RAFM disposals

Discussions regarding historic aircraft, restoration and preservation etc
User avatar
iainpeden
Posts: 2996
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 7:01 pm
Location: Great Oakley, Corby, Northants

RAFM disposals

Post by iainpeden »

There's quite a discussion going on Britmodeller about proposed disposals by the RAFM.

https://www.britmodeller.com/forums/ind ... disposals/
(Mark Twain: There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics)

User avatar
NAM Updater
Posts: 2895
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 7:06 am
Location: Notts / Lincs border
Contact:

Re: RAFM disposals

Post by NAM Updater »

Interesting to see that the 'faithful' are allocating airframes to everyone again!

It's also interesting to note from twitter that the Boulton Paul Balliol T2 has been restored at Cosford by the Boulton Paul Association, and has headed off south. Where ... "She will now be displayed in the Cornwall Aviation Heritage Centre."
Howard Heeley - Newark Air Museum Trustee
http://newarkairmuseum.org

User avatar
Blue_2
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu 13 Jan 2011, 10:29 am

Re: RAFM disposals

Post by Blue_2 »

When you've finished with the magic wand to create more space Howard, may we have a borrow of it please?!
Meteor WS788 and Chipmunk WG640 Restoration Projects, Yorkshire Air Museum. Other types meddled with by request...

User avatar
NAM Updater
Posts: 2895
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 7:06 am
Location: Notts / Lincs border
Contact:

Re: RAFM disposals

Post by NAM Updater »

I'm afraid there's no sharing of magic wands, especially during Lockdown 3!

Happy New Year to you all "ooup North!"
Howard Heeley - Newark Air Museum Trustee
http://newarkairmuseum.org

User avatar
centaurus18
Posts: 1287
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 8:59 am
Location: Ex-Yeovil, now Southampton, UK
Contact:

Re: RAFM disposals

Post by centaurus18 »

NAM Updater wrote:
Wed 06 Jan 2021, 3:52 pm
Interesting to see that the 'faithful' are allocating airframes to everyone again!

It's also interesting to note from twitter that the Boulton Paul Balliol T2 has been restored at Cosford by the Boulton Paul Association, and has headed off south. Where ... "She will now be displayed in the Cornwall Aviation Heritage Centre."
They wouldn't dare loan the Sea Balliol to the FAAM....they'd never get it back :D
Mark
'We’re in the stickiest situation, since Sticky the stick insect got stuck on a sticky bun.'

TEXANTOMCAT
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat 09 Aug 2014, 5:40 pm

Re: RAFM disposals

Post by TEXANTOMCAT »

I suspect Howard disposal of 25 airframes from a National collection may well stimulate some opinions and debate - thats what fora are for!!

User avatar
NAM Updater
Posts: 2895
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 7:06 am
Location: Notts / Lincs border
Contact:

Re: RAFM disposals

Post by NAM Updater »

I fully appreciate the debate aspect, in this case elsewhere about 'supposed' disposals, that may or may not be happening.

As someone who almost lost a hard-won delivery location for a Saab Viggen aircraft, due to speculation and 'debate' based on 100% wrong 'inside' information, I tend to be a bit sensitive.

Likewise the ability to 'allocate' an airframe to someone else's museum / collection, without asking them first is rather frustrating; especially when it happens so many different times!

Apologies for sounding grumpy TT it's a very challenging time on so many different levels! Happy New Year and here's looking forward to better times!!
Howard Heeley - Newark Air Museum Trustee
http://newarkairmuseum.org

TEXANTOMCAT
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat 09 Aug 2014, 5:40 pm

Re: RAFM disposals

Post by TEXANTOMCAT »

NAM Updater wrote:
Thu 07 Jan 2021, 2:18 pm
I fully appreciate the debate aspect, in this case elsewhere about 'supposed' disposals, that may or may not be happening.

As someone who almost lost a hard-won delivery location for a Saab Viggen aircraft, due to speculation and 'debate' based on 100% wrong 'inside' information, I tend to be a bit sensitive.

Likewise the ability to 'allocate' an airframe to someone else's museum / collection, without asking them first is rather frustrating; especially when it happens so many different times!

Apologies for sounding grumpy TT it's a very challenging time on so many different levels! Happy New Year and here's looking forward to better times!!
Fair enough matey -I think 'allocating' might be strong but suggestions for potential new homes is healthy - the alternative being that they are sold or go abroad! Equally I think some of the RAFM 'proposed' disposals is going to generate some robust views! With a relative an ex-Mitchell crewman particularly so with the B-25 for me.

