F3 & GR3 for auction
Evalu8er, you make an important point - this is the problem that affects so many aircraft. Tornado F3 is perceived as being "unimportant" because it hasn't earned any glamour points with the media and public. But it's a ridiculous way to preserve our history.
It 'did a job', granted, but so did every other aircraft ever built, so what is it that puts the F.3 on a pedestal? Or it it that folks feel every aircraft should be preserved? Again, genuine question...
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it is indeed a question of how all aircraft types should be preserved. The problem with Tornado F3 is that so very few have survived, and at present there isn't even one example on display in any museum (unless I'm having a senior moment?!).
The F3 will always be a "poor relation" when compared to the GR1/4. It was hampered by a terrible radar and then became regarded as almost useless because it was an interceptor rather than a fighter. But of course this was because the RAF's requirements changed. In reality, Tornado F3 became a magnificent machine that did the job it was designed to do - the problem is that the job changed.
The other problem for the F3 was that it didn't have any opportunity to take a "star" role in any conflicts, so the media ignored it.
But it is a significant aircraft. Not only is it an important part of the Tornado programme's overall history, it is also an excellent interceptor, designed for a very specific role that was unique to Britain. It was also (arguably) the fastest machine the RAF has ever operated (depending on what criteria one uses).
So by any standards it's not an aeroplane that should be overlooked entirely - and yet this is what appears to have happened.
The F3 will always be a "poor relation" when compared to the GR1/4. It was hampered by a terrible radar and then became regarded as almost useless because it was an interceptor rather than a fighter. But of course this was because the RAF's requirements changed. In reality, Tornado F3 became a magnificent machine that did the job it was designed to do - the problem is that the job changed.
The other problem for the F3 was that it didn't have any opportunity to take a "star" role in any conflicts, so the media ignored it.
But it is a significant aircraft. Not only is it an important part of the Tornado programme's overall history, it is also an excellent interceptor, designed for a very specific role that was unique to Britain. It was also (arguably) the fastest machine the RAF has ever operated (depending on what criteria one uses).
So by any standards it's not an aeroplane that should be overlooked entirely - and yet this is what appears to have happened.
WH, I agree about preserving all types and the status of the F3, well said.
However, there is (or was) an F3 in the RAF Museum at Hendon. Here's a picture I took two or three years ago:
It's next to the F4:
I think there's also one at East Fortune and one at the Italian Air Force Museum, Vigna di Valle in Italy. I haven't seen the second or third.
Courtney
However, there is (or was) an F3 in the RAF Museum at Hendon. Here's a picture I took two or three years ago:
It's next to the F4:
I think there's also one at East Fortune and one at the Italian Air Force Museum, Vigna di Valle in Italy. I haven't seen the second or third.
Courtney
I don't argue that an F3 shouldn't be preserved, but it should be in the Cold War collection at Cosford as, arguably, should be the F4 (the Lightning has to stay as the only all-British Mach 2 fighter...). The Jag, GR9, C130K and Nimrod are all far more deserving of a place in Hendon (is there a Jag there yet?). All have distinguished combat histories, in several campaigns. The AT force is almost airbrushed out of history at Hendon, as is the post war Maritime force. I know space is an issue, but I'm sure some rearranging could see a Jag, GR9, C130 and Nimrod fusleage (at least) in there - especially if some of the Cold War Warriors and other "non-core" aircraft were re-directed to Cosford.
Who knows, perhaps there'll be a "Sandbox Hall" built where we can put a C130K, real CH47, Merlin, GR9, Jag, Predator, GR4 etc in to commemorate the decade of dusty Ops....no, I don't think so either.
Please don't take this as a dig at the AD community, it's not. I'm lucky my frontline type is there, albeit represented by a repainted US forward fuselage with the wrong cockpit....
Who knows, perhaps there'll be a "Sandbox Hall" built where we can put a C130K, real CH47, Merlin, GR9, Jag, Predator, GR4 etc in to commemorate the decade of dusty Ops....no, I don't think so either.
Please don't take this as a dig at the AD community, it's not. I'm lucky my frontline type is there, albeit represented by a repainted US forward fuselage with the wrong cockpit....
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Touched on this subject in the adjacent thread on XT597. It's quite comical that RAFM embarks upon a Cold War Collection but one that suddenly embraces some distinctly non-RAF aircraft. I mean really, what the hell is an MH-53 doing in there? It's all very nice, but not when other more relevant aircraft are either overlooked our left outside. It's pretty depressing to see a Dominie, Nimrod and Hercules exposed to the elements when there's the MH-53, F-111, Danish Catalina etc., sitting inside at Cosford. Obviously one shouldn't favour any particular aircraft, but when it's supposed to be the RAF Museum, it seems odd. Just as bonkers is the money being poured into the recovery of a lump of coal, masquerading as a Dornier. Of course it has an indirect connection with the RAF but when there are RAF airframes standing outside, it's absurd to be spending money on preserving a lump of German scrap metal.
