1 10 6 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/0e6b4e298649a08c8d8b785ffd70e752.pdf?Expires=1774483200&Signature=F99pKZ0yDvCshzao7IYI7fQNDeKR0MRbVKI-oVwVEVT88syoxmVKLyiQ90xRtnYiaA5tac3Jaiw1EiJvQH4SrS4xH8gwRhCzvutFpwJNgy-p8mkSoRzekz5JYHksjwg9mGn8wPC5gRYzXozT5zknrFhc2ph7K0P0YanW1uzgy-uEusbDwCM0VbHigmxSpluDVTKk5PZuFjF-qna-c0HegR%7Et73irYMVfJgrYLUPfdMYEfZOnytHqcOclXmjplf24h2jLhmbipFtCnkzC43TTqc70ZaXlqTuBmaO4GX-0JJgF2ur5RIwlsh8cLmdSac86O-4Q4DuFwdJ4kVKq23BAlg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 850aea00e44f322ee56c97bb0f49213b PDF Text Text Avoiding that shrinking feeling: adopting a chemically unstable material for conservation Andrew Pearce Australian War Memorial Abstract: During 2003 the Australian War Memorial undertook conservation work on two large aircraft, a DAP Beaufort and an Avro Lancaster. This work included the repair and re-covering of control surfaces with doped fabric. Physical evidence present in the Memorial’s aircraft collection and the written and verbal testimony from a number of individuals involved in the operation and re-covering of vintage, fabric-covered aircraft has strongly indicated that cellulose butyrate (a doping compound used since the mid 1950s) continues to contract over the long term, resulting in the damage and destruction of doped fabric surfaces and their underlying framework. This paper discusses the use of cellulose nitrate based doping compound which, while considered by many to be unstable, is present on a number of the Memorial’s First and Second World War aircraft in extremely good condition. Discussion of the fabric-covering process deals with the processes involved and the training of members of the large technology conservation team in what is a largely forgotten skill. Doped fabric has been used on the fuselages, wings and control surfaces of aircraft from the earliest aircraft of the Wright brothers and Bleriot through to enthusiasts’ planes still being manufactured today. Doping refers to the application of a tautening medium to the fabric stretched over the aircraft frame. This results in a tightly stretched surface with aerodynamic attributes. As with all cultural institutions around the world whose collections include aircraft dating from the early to mid twentieth century, the Australian War Memorial has a significant number of aircraft with fabric surfaces. Initially, the main material used to dope fabric surfaces was a lacquer based on the material cellulose nitrate. Some of you may be more familiar with cellulose nitrate as “gun cotton”, an explosive propellant used in the same manner as gun powder. Herein lies one of the main difficulties associated with the use of cellulose nitrate to coat the fabric surfaces of aircraft. It is highly flammable. To be in an aircraft with a wooden frame and cellulose nitrate coated fabric on the fuselage, wings, tailplane and control surfaces, fronted by a high temperature engine belching smoke, flames and fuel is to place oneself in a hazardous position. Additionally, cellulose nitrate dope is soluble in aviation fuel. Due to the proximity of powered aircraft to aviation fuel and the possiblilty of spillage, this resulted in significant extra maintenance and the potential failure of the doped surfaces. Despite these difficulties, cellulose nitrate was widely used from the dawn of powered flight through to the 1950s. At the beginning of the 1950s, a new lacquer compound was developed for doping aircraft fabric. This was cellulose butyrate. Cellulose butyrate had a number of significant advantages. It was not explosively flammable and it also did not dissolve in �aviation fuel. For these two reasons alone, its initial uptake and continued use was substantial. Although some limited use of cellulose nitrate continued, the safety advantages meant that its widespread use was largely phased out. Under normal operational conditions, the fabric surfaces of any aircraft require maintenance. Moisture, ultraviolet light, insects, physical impact and the like all take their toll on the fabric surfaces. For this reason, surfaces require continual patching, repair, repainting and complete recovering at regular intervals. An additional treatment available to the operators of aircraft was a process known as “rejuvenating”. Rejuvenating involves the application of a “dope rejuvenator” to the fabric surface. This softens the dope lacquer, releasing the tension on the fabric. Following the application of rejuvenator an aircraft requires repainting. Contrast this with the treatment of an aircraft stored indoors in a museum environment where it is (hopefully) not exposed to moisture, direct sunlight and ultraviolet radiation, insects, fuel, impact or the stresses of flying. Many aircraft stored under these conditions are kept for decades, half centuries even without the need for significant maintenance. Certainly in the case of museum pieces, especially those with historic paint finishes, the use of substances like rejuvenators every few years is neither a financially or ethically viable proposition. This is the crux of the problem. Were any difficulties, deterioration or faults to be present on fabric surfaces of an airworthy aircraft, they would be picked up in routine maintenance and would need to be remedied in order for the aircraft to remain airworthy. In the museum environment, there is no such requirement for continual upkeep and so the doped surfaces are left alone to remain in their original state. But do they? While the chemical process involved in the doping of a fabric surface is complex, the physical process can be relatively simply described: • Fabric (cotton or linen) is stretched and sewn into a tight bag covering a frame of wood or metal. • The fabric surface is then coated with a thinned layer of tautening dope. • Once the lower layer of dope has dried it is sanded smooth. Subsequent layers of dope with a decreasing content of thinner are then applied, the dried surface being lightly sanded before each new coat. • The final coats applied to the surface are undiluted dope lacquer. • The surface is then left to tension up and become tight, rather like a drum skin. At this point, the fabric surface is hand stitched to the framework of ribs below the surface to prevent it from shifting or vibrating and the stitch lines are covered with fabric tapes to seal and protect them. Again this surface is painted with full strength dope and is sanded. (Sanding greatly smooths the surface of the fabric resulting in a surface with significantly less resistance to airflow and substantially enhanced aerodynamic behaviour.) • The final cosmetic paint coats are then applied to the fabric surface. �In the case of cellulose nitrate, a few weeks following the application of the doped coating to the fabric surfaces full tension is achieved, at which point further contraction or shrinkage of the doping lacquer appears to cease. This being the case, a “museum piece” doped with cellulose nitrate is likely to stand the test of time