM. a/c inside or out makes no difference to visitor nos. A few enthusiasts (us) do not feature on the ticket sales as a 'bump' if a/c are outside - sorry, (That's based on research I've seen btw). Mom, dad and the kids are what counts, and they want to be inside anyway - noticed how cold & windy DX is?
In 2004, you get less funding for a hanger, than for an original building. Sorry, but thats just a fact. I don't like or dislike it, anymore than I object to the colour of the sky. The Heritage Lottery Fund, for instnce is notorious for this bias. This applies to the museum where I work. The buildings you refer to are 20 years old, and operating on 20 year old publicity, revinue and marketing ideas - thats a long time in the heritage and entertainment industry. People will come to DX to see 'new' design buildings. A T2 hangard won't pull. Sorry, that's not my opinion, I don't like it, it's just a fact. I wasn't talking about the money raised to build them, but the money they pull into the site once built. However, to take your point, no, hangars don't match innovative buildings for funding to be built.
As an Australian married to a Canadian living in Britain, i ask you to stop being so provincial, please? The SR71 and B-52, just to take two US aircrat are among the most important a/c in the IWM collection to illustrate the history of 20 centuary warfare, both Commonwealth, allies and enemies. If you don't appreciate their prominance in warfare, I can't teach you, but the B-52 is one of the most important bombers and weapons of war. It is, IIRC the only one in Britain and Europe... It gets money at the turnstiles. IWM is not and never has been just to show off British a/c. AirSpace is intended to highlight the Commonwealth contribution to aviation history - or perhaps you'd like to give DX's Lanc back to Canada? :rolleyes:
The AirSpace building, as is you rightly say, a remodelling. I didn't say different. Of course. Some of the 'new ideas' are learned from developments at Hendon, IWM north and the AAM - and they are learning, and living in the real world - you seem to have some magic wand! Sure, they might want a B-47, but the haven't got one and they'd be stupid to swap a 2nd rank attraction for a first rate one, even if they could!
The 'missing' Belfast Truss hanger. Again, your heart blinds you here. I too, would love to see that hangar replicated. But clearly, unlike you, I've found out a bit about it. To build it with wood in the appropriate parts in 2004 is completely unviable in cost terms - wood (in large qtys) is not even under consideration. To replicate the wood in another more modern material could be done, but would still be very, very expensive - and may not even be permisable on a listed site such as Duxford. See the thread refering to Duxford's bombed hanger.
Don't rail at me (Mr Warwick :p) You come up with a better plan, I'll take my hat off and you can sell it to the IWM. But so far you've got zero points in the "I'm running DX" game. Try passing go!
By: David Burke
- 21st February 2004 at 14:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
James- Firstly I am not involved in any 'game' to run Duxford so please delete any notions you have of that. Following on from that you say that aircraft inside or outside have little effecton visitor numbers . Are you really serious? Did the Concorde when it arrived not generate any extra visitors? Or indeed the B-52 when she arrived and stood on the airfield for a number of years. You do amaze me .
As for building on a listed site please outline to me what criteria was used for the HFL building? You are really sure that a building of a similar nature to the original Belfast truss hanger wouldn't get permission but the Land Warfare hall and AAM did?
Is this really development in keeping with the original buildings on site - I think not. To outline the site whilst the buildings are protected I hardly think that the foundations of a former Belfast
hanger are a protected 'building' in themselves.
As for being provincial - well why not? I am a product of the country I was born in. Should I lobby the Smithsonian to include a Vulcan in ther collection as it's clearly an icon in the history of strategic bombers. Whilst you might rate the B-47 as second rate can you really decide for other people if they will find it interesting or not? First rate or second rate is clearly nonsense -it's purely based on your own personnal ideas of what you like.
As for the significance of the B-52 and SR-71 well the U-2 leaves the SR-71 distinctly in it's shadow. The SR-71 is technically interesting but I believe the U-2 has been in continuous use with the USAF/CIA for something approaching fifty years so clearly the SR-71 has been ever so slightly eclipsed. As for the B52 well it had a tremendous impact on the war in South East Asia but that and the various Gulf War attacks have been its crowning achievements. The B-47 stood guard in Britain in the days when the Cold War was really at it's highest point - maybe I should champion it more?
