Mad about Planes
My interest in our aeronautical heritage extends beyond places like RAF Driffield. Being an avid reader of both Flypast and Aeroplane Monthly (aviation heritage magazines) for over 25 years, I’m constantly frustrated by the way in which our historical aircraft have also been treated. No other sector of our country’s heritage would generally approve such travesties.
Each year, more rare aircraft are scrapped, and as one voice we shout (or rather murmur): “Never again”. But we don’t learn from our mistakes, and the checks and balances designed to protect our heritage don’t work. These checks and balances are also known as “museums”, and they are usually the main culprits.
Why is our aviation heritage so important?
Wednesday, December 17th 2003 marked the 100th anniversary of the Wright Brothers’ first powered flight – not that many in the UK paid much attention. The commemorative events in the USA were overshadowed by the conviction in the UK of Ian Huntley for murdering Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman. Perhaps we do take the magic of flight for granted. Or perhaps the media’s obsession with the evil of one man pushed other stories or events down the running order.
Today, there are only a handful of surviving veterans of The Great War (1914-1918). In 25 years time, there will be a similar number of elderly veterans of the Second World War (1939-1945).
Those who remember, or who bore witness, are our greatest assets – those we look up to with pride, or for an insight into what happened. Yet, when the last soldier, sailor, airman, or wartime evacuee has passed away, what is left will become exponentially more valuable. The problem is that by then, it may be too late. If we are to consolidate our history beyond the grave, then we need to increase our heritage portfolio and not cast away the physical attributes in the same manner we have done in the recent past. Our aviation heritage – that we know and love – also extends beyond the contours of the Spitfire and Hurricane. Yet, despite our rich and diverse heritage, the biggest issue we face is the waste of valuable resources (funding) expended on the preservation of foreign aircraft. This has become a national scandal, albeit one not reported by the media.
Question: “Why are we spending what limited resources (funds and manpower) that are available on preserving the aeronautical heritage of other nations, while our own heritage crumbles into obscurity?” In writing this, I highlight the ever-increasing perception that our aviation heritage, both physically and intellectually, is being sacrificed over that from other nations. The practice of “Top Shelf Aeronautica” – what used to be called “Spitfire Snobbery”, is being practiced by the very institutions that we ultimately rely on to protect our heritage.
Take Duxford – renowned as being the biggest and best aviation heritage site in Europe. Despite being a major Battle of Britain aerodrome, 50% of the aircraft on display (static or airworthy) are foreign. My first visit to Duxford was on November 6th 1995. At the time, builders had just started on the construction of the American Air Museum. Despite this costly development, I was concerned by the condition of the Avro Shackleton and Handley Page Victor, both of which had been left exposed to the elements. Only recently with the opening of Air Space, have these two aircraft secured sanctuary under cover.
It took the Imperial War Museum (IWM) until 2007 to find shelter for these indigenous airframes. This while the IWM, who own Duxford, not only opened the American Air Museum, but also expanded this collection of America's heritage. We know funds are limited, yet the IWM saw, as a priority, the preservation or conservation of more popular foreign airframes over more vulnerable (and valuable) British aircraft, whose future survival was severely jeopardised.
My concern is that we are not only sacrificing our own material heritage, but we are also enforcing the perception that we either never had an aviation industry worthy of preservation, or that the aeronautical exploits of other countries outclassed or surpassed our own.
At this point, it must be noted that private individuals or organisations are not exempt from this criticism. If anything, they are the real culprits – they, more than most, have the means to preserve our heritage, yet choose to turn the Flying Legends air display into a celebration of American airpower. I must add, at this point, that my criticism is not anti-American in context or content. It is largely directed at those in authority (OFMC, TFC, IWM, RAF Museum and Heritage Lottery Fund management), who desire to preserve the heritage of other nations, using scarce resources and even scarcer funds, while our own heritage is increasingly at risk.