admirably. Indeed, the Memorial has a number of First World War aircraft (including an SE5a scout/fighter and Avro 504K bi-plane) and Second World War aircraft (including a Tiger Moth, Wirraway and the rudder and elevators of the Spitfire and Messerschmitt Bf109) within its collection that appear to have never required maintenance of the fabric surfaces since the day they were made and show little deterioration apart from some minor crazing due to embrittlement of the lacquered surface. The only major point of concern with having cellulose nitrate based items within a collection is that should they catch fire, they burn readily and are all but impossible to extinguish. �In contrast, cellulose butyrate dope appears to behave quite differently. The application process is effectively identical and again, after a number of weeks the contraction of the doped fabric surface slows markedly. Note the use of the word “slows”. The physical and anecdotal evidence indicates that in many circumstances the contraction does not ever totally cease. Continued contraction of the doped fabric surface can result in the eventual destruction of the fabric, the stitching seams, the underlying framework or all of the above. Think if you will on the examples of a boa constrictor attempting to strangle either a 44 gallon drum or a square block of concrete. In one case, the drum will eventually be crushed; in the other case the unfortunate snake will eventually snap. In recent discussions with a number of museums and aviation enthusiasts as widespread as Europe, America and Canada, numerous instances have been reported of aircraft with distorted fuselages, warped wings, torn stitching, wing ribs puncturing the fabric surface, all due to the continual tensioning of the butyrate doped fabric. A number of the Memorial’s aircraft have also been re-coated in fabric doped with cellulose butyrate. In the case of our German First World War Albatros D.Va scout aircraft, the trailing edges of the wings clearly demonstrate the damage and failure that can occur on aircraft doped with cellulose butyrate. Figures 1 and 2: Deterioration and seam destruction on Albatross wing During the period 2000 – 2004, the large technology conservation section of the Memorial were in the process of extensive refurbishment and conservation treatments on our Second World War Beaufort and Lancaster bombers. In the case of the Beaufort, the Memorial was conserving what is, to date, the only complete example held anywhere in the world. Much of the structure was being fabricated from salvaged parts and none of the original doped fabric remained. For the Lancaster, the situation was a little different. Enthusiastic but somewhat under-resourced restoration of three of the four fabric surfaces on the Lancaster had produced a result that left much to be desired as regards final finishing details and neatness. Additionally, the possibility of water damage to the steel- �framed elevators meant that detailed inspection and treatment of the framework was essential, requiring the removal of the fabric from these sections. Given that the Memorial staff would have to re-cover the fabric surfaces of the Lancaster and Beaufort, it was important to investigate what options were available and what aesthetic and ethical issues were associated with them At present there are a range of options open to persons interested in fabric covering the open framed sections of their aircraft (wings, fuselages, control surfaces). These include: • Cellulose nitrate dope on cotton or linen. As previously discussed this combination is flammable and not solvent stable. It is the “traditional” method of aircraft covering for most historical aircraft. • Cellulose butyrate dope on cotton or linen. This combination is not highly flammable, is solvent stable and appears aesthetically similar to nitrate doped surfaces. There is significant anecdotal and physical evidence to indicate that long term storage of butyrate doped aircraft can result in significant physical damage or destruction of structural elements or fabric surfaces. • Ceconite or Stits ™ Polyester heat shrinking fabrics (these must never be treated with tautening dope). Unfortunately, Ceconite fabric systems tend to result in a glossy almost “plastic” looking surface that does not have the correct reflectivity and has too great a colour saturation to appear authentic. At present, the majority of aircraft restorations and almost all newly constructed aircraft with fabric surfaces are covered using Ceconite or similar fabric coatings. In the case of the Memorial’s aircraft, an authentic visual appearance was vital for any proposed method of treatment. Similarly, for ethical reasons, adopting a methodology as close as possible to that originally used was felt to be most sympathetic to the historical aspects of the aircraft in question. Given the known issues relating to the deterioration and damage caused by the shrinkage of butyrate doped fabrics, the decision was made to re-dope the control surfaces of the Beaufort and Lancaster using the traditional methods and materials, including Grade A aircraft cotton, Irish linen, waxed linen flosses and threads and cellulose nitrate tautening dope. Given that we have aircraft presently in the collection with nitrate-doped surfaces that appear satisfactorily stable after greater than eighty years, it was hoped that careful application of a similar technique using similar materials might result in a treatment lifespan of equal longevity. Certainly, when one contrasts the long-term survival of the nitrate coatings with the visible results of premature failure in the butyrate-treated aircraft, the arguments for the use of cellulose nitrate become substantial. George Bailey, the project manager for the Lancaster and Beaufort work teams was fortunate enough to spend some time working at the Duxford Aircraft Museum in the United Kingdom some years ago. While there he was involved in the work conducted to re-fabric one of the aircraft held within the collection and during this work took extensive �notes on how the work was carried out. With George’s assistance and using these notes, a number of staff began to pick up the skills of what is today largely a lost art. Initial work commenced on the cotton covering of the Beaufort ailerons. These were supplied in a primed and painted state ready for re-covering. The first work involved the covering of the aileron ribs with aluminium foil. The foil is used to prevent the dope saturated fabric from adhering to the ribs. Were this to occur, sections of the fabric would become adhered in place and even tension would not be developed across the entire fabric surface. Traditionally ribs were covered with waxed paper which would stick to itself and hold its position, while not adhering to the doped fabric. Waxed paper was not able to be used however due to supply constraints. The ability of aluminium foil to be wrapped around a rib and take shape without shifting made this a viable replacement