Great whilst it is for Air-Space to include Commonwealth aircraft - to do it justice you really need to include types like the Chipmunk and Beaver which are far more significant than the CF-100. As for the Canadian built Lancaster -well if she went home and the long derelict research Lincoln G-APRJ took her place I think a number of people would be happy. The Lancaster spent the vast majority of it's flying career in Canada whilst the Lincoln contributed a massive amount to aviation in the U.K.
You quote in part that 'modern' museums need ground breaking buildings .Well exact which museum are you refering to? The IWM has been established a long time as has been the RAFM and FAAM. These are hardly museums that don't understand the concept of moving aircraft in and out.
Lastly I will visit the new Air-Space - to admire the Tiger Moth which came from me as a pile of bits . Clearly not everything that the museum does is right or indeed wrong however tell
me which national museum isn't provincial in some way ? I must remember to the visit the Smithsonian to view their Lancaster Oh yeah I forgot they don't have one ! Oh well at least they can see one at Duxford as well as B-17/B-24 !
By: JDK
- 21st February 2004 at 19:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi David,
I'm sorry if you aren't prepared to recognise neither you, nor I, are running DX, therefore our discussions are either a 'game' or 'discussion' but don't set any agenda for the real place.
If you wish, I'd be happy to rebut your points individually, but I think you are wilfully misunderstanding me again. Two points as a 'for instance'. I referred to no 'HLF' building, but HLF policy - perhaps you might like to get a second opinion from somene who deals with them? The SR71 was offered to the IWM after they asked for it. You might like to consider how often they have been offered a U-2? That's right, nil. As the only one on display outside the US, it is (rightly, in my opinion) a key part of their marketing campaign. I have no problem elaborating on your other comments, but I think you, I and the forum members have better things to do than go round and around.
You are welcome to challenge my points, comments, and thoughts - but may I suggest you inform yourself first of the actual crteria and facts of what we are discussing? I have to say you seem ill informed of what is really going on. I'm not trying to be rude, just asking you to bear in mind that what you are objecting to originally (the hanging of aircraft) I also object to. However, I've tried to find out what is going on and why, and the explanations, which I have taken my time to lay out here for everyone's edification, seem reasonable to me. I'm not talking of what things 'should be like' but why they are. If you don't like them, that's fine. Moan and groan by all means.
I'm not an expert - but as a journalist I have gone and asked, and I have tried to share my understanding on this forum; sorry if you don't like the facts I've presented.
Just one thing - I was not saying the IWM was provincial. I was asking you to think a bit more internationally. Sorry if you don't wish to. I like to share my toys. ;)
I don't wish to offend, or disparage your opinion - I do like to read your posts, and often support them, but not here. Best if we agree to disagee, and I hope those entertained by this have found it educational too.
By: Ant.H
- 21st February 2004 at 20:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi James,
I don't really want to get involved int his battle,but I thought I better point out that David was talking about the HFL (Historic Flying Ltd) hanger and not an HLF (Heritage Lottery Fund) building!Historic Flying Ltd's hangar was built just a couple of years ago and I think David was suggesting that if that modern hangar was possible,then another on the museum site would be feasable in terms of planning permission etc.
By: JDK
- 21st February 2004 at 20:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks Ant,
Too many acronyms! I was referring to the Heritage Lottery Fund.
Just to lay out the Belfast truss issue - it's not on as a wood / brick construction simply because of the cost of wood today. Building a replica hangar in other materials - essentially a 'fake' would not be acceptable in the DX site. A new design building is clearly acceptable, as is additional hangars such as the T2. This is not something I think is great, it's an explanation for what is going on at DX. For the record, I'd love to see a new Belfast Truss going up - we could learn a lot from that; but I also believe, from what I understand, that it isn't going to happen.
By: David Burke
- 21st February 2004 at 22:42Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
'you might like to consider how many times they have been offered a U-2, that's right -Nil'
That seems a fairly accurate quote of your text -however do you exclude the U-2CT-LO 66692 which has been hanging in the AAM since it's inception ? It's certainly incredibly rare being one of two trainers built -converted to single seat aircraft at Alconbury and offered to Duxford . The 'nil' bit doesn't come into it - Duxford accepted . I might be a bit provincial but I know a U-2CT when I see it !
As for buildings the one I was refering to was the HFL building but you are quite welcome to go off on a tangent.