What is happening lately it seems is many museums are rationalising collections and becoming more 'focussed' NELSAM are a prime example and probably the first to do it in a big way with airframes- all power to their elbow- and in a chat with them before xmas may result in a three way exchange where following a reshuffle three museums may get an example of what they want to display. I think this is healthy.

Cheer up fella! Best wishes to you and the Newark team for 2021 from all at Sywell

TT

User avatar
NAM Updater
Posts: 2895
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 7:06 am
Location: Notts / Lincs border
Contact:

Re: RAFM disposals

Post by NAM Updater »

Thanks TT and I take on board your comments.

The phrase 'allocating' is also influenced by the invisible input that also comes in i.e. not just through fora.

With staff furloughed I've been looking after one of the main email accounts; and on my watch the main traffic has centred on using ".... all that space you have at Newark..." for a Beverley, Victor, Herald, Nimrod (or parts thereof); VC10; E-3D; and most recently Sentinel.

A quick count up as the Sentinel traffic started arriving, showed around 80 different people suggesting the above mentioned airframes ought to come and fill all that space at Newark! The cut and paste function is nearly worm out on my PC!!
Howard Heeley - Newark Air Museum Trustee
http://newarkairmuseum.org

TEXANTOMCAT
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat 09 Aug 2014, 5:40 pm

Re: RAFM disposals

Post by TEXANTOMCAT »

oooor to accentuate the positive 1) shows people are aware of Newark' Air Museum 2) believe you to be good custodians/ have a good reputation 3) people want to help.

Tis ever this - I get bizarre requests all the time via the museum phone number and email address - many for the aerodrome proper - my favourite being (I was also having a grumpy numpty dealing day) the C/O of an unnamed chinook squadron wishing to PPR for some hot refuelling. Not being in the mood I just told him to come in inverted so we knew it was him - he soon clocked that he had called the Museum not the Tower..... :)

DOUGHNUT
Posts: 353
Joined: Sat 21 Mar 2009, 2:49 pm

Re: RAFM disposals

Post by DOUGHNUT »

Howard. You may be in a good place to answer these questions. When you enter into negotiations with an organisation such as RAFM regarding a loan of an exhibit how much say do you have in how it is displayed ? I ask you this because Newark once had the RAFM Havard and Oxford on display. How much of a responsibility (burden ?) does it become ? Old aeroplanes dont just stand there, time and effort is still required to simply keep them clean but more than that, who insurance them ? It would seem fair that the RAFM expect the items returned in the same condition as loaded out, ie not damaged.
If, as seems the case with some items on the RAFM disposal list, (Hunter and Meteor at Tangmere ?) ownership is transferred what strings would be attached to the transfer of ownership ? Obviously rules should stipulate that items could not be sold, rather transferred again to another approved museum, but what about allowing the exhibit to deteriorate, be damaged, or moved away from public view.
Sometimes it may be better to walk away for an unwanted gift.

This last point may provoke an angry response but what is actually wrong saying if we were to sell ABC we could invest in XYZ.
How much would a two seat FW190 fetch at auction and what could that money be used for ?

GeeRam
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat 13 Jun 2020, 3:54 pm

Re: RAFM disposals

Post by GeeRam »

DOUGHNUT wrote:
Thu 07 Jan 2021, 5:40 pm
How much would a two seat FW190 fetch at auction and what could that money be used for ?
I would think several million minimum......given its the only one in the world, and up until the late 80's used to have its engine run up when housed at St.Athan (along with the Me410), so it's near enough 100% complete.
I would think it would likely end up in the USA.

I'm astonished the RAFM are even considering disposing of it, given its the only Fw190 they have, and its unique etc.

User avatar
NAM Updater
Posts: 2895
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 7:06 am
Location: Notts / Lincs border
Contact:

Re: RAFM disposals

Post by NAM Updater »

DOUGHNUT wrote:
Thu 07 Jan 2021, 5:40 pm
Howard. You may be in a good place to answer these questions. When you enter into negotiations with an organisation such as RAFM regarding a loan of an exhibit how much say do you have in how it is displayed ? I ask you this because Newark once had the RAFM Havard and Oxford on display. How much of a responsibility (burden ?) does it become ? Old aeroplanes dont just stand there, time and effort is still required to simply keep them clean but more than that, who insurance them ? It would seem fair that the RAFM expect the items returned in the same condition as loaded out, ie not damaged.
If, as seems the case with some items on the RAFM disposal list, (Hunter and Meteor at Tangmere ?) ownership is transferred what strings would be attached to the transfer of ownership ? Obviously rules should stipulate that items could not be sold, rather transferred again to another approved museum, but what about allowing the exhibit to deteriorate, be damaged, or moved away from public view.
Sometimes it may be better to walk away for an unwanted gift.