material. In the case of the Lancaster elevators, the framework over which the fabric was to be applied was fabricated from steel tubing. As the proximity of aluminium foil and steel would have resulted in the onset of localized bi-metallic corrosion, the ribs of the Lancaster were wrapped with white Teflon based plumber’s sealing tape prior to the installation of fabric. Figure 3: Placement of cotton bag over aileron Following the application of the aluminium foil, the cotton fabric was cut to produce an oversize covering for the aileron and was clipped into position along the trailing edge with edges rolled under. The trailing edge seam of the aileron fabric was then stitched, using waxed linen thread in a modified running blanket stitch. For aviation purposes, running blanket stitch is knotted at regular intervals. This prevents any chance of the entire seam becoming unraveled should localized damage occur to the seam. �Figure 4: Stitching of trailing edge seam Following the neat sewing of all external seams, the fabric surface was given its first coat of tautening dope at approximately 50:50 v/v dope and thinners. Following the initial application and drying of this coat the surface was sanded smooth with 360 grade emery paper in preparation for the subsequent dope layers. Figures 5 and 6: Well saturated doped fabric surface and the application of rib strips After the application of about seven layers of dope the surface was satisfactorily tight, the fabric weave was well filled with dope and the surface was smooth ready for the application of rib tapes. These tapes are strips of linen which follow the line of the ribs within the aileron and are used for local reinforcement of the fabric surface. Once the rib tapes were adhered in position using dope and had dried, the laborious process of using waxed floss to stitch the doped fabric surface to the ribs began. �Figures 7 and 8: Rib stitching After the rib stitching was complete, a second run of rib tapes was applied over the stitching and the surface was coated with layers of dope until the same filled and smooth surface was achieved. Once the doping of the upper rib tapes had been completed, seam sealing tapes, drain holes and other finishing details were applied to the ailerons. On drying, the finished product was given a final rub back with 360 grit emery paper and sprayed with nontautening silver coloured nitrate dope. The newly fabric covered ailerons were then given their final display paint coatings and were ready for installation. The fabric work conducted on the ailerons and elevators of the Beaufort and Lancaster aircraft in 2003 was a new process for the large technology conservation staff at the Memorial. By examining the evidence within our collections and obtaining corroborating information from others, be they pilots, aircraft fabricators or other institutions, we believe that we have chosen a material and method that will extend the useful display life of the newly applied fabric. We will continue to observe and monitor the fabric surfaces on the aircraft within our collection to see how they do behave over the long term. Over the years, the conservation profession worldwide has identified a range of compounds and materials that, through their presence and deterioration, are problematic. This list includes deteriorated leather, polyvinylchloride plastics, many rubber compounds, woods such as oak, medium density fibreboard, sodium chloride, soluble nylon and nearly anything composed of cellulose nitrate. In the case of the last of these, (in its aircraft dope form at least), it seems that we may have been avoiding the compound that has shown the greatest long term stability and object survival of the covering options available. Although being on the hit list of �“unstables and troublesomes” it would seem that cellulose nitrate dope has a valuable role to play within our profession. � https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/158be096017b53fc4c69f43405c87404.pdf?Expires=1774483200&Signature=u5avas6cHRfHl3kUtggitMF9EqeM1-R%7EDKFVSflMQMmAC9abRXpqELHmccPjFbu%7ENPBhS%7EFT30es%7ECid2E-NmpHul-PdAqYbLysgh08EqVkiFAG4UGsRLf6WiEWpoGeAF4Fjp8TthXiZtQaFsfPVz3tX1VJHADrZjz0%7EWJ%7Ekd%7ERGL24ZVdl%7EgY4nsyFJ3LUsRuax66HJiKnJYZaq99x%7ETiWFqG3neHU%7EzcpaYx5SIQXnmDdsS40MCKUc5%7EDM8-lOWTqIfsOoLnPbc7VSbNM5TQiBVLLPYdyrlTsbIZa1u7Swl7d8HuyDyBfgiMnI6qanv619vhy4meVhBvHX-Lpg5Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 84b65c58782732f428d3b60392a18284 PDF Text Text Avoiding that shrinking feeling Andrew Pearce – Question and answer session David Thurrowgood: Cellulose nitrate was of course very commonly used in the 20s and earlier in paints and all sorts of things, but in terms of a rare trade it’s pretty much died out. Did you have to have cellulose nitrate manufactured or did you purchase it, or how did you go about sourcing it? Andrew Pearce: It was purchasable. There are some enthusiasts who do still use it on aircraft. It is commercially available as the doping material for doing aircraft fabric surfaces. It’s not common to find – there’s a lot more difficulty sourcing it than there would be with many other commercial products - but it’s gettable. David Thurrowgood: Good to hear. Nikki King-Smith: Can you put a fire retardant on it? Andrew Pearce: I really don’t know. I can truthfully say I don’t have the foggiest. I think, because you’ve got a fairly large fabric substrate, and you’ve got a wooden frame or an aluminium frame underneath - although you could probably put something onto the surface, because you’re dealing with paint lacquers and things like that, I’m not sure how effective it would be. And I’m not deep enough involved in the chemistry of it to know whether it could actually be incorporated in the dope itself to prevent any damage occurring. I do know that we’ve done flammability samples with the dope that we’ve used and it is flammable. It’s not explosively flammable, but certainly once you get it going it does burn. Chris Knapp: I don’t know of any fire retardants that you can put on the fabric, but I do know that we had a company come in putting some fire retardant on some of the display props, that caused damage to steel and aluminium and wood. So we’ve never tried it on aeroplanes. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Big Stuff 2004 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2004 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Alison Wain Article An article in a journal or periodical Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Avoiding that shrinking feeling: adopting a chemically unstable material for conservation Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Andrew Pearce Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2004 aircraft cellulose butyrate cellulose nitrate fabric re-covering shrinkage Treatment and Maintenance https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/1d3d6380cf023530522b11cc17460e90.pdf?Expires=1774483200&Signature=ELCTrAedlAOmOm-Is29AlCkjZa5vlq%7EDNvaMRVGROhKT7x1jFlhdQdhXEit1V2YcEiVUvw0iV5VyS60DrorH1-RzTvZwdWozK%7E1VSvCxI6H92sqX6YejOJUEjNwepc%7E8432BvpuqRkV-tCrMDCNg0ciKdD2ku0KxDmba2K1d2tDUOHR3yC37zsiGNGaajG0mG0mY3GXtuOllKWCsOy2QB98qGQXLWhtP1u1aElYcOfleLQ2Vrz4Kz67tngPKkReCev0MSOpZrWn4kKBSSxebX1UjaMSBmcoJPem6QLCkkiHu6VpoutzUzgTG%7EC3gst4uezuMIckuiM%7E5OcTvpyet-g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM d791bce3b0ae154f6c92060edf7dc6ab PDF Text Text An identity crisis: Hawker Sea Fury FB11 VX730 John Kemister Australian War Memorial Abstract: This paper looks at the role of original paint and other fabric in discovering the identity and history of the Memorial’s Hawker Sea Fury aircraft. Introduction Sea Fury number VX730 is held in the collection of the Australian War Memorial as a relic of the Korean War (1950-1953). However it appears to have had a stormy past, and we could say it is something of a dark horse. Close examination revealed that the aircraft had connections with two other aircraft, numbered TF925 and VW232. By careful rubbing back in critical areas, both of these numbers became visible on underlying sequential paint layers on the wings and fuselage. There will be more of that later. First – a journey into history. Figure 1. A Sea Fury aircraft on the deck of HMAS Sydney Preliminary curatorial research, of apparently contradictory official records, indicated a varied service history for these three aircraft numbers. Records show TF925 being built in 1946 as a Mk. X, serving with the Royal Navy between 1948 and 1949. It was purchased by the Royal Australian Navy and shipped to Australia as a training airframe in 1949 after a ‘hard landing’. It was authorized for conversion to spares in November of that year. 1 �Figure 2. Sea Fury VW232, 8th July 1953. VW232 was taken on charge in 1944 and designated as a training aid in 1951 after taking four cannon shells from an enthusiastic but errant wingman. It was then reduced to spares in 1953. Figure 3. Gate guardian at Nowra (note dent in wing). Note that while these aircraft had a wide service history, no records of either TF925 or VW232 indicate that they ever actively served in Korea. VX730 however, is first 2 �referred to in the 21 Carrier Air Group on HMAS Sydney in 1950. It served in the Korean War and later suffered a forced landing in Australia due to engine failure in 1957. Further records indicate that the original VX730 was set aside for the NSW Department of Technical Education as a training airframe. Figure 4. Sea Fury VX730 on truck Anecdotal evidence indicates that this aircraft, with a long service record including active Korean service, was unfortunately cut up for scrap in error by a contractor when the navy was disposing of its Sea Fury aircraft around 1959. The same anecdotal evidence indicated that another aircraft (presumably TF925/VW232?) was hastily saved from the wreckers and the serial number overpainted with the number ‘VX730’. Figure 5. Sea Fury VX730 at Sydney Technical College. Over the ensuing years VX730 oscillated between various venues - Sydney Technical College, the Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences, the Camden Museum of Aviation, the Australian War Memorial, RAAF Fairbairn, the RAN Historic Flight at Nowra, then back to the Australian War Memorial in 1993. 3 �Figure 6. VX730 in less than ideal storage. Further work by Memorial curatorial staff commenced in December 1998, with a review of two Sea Furys held in the collection, ie VX730 and WG630. This review was intended to determine which of the two aircraft was the most significant historically, taking into account suitability for treatment and the amount of work and resources necessary to achieve the best results. At the same time a parts audit was conducted to determine which components were needed from either airframe in order to obtain one complete aircraft for display. Figure 7. VX730 in the workshop. 4 �As a result of this audit, Sea Fury VX730 was chosen for treatment in the Memorial’s Treloar large technology conservation workshop and subsequent display in Aircraft Hall, with WG630 acting as a source of the spares required for completing VX 730. The conservation project commenced in January 1999 and extended for fourteen months. Considering the confusing evidence available, any historical evidence actually on the aircraft would therefore be extremely useful in determining its true history. The conservation approach was one of minimum intervention in order to retain as much of the original painted surface finish as was possible for future research. This approach was balanced by the requirement to remedy many years of weathering, neglect, use and abuse, to have an object that would meet display requirements and portray the most authentic story for the public. Note that the Memorial endeavours to present relics as they appeared during a significant moment in their history or at the end of their active service. This may differ from other display practices that present objects restored to “as new” condition. The aircraft initially was in a sad condition, reflecting a very chequered past. It was structurally sound though, with minimal corrosion. The major assembly, comprising the engine, fuselage and wing centre sections, was dirty and damaged. Many minor components and panels were missing. Twenty-one pallets of loose components and the two outer wing panels were on hand following the parts audit and subsequent scavenging from WG630, and it was anticipated that a reasonably complete and accurately presented aircraft would result from the treatment. Figure 8. Port wing undersurface (note Hispano cannon). Before any work was commenced, accurate tracings of all markings and stencils were taken. The aircraft was then completely dismantled into major components and thoroughly cleaned. Mechanical damage was repaired where either aesthetics or 5 �safety required it. Non service handling damage was repaired either mechanically, or with standard automotive filling procedures where repair would unacceptably disrupt original material. Figure 9. Starboard wing undersurface. Similarly, missing components were replicated for visual or structural integrity. Such parts were suitably identified as replicas by stamping ‘AWM 99’ into them. No paint stripping was performed. Painted surfaces were solvent cleaned to remove a ‘protective’ varnish and then progressively evaluated. Preparation was limited to a light rubbing back to remove loose paint flakes, to provide a key for inpainting or to minimise colour variations due to weathering. Most of the undersurface paint layer, other than the outer wing panels, was retained, with inpainting of damaged or weathered areas as necessary to achieve an integrated appearance. Most of the top surfaces were lightly repainted as these were badly weathered or worn through by foot traffic. Colours were matched to traces actually found on the aircraft. Roundels and stencils were reapplied using either tracings of the originals, or photographic and printed references. Particular care and detail went into the location and fitout of the cockpit instrumentation and controls as many of these were either badly weathered or missing. Curatorial acquisition and preparation of the necessary instrumentation had preceded the project for many years. Original instrument and cockpit surfaces were retained, with inpainting of missing paint areas as required. Four Hispano 20mm cannon previously shown, obtained via the police gun amnesty buyback scheme, were cleaned and stabilised and fitted to the aircraft. 