The concept of building a 'new' Belfast Truss hanger isn't that barmy. From memory in the last few years one was demolished near Waddington and there are a few others which might go that way. It would certainly be possible to salvage the critical bits i.e the trusses and use 'new build' on the rest. In other words bricks and mortar.
Concept buildings are great from the point of view of the architects but I seriously doubt if anyone would go to see the AAM if it didn't contain aircraft . The fact is that the aircraft will always command more attention than the buildings.
As for the prime issue of hanging aircraft . I remember being told years ago of a volunteer who helped restore an Axis fighter. Having spent hours of effort restoring it to an amazing standard he turned up one day to see someone drilling holes in the wings to accept suspension plates - he was in tears.
Whilst we have to accept that it's going to happen I am not and never will be an advocate of it. Aircraft are simply not designed to be suspended and there is no way that the stress paths can be similar in any way to flight.
By: Hatton
- 21st February 2004 at 23:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Originally posted by David Burke Concept buildings are great from the point of view of the architects but I seriously doubt if anyone would go to see the AAM if it didn't contain aircraft . The fact is that the aircraft will always command more attention than the buildings.
Why the hostile attitude to landmark buildings? Concept buildings don't just have to be appreciated by the architects, David. They may not be great in your point of view but i think the AAM is a marvellous building, a graceful design infact. The building allows the aircraft to be housed in a naturally lit enviroment (with specially designed glass to protect the aircraft from the UV I believe i believe ), it also keeps the aircraft in a controlled climate and allows you to get close to the aircraft (although perhaps not for research access) Sure it has its flaws such as inaccessabilty but what would you have in its place to house the American collection? I Love Duxford and the balance between the old and new. The AAM is an interesting and exciting way to display aircraft in my opinion.
Regards the points made about the replacement of the Belfast Hanger, this would be great and would allow yet more aircraft to be housed, I wonder however how much this may cost and if sufficient backing could be found for it. Would the Lottery be willing to stump up more cash after splashing out recently on the AirSpace project.
By: JDK
- 22nd February 2004 at 01:13Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi David
U2 - bang to rights, I completely forgot it. Sorry. I forget, your point was its superiority over the SR71. Fine, IWM's got both. Your point?
I refered to the Heritage Lottery Fund. You refered to the Historic Flying Ltd building. To cover both: My initial point was that the Heritage Lottery prefer to fund new style buildings - that's just a factor to be bourne in mind when planning a museum. The Historic Flying building, like the AAM, T2 hangar, and Land Warfare hall are all new buildings, and are premitted on the heritage site - a mock Belfast Truss or a modern replica in new materials almost certainly wouldn't be.
I never said a Belfast Truss building was a 'barmy' idea! I just pointed out a couple of facts: using new wood is uneconomic, a replica is (for listed status locations) politically unaceptable at the moment. The move of the 'new' Grahame White factory at Hendon (new replica bricks, original wooden trusses) proves your point below; you are quite right. But it han't happened, and though I agree with you it would be nice if an unwanted Belfast Truss was to find it's way to Duxford, it's not looking likely at the moment. That 'it would be nice' has to be weighed against a certain development - the AirSpace concept, currently recieving funding, which will cost less and provide more - space, money and revenue, against a Belfast that 'might' turn up, cost more and result in less space.
For the umpteenth time - I don't like hanging aircraft. But I have found out why Duxford has chosen this path, I can see that they are not doing what you are complaining about, and I can't see an alternative. You have failed to provide a viable alternative; fine, but that's where our discussion stops. Feel free to carry on telling me how it should be - but it's a waste of energy. I'm not responsible, I'm just trying to clarify!
The drilling you refer to I presume is of one of the a/c now hanging in Lambeth - agreed, not a good museum standard aproach! But, again, you ignore what I'm trying to convey - my point is IWM have been learning from their 'mistakes'. However, if you rail against them (or me!) in this unconstructive way, they will feel free to ignore us all.
You disagree with me. I think you miss what I'm saying, as we essentially want the best for these displays and aircraft. I am trying to explain the whole of how an institution like DX works. You don't like what I am saying - fine, it's based on facts I've established, not a view I have of how things should be. You are welcome to your views, I to mine.