This last point may provoke an angry response but what is actually wrong saying if we were to sell ABC we could invest in XYZ.
How much would a two seat FW190 fetch at auction and what could that money be used for ?
Thanks TT.

An interesting set of questions DOUGHNUT that I will try to answer from my own personal experiences. It’s interesting that you cited the Oxford and Harvard that were taken on loan from the RAFM at Cardington, because I negotiated those loans and helped organise most of the logistics associated with their moves.

The loan was arranged at about the same time in 1991 that Newark Air Museum (NAM) achieved Phase 1 Registration with the Museum & Galleries Commission. Such registration showed that NAM worked to nationally recognised standards; since that time NAM has retained that status albeit it is now known as Accredited Museum status.

It initial loan period was for two years; NAM paid the move costs (to and from Cardington); and covered the annual insurance costs as an extension to our own PL insurance; this was based on valuations written into the agreement by the RAFM. The aircraft were subject to annual inspections and we initially opted to renew after the two-year term came due. During the second inspection a possible deterioration was noted on the Oxford, which required some remedial work on the display conditions in Hangar 1. That said I subsequently was able to provide photographic evidence that the deterioration was in part present before the Oxford left Cardington; I still have the slide that helped in that situation.

NAM opted to terminate both of the loans after three years instead of four, as the interest had started to wane. Plus there was the chance of the Draken and Auster Autocrat coming to NAM. All of the decisions in this process require you to make a judgement based on the return on investment of both funds and effort.

As an Accredited Museum you agree to work to certain standards and dispose of aircraft/exhibits in an agreed way, and that usually involves offering the items to other Accredited Museums first.

NAM has recently had engines transferred from the RAFM as gifts. To secure those you had to advise how they fitted in with your Collecting Policy and confirm how they would be displayed e.g. under cover in secure conditions. Other National Museums may apply different conditions; and expectations depending on the exhibit and situation at the time. Most would normally give reference to Collecting Policy/Relevance; seek an Interpretation Plan and make some reference to subsequent disposal.

The same applies for international loans e.g. with the Viggen NAM agreed not to attempt to ground run it; subsequent deactivation work by the RSAF also made sure that condition was not broken.

You certainly do have to “walk away from an unwanted gift” – I would estimate that on behalf of NAM I turn down on average one aircraft a month!

No thoughts on the FW-190 question!
Howard Heeley - Newark Air Museum Trustee
http://newarkairmuseum.org

Mike
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 5:08 pm

Re: RAFM disposals

Post by Mike »

GeeRam wrote:
Thu 07 Jan 2021, 5:53 pm
...given its the only Fw190 they have, and its unique etc.
They have another, a single-seater (previously on loan to the IWM) at Cosford.

DOUGHNUT
Posts: 353
Joined: Sat 21 Mar 2009, 2:49 pm

Re: RAFM disposals

Post by DOUGHNUT »

Howard. Thankyou for your reply and professional insight to the preservation world.

GeeRam
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat 13 Jun 2020, 3:54 pm

Re: RAFM disposals

Post by GeeRam »

Mike wrote:
Fri 08 Jan 2021, 12:05 am
GeeRam wrote:
Thu 07 Jan 2021, 5:53 pm
...given its the only Fw190 they have, and its unique etc.
They have another, a single-seater (previously on loan to the IWM) at Cosford.
Is that the same one that was at Lambeth many years ago, as I had a vague recollection of one being there, but so long ago, and memory not quite what it is, I'd sort of lost track of what happened to that one, as it didn't show up as being there now, but wasn't sure whether that was a real one, composite of many parts or a mock up?

User avatar
NAM Updater
Posts: 2895
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 7:06 am
Location: Notts / Lincs border
Contact:

Re: RAFM disposals

Post by NAM Updater »

DOUGHNUT wrote:
Fri 08 Jan 2021, 8:06 am
Howard. Thankyou for your reply and professional insight to the preservation world.
Happy to have tried to shed some light on what's involved. I found it quite therapeutic to compile the response, that brought back some good memories.

The Museum's Registration process and working with the RAFM encouraged NAM to step up its game and become more professional; even if one of my colleagues managed to produce some cheesy banners for the two loads, with a tag of: "I'm heading to Newark Air Museum!" or something similar.

