Acquisitions & Disposals

Profile picture for user TwinOtter23

Member for

14 years

Posts: 7,742

The following link to a page on the RAFM website has just been brought to my attention.

http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/acquistions-and-disposals.aspx

I don’t think that I have seen details about it posted about these parts; apologies in advance if it has and I’ve missed it! :)

Original post
Profile picture for user TwinOtter23

Member for

14 years

Posts: 7,742

I suspect that you may be correct with the helicopter identities.

My understanding is that this webpage may be somewhere to watch - as it could be the likely preferred route to advise of any future disposals! ;)

Profile picture for user avion ancien

Member for

12 years 6 months

Posts: 5,449

Well, watch this space...........!

It's interesting to note that the stated reason for putting the Skeeter up for disposal is 'relevance' (presumably, lack thereof). I assume that it is not considered to be relevant to the RAFM collection because the Skeeter saw limited RAF service (training only, and then mainly training Army instructors). If the RAFM applies that principle impartially, presumably soon it will be offering for disposal a significant number of not insignificant aircraft not only from its reserve collection but also from those currently on display!

Member for

7 years 9 months

Posts: 629

I notice that the RAF Collection is explicitly defined as being for a Museum. This is not the same as an "archive". An archive is used to permanently store anything within a broad range of relevance. The definition of "Museum" they are using clearly has more emphasis on convenience and on the perceived value of artifacts for contemporary public display. It is a recipe for being able to dispose of things. Let's hope it is not the start of a downward spiral. (My feeling is that the RAFM should be required by law not to make such disposals).

Profile picture for user TwinOtter23

Member for

14 years

Posts: 7,742

One of the new 'buzzwords' (buzz-phrase) in the museum world is de-acquisition - this is not just a facet of the aviation sector.

Profile picture for user Bruce

Member for

20 years 1 month

Posts: 8,426

I see no issue with disposals of this nature. There are examples of both within the national collection, and it me it makes sense to concentrate on core RAF aircraft.

If there was a requirement in law not to dispose of things, I suspect that very little would end up being acquired in the first place.

Bruce

Member for

12 years 1 month

Posts: 1,528

I tried to interest the curator at Midlle Wallop in these two helicopters but she pointed out as the museum already had a Sycamore and THREE Skeeters the museum didn't have the room for a breeding programe.

Member for

13 years 11 months

Posts: 249

A shame that Sycamore XL824, the one up for disposal, is in the authentic colours it wore in service, whilst the one at Hendon is in a training scheme not appropriate to that mark, being a trials aircraft.

And yes, I realise that swapping them around would not be without costs.

DD

Member for

20 years 1 month

Posts: 9,780

aeronaut -pity you couldn't persuade the curator to move the Bird Dog on and replace it with a Auster I which really was the start of the AAC !

Member for

20 years 1 month

Posts: 9,780

Bruce -difficult one with the RAFM ! If it were to concentrate on core RAF machines the likes of the Bristol 188 and TSR-2 at Cosford to name two would be very hard to justify!

Member for

10 years 2 months

Posts: 1,205

Surprising they opted to dispose of the helicopters, which are original and complete (and look in good condition) on the basis of duplication and relevance, but overlooked a plastic Typhoon, Swiss-built Vampire, derelict PT-19 and the Miles Mohawk (how long did that actually spend on display?!)
It's also a bit of a shame that Hendon or Cosford can't find a small space for the Proctor-whose significance to the RAF is quite considerable.

Member for

10 years 9 months

Posts: 1,744

Surprising they opted to dispose of the helicopters, which are original and complete (and look in good condition) on the basis of duplication and relevance, but overlooked a plastic Typhoon, Swiss-built Vampire, derelict PT-19 and the Miles Mohawk (how long did that actually spend on display?!)
It's also a bit of a shame that Hendon or Cosford can't find a small space for the Proctor-whose significance to the RAF is quite considerable.