By: David Burke
- 22nd February 2004 at 19:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
James - going back a long way your point was that the B-52 and SR-71 were some of the most significant aircraft from 20th century warfare. My arguement is that the SR-71 whilst technologically interesting didn't have that much impact on warfare. Whilst it was able to offer incredibly fast turn rounds on
sorties it was eclipsed in it's usefulness by the U-2 and indeed the spy satellite. It is undoubtedly a draw but aircraft like the C-130 and KC-135 are far more significant and absent.
Regards a 'Belfast' -well I havn't costed the prospect but I cannot see why it would be so enormously expensive to build one. Museums have moved hangers in the past and whilst the Belfast is certainly complex it isn't impossible.
Regards new buildings on an historic site there are I am sure restrictions on new buildings. I will check tonight.
By: JDK
- 22nd February 2004 at 20:01Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
AdamK,
Good question. I think it goes something like this - "There's a hangar base, which had a single bay Belfast Truss hangar on it - wouldn't it be a good idea to build a replacement?"
Well, yes, it would be a good idea - except for the cost of the wood required - which makes it prohibitively expensive, and would probably cost significantly more than the redevelopment (that you've sumerised so well) of Hangar 1 into AirSpace. This is what David is about to learn tonight, if his reseach, already covered in another thread on this forum, comes up with the facts.
"Let's make a lookalike Belfast Truss hangar out of new materials!" - is a sensible reposte to the wood-cost problem. For some reason, which David thinks is something to do with me, this is not acceptable to the Listings folks that grade and 'protect' listed sites. Ironically, new style buildings, and hangars from other sites (Such as the T2 put in some years ago) are OK, but what would be a fake or 'mock' hangar isn't acceptable. I don't know why, that's just how it works at the moment.
"Why not get an unwanted Belfast Truss hanger from somewhere else?" Is David's (and other people's) next suggestion - again, a good idea, but there isn't one on offer right now, and AirSpace is happening right now.
However the Belfast truss hangar discussion is just a distraction. IWM are redeveloping Hangar 1 into AirSpace. They have chosen to hang a number of aircraft to get more aircraft currently at Duxford under cover. They are getting maximum area for their spend out of this plan. This causes, rightly, some debate. Simplistically, I believe they are making the best choices they can, and I believe they recognise they have not done things perfectly in the past, but are trying to learn from mistakes, and trying to do the best they can, with what they've got.
David,
I'll be delighted to discuss this sometime when we are both a Duxford, face to face - in the mentime the comparitive merits of the aircraft is an irrelivence. I just chose a couple of types as a 'for example' from the huge and varied range of types DX is responsible for - not what they might have, or should have, but what they've got.
I don't care if you like it not, and my opinion also doesn't figure. Just note, please, that IWM Duxford's poster at Marylebone Station, London, has featured the following:
A kid
A Spitfire
A family
The SR-71
The American Air Museum Building at sunset
I may (or may not) like their marketing plan, but they actually have some idea of what they are doing. I have tried to share some facts I have gathered. You don't like them and don't agree - fine. I hope our Forum members have found this edifying, but for me, the subject is closed - direct your comments to the IWM please.
Yours,
By: David Burke
- 22nd February 2004 at 22:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
James - we will indeed discuss the relative merits of the buildings at Duxford at some juncture in the future . I mentioned the C-130 and KC-135 in terms of significance. You seem to have changed your position from earlier on when you described a B-47 as being a second rank attraction compared to a B-52. I live in hope that you treat all the aircraft as being important in their own right.
Posts: 9,780
By: David Burke - 21st February 2004 at 01:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
JDK - whether you like modern buildings or not the practicalities of any building housing aircraft is that you might need to move aircraft in and out. If you comission a building for which it's hugely expensive to get aircraft in you immediately loose a massive amount of the ticket sales of visitors.
I would dispute the notion that you cannot get funding . The Superhanger was built with many sponsors. Similarily the Bomber Command Hall at Hendon was - so has there been a massive change of opinion since or are we lead to believe this by architects?
As for the B-52 - I don't think that it's terribly significant to the U.K. Certainly it was used during Vietnam but I guess there ae B-52's still flying that have a greater relevance to the U.K from their
role in Gulf War II !
Some would argue that the B-47 played a greater part in the
overall balance of power during the Cold War in Europe.
The Air-Space concept owes a lot more to the original concept of the Superhanger than the AAM. It's a re-modelling of the building to incorporate new ideas.