A lot has happened since then, and continues to happen, despite the lockdown!
Howard Heeley - Newark Air Museum Trustee
http://newarkairmuseum.org

DOUGHNUT
Posts: 353
Joined: Sat 21 Mar 2009, 2:49 pm

Re: RAFM disposals

Post by DOUGHNUT »

It could be said the RAF Museum lacked a focus or obtained exhibits in a random way in the past.
There will be many example, some that spring to mind are the Dornier 24 received from Spain and at one time on show at Hendon, fortunately now in Holland. On Spanish theme what happen to the CASA 1.131 that was also on show in Hendon ? Why do they have the civil EH101 at Hendon, they complain about available space and yet persist with this ? As for accepting gifts, why have the MH-53 at Cosford ?

Brenden S
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue 05 Nov 2019, 5:39 am

Re: RAFM disposals

Post by Brenden S »

Here is the list from BM
Auster Antarctic WE600 Relevance
Avro 707C WZ744 Significance
Bristol Sycamore XJ918 Duplication
DH Devon C.2 VP952 Significance/Interpretative potential
DH Moth G-AAMX Relevance
Fairchild Cornell II 15252 Relevance/Completeness
Focke-Wulf Fw 190F-8/U1 WkNr.584219 Significance/Duplication
Gloster Meteor F.4 EE549 Significance On loan to Tangmere Military Aviation Museum
Gloster Meteor T.7(mod) WA634 Duplication
Gloster Meteor F.8 Prone Pilot WK935 Duplication
Hafner Rotachute III P-5 Relevance On loan to Army Flying Museum
Hang-glider (civil) Relevance
Hawker P.1052 VX272 Significance On loan to Fleet Air Arm Museum
Hawker P.1127 XP831 Significance On loan to the Science Museum
Hawker Hunter F,1 WT619 Relevance
Hawker Hunter Mk.3 WB188 Significance On loan to Tangmere Military Aviation Museum
Lockheed SP-2H Neptune 204 Relevance/Environment
NA B-25J Mitchell 44-29366 Relevance
NA P-51D Mustang 44-73415 Duplication/Completeness
Panavia Tornado XX946 Relevance
SA Jetstream T.1 XX496 Relevance/Environment
Slingsby Sedbergh TX.1 VX275 Relevance
Sopwith Tabloid replica 168 Originality/Significance
Supermarine 517 VV106 Significance On loan to Fleet Air Arm Museum
Vickers Vimy replica F8614 Originality/Significance
Westalnd Dragnfly HR.1 VX595 Relevance/Significance

Ant.H
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed 15 Jan 2020, 2:21 am

Re: RAFM disposals

Post by Ant.H »

Really bizarre to see the world's only surviving two-seat Fw190 with "significance/duplication" written next to it, both the RAFM 190's are hugely significant and sole survivors (only surviving two seater, only surviving Mistel aircraft). How can the only prone Meteor be considered a duplicate?? If the record breaking Hunter and Meteor aren't significant then I don't know what is, same for the Mitchell.

If the above list and the descriptions are accurate, it demonstrates a shocking lack of appreciation for globally significant exhibits.

Crazy.

I do understand that museums can and should move things on (or even scrap things in certain circumstances) and some of the above list does make sense, but there are some real "howlers" in there that make you wonder what they're thinking, and/or what severe unseen pressure they are under to get airfames out of the door.

User avatar
Archer
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed 06 May 2009, 10:02 am
Contact:

Re: RAFM disposals

Post by Archer »

I actually enjoy playing devil's advocate, so apologies in advance.

If you look at the RAFM's policy, the museum is basically there to tell the 'RAF story'. As both World Wars were integral to that story, it makes sense to have several aircraft from the opponent's side in the collection to balance out that part of the story. Do you then need two Fw-190s? I would say one could be enough, and it would make sense to select the single-seater as the best example to fit within this story. However unique the trainer Fw-190 is, it did not engage in air to air combat with the RAF (most likely, I have not looked into this). This particular aircraft is certainly valuable and should not be scrapped, but it might be better suited to a collection that focuses on German types, or has a link to the Focke-Wulf brand.

