Bruntingthorpe Closure?

Discussions regarding historic aircraft, restoration and preservation etc
Post Reply
GertrudetheMerciless
Posts: 919
Joined: Mon 08 Sep 2008, 7:25 pm

Re: Bruntingthorpe Closure?

Post by GertrudetheMerciless »

Wyvernfan wrote:
Sat 22 Aug 2020, 1:45 pm
Agreed.... And yet Hendon CAN find the resources to recover the remains of a WW2 Luftwaffe bomber that barely resembles its original form.

So, are we to deduce from this that the RAF museum decided that the thirty years of stirling work of a modern day RAF refuelling Aircraft is far less worthy of representation than a wrecked German bomber?
But the former can be preserved and displayed inside. The latter takes up mountains of real estate and will require expensive and technically challenging and expensive upkeep.

And where would RAFM keep a TriStar? And how would it get there?

User avatar
Archer
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed 06 May 2009, 10:02 am
Contact:

Re: Bruntingthorpe Closure?

Post by Archer »

The former is the only one still in existence, even if not in a perfect condition. The latter type has several examples available with one or more still flying.

User avatar
Wyvernfan
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon 29 Aug 2011, 4:49 pm

Re: Bruntingthorpe Closure?

Post by Wyvernfan »

GertrudetheMerciless wrote:
Sat 22 Aug 2020, 3:14 pm
Wyvernfan wrote:
Sat 22 Aug 2020, 1:45 pm
Agreed.... And yet Hendon CAN find the resources to recover the remains of a WW2 Luftwaffe bomber that barely resembles its original form.

So, are we to deduce from this that the RAF museum decided that the thirty years of stirling work of a modern day RAF refuelling Aircraft is far less worthy of representation than a wrecked German bomber?
But the former can be preserved and displayed inside. The latter takes up mountains of real estate and will require expensive and technically challenging and expensive upkeep.

And where would RAFM keep a TriStar? And how would it get there?

So are we saying that RAF aircrew and their Aircraft will only be remembered if they flew in types that were small airframes? So no Tristar, Globemaster, A400, AWAC etc?
It is surely the Royal Air Force Museum for all shapes and sizes - and should encompass all types regardless of size, should it not?!

As for where would they keep it, you’d better ask another question of why they are situated on such inadequate spaces for the purpose that they serve. Hendon is a joke, and requires a major reshuffle just to move airframes in and out, and although Cosford is an outstanding collection - it is housed on an Airfield that already struggles to meet the requirements of a collection that will continue to grow for as long as we have a Royal Air Force.

GeeRam
Posts: 189
Joined: Sat 13 Jun 2020, 3:54 pm

Re: Bruntingthorpe Closure?

Post by GeeRam »

Wyvernfan wrote:
Sat 22 Aug 2020, 4:22 pm
It is surely the Royal Air Force Museum for all shapes and sizes - and should encompass all types regardless of size, should it not?!
A notion that is totally unrealistic.
Wyvernfan wrote:
Sat 22 Aug 2020, 4:22 pm
Hendon is a joke, and requires a major reshuffle just to move airframes in and out, and although Cosford is an outstanding collection - it is housed on an Airfield that already struggles to meet the requirements of a collection that will continue to grow for as long as we have a Royal Air Force.
Some of us are old enough to remember the days before there was a RAFM, so I think you should be grateful for what we do have
I first visited Hendon 4 weeks after it opened....and when there was still most of the airfield across the road!
And I doubt it was ever envisaged that Hendon would be expanded the way it was from the original format, let alone need a second site within 10 years......and I doubt there will be the money for much more expansion, let alone another site.

GertrudetheMerciless
Posts: 919
Joined: Mon 08 Sep 2008, 7:25 pm

Re: Bruntingthorpe Closure?

Post by GertrudetheMerciless »

Wyvernfan wrote:
Sat 22 Aug 2020, 4:22 pm
So are we saying that RAF aircrew and their Aircraft will only be remembered if they flew in types that were small airframes? So no Tristar, Globemaster, A400, AWAC etc?
I say to myself regularly, as a pilot of two of the aircraft mentioned in this thread.

I’m just being realistic.

Mike
Posts: 1898
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 5:08 pm

Re: Bruntingthorpe Closure?

Post by Mike »

Some enthusiasts seem to inhabit a fantasy fairyland, where space, money and resource are unlimited and no curatorial decisions are required. “We’ll have one of everything please, especially the big stuff!”

The reality is that all museums are hurting from the effects of lockdown. Some have had to make a number of key staff redundant In order to keep their heads above water for the time being. The chances of large aircraft such as VC-10s, TriStars and the Hull Beverley being dismantled and moved by road in the present climate are, sadly, negligible.