6 �Figure 10. Cockpit internals. The contribution of local businesses and individuals in reproducing difficult missing components and providing other services is acknowledged. Replica fittings, hydraulic components, canopy rails, leather shrouds, light covers, decals, stencils, paint, screen printing of instrument panels, tyre fitting, donation of an original arrestor hook - the list goes on. Many of these services were performed free or at a discount. These skills and the accompanying willingness to help are gratefully recorded in the full treatment report. But… It was at this stage, eleven months into the project, that the necessity to preserve as much original material as is possible on historic objects was reinforced. Oblique lighting (provided by sunlight conveniently streaming through an opened large sliding workshop door) on the recoated surface of the fuselage, revealed very faint traces of at least twenty-one mission markings that were not originally visible, but showed up after the repaint as a slight thickening of the underlying paint. 7 �Figure 11. Mission marking traces located on side of aircraft. These traces were too faint to photograph clearly, but here is a sketch of the markings. Figure 12. Weathering process. This evidence, combined with possible battle damage at four locations, was a strong indication that the cockpit section performed active service in some theatre, even though no records confirmed this for either TF925 or VW232. The markings 8 �correspond exactly (in size, layout and groups of five), with those on actual photographs of other active service Sea Fury aircraft. Figure 13. Sea Fury group showing mission markings. Figure 14. Markings on VX763. It was initially believed that these markings were bomb tails, but subsequent discussion with pilots indicate that the markings shown are the tails of rockets, with the lower body and head obliterated by weathering. 9 �At this stage, as a result of the scarcity of written active service records for the composite TF925/VW232, a decision was made to continue to represent the aircraft as the more historic VX730, as a complete active service record was available for this. It was hoped that this record, with representation of the aircraft as VX730, would most effectively convey information to the public on Sea Fury aircraft in Korea. All markings specific to VX730, based on original photographs, were applied to the aircraft in an easily reversible medium, so that they could be removed should future evidence or research reveal more of the true service history of Sea Fury TF925/VW232. To assist the investigation into the identity of this aircraft, local and interstate ex Sea Fury pilots took up the challenge, did some research, compared notes and recollections and kindly forwarded the results to the Memorial. A possibly more accurate history of the aircraft is presented below, based on both their information and on the evidence found on the aircraft. 10 �Figure 15. Timeline, slide 1. The three numbers were originally three different aircraft. TF925 was extensively damaged in the ‘hard landing’ on 2 February 1949. VW232 suffered damage on the Starboard side from the four cannon shells mentioned during exercises on 24 February 1949, and was written off. Records exist of both aircraft coming to Australia on HMAS Sydney in November 1949. 11 �Figure 16. Timeline, slide 2. Sometime after coming to Australia the wings and tail section of TF925 could have been used to repair VW232, accounting for the occurrence of both these numbers on the aircraft. This theory appears to be confirmed by the facts that the tail section has a different colour internal primer than the remainder of the fuselage, VW232 has been applied over TF925 on the tail fuselage section, and cannon damage to the Starboard wing leading edge does not match with the remainder of the TF925 wing. Note that 12 �the real VX730 was having a well documented and parallel active Korean service during the period 1950 -57. At this stage it appeared true that the original VX730 was cut up for scrap and the composite TF925/VW232 renumbered as VX730. Figure 17. Timeline, slide 3 The burning question was - why do remnants of strike markings appear on the mid fuselage section? Are they spurious, put on sometime in the past as a dress up, or are they genuine? The latter appears more likely given the weathering pattern of the paint layers in the area of the markings. It seems that the mid fuselage section came from an aircraft that actually did serve in Korea. Was it the original VX 730? Was the centre fuselage section, which includes the cockpit area, saved from the scrap metal merchant? This now appears most likely, but although we do have a clear Starboard image of VX 730 actually on the deck of HMAS Sydney in Korea… Figure 18. VX730 on HMAS Sydney. 13 �we have no images showing the strike markings on the Port side to compare with those found and verify its identity. (Oh @%$#!) The fully treated but still enigmatic aircraft can now be seen on display as part of ‘Air Power in the Pacific’ in Aircraft Hall. Figure 19. Completed aircraft at rollout. And that is the fascinating story of Hawker Sea Fury VX730. Acknowledgements The contributions are acknowledged of John White, Curator, Australian War Memorial, and Toz Dadswell, along with LCDR “Windy” Geale, Museum of Flight, Nowra, and Mr John Bennet, Florey, ACT for their work tracking down some of the history and the pilots who flew Sea Fury aircraft. The project would not have been completed on time without the generous assistance of the Treloar Technology Volunteer Team. 14 � https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/a651e74df830850bd8999ec67f4ee221.pdf?Expires=1774483200&Signature=Wcr5gVYjhe7-miYrOTsvmdY2gXI3cNnXi%7Eztt4zfMOh4Abr0nBI52jZU5Rnoy6%7EKNEkmyqYxfhQwQA332VT9biOcPevsWBHPwSDJGgeo%7EDIgkm3xzBDtS7vwzxA-NOPxbQoo4Gd9R%7ExpW65to84PbQzKddOnc1tHAQzVYLfesDazFzKmqi4p5k8TiwKol52c6X3Z0K96SGrwrdcUO4hMux8-ztsWeqVNXuU1lkJfKwUfnw6eLHc03laTeDqM1lFdmAFcdbewpc79%7E%7EfbcAMqpUma7O5-xZvQWCjnNg2uDXaFEFyKFBrENo5Kqbkvx-cA84ta%7EiyCyDBmolRPsJov7Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 6a563b1c112afcd560c66555ba3ed47b PDF Text Text An identity crisis: Hawker Sea Fury FB11 “VX730” John Kemister - Question and answer session John Kemister: A lot of that approach was a growing process if you like. Like most of our objects, we take care not to rock up to something and say “I’m going to treat it like this". You’ve got an idea but you’ve got to respect