I guess this is due in part to the misguided belief that sexy fighters and bombers sell, and that America produces the best “porn” (P51Ds and P47Ds).
Big is Beautiful
Rumour has it that when HeavyLift went into receivership, the owners offered its last airworthy Short Belfast (G-HLFT) to the Imperial War Museum for a mere £4,000. And this was to finance the delivery flight from Southend to Duxford. The offer was politely refused on the grounds of cost. How much did the IWM spend on the American Air Museum? What is worrying is that Duxford was in a better position than most to offer this airframe a ‘sheltered’ home. In recent years, a number of large British airframes have been scrapped, yet the Duxford Aviation Society, who own several vintage airliners, have proved that large airframes can be preserved by bodies who are sometimes more ‘focused’ or ‘mission orientated’ than their national counterparts.
Thumbing through the pages of Flypast and Aeroplane Monthly, it is easy to identify the problem areas. We know that large British designed and built aircraft are scrapped at an alarming rate. RAF transport aircraft are particularly at risk. Why? Because we still suffer from Spitfire Snobbery. Museums need to attract visitors – both to secure funds, and to impress funders.
A lumbering old transport, whose faded paintwork does little to detract from years of accumulated bird droppings, will always be less attractive than an easily identifiable Spitfire or Hurricane, even if they are fibreglass replicas.
This leads us nicely to an event that has caused more heartache and anger than any other – the scrapping of what was then one of only two surviving Blackburn Beverley transport aircraft, by the combined efforts of the RAF Museum at Hendon, and the Ministry of Defence (MoD).
Blackburn Beverley XH124 was scrapped, we were told, because it was too costly to move to Cosford. We were also told that the airframe was unstable. In reality, the RAF Museum’s Blackburn Beverley was scrapped because it wasn’t sexy enough for Hendon’s new image. Fact: a Spitfire will always outsell a lumbering old cargo plane. No matter, according to the RAF Museum, this airframe was in fact owned by the MoD – so they weren't to blame.
Keen to uncover the truth, I secured several documents through the Freedom of Information Act. Firstly, minutes of a meeting held by the MoD (Room 243, Northumberland House), on July 29th 1986, detailed the predicament of what to do with this airframe. This document confirms that the aircraft was in poor condition – but not reversible or terminal – though neither party (RAF Museum or MoD) were willing to pay for work needed to fully restore the aircraft.
However, it was recommended that the aircraft be offered to either the Science Museum or IWM. This suggestion was made by the RAF Museum themselves. The aircraft would have been offered FREE to either museum, with the proviso that the aircraft be moved to either Duxford or Wroughton, and that all costs of transportation and restoration be paid for by the new owners of XH124. However, it appears that this recommendation was not acted upon. Neither the Science Museum nor Imperial War Museum could confirm that they were offered XH124. The Science Museum’s Freedom of Information officer even contacted the old curator of the Science Museum, who also couldn't recall being contacted by either the RAF Museum or MoD regarding XH124. In all honesty, even if both museums were offered this aircraft, I doubt if either of them would have had the ability or stamina to take ownership.
The minutes to this meeting include a comment made by the RAF Museum, who asked that if the Beverley was to be scrapped, that the MoD be responsible for answering questions from the public. The Chairman reminded those present of the sensitivity of the issue, and asked them to treat the matter on a “need to know” basis.
On August 19th 1986, Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Armitage KCB CBE RAF wrote to the Marshal of the Royal Air Force, Sir Michael Beetham, GCB CBE DFC AFC FRAeS concerning the future of Beverley XH124.