User avatar
Wyvernfan
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon 29 Aug 2011, 4:49 pm

Re: Bruntingthorpe Closure?

Post by Wyvernfan »

Mike wrote:
Sat 22 Aug 2020, 10:00 pm
Some enthusiasts seem to inhabit a fantasy fairyland, where space, money and resource are unlimited and no curatorial decisions are required. “We’ll have one of everything please, especially the big stuff!”

The reality is that all museums are hurting from the effects of lockdown. Some have had to make a number of key staff redundant In order to keep their heads above water for the time being. The chances of large aircraft such as VC-10s, TriStars and the Hull Beverley being dismantled and moved by road in the present climate are, sadly, negligible.

Fantasy fairyland, really Mike, and what about before lockdown? And surely the reality is that the RAF museum has far more resources than some might care to remember. For example did they not exchange a valuable Spitfire airframe in a deal that was supposed to bring the ex Dennis Copping P-40 to the UK - and received absolutely nothing in return. Yep, great curatorial decision that one.

And as for not preserving large aircraft because of the lack of covered space, well the DAS British Airliner Collection seem to of done pretty well with a Brittania that has been kept outside for the past 45 years.

At the end of the day where there is a will there is probably a way - but with no will, there will be no way!

GertrudetheMerciless
Posts: 919
Joined: Mon 08 Sep 2008, 7:25 pm

Re: Bruntingthorpe Closure?

Post by GertrudetheMerciless »

Wyvernfan wrote:
Sun 23 Aug 2020, 7:05 am

At the end of the day where there is a will there is probably a way - but with no will, there will be no way!
Or money. Or time.

You can have all the will in the world, but unless anyone’s got the cash, then you’re going nowhere. You can put your life and soul into a project, but without funds and time, will get nothing.

Just look at the 10 at Brunty. 3 months notice to get a plan and funding together to get off site. Just about impossible.

ArabJazzie
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 9:38 pm

Re: Bruntingthorpe Closure?

Post by ArabJazzie »

Wyvernfan wrote:
Sun 23 Aug 2020, 7:05 am
Fantasy fairyland, really Mike, and what about before lockdown? And surely the reality is that the RAF museum has far more resources than some might care to remember. For example did they not exchange a valuable Spitfire airframe in a deal that was supposed to bring the ex Dennis Copping P-40 to the UK - and received absolutely nothing in return. Yep, great curatorial decision that one.

And as for not preserving large aircraft because of the lack of covered space, well the DAS British Airliner Collection seem to of done pretty well with a Brittania that has been kept outside for the past 45 years.

At the end of the day where there is a will there is probably a way - but with no will, there will be no way!
In the case of the Spitfire/P-40 deal, it was forces outside the control of the parties involved in recovering that airframe that shafted the deal. And that Spitfire i believe is to be a flyer, which i would rather see than it sitting gathering dust in a store.

As to a will and a way, i think you have to look at the previous relatively short moves the Ft Paull Beverley has undertaking, and you might realize that adding in the removal of utilities to get the joab done, may make the cost so prohibitive! Cant see utility companies doing that for free?
52 in a year! We must be certifiable!

purple_95
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri 21 Aug 2020, 6:48 pm

Re: Bruntingthorpe Closure?

Post by purple_95 »

GeeRam wrote:
Fri 21 Aug 2020, 9:44 pm
purple_95 wrote:
Fri 21 Aug 2020, 9:30 pm
Lightnings are far from lost as active in the U.K, XR724 is well on the way to a return to ground running although work has been stopped until the social distance rules r.e. coronavirus are further relaxed, the T.5 at Cranfield XS458 has had an engine change and work continues to return it to fast taxing status, the two at Bruntingthorpe will continue to be kept serviceable and ground runs will hopefully still take place, we should not of course forget the Saudi Lightning at the Gatwick museum that continues to undertake engine runs, hopefully the Lightning will continue to stay alive so to speak for some years to come yet.
Being able to ground run an engine, is not the same as 'active'.
So, that counts out '724 due to the fact there's no runways or taxiways left at Binbrook, and the same for the F.53 at Gatwick, and likely now the 2 x LPG airframes.
Glad to here that '458 at Cranfield is still aiming to be able to stretch its legs at least. Shame that couldn't be moved to Kemble?
I dread to think of the cost of moving a runnable Lightning and then putting it back into runnable condition, in any case 458 has a secure home and future at Cranfield, lets hope the old stock comment when it comes to any jet able to power up or fast taxi of "It must get to Brunty" does not now become "Take it to Kemble"

User avatar
Wyvernfan
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon 29 Aug 2011, 4:49 pm

Re: Bruntingthorpe Closure?