what the object is going to tell you too. Any comments? David! David Hallam: I think with large objects it’s absolutely essential that projects like that take years. John Kemister: Take time. David Hallam: Because if you rush them you’re going to goof it, and you’re going to make mistakes - not see the markings. And things like the Lancaster Bomber, which was done here, the lead time to that was just immense. John Kemister: Absolutely. David Hallam: I think John [White] and I started working on it maybe fifteen years before you actually did any work. John Kemister: Absolutely. David Hallam: I think that’s a real lesson and a lovely piece of work you’ve done. Thank you. John Kemister: Is John White here? Okay, we can talk about him. I found it very, very, refreshing yesterday to hear John say that - that he really appreciated people who could take time with their projects. And it’s contrary to the corporate goals usually and you sometimes - you’ve got to fight for it; but please treat your objects with respect for the history that they do present. I think the most I drew out of that project was - for goodness sake - wake up and use raking light in the examinations! This has happened to me three times now by accident. Okay, sure, we go up there and we look at something, but three times by accident I’ve found things on objects. The midget submarine has got flags chiseled on the side of the conning tower. It’s just absolutely fascinating. And the other thing is the surface change. Okay, when I first looked at that aircraft it was dull and weathered and dusty and there was no hope of seeing anything because the surface was so fretted and eroded and scratched, but we put a very light coating of paint on it and it changed the surface sheen on it and I was able to pick up the reflection of the mission markings. So maybe there’s scope there for further work on a nice little, easily removable something-or-other we can put on a painted surface to change the sheen of it and thereby see more detail. Food for thought. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Big Stuff 2004 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2004 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Alison Wain Article An article in a journal or periodical Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource An identity crisis: Hawker Sea Fury FB11 VX730 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource John Kemister Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2004 aircraft authenticity conservation restoration significance Treatment and Maintenance https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/d116b54c46b95f54ef252e9d5d158c3d.pdf?Expires=1774483200&Signature=nE%7EOLsEZfy-yzGcgk80jy8wc38IiP5wXX539pQSedlzI2I%7Eko4iwu5v59hO8T3QTaUNSCUiqxS40ewXvxKM%7E6JuOv9tm3dJaHsyymbBITTMINIBb1I89fQ7FLidB6MvSHxGEuG7mqp-59fFE8V%7E7JVN2%7EPOzzYW-aRAkabQSIFKRRk6HyX%7ESPw50ufwpoRvwhr-v12qUOa7p9tI0ZAquzodt-M46sXfAhQxCuHsIek3YIxKgV58yXqGCUieWDuhs1vXqEKxdX0-CQLjMmJqgJiWRyrTfmFSMYvb1nsd3Hf79uegesdqc%7Et%7EgWcAiF90SnQvmuK5sa42CDsNJOYC1oA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM cf95337ffc7a259c8736a4a2beb93822 PDF Text Text A Spot of research: investigating the previous paint schemes of “G for George” Andrew Pearce Australian War Memorial Abstract: One of the primary icons of the Australian War Memorial, the Lancaster Bomber “G for George”, was removed from display in 1999 so that conservation work could be conducted. At this point it was known that during the most recent repaint in 1977, decisions on the position and style of the markings had been based on incorrect information. Conservation staff wanted to discover the original positions and styles of the markings. This paper discusses the conservation process of repainting and rerepresenting “G for George”as it appears today and will focus on two topics: 1. Which investigative techniques and what evidence have been used to establish the operational markings of “G for George”? 2. In a “presentation-driven” display environment, what issues govern the presentation of the “lived in” aspects of an object? Introduction Recent conservation work by the staff of the Australian War Memorial has endeavored to give Avro Lancaster W4783 “G for George” the same external appearance as it had when it completed operational service in 1944. Between 1994 and 2003 the aircraft had been repainted on 3 separate occasions but, fortunately, very little paint removal had been done prior to the addition of new paint layers. This gave the conservation staff an opportunity to investigate the underlying paint coats and determine “G for George”’s correct wartime marking and camouflage scheme. However, the discovery of errors, mismatches between sections and stenciling mistakes presented the quandary of how accurately these quirks should be replicated. During this work, a number of questions were raised and worked through: • • • • • • Who decides what the correct appearance for an historical aircraft is? What information is relevant in making this decision? What information sources are available? What investigative techniques are of use? Which information sources have priority? Having decided what the historically authentic appearance should be, what issues does it raise if this appearance is not one that the “general public”, “those in the know” or “the powers that be” consider to be acceptable? 1.1 Development of a presentation approach Over the previous decade or so, the Large Technology Conservation team at the Australian War Memorial has been developing a new approach to the preparation and presentation of objects for display. 1 �Where an object is to be repainted as part of its treatment (not always the case, a prime example being the Messerschmidt Bf109G aircraft), every attempt is made to research the story and history of that particular object, and then determine in which action or era of use the object tells the most historically relevant wartime story. Efforts are then focused on effectively and accurately portraying the object with the particular appearance/configuration associated with those events. As an illustration, the Wirraway training aircraft currently on display in Aircraft Hall was used extensively for the training of RAAF pilots during the Second World War. Its most historically significant feature however, is that it is the only known Wirraway to have ever shot down a Japanese Zero fighter aircraft. For this reason, the Wirraway is no longer painted in its air-training colours, but rather the colours it bore at the time of this significant event. In attempting to present large technology objects “as they appeared at the time” the current presentation approach has evolved. This rationale has informed the repainting/presentation decisions of a number of Memorial aircraft including the Kittyhawk, Sea Fury and “G for George”. As an example, some years ago, the Memorial’s German V1 “Doodlebug” flying bomb was being conserved prior to being placed on display in the Second World War gallery. The V1 had been repainted after the war, and chemical stripping methods were being used to carefully strip these layers of non-original paint in the hope that the original paint surface would be aesthetically suitable for display. During the stripping process, it was noted that many of the exposed underlying wartime paint layers were of unusual colours (for example brown instead of sky blue) or damaged (for example scorched rather than being a pristine, uniform painted surface). Further investigation and analysis of historical photographs showed that, indeed, many V1 flying bombs had been constructed from mismatched parts and did not exhibit a uniform appearance. 