Of course the F3 should be preserved, but personally I don't mind where it is located. As long as it is being kept in good condition, I think that's all that matters.
I agree with you though, that preserving all aspects of the RAF's history is important, and no particular area should be given priority over any other. Personally, I wish RAFM would stop spending its resources on aircraft (or wreckage) that is not RAF. If these other artefacts are important, then surely another museum/collection will show interest in them? It's not the RAFM's role to cherry pick projects that they just happen to like... although that seems to be what happens.
Of course the F3 should be preserved, but personally I don't mind where it is located. As long as it is being kept in good condition, I think that's all that matters.
I agree with you though, that preserving all aspects of the RAF's history is important, and no particular area should be given priority over any other. Personally, I wish RAFM would stop spending its resources on aircraft (or wreckage) that is not RAF. If these other artefacts are important, then surely another museum/collection will show interest in them? It's not the RAFM's role to cherry pick projects that they just happen to like... although that seems to be what happens.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Over the hill (and far away)
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, right on 904
I think that the British Museum should also only exhibit British artefacts, but it's stuffed full of foreign junk - loads of Egyptian mummies, Chinese paintings, Japanese netsuke, Norse Knick-knacks, not to mention a bunch of Greek marbles.
Nothing British, and nothing in the least bit worth seeing.
Mister B
I think that the British Museum should also only exhibit British artefacts, but it's stuffed full of foreign junk - loads of Egyptian mummies, Chinese paintings, Japanese netsuke, Norse Knick-knacks, not to mention a bunch of Greek marbles.
Nothing British, and nothing in the least bit worth seeing.
Mister B
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,068
Received 2,939 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
is there a Jag there yet
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HTB
The British Museum is different in that it houses items collected during the building of the British Empire, when people in the far reaches collected "specimens" and artefacts and sent them home. Same as Roosevelt did in 1909 but to the Smithsonian.
The British Museum is different in that it houses items collected during the building of the British Empire, when people in the far reaches collected "specimens" and artefacts and sent them home. Same as Roosevelt did in 1909 but to the Smithsonian.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Deepest darkest London
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, I admit I worked in Publishing but am no longer employed and really don't much care for the industry now anyway (its declining faster than the RAF)....
Anyway while being sidetracked from job hunting to regain some sanity
here is my tuppence worth
I used to work with the gent that does Wrecks and Relics, who stated you simply cannot save everything. I suspect we would all love to see a lot of things save/preserved but if we tried to there will be even more fields full of corroding airframes.
Meanwhile back to the auction pair lets hope they are safe, when they arrive at wherever they are to be kept.
I assume Coningsbys F.3 gate guardian has a better future than Leuchars airframe, and I see the ex Manchester stored F.3 is now at Wroughton. so that makes 6 F.3s preserved. Which ain't that bad
V1
Anyway while being sidetracked from job hunting to regain some sanity
here is my tuppence worthI used to work with the gent that does Wrecks and Relics, who stated you simply cannot save everything. I suspect we would all love to see a lot of things save/preserved but if we tried to there will be even more fields full of corroding airframes.
Meanwhile back to the auction pair lets hope they are safe, when they arrive at wherever they are to be kept.
I assume Coningsbys F.3 gate guardian has a better future than Leuchars airframe, and I see the ex Manchester stored F.3 is now at Wroughton. so that makes 6 F.3s preserved. Which ain't that bad
V1
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,068
Received 2,939 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
Valiantone, check pm's
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Over the hill (and far away)
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
904
Do I have to spell it out?
It makes as much sense as your stance on the RAF Museums exhibiting only RAF artefacts; perhaps irony is not your strong suit...as to what I'm suggesting, infer what you will.
(Nige - I thought you might have got the drift of my post; and the BM has collected much more than Imperial relics)
Mister B
Do I have to spell it out?
It makes as much sense as your stance on the RAF Museums exhibiting only RAF artefacts; perhaps irony is not your strong suit...as to what I'm suggesting, infer what you will.
(Nige - I thought you might have got the drift of my post; and the BM has collected much more than Imperial relics)
Mister B
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, you don't have to spell-out the obvious. We all know what you're saying, but you haven't explained how you think it makes any sense. Naturally, in an ideal world, a museum could gather all manner of exhibits that might not have any direct association with their mission, raison d'etre, ethos, remit, call it what you will. But there is no limitless pot of money, therefore it seems only logical (at least to me) that to devote money, space and resources to aircraft (or wrecks) that have no direct connection with the museum's remit, is absurd.