Post by Wyvernfan »

ArabJazzie wrote:
Sun 23 Aug 2020, 10:56 am
Wyvernfan wrote:
Sun 23 Aug 2020, 7:05 am
Fantasy fairyland, really Mike, and what about before lockdown? And surely the reality is that the RAF museum has far more resources than some might care to remember. For example did they not exchange a valuable Spitfire airframe in a deal that was supposed to bring the ex Dennis Copping P-40 to the UK - and received absolutely nothing in return. Yep, great curatorial decision that one.

And as for not preserving large aircraft because of the lack of covered space, well the DAS British Airliner Collection seem to of done pretty well with a Brittania that has been kept outside for the past 45 years.

At the end of the day where there is a will there is probably a way - but with no will, there will be no way!
In the case of the Spitfire/P-40 deal, it was forces outside the control of the parties involved in recovering that airframe that shafted the deal. And that Spitfire i believe is to be a flyer, which i would rather see than it sitting gathering dust in a store.
That completely misses the point. The sale of that one Spitfire airframe would have covered the cost of the Beverley being moved to Cosford. A huge job agreed, but still feasible - if they wanted it. Instead of which that Spitfire airframe was included in a deal with no guarantees of receiving the P-40 in return, or anything else for that matter - so basically was given away. That to me is bad management of resources. Would you rather see other RAF museum airframes ‘given away’ in the same way just to make them flyers instead of being kept in storage - or better still, actually funding the acquisition and movement of credible airframes? Just take a look at some of the embarrassing airframes that the museum have received in exchange. Some are so bad they don’t even display them!

ZD241_VC10
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2016, 9:58 pm
Location: Bruntingthorpe
Contact:

Re: Bruntingthorpe Closure?

Post by ZD241_VC10 »

Wyvernfan wrote:
Mon 24 Aug 2020, 10:15 am
That completely misses the point. The sale of that one Spitfire airframe would have covered the cost of the Beverley being moved to Cosford.
But what is the justification of moving the Beverley to Cosford? Will it bring in enough visitors to justify the cost? Will its relocation deny space for future exhibits? Is there sufficient space to display it? Is it structurally sound enough to withstand the move and have sufficient longevity to justify the cost and effort or will it be have to be scrapped after 10 years?

The P-40 deal was just unfortunate. It was a once in a lifetime opportunity to acquire a time capsule aircraft. The Spitfire was the way to fund it; after all, stocks of Spitfires in the MoD are good and we have two airworthy PR XIXs. No one had seen this one for years whilst it sat at Stafford.

Sadly of course, they were dealing with the Egyptians who, as we’ve seen, nabbed it for themselves and, well, we know the rest of the tragedy.

Mike
Posts: 1898
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 5:08 pm

Re: Bruntingthorpe Closure?

Post by Mike »

ZD241 wrote:Sadly of course, they were dealing with the Egyptians who, as we’ve seen, nabbed it for themselves and, well, we know the rest of the tragedy.
Not quite as simple as that. The ‘Arab Spring’ happened, the government was toppled and a new regime took over.

ZD241_VC10
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2016, 9:58 pm
Location: Bruntingthorpe
Contact:

Re: Bruntingthorpe Closure?

Post by ZD241_VC10 »

Mike wrote:
Mon 24 Aug 2020, 11:55 am
ZD241 wrote:Sadly of course, they were dealing with the Egyptians who, as we’ve seen, nabbed it for themselves and, well, we know the rest of the tragedy.
Not quite as simple as that. The ‘Arab Spring’ happened, the government was toppled and a new regime took over.
Indeed. I was merely pointing out, that like all deals there was a huge element of “risk” - even before the more recent turbulence in the region. It was probably a risk worth taking.

ArabJazzie
Posts: 2178
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 9:38 pm

Re: Bruntingthorpe Closure?

Post by ArabJazzie »

Wyvernfan wrote:
Mon 24 Aug 2020, 10:15 am
ArabJazzie wrote:
Sun 23 Aug 2020, 10:56 am

In the case of the Spitfire/P-40 deal, it was forces outside the control of the parties involved in recovering that airframe that shafted the deal. And that Spitfire i believe is to be a flyer, which i would rather see than it sitting gathering dust in a store.
That completely misses the point. The sale of that one Spitfire airframe would have covered the cost of the Beverley being moved to Cosford. A huge job agreed, but still feasible - if they wanted it. Instead of which that Spitfire airframe was included in a deal with no guarantees of receiving the P-40 in return, or anything else for that matter - so basically was given away. That to me is bad management of resources. Would you rather see other RAF museum airframes ‘given away’ in the same way just to make them flyers instead of being kept in storage - or better still, actually funding the acquisition and movement of credible airframes? Just take a look at some of the embarrassing airframes that the museum have received in exchange. Some are so bad they don’t even display them!
I did read an article somewhere about the deal to bring the P-40 to the UK, but i cannot remember the figures involved. The work was carried out to secure the P-40(as far as it was in a container?), then when things went wrong, more work was put in to get things moving again until all was lost! So it wasnt given away!