In this letter, which covered several topics, he confirmed that: “The aircraft [XH124] is certainly run down – largely it must be said because of many years neglect by the [RAF] Museum.” Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Armitage KCB CBE RAF goes on to detail the poor condition of the aircraft, and the inability of the RAF Museum to restore the airframe, which would require around 28,000 man hours. He added:
“All the tyres are flat, and largely because of water leaks, have not been attended to. There is a great deal of internal corrosion. But the only obvious area in which this poses an imminent structural danger to the aircraft (as a static exhibit) is caused by the deterioration of one undercarriage beam. We believe, however, that spare wheels, tyres and an undercarriage beam are available, so that with some cooking of the books, we should be able to restore the aircraft to a safe condition.“
The letter expresses concern that in order to undertake a full restoration, the aircraft would need to be moved off-site and the costs involved are, or rather were, beyond what could be expended on such a project. The letter advises that:
“We are left then with only two possibilities for the RAF Museum Beverley. Either we cut it up; or we restore its structural safety and tow it the short distance required for it to stay within the long-term Museum perimeter. In the latter case, which I am sure we all strongly favour, it would then be necessary for the museum to accept the responsibility for completing the anti-deterioration work, that should have been done long ago, such as drilling drain holes, taping off hatches and panels, and spraying internally with oil.”
Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Armitage KCB CBE RAF added: “I would certainly be happy to provide expert advice on an appropriate schedule of work.”
Now the killer paragraph: “What we could do would be to call for genuine volunteers from within the Service to come and help, and we could encourage contributions from training projects, at Halton for instance. If the RAF Museum adopted the same approach with local aircraft preservation societies and perhaps with interested groups of ex-servicemen, and then a firm effort to co-ordinate and direct the work properly, my advice is that the aircraft would be safe for 5-10 years and perhaps for even longer.” And this from a senior staff officer.
At the time, the RAF Museum at Hendon was large enough to have accommodated a temporary scaffold structure needed to house the Blackburn Beverley. This would have resolved the need to move the aircraft to Cosford, thus saving thousands of pounds. We knew even then that such large aircraft could be refurbished by volunteers – the Duxford Aviation Society and its volunteer workforce proves that. Even if a full restoration could not have been undertaken at that time, the aircraft could have survived if remedial work recommended by the MoD was carried out, resulting in the aircraft surviving into the late 1990s, just in time for the introduction of the National Lottery. Any concerted effort made by such a national institution, backed by the MoD, would in my opinion have saved this aircraft – and sooner, rather than later.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Armitage KCB CBE RAF concluded: “I hope that this helps: it certainly seems to be a positive way forward after the neglect the aircraft has suffered. [SNIP] It would therefore be a great help to the Engineers (responsible for moving the aircraft onto RAF Museum land) if the Museum could let me know as soon as possible whether they accept my suggestion. I am therefore copying this letter to Dr Tanner.”
Although I acknowledge that the aircraft was in poor condition, expert advice at the time suggested that the aircraft could have been saved through the use of voluntary help – a suggestion which was not acted upon. Although I do not have a full set of documents pertaining to this scandal, I would have hoped that the future of XH124 would have been reassessed following the scrapping of Blackburn Beverley XB259 at Southend Airport in late 1989. Even if there was no hope at the time, I would argue that XH124 should have been carefully dismantled, crated and stored onsite, behind the Bomber Hall. Sadly, the first most of us knew of XH124’s predicament was after the fact, through the pages of Flypast and Aeroplane Monthly, weeks after the old girl had been scrapped.
In 1989, there were three Blackburn Beverley transport aircraft. Now there is only one. The RAF Museum was to blame in part for the loss of XH124, because of the lack of care in the preceding years. Yes, the MoD owned the aircraft, but the RAF Museum was tasked with its maintenance.
Remember this: XH124 was flown into RAF Hendon to become an exhibit for the new RAF Museum and for no other reason. If the aircraft was maintained and "primed" for long-term external display, this when the airframe first arrived at Hendon, then the annual cost of such maintenance would have been much lower than the cost of reversing years of accumulative neglect.
But what lessons were learnt from the scrapping of XH124?
Apparently none, as recent changes to Cosford can attest. The following letter was emailed to various national newspapers:
Dear Editor
In recent days (Spring 2006), an act of corporate vandalism went largely unreported.