I am still of the opinion that a new hanger using principles of Belfast Truss construction could have been built on the base of
the destroyed example which was both faithful to the ideals of the site but using modern building principles.
Posts: 74
By: Hamtech - 21st February 2004 at 03:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Its ironic that the subject of this thread provokes such reactions when the option to restore an aircraft with full intentions of flying it are met positively and often with an open wallet.
Never let it be said that the romance of aviation does not have a significant effect on the decisions made ;)
- Hamtech.
Posts: 8,195
By: JDK - 21st February 2004 at 10:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sorry David,
You misunderstand me. I don't particularly like modern buildings. (I don't particularly dislike them either!) I'm afraid you are quite unrealistic or uniformed of the real options as well.
To take your points in order. Modern museums do not see that they need to move a/c in and out often - they are wrong, but it's not a factor. However, AirSpace will have a public viewable restoration facility at one end, with the option of moving a/c in and out. (Did you know that?) Clearly IWM have learned from that error with AAM. a/c inside or out makes no difference to visitor nos. A few enthusiasts (us) do not feature on the ticket sales as a 'bump' if a/c are outside - sorry, (That's based on research I've seen btw). Mom, dad and the kids are what counts, and they want to be inside anyway - noticed how cold & windy DX is?
In 2004, you get less funding for a hanger, than for an original building. Sorry, but thats just a fact. I don't like or dislike it, anymore than I object to the colour of the sky. The Heritage Lottery Fund, for instnce is notorious for this bias. This applies to the museum where I work. The buildings you refer to are 20 years old, and operating on 20 year old publicity, revinue and marketing ideas - thats a long time in the heritage and entertainment industry. People will come to DX to see 'new' design buildings. A T2 hangard won't pull. Sorry, that's not my opinion, I don't like it, it's just a fact. I wasn't talking about the money raised to build them, but the money they pull into the site once built. However, to take your point, no, hangars don't match innovative buildings for funding to be built.
As an Australian married to a Canadian living in Britain, i ask you to stop being so provincial, please? The SR71 and B-52, just to take two US aircrat are among the most important a/c in the IWM collection to illustrate the history of 20 centuary warfare, both Commonwealth, allies and enemies. If you don't appreciate their prominance in warfare, I can't teach you, but the B-52 is one of the most important bombers and weapons of war. It is, IIRC the only one in Britain and Europe... It gets money at the turnstiles. IWM is not and never has been just to show off British a/c. AirSpace is intended to highlight the Commonwealth contribution to aviation history - or perhaps you'd like to give DX's Lanc back to Canada? :rolleyes:
The AirSpace building, as is you rightly say, a remodelling. I didn't say different. Of course. Some of the 'new ideas' are learned from developments at Hendon, IWM north and the AAM - and they are learning, and living in the real world - you seem to have some magic wand! Sure, they might want a B-47, but the haven't got one and they'd be stupid to swap a 2nd rank attraction for a first rate one, even if they could!
The 'missing' Belfast Truss hanger. Again, your heart blinds you here. I too, would love to see that hangar replicated. But clearly, unlike you, I've found out a bit about it. To build it with wood in the appropriate parts in 2004 is completely unviable in cost terms - wood (in large qtys) is not even under consideration. To replicate the wood in another more modern material could be done, but would still be very, very expensive - and may not even be permisable on a listed site such as Duxford. See the thread refering to Duxford's bombed hanger.
Don't rail at me (Mr Warwick :p) You come up with a better plan, I'll take my hat off and you can sell it to the IWM. But so far you've got zero points in the "I'm running DX" game. Try passing go!
Cheers
Posts: 9,780
By: David Burke - 21st February 2004 at 14:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
James- Firstly I am not involved in any 'game' to run Duxford so please delete any notions you have of that. Following on from that you say that aircraft inside or outside have little effecton visitor numbers . Are you really serious? Did the Concorde when it arrived not generate any extra visitors? Or indeed the B-52 when she arrived and stood on the airfield for a number of years. You do amaze me .
As for building on a listed site please outline to me what criteria was used for the HFL building? You are really sure that a building of a similar nature to the original Belfast truss hanger wouldn't get permission but the Land Warfare hall and AAM did?
Is this really development in keeping with the original buildings on site - I think not. To outline the site whilst the buildings are protected I hardly think that the foundations of a former Belfast
hanger are a protected 'building' in themselves.