From the first line of the document linked: 'The Royal Air Force Museum has reviewed its current holdings in the Helicopter Collection'. I may have overlooked a rare prototype or two, but I am fairly certain the museum does not hold helicopter-versions of the Typhoon, Vampire, PT-19 or Mohawk.

Member for

10 years 2 months

Posts: 1,205

My mistake, sorry!

Member for

7 years 9 months

Posts: 629

Bruce -difficult one with the RAFM ! If it were to concentrate on core RAF machines the likes of the Bristol 188 and TSR-2 at Cosford to name two would be very hard to justify!

Interesting that they were both built in very small numbers and were both in different senses failures, but are considered iconic in the public eye (apparently). And no, I am not complaining that they are being exhibited.

Member for

15 years 8 months

Posts: 1,774

aeronaut -pity you couldn't persuade the curator to move the Bird Dog on and replace it with a Auster I which really was the start of the AAC !

The Cessna as a type does at least have a relationship to the AAC:

http://www.656squadron.org/galleries/1913%201953-54%20Korea%20KM/images/070%20Red%20Meaton%20-%20the%20Generals%20personal%20pilot.html

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb209/Davef68/cessna2_zps8d695792.jpg

If this is part of a wider examination of the collection, then it may perhaps mean the end for the bitsa P-51.

On the subject of acquisitions (and relevancy) - anyone know what's happened to the IL-2 and A-20 they were supposed to be getting?

Member for

20 years 1 month

Posts: 9,780

Indeed it has a small association -undoubtedly due to the performance of the Auster AOP.6 out there. A Piper L-4 would have far greater relevance in the story of AOP aviation in this country and worldwide.

Regarding the P-51 -I managed to have a very good look at this machine at Halton - it really isn't needed with the pristine example happily sat at Hendon.

Member for

8 years 3 months

Posts: 98

Perhaps they could swap the Skeeter for a proper CFS example XM556 or XM564.

I guess if I was looking at possible disposals/exchanges with the collection swap/loan out the Swiss Venom and get the ex RAF NF3 WX905 (which should not have been disposed of in the first place in my opinion) back from Newark on loan maybe?.
I also think the following (maybe me being controversial) are out of place with the collections policy and perhaps could be used as swap items for future acquisitions
Casa Jungmann
Casa 352 (Ju52)
Flying Flea
Mustang at Cosford
Neptune
Catalina
RF-84 Thunderjet
Swiss Vampire at Stafford
Pucara

Member for

15 years 8 months

Posts: 1,774


Neptune
Catalina

Pucara

The Neptune and Catalina at least represent ex-RAF types for which there is no genuine RAF equivalent (although from memory there used to be at least one genuine, un-modified ex-RAF P2V5 in America) and the Pucara fits in with the 'adversary' types.

The Jungmann, Flying Flea and RF-84 don't really fit at all. I'd go further and bring the Swift back as well!

In terms of helicopters, it's interesting that the Skeeter isn't relevant but the MH-53 is!!

Member for

20 years 1 month

Posts: 9,780

I would argue that the Messerschmitt Me410 could quite happily be sent back to Germany and the Kawasaki Ki100 to Japan and the space freed up used for the likes
of the Cotton Lockheed Electra Junior.

Profile picture for user avion ancien

Member for

12 years 6 months

Posts: 5,449

I know it's pedantry but........

One of the new 'buzzwords' (buzz-phrase) in the museum world is de-acquisition

What a horrible fabricated noun. But even it is not as bad as the following:

'it was decided at the time to accession these into the collection'

which is taken from the Bentley Priory Fine Art section of the RAFM website, to which TwinOtter23 provided a hyperlink at the outset of this thread. Whilst I accept that the OED identifies accession as a transitive verb, I have no experience of it being used as such and I suspect that its use, as quoted above, is an example of the modern trend indiscriminately to employ nouns as verbs.

I wonder what other objects that have been accessioned to the RAFM collection are in line for de-acquisitionisation - or should that be unaccessioned!