At the Royal Air Force Museum Cosford, a number of aeroplanes were discreetly reduced to scrap, all because they no longer found favour with the custodians of our ever diminishing aeronautical heritage. These retired passenger aircraft were owned by British Airways, and until recently were regularly maintained by BA engineering staff.
Hawker Siddeley Trident G-ARPH, Vickers VC10 G-ARVM and Boeing 707 G-APFJ were scrapped, not for economical reasons (BA are not short of money), but because they no longer “fitted in” with the future aspirations of the RAF Museum at Cosford, where these aircraft were displayed. The aforementioned aircraft once flew with British Airways and its predecessors, either British European Airways (BEA) or British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC).
Although other airliners at Cosford owned by British Airways will be moved elsewhere, it is incredible to think that these well-preserved aircraft were scrapped, because neither party was willing to look after them.
It appears that the relationship between the RAF Museum and British Airways became strained after BA retired Concorde. It was considered appropriate (by the RAF Museum) that one of these supersonic airliners should end up at Cosford, which until recently displayed a collection of British designed and built civil airliners, operated by British Airways and its predecessors. Sadly, when it was decided by BA not to place one of its Concorde aircraft at Cosford, the RAF Museum accordingly reviewed its relationship with British Airways.
Our nation once cherished a rich and diverse number of aircraft designers and builders (which created numerous classic and successful aeroplanes), and accordingly our aeronautical past is as important to our cultural identify as any other form of industrial enterprise. Sadly, most of the aircraft recently scrapped were designed and built in this country, and stood testament to British craftsmanship and ingenuity.
Through this newspaper, I would remind those charged with preserving ‘our’ aeronautical heritage that the scrapping of these valuable aircraft will deny future generations the opportunity to see at first hand what we, as a nation, were once capable of designing and building.
As those who worked in our aviation industry pass away, what is preserved becomes exponentially more valuable. Yet aeroplanes are continually being scrapped. If we are to consolidate our history beyond the grave, then we need to sustain our heritage portfolio and not cast away these physical attributes in the same manner we have done in the recent past. We also cannot allow personal or corporate differences and animosity to get in the way of protecting “our” heritage.
Britain’s aeronautical past – that a minority of us know and love – extends beyond the graceful contours of the Spitfire and Concorde. Yet another issue we face is the waste of valuable resources (funding) expended on the preservation of foreign aircraft at places like Duxford. This has become a scandal of epic proportions, which has largely gone unnoticed by the national press. My concern is that not only we are sacrificing our own heritage over that of other nations, but we are also enforcing the perception that we never had an aviation industry worthy of preservation to begin with.
Unlike America and its legions of millionaires and billionaires, we in the UK are starved of much needed funds. Accordingly, our aeronautical heritage has suffered. The Heritage Lottery Fund can do more, but decide that “cultural diversity” does not extend to national pride or “niche” heritage projects. This not only belittles our aviation heritage, but it also undervalues the sacrifice and achievements made of many.
Personally, I would rather have seen the airframes at Cosford carefully dismantled and safely stored for future generations than be scrapped. But alas, we live in a society that has little interest or appreciation for our aeronautical heritage. Accordingly, those passionate about old aeroplanes (and the aerodromes on which they operated from) feel that we are in a minority. For that reason, organisations like the RAF Museum and British Airways believe they can get away with such wrongdoing with impunity.
Yours Faithfully
Mr Phillip Rhodes
There are several important airframes that are considered at risk from being scrapped. They include Comet XK699, currently displayed at RAF Lyneham, while Andovers XS789 and XS793 (twin-engined VIP transport aircraft) that once flew with The Queen’s Flight, are currently located in Africa. Their future survival is also in doubt. With news that another Short Belfast (G-BEPS) is under threat of being scrapped, there is a real need for the “RAF Transport Command Museum” (another one of my far-fetched proposals, that probably will not see the light of day).