2 �Figure 1: Period photograph of V1 flying bomb showing paint scheme Unfortunately, the painted surface after stripping, although showing many details previously not visible, was quite patchy and still had too much overpaint remaining to be suitable for display. Further stripping of overpaint to produce a superior visual result would have been at the detriment of original material (for example stencils). Thus the decision was made to repaint the V1, using the exposed wartime surfaces as the master template for the paint scheme. This treatment resulted in a relic that, while repainted, appears very much as we believe it would have while in service. Figure 2: Memorial V1 flying bomb in current display configuration 3 �1.2 Developing the intended presentation of “G for George” The 460 Squadron Lancaster bomber W4783 “G for George” flew nearly 90 missions over Europe up until June of 1944. At this point it was sent to the AV Roe works at the Woodford RAF base for repainting and refitting, prior to being flown out to Australia for publicity and War Effort fundraising purposes. So what activities make “G for George”most important? To be sure, the flight out to Australia and the Victory Loan tours were notable, but by far, it is “G for George”’s Bomber Command service, its large number of combat missions, and the sacrifice of the crews associated with the Lancaster Squadrons that “G for George” represents, that make the aircraft an item of significance. Certainly the more recent repaints, while not being of historical relevance for the purposes of the Memorial, still serve as evidence of the use of “G for George” as a wartime fundraising tool and as a museum piece. In the interests of preserving this historical information it was decided that, rather than attempting to strip the upper paint layers (should it have proven feasible), a more ethical approach would be to investigate the original markings and then repaint the aircraft according to these over the top of the previous paint layers. In picking a period to represent through repainting, there is really only one viable option. That is to show “G for George”with its “scoreboard” of 90 successful operations complete, and in the camouflage and marking scheme present on the aircraft at the end of its active service, prior to its refurbishment and repainting for the publicity flight out to Australia. 1.3 Researching the intended presentation Given the pressures of wartime activity, little time was allocated to airfield photography. For this reason, very few photographs are available that show the wartime markings and paint scheme present on “G for George”. There are a few images showing the “scoreboard”, a number taken near the crew exit door and some wide shots of the starboard side of the fuselage. To the best of our knowledge, there are no unobscured, wide shots of the port side of the fuselage and no photographs taken from above the aircraft showing the camouflage on the wings. Figure 3: Archival photograph of starboard fuselage of “G for George” 4 �Figure 4: Archival photograph of port fuselage of “G for George” “G for George” was repainted prior to its flight out to Australia, and then again in 1955 and 1977. Aside from some localized paint stripping conducted on the wingtips and sections of the rear fuselage in 1944 during the refurbishment process, underlying paint layers were left intact during each of the repaintings. Instead of having a repainted aircraft with its wartime markings destroyed, the Memorial was presented with an invaluable opportunity to examine and research the original markings preserved under the subsequent paint layers. This information was then used to reproduce the wartime markings. In analyzing the wartime paintwork, transmission x-ray techniques were not viable due to the presence of multiple heavy coats of paint and a metallic substrate. Standard paint flake cross sectioning techniques clearly show the sequence of layers laid down on a surface; however making sense of the positional information they provide once the samples are removed from the surface is problematic. Relating the layers back to a design such as a camouflage pattern would be extremely time-consuming. As an alternative to these techniques, Memorial conservators decided to adapt a technique known as “spot rubbing”. This enables the layers of colour applied at a particular point to be viewed in sequence. Spot rubbing involves taking fine grade emery paper and rubbing a small circle through the paintwork to the undercoat layer. The sequence of paint layers applied to the surface then appears as a series of concentric coloured rings around the perimeter of the spot. Careful rubbing can also be used to widen the exposed colour layer associated with a particular spot, enabling paint matching of the colour to be conducted (a facility not available through thin film cross sectioning). 5 �Figure 5: Spot rubbing on “G for George” By using the manufacturer’s camouflage specification as a guide as to the likely location of markings, targeted spot sampling could be applied to track the course of the camouflage. Due to the “feathering” of spray painted camouflage edges, a definite point of change between green and brown cannot truly be said to exist. Nonetheless, refining of the spot rubbing technique has enabled the zone within which the camouflage demarcation occurs to be narrowed to a region approximately 100mm in width. As previously mentioned, some regions of the airframe had been paint stripped during the previous refurbishment processes resulting in loss of evidence of original markings. Where possible, the available historical photographs of “G for George” were used to locate and reproduce missing markings. If this could not be done, the original AV Roe camouflage specifications were used. So, the information actually found on the aircraft provided the primary evidence for the painting scheme, with secondary evidence coming from well documented photographs known to be from the correct time. Any further gaps were being filled by referring to the official manufacturing specifications. And having gone to such trouble to determine the correct information, what was the result? Was it what the staff/managers/public expected and what was the reaction? 