|
Very interesting question, there, Tom, and some interesting and useful replies.
What is the museum's definition of an 'artefact'? If there isn't a (precise / exclusive) definition, but this kind of prescription is being made, then maybe there needs to be a definition agreed. It may seem trivial to those outside the museum business, but it's a core factor underpinning the museum's acquisition and retention policy. If there is a definition, it may just answer the question.
As you've said, you are asking for opinion - so I'd ask what do others do - what's the peer (or benchmark) position? Most national level collections (Smithsonian; Science Museum, UK; RAF Museum; NMUSNA and NMUSAF) specifically exclude flying aircraft. In (your) Canada the National Aviation Collection used to fly several aircraft (Avro 504Ns and Sopwith Snipe) and latterly, has run engines on aircraft like the Hawker Hind. What was their policy? When and why did it change? Should be obtainable.
(There are, of course, also active aircraft museum collections, such as Vintage Wings of Canada and the Temora Aviation Museum in Australia, but in those cases demonstration of the aircraft and airworthy active aircraft are a pre-requisite of the collection - so a different thing. The Shuttleworth Collection fits this model, but should be considered due to a long-term successful and safe operation of many significant, unique historic aircraft.)
In the UK, the RAF Museum (an independent but part-RAF funded museum) does not operate any active aircraft, but the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight is an active unit of the RAF, not a museum. The BBMF aircraft are on RAF charge, and I understand have to adhere to (current) RAF standards as far as possible. Their are, and have been significant deviations from originality with BBMF aircraft (the Lancaster is fitted for dual control, for instance, which is not unknown, but atypical for a Bomber Command example).
In Australia the RAAF Museum (a unit of the RAAF and a national level museum collection) operate five aircraft, one a replica (a 1970s Transavia built Sopwith Pup) a Tiger Moth, CT-4 and CAC Winjeel, all pretty standard, while the CAC Mustang has a number of variations from originality for operational advantage - scheme, radios, no guns etc.) I may be able to find out what the aircraft's status is as regards curatorial and originality / preservation expectations. Maintenance-wise they are (generally speaking, I understand) expected to adhere to both best current practice and expectation of both RAAF standards and civil requirements; effectively meaning that the highest civil or military requirement is that to be met, no easy task.
As August's touched on, if they aren't artefacts, then what are they? A case could be made for them being 'demonstration tools' or 'educational accessories' which might sound odd, but if we consider, say, a museum-made wind tunnel for use in demonstration to school groups of flight theory, we'd not expect that to be a 'museum artefact' of local or historical significance. In the same way a non-scale flying replica of, say, a Spitfire in City of Edmonton colours would be of use for demonstration and education, but not being a real Spitfire have no historical value in itself. However if the museum was gifted an original W.W.II era airworthy aircraft and the gift mandated funds and a requirement to keep it flying (nice bit of imagination, eh?) it would be inappropriate to make permanent changes to the aircraft purely for modern operational advantage or ease.
Which leads us to 'reversible changes'. If the museum decides an original operational aircraft is a museum artefact, then any changes should be reversible (or if not, they should be vital, not just desirable). Taking an earlier example, changing a wheel brake system or adding modern navaids may be a very good idea for operational reasons, and is fine as they can be reversed once/if the aircraft retires to static status in the museum - the original type wheels or cockpit configuration can be re-installed. Items like a low maintenance paint scheme require a greater effort to return to a more prototypical example of matt paint, and obviously original paint can't be re-applied!
The other issue is the risk factor. Any operational aircraft will consume original material during operation, which may be against policy. Likewise the risk in operating a machine is greater than holding it in inhibited static preservation - particularly the risk of total loss involving loss of life - and not to be overlooked - negative publicity for the organisation. That's balanced against the advantages of demonstrating an aircraft, and there are (obviously) many different cases where deciding on either option makes perfectly good sense.
There are good cases for operating substitute (replica) aircraft and likewise cases for operating original aircraft, but the decision process / rationale has to be clear. For instance the RAAF Museum holds another example of each of the four airworthy original types, but not another Pup replica as its historical significance (and originality) is minor.
_________________ James K "Switch on the underwater landing lights" Emilio Largo, Thunderball. www.VintageAeroWriter.com
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