My interest in our aeronautical heritage extends beyond places like RAF Driffield. Being an avid reader of both Flypast and Aeroplane Monthly (aviation heritage magazines) for over 25 years, I’m constantly frustrated by the way in which our historical aircraft have also been treated. No other sector of our country’s heritage would generally approve such travesties.
Each year, more rare aircraft are scrapped, and as one voice we shout (or rather murmur): “Never again”. But we don’t learn from our mistakes, and the checks and balances designed to protect our heritage don’t work. These checks and balances are also known as “museums”, and they are usually the main culprits.
Why is our aviation heritage so important?
Wednesday, December 17th 2003 marked the 100th anniversary of the Wright Brothers’ first powered flight – not that many in the UK paid much attention. The commemorative events in the USA were overshadowed by the conviction in the UK of Ian Huntley for murdering Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman. Perhaps we do take the magic of flight for granted. Or perhaps the media’s obsession with the evil of one man pushed other stories or events down the running order.
Today, there are only a handful of surviving veterans of The Great War (1914-1918). In 25 years time, there will be a similar number of elderly veterans of the Second World War (1939-1945).
Those who remember, or who bore witness, are our greatest assets – those we look up to with pride, or for an insight into what happened. Yet, when the last soldier, sailor, airman, or wartime evacuee has passed away, what is left will become exponentially more valuable. The problem is that by then, it may be too late. If we are to consolidate our history beyond the grave, then we need to increase our heritage portfolio and not cast away the physical attributes in the same manner we have done in the recent past. Our aviation heritage – that we know and love – also extends beyond the contours of the Spitfire and Hurricane. Yet, despite our rich and diverse heritage, the biggest issue we face is the waste of valuable resources (funding) expended on the preservation of foreign aircraft. This has become a national scandal, albeit one not reported by the media.
Question: “Why are we spending what limited resources (funds and manpower) that are available on preserving the aeronautical heritage of other nations, while our own heritage crumbles into obscurity?” In writing this, I highlight the ever-increasing perception that our aviation heritage, both physically and intellectually, is being sacrificed over that from other nations. The practice of “Top Shelf Aeronautica” – what used to be called “Spitfire Snobbery”, is being practiced by the very institutions that we ultimately rely on to protect our heritage.
Take Duxford – renowned as being the biggest and best aviation heritage site in Europe. Despite being a major Battle of Britain aerodrome, 50% of the aircraft on display (static or airworthy) are foreign. My first visit to Duxford was on November 6th 1995. At the time, builders had just started on the construction of the American Air Museum. Despite this costly development, I was concerned by the condition of the Avro Shackleton and Handley Page Victor, both of which had been left exposed to the elements. Only recently with the opening of Air Space, have these two aircraft secured sanctuary under cover.
It took the Imperial War Museum (IWM) until 2007 to find shelter for these indigenous airframes. This while the IWM, who own Duxford, not only opened the American Air Museum, but also expanded this collection of America's heritage. We know funds are limited, yet the IWM saw, as a priority, the preservation or conservation of more popular foreign airframes over more vulnerable (and valuable) British aircraft, whose future survival was severely jeopardised.
My concern is that we are not only sacrificing our own material heritage, but we are also enforcing the perception that we either never had an aviation industry worthy of preservation, or that the aeronautical exploits of other countries outclassed or surpassed our own.
At this point, it must be noted that private individuals or organisations are not exempt from this criticism. If anything, they are the real culprits – they, more than most, have the means to preserve our heritage, yet choose to turn the Flying Legends air display into a celebration of American airpower. I must add, at this point, that my criticism is not anti-American in context or content. It is largely directed at those in authority (OFMC, TFC, IWM, RAF Museum and Heritage Lottery Fund management), who desire to preserve the heritage of other nations, using scarce resources and even scarcer funds, while our own heritage is increasingly at risk.