But i have my doubts the value of the work put in would have covered the transport of a Beverley over 140 miles. That is google directions BTW, that give no considerations of the capabilities of the 4 escorted outsized load artics, or the obstacles to be removed along the way! You have to give me a reason on why it is a credible aircraft to deserve to be displayed at Cosford?

I have to ask how many RAFM airframes have been given away over the years? Ive always thought them to quite reluctant to let stuff go. I also ask what has come our way that was so bad, we couldnt display it, or was the plan always to store, restore, then display? Examples please!
52 in a year! We must be certifiable!

GertrudetheMerciless
Posts: 919
Joined: Mon 08 Sep 2008, 7:25 pm

Re: Bruntingthorpe Closure?

Post by GertrudetheMerciless »

Just look at the Buccs. £25k (ish) and those airframes were moved essentially complete.

The Beverley would have to be deconstructed and rebuilt professionally. That’s a lot of well qualified (and fairly well paid) labour on to of all the other costs.

User avatar
Archer
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed 06 May 2009, 10:02 am
Contact:

Re: Bruntingthorpe Closure?

Post by Archer »

I remember a statement from just after its move to Fort Paull, saying that it would not survive another move. I don't know how it was taken apart, using production breaks or with an angle grinder, but it may not be in perfect, one previous owner, condition.

GertrudetheMerciless
Posts: 919
Joined: Mon 08 Sep 2008, 7:25 pm

Re: Bruntingthorpe Closure?

Post by GertrudetheMerciless »

Archer wrote:
Tue 25 Aug 2020, 6:53 pm
I remember a statement from just after its move to Fort Paull, saying that it would not survive another move. I don't know how it was taken apart, using production breaks or with an angle grinder, but it may not be in perfect, one previous owner, condition.
Looking at pictures of it at Ft Paul after the last move, it would appear fuselage top and bottom, tail boom, tail, engines and wings.

Quite a lot.

User avatar
NAM Updater
Posts: 2872
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 7:06 am
Location: Notts / Lincs border
Contact:

Re: Bruntingthorpe Closure?

Post by NAM Updater »

Some previous move details for the Beverley can be found in here http://www.beverley-association.org.uk/index.htm
Howard Heeley - Newark Air Museum Trustee
http://newarkairmuseum.org

Ken Shabby
Posts: 527
Joined: Mon 29 Sep 2008, 12:23 pm
Location: Romford, Essex
Contact:

Re: Bruntingthorpe Closure?

Post by Ken Shabby »

I haven’t read through all the posts on this thread so am wondering if the subject of Wroughton has been brought up?

It used to be the Science Museum’s store - don’t know if it still is. I went on an organised visit there some years ago - it was (is?) a tremendous facility and they had (have?) hundreds of artefacts there, including a Constellation and a Comet. It struck me at the time that if you were to have a large aircraft collection anywhere, that would be the place to have it. I mentioned as much to the Science Museum guide showing us around but he said the management in London had no interest in opening it up as an attraction.
Ken

GeeRam
Posts: 189
Joined: Sat 13 Jun 2020, 3:54 pm

Re: Bruntingthorpe Closure?

Post by GeeRam »

Ken Shabby wrote:
Tue 25 Aug 2020, 9:13 pm
I haven’t read through all the posts on this thread so am wondering if the subject of Wroughton has been brought up?
Why would Wroughton be brought up on a thread about Brungtingthorpe?

GertrudetheMerciless
Posts: 919
Joined: Mon 08 Sep 2008, 7:25 pm

Re: Bruntingthorpe Closure?

Post by GertrudetheMerciless »

GeeRam wrote:
Tue 25 Aug 2020, 9:25 pm
Ken Shabby wrote:
Tue 25 Aug 2020, 9:13 pm
I haven’t read through all the posts on this thread so am wondering if the subject of Wroughton has been brought up?
Why would Wroughton be brought up on a thread about Brungtingthorpe?
I presume as a potential home.