As for being provincial - well why not? I am a product of the country I was born in. Should I lobby the Smithsonian to include a Vulcan in ther collection as it's clearly an icon in the history of strategic bombers. Whilst you might rate the B-47 as second rate can you really decide for other people if they will find it interesting or not? First rate or second rate is clearly nonsense -it's purely based on your own personnal ideas of what you like.
As for the significance of the B-52 and SR-71 well the U-2 leaves the SR-71 distinctly in it's shadow. The SR-71 is technically interesting but I believe the U-2 has been in continuous use with the USAF/CIA for something approaching fifty years so clearly the SR-71 has been ever so slightly eclipsed. As for the B52 well it had a tremendous impact on the war in South East Asia but that and the various Gulf War attacks have been its crowning achievements. The B-47 stood guard in Britain in the days when the Cold War was really at it's highest point - maybe I should champion it more?
Great whilst it is for Air-Space to include Commonwealth aircraft - to do it justice you really need to include types like the Chipmunk and Beaver which are far more significant than the CF-100. As for the Canadian built Lancaster -well if she went home and the long derelict research Lincoln G-APRJ took her place I think a number of people would be happy. The Lancaster spent the vast majority of it's flying career in Canada whilst the Lincoln contributed a massive amount to aviation in the U.K.
You quote in part that 'modern' museums need ground breaking buildings .Well exact which museum are you refering to? The IWM has been established a long time as has been the RAFM and FAAM. These are hardly museums that don't understand the concept of moving aircraft in and out.
Lastly I will visit the new Air-Space - to admire the Tiger Moth which came from me as a pile of bits . Clearly not everything that the museum does is right or indeed wrong however tell
me which national museum isn't provincial in some way ? I must remember to the visit the Smithsonian to view their Lancaster Oh yeah I forgot they don't have one ! Oh well at least they can see one at Duxford as well as B-17/B-24 !
Posts: 8,195
By: JDK - 21st February 2004 at 19:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi David,
I'm sorry if you aren't prepared to recognise neither you, nor I, are running DX, therefore our discussions are either a 'game' or 'discussion' but don't set any agenda for the real place.
If you wish, I'd be happy to rebut your points individually, but I think you are wilfully misunderstanding me again. Two points as a 'for instance'. I referred to no 'HLF' building, but HLF policy - perhaps you might like to get a second opinion from somene who deals with them? The SR71 was offered to the IWM after they asked for it. You might like to consider how often they have been offered a U-2? That's right, nil. As the only one on display outside the US, it is (rightly, in my opinion) a key part of their marketing campaign. I have no problem elaborating on your other comments, but I think you, I and the forum members have better things to do than go round and around.
You are welcome to challenge my points, comments, and thoughts - but may I suggest you inform yourself first of the actual crteria and facts of what we are discussing? I have to say you seem ill informed of what is really going on. I'm not trying to be rude, just asking you to bear in mind that what you are objecting to originally (the hanging of aircraft) I also object to. However, I've tried to find out what is going on and why, and the explanations, which I have taken my time to lay out here for everyone's edification, seem reasonable to me. I'm not talking of what things 'should be like' but why they are. If you don't like them, that's fine. Moan and groan by all means.
I'm not an expert - but as a journalist I have gone and asked, and I have tried to share my understanding on this forum; sorry if you don't like the facts I've presented.
Just one thing - I was not saying the IWM was provincial. I was asking you to think a bit more internationally. Sorry if you don't wish to. I like to share my toys. ;)
I don't wish to offend, or disparage your opinion - I do like to read your posts, and often support them, but not here. Best if we agree to disagee, and I hope those entertained by this have found it educational too.
Cheers
Posts: 3,000
By: Ant.H - 21st February 2004 at 20:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi James,
I don't really want to get involved int his battle,but I thought I better point out that David was talking about the HFL (Historic Flying Ltd) hanger and not an HLF (Heritage Lottery Fund) building!Historic Flying Ltd's hangar was built just a couple of years ago and I think David was suggesting that if that modern hangar was possible,then another on the museum site would be feasable in terms of planning permission etc.
Posts: 8,195
By: JDK - 21st February 2004 at 20:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks Ant,
Too many acronyms! I was referring to the Heritage Lottery Fund.