I guess this is due in part to the misguided belief that sexy fighters and bombers sell, and that America produces the best “porn” (P51Ds and P47Ds).
Big is Beautiful
Rumour has it that when HeavyLift went into receivership, the owners offered its last airworthy Short Belfast (G-HLFT) to the Imperial War Museum for a mere £4,000. And this was to finance the delivery flight from Southend to Duxford. The offer was politely refused on the grounds of cost. How much did the IWM spend on the American Air Museum? What is worrying is that Duxford was in a better position than most to offer this airframe a ‘sheltered’ home. In recent years, a number of large British airframes have been scrapped, yet the Duxford Aviation Society, who own several vintage airliners, have proved that large airframes can be preserved by bodies who are sometimes more ‘focused’ or ‘mission orientated’ than their national counterparts.
Thumbing through the pages of Flypast and Aeroplane Monthly, it is easy to identify the problem areas. We know that large British designed and built aircraft are scrapped at an alarming rate. RAF transport aircraft are particularly at risk. Why? Because we still suffer from Spitfire Snobbery. Museums need to attract visitors – both to secure funds, and to impress funders.
A lumbering old transport, whose faded paintwork does little to detract from years of accumulated bird droppings, will always be less attractive than an easily identifiable Spitfire or Hurricane, even if they are fibreglass replicas.
This leads us nicely to an event that has caused more heartache and anger than any other – the scrapping of what was then one of only two surviving Blackburn Beverley transport aircraft, by the combined efforts of the RAF Museum at Hendon, and the Ministry of Defence (MoD).
Blackburn Beverley XH124 was scrapped, we were told, because it was too costly to move to Cosford. We were also told that the airframe was unstable. In reality, the RAF Museum’s Blackburn Beverley was scrapped because it wasn’t sexy enough for Hendon’s new image. Fact: a Spitfire will always outsell a lumbering old cargo plane. No matter, according to the RAF Museum, this airframe was in fact owned by the MoD – so they weren't to blame.
Keen to uncover the truth, I secured several documents through the Freedom of Information Act. Firstly, minutes of a meeting held by the MoD (Room 243, Northumberland House), on July 29th 1986, detailed the predicament of what to do with this airframe. This document confirms that the aircraft was in poor condition – but not reversible or terminal – though neither party (RAF Museum or MoD) were willing to pay for work needed to fully restore the aircraft.
However, it was recommended that the aircraft be offered to either the Science Museum or IWM. This suggestion was made by the RAF Museum themselves. The aircraft would have been offered FREE to either museum, with the proviso that the aircraft be moved to either Duxford or Wroughton, and that all costs of transportation and restoration be paid for by the new owners of XH124. However, it appears that this recommendation was not acted upon. Neither the Science Museum nor Imperial War Museum could confirm that they were offered XH124. The Science Museum’s Freedom of Information officer even contacted the old curator of the Science Museum, who also couldn't recall being contacted by either the RAF Museum or MoD regarding XH124. In all honesty, even if both museums were offered this aircraft, I doubt if either of them would have had the ability or stamina to take ownership.
The minutes to this meeting include a comment made by the RAF Museum, who asked that if the Beverley was to be scrapped, that the MoD be responsible for answering questions from the public. The Chairman reminded those present of the sensitivity of the issue, and asked them to treat the matter on a “need to know” basis.
On August 19th 1986, Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Armitage KCB CBE RAF wrote to the Marshal of the Royal Air Force, Sir Michael Beetham, GCB CBE DFC AFC FRAeS concerning the future of Beverley XH124.