If that's how you think it should be, then the RAFM needs to be re-named National Aircraft Museum. But it's the RAF Museum, therefore the RAF is the museum's business (or at least it should be). Now, okay, I accept that one can take a very liberal view of what might be regarded as a relevant exhibit in such a museum, but surely you have to see how it's a dangerous game to start embracing anything that takes the curator's fancy? Why not bring-in a Viscount (ETPS had two), Voodoo (they were based at two RAF stations), F-117 (RAF pilot flew it), Cessna Caravan (Falcons jump from it)... where does one draw the line?
When we get to a situation where a lot of money is being spent on a lump of rotten junk, because it is a barely-recognisable part of a German aircraft that the RAF's fighter pilots used to try and shoot-down, we're really drifting into absurdity. Worse still, it's being done with money that could be spent on RAF aircraft. I realise that this notion might horrify some people but I'm quite comfortable with the concept of the RAF Museum spending its money on RAF aircraft. As I've said before, if the Dornier project is so important, then why didn't anybody else step forward to finance it? One can't help thinking that it is a symptom of personal interests being pursued, ostensibly on behalf of RAFM, and with RAFM money.
I see no signs of the VC10 arriving at Cosford yet (and when it does, it will stay outside). No prospect of a Tristar, no Tornado F3, no XT597 even though Cosford's Test Aircraft collection would be the most appropriate home for it. They wilfully destroyed a Beverley (at Hendon), and the sole-surviving Vulcan B1. They destroyed some other aircraft simply because they allegedly didn't fit within the remit of the Museum (now that's irony), and yet we're meant to applaud money being spent on a polythene tent in which water is sprayed on a lump of junk. Go figure. On the basis of that logic, the RAFM people evidently think that this artefact (if it can even be called that) is more important than all of the above.
Okay, I accept that some people really do think this is acceptable. Personally, I think it stinks!
If that's how you think it should be, then the RAFM needs to be re-named National Aircraft Museum. But it's the RAF Museum, therefore the RAF is the museum's business (or at least it should be). Now, okay, I accept that one can take a very liberal view of what might be regarded as a relevant exhibit in such a museum, but surely you have to see how it's a dangerous game to start embracing anything that takes the curator's fancy? Why not bring-in a Viscount (ETPS had two), Voodoo (they were based at two RAF stations), F-117 (RAF pilot flew it), Cessna Caravan (Falcons jump from it)... where does one draw the line?
When we get to a situation where a lot of money is being spent on a lump of rotten junk, because it is a barely-recognisable part of a German aircraft that the RAF's fighter pilots used to try and shoot-down, we're really drifting into absurdity. Worse still, it's being done with money that could be spent on RAF aircraft. I realise that this notion might horrify some people but I'm quite comfortable with the concept of the RAF Museum spending its money on RAF aircraft. As I've said before, if the Dornier project is so important, then why didn't anybody else step forward to finance it? One can't help thinking that it is a symptom of personal interests being pursued, ostensibly on behalf of RAFM, and with RAFM money.
I see no signs of the VC10 arriving at Cosford yet (and when it does, it will stay outside). No prospect of a Tristar, no Tornado F3, no XT597 even though Cosford's Test Aircraft collection would be the most appropriate home for it. They wilfully destroyed a Beverley (at Hendon), and the sole-surviving Vulcan B1. They destroyed some other aircraft simply because they allegedly didn't fit within the remit of the Museum (now that's irony), and yet we're meant to applaud money being spent on a polythene tent in which water is sprayed on a lump of junk. Go figure. On the basis of that logic, the RAFM people evidently think that this artefact (if it can even be called that) is more important than all of the above.
Okay, I accept that some people really do think this is acceptable. Personally, I think it stinks!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Over the hill (and far away)
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
904
Your personal opinion is just that -personal. Others too have an opinion (personal) which is equally valid; just accept it, they might want to see other than RAF aircraft exhibited in the RAF Museum.
Your observation in the second paragraph alluding to renaming the museum as "National" could, by extension, apply to the BM becoming the "National Museum" (although its exhibits are multitudinously international and cover a great time span).
As to how it makes sense - I was trying to illustrate by the use of titles of these organisations that they should not per se limit themselves to a narrow field of exhibits (only RAF by your assertion, only British in my analogy). I have typed this very slowly so that you can digest the content, then "Go figure" (a clumsy, ungrammatical Americanism used when you tell someone a fact and you then want to say that the fact is surprising, strange or stupid).
By the way, does the RAF Museum exhibit SAM systems, or ancilliary equipment vital to the operation of RAF aircraft over the years, such as fuel bowsers, GPUs/GSE, radars, etc? Or should it, in your opinion, confine itself to RAF aircraft. It is after all the RAF Museum, not the RAF aircraft museum. I haven't visited for some years, so don't know what is on display right now.