The somewhat secretive Science Museum collection is about to move into a new building. On paper that would seem like an excellent location for a VC10. The unfortunate reality is that the Science Museum have been looking to offload their Trident, Comet and Constellation(!) on loan since the spring of 2019 to move them away from Wroughton (most costs to be met by the loan taker!). Their new building there are not big enough for them and I suspect they are looking to empty the hangars.

User avatar
capercaillie
Posts: 8117
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 3:04 pm
Location: Leominster

Re: Bruntingthorpe Closure?

Post by capercaillie »

It would have been nice many years ago for the foresight to have kept an airfield with a long enough runway to have been home to a proper museum with one of each type (at least) to have retired there and been preserved. Sadly that time passed long ago and the (now) two RAFM sites were/are not readily designed to take either live aircraft or large exhibits. The real estate has all been sold off where not wanted, take an ideal centrally located, long runway example such as Gaydon - it would have been the perfect choice. Its certainly not going to happen in the future. Types in service such as Globemasters and Atlases will be too valuable for their spare parts to keep the rest of the world fleet in the air and get parted out probably before they get a chance to fly into Cosford, even if there was room by then, look at the Sentries flying back to the USA now. Someone mentioned numbers of Tristars preserved abroad, I don't think there will be too many in the end.

The Beverley will be a great shame if its lost and gone forever but it joins a long list of even more important types never preserved in this country, when you look at Stirlings, Halifaxes, Whitleys etc and the sacrifices the crews of those gave. Look at the number(s) of military Argosies and Andovers preserved in the UK and the amount that had been broken up and its not just a trend of the future.

They are lucky in the USA, their major retirement facility is huge and spacious and if something needs to be kept there is no need to break it in a hurry, unless the Iranians operate them, and they can always just drag it across the road to the museum, shift the fence a little further.

Its a great pity with Bruntingthorpe, so many good aircraft assembled there and many live runners, too easy to take for granted I suppose, no idea what the answer is to saving some of the larger airframes is going to be though, Mr Walton's three airframes aside, costs simply outweigh logic. Why anyone wants to operate a costly VC10 or Tristar when there are going to be a glut of more economical airframes becoming available is also strange, yes initial conversion cost, perhaps but if its an already certified tanker type with existing airframe and engine support? Seems just a pity that the new people in charge are in such a rush to close the place down or be destroyed forever in their apparent attitude to aviation.
"The surrogate voice of st24"

GeeRam
Posts: 189
Joined: Sat 13 Jun 2020, 3:54 pm

Re: Bruntingthorpe Closure?

Post by GeeRam »

GertrudetheMerciless wrote:
Tue 25 Aug 2020, 11:05 pm
GeeRam wrote:
Tue 25 Aug 2020, 9:25 pm
Ken Shabby wrote:
Tue 25 Aug 2020, 9:13 pm
I haven’t read through all the posts on this thread so am wondering if the subject of Wroughton has been brought up?
Why would Wroughton be brought up on a thread about Brungtingthorpe?
I presume as a potential home.

The somewhat secretive Science Museum collection is about to move into a new building. On paper that would seem like an excellent location for a VC10. The unfortunate reality is that the Science Museum have been looking to offload their Trident, Comet and Constellation(!) on loan since the spring of 2019 to move them away from Wroughton (most costs to be met by the loan taker!). Their new building there are not big enough for them and I suspect they are looking to empty the hangars.
Since 2019....?
The Constellation was sitting in one of the blister hangars at Wroughton back in 1992/3 when the last 2 x Great Warbids Displays were held there. It just fitted inside one of them. Its been there 30 odd years at least.
The new building they have built there is their archive vault and storage library facility, its not been built to house aircraft, although its certainley big enough! Its 300m long by 100m wide and 3/4 stories high at the apex!! The site is not publically accessible, its never been so, its their off-site storage and archive, although I believe the new building is intended to be public accessible.
One end of the new building now lies along the edge of the old runway, and half of the airfield is a solar panel farm. Getting any dismantled airliner up the hilly lanes to Wroughton (or out of Wroughton) would not be an easy task either.
Its about the last place to in the UK to suggest a VC10 or any other aircraft should go, not that the Science Museum would allow it anyway.

Ken Shabby
Posts: 527
Joined: Mon 29 Sep 2008, 12:23 pm
Location: Romford, Essex
Contact:

Re: Bruntingthorpe Closure?

Post by Ken Shabby »

Thanks for the update on Wroughton. It seems that any opportunity for it to provide a home for more preserved large aircraft has been lost. Interesting to read the Science Museum is looking for someone else to provide homes for its Constellation etc.

Sorry if my earlier post pulled the thread off-topic.
Ken

Post Reply