In this letter, which covered several topics, he confirmed that: “The aircraft [XH124] is certainly run down – largely it must be said because of many years neglect by the [RAF] Museum.” Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Armitage KCB CBE RAF goes on to detail the poor condition of the aircraft, and the inability of the RAF Museum to restore the airframe, which would require around 28,000 man hours. He added:
“All the tyres are flat, and largely because of water leaks, have not been attended to. There is a great deal of internal corrosion. But the only obvious area in which this poses an imminent structural danger to the aircraft (as a static exhibit) is caused by the deterioration of one undercarriage beam. We believe, however, that spare wheels, tyres and an undercarriage beam are available, so that with some cooking of the books, we should be able to restore the aircraft to a safe condition.“
The letter expresses concern that in order to undertake a full restoration, the aircraft would need to be moved off-site and the costs involved are, or rather were, beyond what could be expended on such a project. The letter advises that:
“We are left then with only two possibilities for the RAF Museum Beverley. Either we cut it up; or we restore its structural safety and tow it the short distance required for it to stay within the long-term Museum perimeter. In the latter case, which I am sure we all strongly favour, it would then be necessary for the museum to accept the responsibility for completing the anti-deterioration work, that should have been done long ago, such as drilling drain holes, taping off hatches and panels, and spraying internally with oil.”
Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Armitage KCB CBE RAF added: “I would certainly be happy to provide expert advice on an appropriate schedule of work.”
Now the killer paragraph: “What we could do would be to call for genuine volunteers from within the Service to come and help, and we could encourage contributions from training projects, at Halton for instance. If the RAF Museum adopted the same approach with local aircraft preservation societies and perhaps with interested groups of ex-servicemen, and then a firm effort to co-ordinate and direct the work properly, my advice is that the aircraft would be safe for 5-10 years and perhaps for even longer.” And this from a senior staff officer.
At the time, the RAF Museum at Hendon was large enough to have accommodated a temporary scaffold structure needed to house the Blackburn Beverley. This would have resolved the need to move the aircraft to Cosford, thus saving thousands of pounds. We knew even then that such large aircraft could be refurbished by volunteers – the Duxford Aviation Society and its volunteer workforce proves that. Even if a full restoration could not have been undertaken at that time, the aircraft could have survived if remedial work recommended by the MoD was carried out, resulting in the aircraft surviving into the late 1990s, just in time for the introduction of the National Lottery. Any concerted effort made by such a national institution, backed by the MoD, would in my opinion have saved this aircraft – and sooner, rather than later.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Armitage KCB CBE RAF concluded: “I hope that this helps: it certainly seems to be a positive way forward after the neglect the aircraft has suffered. [SNIP] It would therefore be a great help to the Engineers (responsible for moving the aircraft onto RAF Museum land) if the Museum could let me know as soon as possible whether they accept my suggestion. I am therefore copying this letter to Dr Tanner.”
Although I acknowledge that the aircraft was in poor condition, expert advice at the time suggested that the aircraft could have been saved through the use of voluntary help – a suggestion which was not acted upon. Although I do not have a full set of documents pertaining to this scandal, I would have hoped that the future of XH124 would have been reassessed following the scrapping of Blackburn Beverley XB259 at Southend Airport in late 1989. Even if there was no hope at the time, I would argue that XH124 should have been carefully dismantled, crated and stored onsite, behind the Bomber Hall. Sadly, the first most of us knew of XH124’s predicament was after the fact, through the pages of Flypast and Aeroplane Monthly, weeks after the old girl had been scrapped.
In 1989, there were three Blackburn Beverley transport aircraft. Now there is only one. The RAF Museum was to blame in part for the loss of XH124, because of the lack of care in the preceding years. Yes, the MoD owned the aircraft, but the RAF Museum was tasked with its maintenance.
Remember this: XH124 was flown into RAF Hendon to become an exhibit for the new RAF Museum and for no other reason. If the aircraft was maintained and "primed" for long-term external display, this when the airframe first arrived at Hendon, then the annual cost of such maintenance would have been much lower than the cost of reversing years of accumulative neglect.
But what lessons were learnt from the scrapping of XH124?
Apparently none, as recent changes to Cosford can attest. The following letter was emailed to various national newspapers:
Dear Editor
In recent days (Spring 2006), an act of corporate vandalism went largely unreported.
