Warbird operators to be evicted from Duxford...?

[Nige321]

It appears the reason HAC is selling their flet is because the IWM are intending to evict the warbird operators from Duxford...

https://x.com/1940Andy/status/1787395910726500429

[farnboroughrob]

That is disgraceful, IWM have lost the plot. Its the Warbirds that draw many of us to Duxford, without them I would probably only visit about every 10 years.

[Berf]

Yet another candidate for the National Aviation Facility and Museum at Scampton which will never happen...

[Dom.]

I'd take this with a pinch of salt until something official is announced or the likes of HAC confirm it themselves

[Ryan.]

There has been a lot of murmurings going on but no official conformation.

Guy Black did do an interview stating that IWM didn’t see their collection of aircraft fitting into the long term goals of IWM Duxford.

There’s a lot of suggestion it’s the hangarage agreement that’s the real issue. With operators not paying for hangarage costs but instead allowing their aircraft to be available for a number of IWM events throughout the year. What seems to be unclear is if there has been a renegotiating or not.

There’s also the relocation of the Land Warfare exhibits worth the loss of the Land Warfare hall also being a factor.

It also seems to be some, not all operators at Duxford.

Time will tell.

[Nige321]

I'd take this with a pinch of salt until something official is announced or the likes of HAC confirm it themselves

If you read the Twitter post in question you will find that HAC/Guy Black have confirmed it...

[Nige321]

There has been a lot of murmurings going on but no official conformation.

Guy Black did do an interview stating that IWM didn’t see their collection of aircraft fitting into the long term goals of IWM Duxford.

There’s a lot of suggestion it’s the hangarage agreement that’s the real issue. With operators not paying for hangarage costs but instead allowing their aircraft to be available for a number of IWM events throughout the year. What seems to be unclear is if there has been a renegotiating or not.

There’s also the relocation of the Land Warfare exhibits worth the loss of the Land Warfare hall also being a factor.

It also seems to be some, not all operators at Duxford.

Time will tell.

It would appear that ARCo may be unaffected, but what about Fighter Collection, Sally B, the Catalina, OFMC etc...

[Ryan.]

There has been a lot of murmurings going on but no official conformation.

Guy Black did do an interview stating that IWM didn’t see their collection of aircraft fitting into the long term goals of IWM Duxford.

There’s a lot of suggestion it’s the hangarage agreement that’s the real issue. With operators not paying for hangarage costs but instead allowing their aircraft to be available for a number of IWM events throughout the year. What seems to be unclear is if there has been a renegotiating or not.

There’s also the relocation of the Land Warfare exhibits worth the loss of the Land Warfare hall also being a factor.

It also seems to be some, not all operators at Duxford.

Time will tell.

It would appear that ARCo may be unaffected, but what about Fighter Collection, Sally B, the Catalina, OFMC etc...

At the moment, away from the HAC in which Guy Black has said this to be the case, it’s unclear.


If I was a betting person, I would say a Hangar 2 isn’t going to change much because it houses pretty much exclusively a private collection. Whereas the Air and Sea Hangar, which the HAC normally would reside in, share between private collections and IWM exhibits.

To be honest how a DH9, an aircraft that was based at Duxford doesn’t fit into the IWM long term goals, is anyone’s guess. So who knows what will end up happening.

[Amp]

Per Farnboroughrob, if anyone sees the plot, please let IWM know.
A major investment has been made in the giant kids play area, yet no room for a DH9 seems ... odd! Surely the team at Duxford (new boss lady recently wasn't there?) would realise that the "live" aircraft are a draw for many visitors, not detracting from the historic importance of many of the statics, but live aircraft produce sounds and smells that stay with people and create return visits. It is the airfield/flying that differentiates Duxford from many museums and attracts many guests.
I presume that this is a monetary issue and they still to recover from COVID etc etc. Most on here are enthusiasts as opposed to regular punters, so biased, but LWH, Flying Legends, based warbirds all seems to be negative steps and very short sighted. Alternate income streams from third party hangars such as Marshall and the electric aircraft, plus the hotel, all seems to have gone away, but don't get shot of crowd pleasers. Continue exploring alternate third party income sources without disturbing the operations of the airfield.

[GeeRam]

To be honest how a DH9, an aircraft that was based at Duxford doesn’t fit into the IWM long term goals, is anyone’s guess.

It doesn't fit because because the idiots in charge of the IWM actually have no understanding of what it is they are supposed to be about.....they are professional museum people with no actual clue about the subject.

You could see that when that daft women came out with all that waffle about TFC and why Legends didn't fit with IWM anymore.

However, I'm guessing HAC explored other sites to operate the collection from if they were evicted from Duxford...before deciding to put the collection up for sale??

[Megalith]

Don't the IWM have there own DH9? So the HAC example, despite being a flyer, might be seen as a duplicate.

[Pen Pusher]

To be honest how a DH9, an aircraft that was based at Duxford doesn’t fit into the IWM long term goals, is anyone’s guess. So who knows what will end up happening.