Just to lay out the Belfast truss issue - it's not on as a wood / brick construction simply because of the cost of wood today. Building a replica hangar in other materials - essentially a 'fake' would not be acceptable in the DX site. A new design building is clearly acceptable, as is additional hangars such as the T2. This is not something I think is great, it's an explanation for what is going on at DX. For the record, I'd love to see a new Belfast Truss going up - we could learn a lot from that; but I also believe, from what I understand, that it isn't going to happen.
Cheers
Posts: 9,780
By: David Burke - 21st February 2004 at 22:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
'you might like to consider how many times they have been offered a U-2, that's right -Nil'
That seems a fairly accurate quote of your text -however do you exclude the U-2CT-LO 66692 which has been hanging in the AAM since it's inception ? It's certainly incredibly rare being one of two trainers built -converted to single seat aircraft at Alconbury and offered to Duxford . The 'nil' bit doesn't come into it - Duxford accepted . I might be a bit provincial but I know a U-2CT when I see it !
As for buildings the one I was refering to was the HFL building but you are quite welcome to go off on a tangent.
The concept of building a 'new' Belfast Truss hanger isn't that barmy. From memory in the last few years one was demolished near Waddington and there are a few others which might go that way. It would certainly be possible to salvage the critical bits i.e the trusses and use 'new build' on the rest. In other words bricks and mortar.
Concept buildings are great from the point of view of the architects but I seriously doubt if anyone would go to see the AAM if it didn't contain aircraft . The fact is that the aircraft will always command more attention than the buildings.
As for the prime issue of hanging aircraft . I remember being told years ago of a volunteer who helped restore an Axis fighter. Having spent hours of effort restoring it to an amazing standard he turned up one day to see someone drilling holes in the wings to accept suspension plates - he was in tears.
Whilst we have to accept that it's going to happen I am not and never will be an advocate of it. Aircraft are simply not designed to be suspended and there is no way that the stress paths can be similar in any way to flight.
Posts: 1,343
By: Hatton - 21st February 2004 at 23:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why the hostile attitude to landmark buildings? Concept buildings don't just have to be appreciated by the architects, David. They may not be great in your point of view but i think the AAM is a marvellous building, a graceful design infact. The building allows the aircraft to be housed in a naturally lit enviroment (with specially designed glass to protect the aircraft from the UV I believe i believe ), it also keeps the aircraft in a controlled climate and allows you to get close to the aircraft (although perhaps not for research access) Sure it has its flaws such as inaccessabilty but what would you have in its place to house the American collection? I Love Duxford and the balance between the old and new. The AAM is an interesting and exciting way to display aircraft in my opinion.
Regards the points made about the replacement of the Belfast Hanger, this would be great and would allow yet more aircraft to be housed, I wonder however how much this may cost and if sufficient backing could be found for it. Would the Lottery be willing to stump up more cash after splashing out recently on the AirSpace project.
Posts: 8,195
By: JDK - 22nd February 2004 at 01:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hi David
U2 - bang to rights, I completely forgot it. Sorry. I forget, your point was its superiority over the SR71. Fine, IWM's got both. Your point?
I refered to the Heritage Lottery Fund. You refered to the Historic Flying Ltd building. To cover both: My initial point was that the Heritage Lottery prefer to fund new style buildings - that's just a factor to be bourne in mind when planning a museum. The Historic Flying building, like the AAM, T2 hangar, and Land Warfare hall are all new buildings, and are premitted on the heritage site - a mock Belfast Truss or a modern replica in new materials almost certainly wouldn't be.
I never said a Belfast Truss building was a 'barmy' idea! I just pointed out a couple of facts: using new wood is uneconomic, a replica is (for listed status locations) politically unaceptable at the moment. The move of the 'new' Grahame White factory at Hendon (new replica bricks, original wooden trusses) proves your point below; you are quite right. But it han't happened, and though I agree with you it would be nice if an unwanted Belfast Truss was to find it's way to Duxford, it's not looking likely at the moment. That 'it would be nice' has to be weighed against a certain development - the AirSpace concept, currently recieving funding, which will cost less and provide more - space, money and revenue, against a Belfast that 'might' turn up, cost more and result in less space.
For the umpteenth time - I don't like hanging aircraft. But I have found out why Duxford has chosen this path, I can see that they are not doing what you are complaining about, and I can't see an alternative. You have failed to provide a viable alternative; fine, but that's where our discussion stops. Feel free to carry on telling me how it should be - but it's a waste of energy. I'm not responsible, I'm just trying to clarify!