At the Royal Air Force Museum Cosford, a number of aeroplanes were discreetly reduced to scrap, all because they no longer found favour with the custodians of our ever diminishing aeronautical heritage. These retired passenger aircraft were owned by British Airways, and until recently were regularly maintained by BA engineering staff.
Hawker Siddeley Trident G-ARPH, Vickers VC10 G-ARVM and Boeing 707 G-APFJ were scrapped, not for economical reasons (BA are not short of money), but because they no longer “fitted in” with the future aspirations of the RAF Museum at Cosford, where these aircraft were displayed. The aforementioned aircraft once flew with British Airways and its predecessors, either British European Airways (BEA) or British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC).
Although other airliners at Cosford owned by British Airways will be moved elsewhere, it is incredible to think that these well-preserved aircraft were scrapped, because neither party was willing to look after them.
It appears that the relationship between the RAF Museum and British Airways became strained after BA retired Concorde. It was considered appropriate (by the RAF Museum) that one of these supersonic airliners should end up at Cosford, which until recently displayed a collection of British designed and built civil airliners, operated by British Airways and its predecessors. Sadly, when it was decided by BA not to place one of its Concorde aircraft at Cosford, the RAF Museum accordingly reviewed its relationship with British Airways.
Our nation once cherished a rich and diverse number of aircraft designers and builders (which created numerous classic and successful aeroplanes), and accordingly our aeronautical past is as important to our cultural identify as any other form of industrial enterprise. Sadly, most of the aircraft recently scrapped were designed and built in this country, and stood testament to British craftsmanship and ingenuity.
Through this newspaper, I would remind those charged with preserving ‘our’ aeronautical heritage that the scrapping of these valuable aircraft will deny future generations the opportunity to see at first hand what we, as a nation, were once capable of designing and building.
As those who worked in our aviation industry pass away, what is preserved becomes exponentially more valuable. Yet aeroplanes are continually being scrapped. If we are to consolidate our history beyond the grave, then we need to sustain our heritage portfolio and not cast away these physical attributes in the same manner we have done in the recent past. We also cannot allow personal or corporate differences and animosity to get in the way of protecting “our” heritage.
Britain’s aeronautical past – that a minority of us know and love – extends beyond the graceful contours of the Spitfire and Concorde. Yet another issue we face is the waste of valuable resources (funding) expended on the preservation of foreign aircraft at places like Duxford. This has become a scandal of epic proportions, which has largely gone unnoticed by the national press. My concern is that not only we are sacrificing our own heritage over that of other nations, but we are also enforcing the perception that we never had an aviation industry worthy of preservation to begin with.
Unlike America and its legions of millionaires and billionaires, we in the UK are starved of much needed funds. Accordingly, our aeronautical heritage has suffered. The Heritage Lottery Fund can do more, but decide that “cultural diversity” does not extend to national pride or “niche” heritage projects. This not only belittles our aviation heritage, but it also undervalues the sacrifice and achievements made of many.
Personally, I would rather have seen the airframes at Cosford carefully dismantled and safely stored for future generations than be scrapped. But alas, we live in a society that has little interest or appreciation for our aeronautical heritage. Accordingly, those passionate about old aeroplanes (and the aerodromes on which they operated from) feel that we are in a minority. For that reason, organisations like the RAF Museum and British Airways believe they can get away with such wrongdoing with impunity.
Yours Faithfully
Mr Phillip Rhodes
There are several important airframes that are considered at risk from being scrapped. They include Comet XK699, currently displayed at RAF Lyneham, while Andovers XS789 and XS793 (twin-engined VIP transport aircraft) that once flew with The Queen’s Flight, are currently located in Africa. Their future survival is also in doubt. With news that another Short Belfast (G-BEPS) is under threat of being scrapped, there is a real need for the “RAF Transport Command Museum” (another one of my far-fetched proposals, that probably will not see the light of day).