The prone-pilot Meteor is another interesting subject. It is a unique aircraft and I would say that it fits within the story of the test flying hangar (what's the official name again?). But, we also have to keep in mind that this particular bit of development was kind of a dead end. There were never any operational types with a prone pilot cockpit. Had this been the case, this particular Meteor would have been the start of a long line of in-service types, which would have made it a very relevant aircraft. Right now it is more of an oddity, as it is basically a severely modified Meteor F.8. The museum has another Meteor F.8 in its collection that illustrates the operational use of this particular type, which is much more in line with the overall story of the museum. Over time, the significance of smaller parts of the RAF's history may change, as other conflicts turn up and are added to the story. It would be a shame to see small influences, like the research done with WK935, disappear but if another museum will take on this piece of history and care for it just as much as the RAFM has, then as a whole, nothing has been lost.

I will now retreat to my bunker....

User avatar
capercaillie
Posts: 8163
Joined: Mon 01 Sep 2008, 3:04 pm
Location: Leominster

Re: RAFM disposals

Post by capercaillie »

Archer wrote:
Mon 11 Jan 2021, 1:56 pm
I actually enjoy playing devil's advocate, so apologies in advance.

If you look at the RAFM's policy, the museum is basically there to tell the 'RAF story'. As both World Wars were integral to that story, it makes sense to have several aircraft from the opponent's side in the collection to balance out that part of the story. Do you then need two Fw-190s? I would say one could be enough, and it would make sense to select the single-seater as the best example to fit within this story. However unique the trainer Fw-190 is, it did not engage in air to air combat with the RAF (most likely, I have not looked into this). This particular aircraft is certainly valuable and should not be scrapped, but it might be better suited to a collection that focuses on German types, or has a link to the Focke-Wulf brand.

The prone-pilot Meteor is another interesting subject. It is a unique aircraft and I would say that it fits within the story of the test flying hangar (what's the official name again?). But, we also have to keep in mind that this particular bit of development was kind of a dead end. There were never any operational types with a prone pilot cockpit. Had this been the case, this particular Meteor would have been the start of a long line of in-service types, which would have made it a very relevant aircraft. Right now it is more of an oddity, as it is basically a severely modified Meteor F.8. The museum has another Meteor F.8 in its collection that illustrates the operational use of this particular type, which is much more in line with the overall story of the museum. Over time, the significance of smaller parts of the RAF's history may change, as other conflicts turn up and are added to the story. It would be a shame to see small influences, like the research done with WK935, disappear but if another museum will take on this piece of history and care for it just as much as the RAFM has, then as a whole, nothing has been lost.

I will now retreat to my bunker....
Your points are valid and reasoned, however the whole concept of airframes selected makes little sense as others have pointed out on several fora.

They deem the Devon, Jetstream and Antarctic Auster as of no relevance. Aircraft that served with the Royal Air Force, some for 30+ years, have no relevance in an RAF museum?

If the Prone Meteor and indeed ejector trials Meteor are duplicates, then whoever is compiling the list may as well have four webbed feet and live in a pond. You mention that the tests and results from the prone trials led to nothing. Well if that's the case we can turf out the Bristol 188 as that was a complete flop, mixed propulsion using rockets not really an RAF thing, so the Saro 53 can go as well. TSR2, mmmmmm? Meanwhile no-one has used an ejector seat in the RAF have they?

The trouble is while many of these airframes will undoubtedly find good homes if they go, museum exhibits have a tendency to not fair too well if a taker is not found, Vulcan and Victor B1, Victor B2, RAF Varsity, yes they scrapped the RAF one at the RAF museum when a better non RAF one turned up, the BA collection all at Cosford, Comet C2 (find one now), T-29 and another rare Varsity at Duxford being notable examples. Rare and unique items put into care for the future, now gone forever.

When the RAF Museum decide to look for an alternative home for something as rare as a two seat Fw190, I'm slightly concerned. When they start to look to ditch items gifted such as the Neptune and Catalina, I'm concerned, especially considering they are on the larger side of the scrap tape measure. I also wonder why the MH-53, F-111 and MiG21 aren't deemed as not relevant especially compared to RAF types?
"The surrogate voice of st24"

User avatar
iainpeden
Posts: 2996
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 7:01 pm
Location: Great Oakley, Corby, Northants

Re: RAFM disposals

Post by iainpeden »

Lots of informed discussion here; might be worth a multitude of letters to the trustees.
(Mark Twain: There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics)

f-4
Posts: 152
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 3:28 pm

Re: RAFM disposals

Post by f-4 »

Hopefully BAE Systems will be interested in XX946, or at least they should be...

Mike
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sun 31 Aug 2008, 5:08 pm

Re: RAFM disposals

Post by Mike »

BAE Systems are not in the business of collecting old aeroplanes.

Post Reply