All personal opinions are valid in the mind of the opiner.
Mister B
Your personal opinion is just that -personal. Others too have an opinion (personal) which is equally valid; just accept it, they might want to see other than RAF aircraft exhibited in the RAF Museum.
Your observation in the second paragraph alluding to renaming the museum as "National" could, by extension, apply to the BM becoming the "National Museum" (although its exhibits are multitudinously international and cover a great time span).
As to how it makes sense - I was trying to illustrate by the use of titles of these organisations that they should not per se limit themselves to a narrow field of exhibits (only RAF by your assertion, only British in my analogy). I have typed this very slowly so that you can digest the content, then "Go figure" (a clumsy, ungrammatical Americanism used when you tell someone a fact and you then want to say that the fact is surprising, strange or stupid).
By the way, does the RAF Museum exhibit SAM systems, or ancilliary equipment vital to the operation of RAF aircraft over the years, such as fuel bowsers, GPUs/GSE, radars, etc? Or should it, in your opinion, confine itself to RAF aircraft. It is after all the RAF Museum, not the RAF aircraft museum. I haven't visited for some years, so don't know what is on display right now.
All personal opinions are valid in the mind of the opiner.
Mister B
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, everyone has an opinion and it's interesting to argue our respective corners. Let's not get into personal insults though, it achieves nothing and usually results in an interesting debate turning into rubbish!
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Fletcher Memorial Home
Age: 59
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Begs a question though, in years to come when we start sticking our pilotless aircraft into museum will it still have the appeal? Aged pilots will lead their grand children around showing them drones and telling them stories of how they flew death defying missions and still managed to nip down to the mess for lunch
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've thought the same thing. It's difficult to know how one strikes a balance between historical significance and education/information, and the issue of what is actually interesting to look at! It is hard to imagine how anyone would be captivated by a drone exhibit but what does one do? It's part of the RAF's history so...
Except with a little bit of imagination, I can't quite see how the F3 & F4 should be banished to Cosford because they're Cold War, but the Lightning & the Jag should not. Unless, of course, you don't think the defence of the UK (and a number of other ops) entitles these airframes to be considered to have made a valid contribution to the RAF's mission.
I guess your argument would put the Sea Harrier & GR1 in the Cold War locker too? Oh, but they earned South Atlantic medals, didn't they? But then again so did a few others.
Everyone's opinion of what should be preserved is different and (as said just now) equally valid. But I cannot accept your premise that some that played a vital role in the RAF should be moved out of Hendon to make way for the ones you like.
P.S. Yes I know you said you're not having a dig at the AD community. It just looks like your argument is a little slanted.
Regards,
Courtney
I guess your argument would put the Sea Harrier & GR1 in the Cold War locker too? Oh, but they earned South Atlantic medals, didn't they? But then again so did a few others.
Everyone's opinion of what should be preserved is different and (as said just now) equally valid. But I cannot accept your premise that some that played a vital role in the RAF should be moved out of Hendon to make way for the ones you like.
P.S. Yes I know you said you're not having a dig at the AD community. It just looks like your argument is a little slanted.
Regards,
Courtney
Courtney,
I was aware it could look a little slanted, hence the comment. However, we have a Cold War museum where that undertaking is represented - the yeoman work that Meteor, Hunter, Jav, Lightning, F4 and F3 did should be commemorated there. If you're a trucky or a kipper fleet operator wouldn't you feel that having a load of AD FJ types in a museum dedicated to the whole RAF and not one Transport or post-war Maritime type could be construed as "a lot slanted" in favour of FJs? There is a GR3 at Hendon (Falklands - tick), and a GR1/Bucc (GW1). The Jag's operational role in FRY and the Gulf is ignored at Hendon, as is the C130's contribution to global war fighting and peacekeeping - ditto Nimrod. IMHO more balance at Hendon would be better. Happy to disagree old chap - that's why it's a forum!!
I was aware it could look a little slanted, hence the comment. However, we have a Cold War museum where that undertaking is represented - the yeoman work that Meteor, Hunter, Jav, Lightning, F4 and F3 did should be commemorated there. If you're a trucky or a kipper fleet operator wouldn't you feel that having a load of AD FJ types in a museum dedicated to the whole RAF and not one Transport or post-war Maritime type could be construed as "a lot slanted" in favour of FJs? There is a GR3 at Hendon (Falklands - tick), and a GR1/Bucc (GW1). The Jag's operational role in FRY and the Gulf is ignored at Hendon, as is the C130's contribution to global war fighting and peacekeeping - ditto Nimrod. IMHO more balance at Hendon would be better. Happy to disagree old chap - that's why it's a forum!!