The drilling you refer to I presume is of one of the a/c now hanging in Lambeth - agreed, not a good museum standard aproach! But, again, you ignore what I'm trying to convey - my point is IWM have been learning from their 'mistakes'. However, if you rail against them (or me!) in this unconstructive way, they will feel free to ignore us all.
You disagree with me. I think you miss what I'm saying, as we essentially want the best for these displays and aircraft. I am trying to explain the whole of how an institution like DX works. You don't like what I am saying - fine, it's based on facts I've established, not a view I have of how things should be. You are welcome to your views, I to mine.
Thanks for your points Hatton!
Cheers
Posts: 9,780
By: David Burke - 22nd February 2004 at 19:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
James - going back a long way your point was that the B-52 and SR-71 were some of the most significant aircraft from 20th century warfare. My arguement is that the SR-71 whilst technologically interesting didn't have that much impact on warfare. Whilst it was able to offer incredibly fast turn rounds on
sorties it was eclipsed in it's usefulness by the U-2 and indeed the spy satellite. It is undoubtedly a draw but aircraft like the C-130 and KC-135 are far more significant and absent.
Regards a 'Belfast' -well I havn't costed the prospect but I cannot see why it would be so enormously expensive to build one. Museums have moved hangers in the past and whilst the Belfast is certainly complex it isn't impossible.
Regards new buildings on an historic site there are I am sure restrictions on new buildings. I will check tonight.
Posts: 8,195
By: JDK - 22nd February 2004 at 20:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
AdamK,
Good question. I think it goes something like this - "There's a hangar base, which had a single bay Belfast Truss hangar on it - wouldn't it be a good idea to build a replacement?"
Well, yes, it would be a good idea - except for the cost of the wood required - which makes it prohibitively expensive, and would probably cost significantly more than the redevelopment (that you've sumerised so well) of Hangar 1 into AirSpace. This is what David is about to learn tonight, if his reseach, already covered in another thread on this forum, comes up with the facts.
"Let's make a lookalike Belfast Truss hangar out of new materials!" - is a sensible reposte to the wood-cost problem. For some reason, which David thinks is something to do with me, this is not acceptable to the Listings folks that grade and 'protect' listed sites. Ironically, new style buildings, and hangars from other sites (Such as the T2 put in some years ago) are OK, but what would be a fake or 'mock' hangar isn't acceptable. I don't know why, that's just how it works at the moment.
"Why not get an unwanted Belfast Truss hanger from somewhere else?" Is David's (and other people's) next suggestion - again, a good idea, but there isn't one on offer right now, and AirSpace is happening right now.
However the Belfast truss hangar discussion is just a distraction. IWM are redeveloping Hangar 1 into AirSpace. They have chosen to hang a number of aircraft to get more aircraft currently at Duxford under cover. They are getting maximum area for their spend out of this plan. This causes, rightly, some debate. Simplistically, I believe they are making the best choices they can, and I believe they recognise they have not done things perfectly in the past, but are trying to learn from mistakes, and trying to do the best they can, with what they've got.
David,
I'll be delighted to discuss this sometime when we are both a Duxford, face to face - in the mentime the comparitive merits of the aircraft is an irrelivence. I just chose a couple of types as a 'for example' from the huge and varied range of types DX is responsible for - not what they might have, or should have, but what they've got.
I don't care if you like it not, and my opinion also doesn't figure. Just note, please, that IWM Duxford's poster at Marylebone Station, London, has featured the following:
A kid
A Spitfire
A family
The SR-71
The American Air Museum Building at sunset
I may (or may not) like their marketing plan, but they actually have some idea of what they are doing. I have tried to share some facts I have gathered. You don't like them and don't agree - fine. I hope our Forum members have found this edifying, but for me, the subject is closed - direct your comments to the IWM please.
Yours,
Posts: 9,780
By: David Burke - 22nd February 2004 at 22:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
James - we will indeed discuss the relative merits of the buildings at Duxford at some juncture in the future . I mentioned the C-130 and KC-135 in terms of significance. You seem to have changed your position from earlier on when you described a B-47 as being a second rank attraction compared to a B-52. I live in hope that you treat all the aircraft as being important in their own right.