You do know there is a DH.9 in AIrSpace.

[Mike]

I wonder what the terms of the agreement in terms of numbers of airshow appearances in return for hangarage are.

I wonder how many actual airshow appearances aircraft such as the DH9 have made at Duxford in return for said hangarage.

No doubt there is more than just one side to this particular story.

[Ryan.]

To be honest how a DH9, an aircraft that was based at Duxford doesn’t fit into the IWM long term goals, is anyone’s guess. So who knows what will end up happening.

You do know there is a DH.9 in AIrSpace.

I’m well aware there is a DH.9 in Airspace. However I feel the value of an aircraft that can fly, it is of course the only DH.9 capable of flight anywhere in the world of course, should be an important consideration.

Also, I don’t believe the DH.9 in Airspace hasn’t left the space it’s in since it was put there (understandably so) however seeing the aeroplane outside in the environment the in service aircraft would have been in, is also an important consideration, rather than a more modern looking hanger the static DH.9 resides in.

[Professor_M]

Let's not forget that Dominie G-AGJG already left last year.

By my reckoning, as a quick snapshot of what's inside Hangars 2,3,and 4 at Duxford: Hangar 2 contains TFC & Comanche in the southern half, ARCo operated/maintained aircraft in the north-eastern corner (plus Sally B) and currently now entirely Fighter Aviation in the north-western corner (they've all gathered together there in the last couple of weeks), plus Pete Kynsey's Cosmic Wind & Jungmann (and the Catalina in the winter). The flying aircraft in Hangar 3 are all ARCo operated/maintained in the eastern half, with HAC, MH434, "Suffolk Spitfire", Paul Ford's WWI Replicas and an L-4 in the western half. Then there's IWM's N3200 Spitfire Ia and Hurricane V7497 in Hangar 4.

With the unique HAC fleet now up for sale, it would be a massive loss to see them leave - they're far more than just yet more Spitfires (as much as I like them too), especially now that they are more active again at last.

The variety of the historic aircraft operated and restored at Duxford is what sets it apart, and makes it more than just a one-visit-only-would-suffice museum.

Let's see what happens (and hope something more substantial comes out and that the speculation doesn't go on for too long).

[GeeRam]

There has been a lot of murmurings going on but no official conformation.

Guy Black did do an interview stating that IWM didn’t see their collection of aircraft fitting into the long term goals of IWM Duxford.

There’s a lot of suggestion it’s the hangarage agreement that’s the real issue. With operators not paying for hangarage costs but instead allowing their aircraft to be available for a number of IWM events throughout the year. What seems to be unclear is if there has been a renegotiating or not.

It also seems to be some, not all operators at Duxford.

Time will tell.

I assume this is why Hun Hunter and Berlin Express have departed for Europe as well..?
And why the Rapide has left.

[Brevet Cable]

Just in case anyone's missed the other goings-on / plans for IWM Duxford....
https://www.iwm.org.uk/visits/iwm-duxford/transforming

And throw in a hotel too....
https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/l ... r-20790055

[Pen Pusher]

Just in case anyone's missed the other goings-on / plans for IWM Duxford....
https://www.iwm.org.uk/visits/iwm-duxford/transforming

And throw in a hotel too....
https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/l ... r-20790055

Planning application on the Hotel has expired.

[StandardTom]

Just in case anyone's missed the other goings-on / plans for IWM Duxford....
https://www.iwm.org.uk/visits/iwm-duxford/transforming

I don't like this at all.

"...the rich history of the airfield’s flying activities will be protected and preserved for generations to come"

Given when i've read throughout this thread, i'm not convinced by this sentence either.

[Pen Pusher]

I don't like this at all.

"...the rich history of the airfield’s flying activities will be protected and preserved for generations to come"

Given when i've read throughout this thread, i'm not convinced by this sentence either.

The 'rich history of the airfield’s flying activities' being referred to is from when Duxford aerodrome opened in 1918, though the Second World War to when the RAF left in 1961. Nothing to do with the warbirds that are currently based there.

[StandardTom]

I don't like this at all.

"...the rich history of the airfield’s flying activities will be protected and preserved for generations to come"

Given when i've read throughout this thread, i'm not convinced by this sentence either.

The 'rich history of the airfield’s flying activities' being referred to is from when Duxford aerodrome opened in 1918, though the Second World War to when the RAF left in 1961. Nothing to do with the warbirds that are currently based there.

I understand that, but what better way to preserve it than by housing airworthy warbirds. I would rather see more of that than ground exhibits.

[farnboroughrob]

So looks like, sadly, the IWM are going down the 'Hendon' route? less aircraft, more interactive/ play areas for families and more 'experiences', and genrally covering up that some of the exhibits were designed to kill people'? Of course this means less aircraft, much less if the warbirds go, but will keep the Wokies happy.

[Mike]

...genrally covering up that some of the exhibits were designed to kill people'?

Really?

Do you have any evidence for this?

[Merlin70]

If IWM needs more space for its collection, why not add a hangar in place of the one blown up in the BofB movie.