6 �Figure 6: “G for George” as presented today 1.4 The expected result vs the object As a general rule, aircraft restorations in the past have resulted in what one might classify as “pretty” aircraft. Institutions and aviation collectors have had a tendency to restore their aircraft to almost concourse conditions. The paint is all shiny, the markings and stencils are perfect and all the colours match. The finished product appears more like an enthusiast’s model kit than an operational aircraft. In contrast, the evidence found on “G for George” and in photographs indicated a very different result, including mis-matched paint colours, mis-aligned paint transitions, stencils with reversed lettering, lettering applied freehand rather than by stencil and a range of other non-standard details. These unexpected aspects of the markings served as evidence for many features of “G for George”’s military service. They demonstrated the distributed method of manufacture used to produce Lancasters, showed that some sections had been damaged and replaced while the aircraft was in service and reflected the personality and individuality of the ground crew and airmen who served with the aircraft. They were thus of enormous importance to the full understanding of the object and its service conditions, and to the presentation of “G for George” as an object which had genuinely flown in service. 2.1 A presentation dilemma Increasingly, the modern museum environment is heavily presentation driven. Appearance is everything. Displays, objects, text panels, lighting, multimedia presentation and the surrounding furnishings all combine to produce the final “museum experience”. So, in such a presentation driven setting, what place is there for an object with a “less presentable” appearance? Does the “truthful” conservation and restoration of an object’s original appearance come at the expense of the display? Certainly, when many hundreds of thousands of dollars can be spent producing a gallery environment, one can easily see why anything that undermined that work would be considered less than desirable. Specifically, what issues does the presentation of “G for George” raise and how do they affect the final experience? 7 �2.2 The Issues 1. Comparison to similar aircraft elsewhere: Worldwide, there are a number of exceedingly high profile Lancasters held in collections. These include “S for Sugar” at the RAF Museum in Hendon in the UK and “City of Lincoln” flown by the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight (BBMF). Although in the case of “City of Lincoln” the aircraft is regularly flown, the appearance of both these aircraft corresponds to the “model aeroplane” look. The paintwork and stenciling is neat, the colours match and the exterior finish is glossy in appearance. Although they do not represent an accurate image of the way such aircraft appeared under combat conditions, the presence of these aircraft creates a public expectation that this is how aircraft of this type are supposed to look. Figure 7: “City of Lincoln” BBMF Lancaster 2. “But it never used to look like that.” When doing a major conservation/restoration project on a well known icon, altering the appearance from that to which people have become accustomed will always meet some resistance. In the case of “G for George”, the aircraft had been on public display for over 40 years. As far as many people were concerned, they “knew” what it looked like. 3. “The military would never tolerate untidiness or lack of discipline like that.” A number of the features now present on “G for George”, including the mismatched paint colours, hand-applied lettering, reversed stencils and the swastikas on the propeller spinners, do not represent the generally accepted idea of “military precision”. 8 �4. Divergence from popular folklore: Below the cockpit on the port side of the fuselage, “G for George” has a graphical representation of all the successful bombing raids flown. Markings of this type are quite common on military aircraft and are referred to by many names including ‘strike markings’, ‘tally board’, ‘scoreboard’ and ‘bomb log’. For some fifty five years, next to the 33rd mission marking on “G for George”’s bomb log (corresponding to a mission flown on 27th April 1943), a red flag has been painted with a hammer and sickle. The flag is a substantial part of the mythology associated with “G for George” and the reason for its presence has been the subject of much conjecture. Figure 8: Pre 1999 representation of 33rd mission marking Over the years, at least four alternative solutions have been put forward to explain the flag: • The pilot was Goulevitch, a Russian, hence the flag. This is incorrect; the pilot on this mission was named Rose. Goulevitch piloted “G for George” on its 53rd mission, targeting Munich in September of 1943. • • The mission overflew Germany and landed in Russia before heading home. This is also incorrect; the mission came back from Duisburg without heading on to Russia. Duisburg is only around three hundred and fifty miles from Binbrook so this trip was actually one of George’s shortest missions. • 9 The pilot was Rose, roses are red, Russians are “Reds”, therefore… (Clutching at straws here aren’t we?) And finally, the “All for Joe” reason. Bomber command was flying missions in support of the campaign being waged by the Russians and the slogan “All for Joe” (Stalin) was in widespread use. At the time of the 33rd mission, bomber command ceased flying missions to support the Russians and the flag was painted to symbolise “No more for Joe”. �Figure 9: Screen capture from Peter Dunn's "Australia @ War" web page at www.ozatwar.com 10 �Figure 10: 83rd mission bomb log Unfortunately, all the above reasons miss one key point. If you look closely at a wartime photograph of the 33rd mission marking and the flag that accompanies it (such as the one taken at the time of the 83rd mission), it can be clearly seen that the flag in question is not actually a hammer and sickle at all. This is supported by the detailed paint rubbings conducted by the conservation staff researching the bomb log. Rather than being a hammer and sickle, the image in the flag appears to be a circle with a “Y” in the centre (somewhat like an inverted Mercedes Benz logo). It would appear that at some point (currently believed to be the time of the 1944 Woodford refurbishment) the deteriorated paintwork of the bomb log was overpainted by someone who somewhat zealously interpreted the red flag with the curved yellow markings as a hammer and sickle. This flag then remained on the bomb log, repainted in various configurations, for another fifty five years, while people created reasons for its existence. 11 �Figure 11: Close up of 33rd mission flag Figure 12: Current repaint of 33rd mission flag In repainting the bomb log with the corrected flag, we are effectively saying that none of the above theories could possibly be correct. This has the potential to cause a loss of face to those who have claimed to solve the mystery. Fortunately we have given them another mystery to replace it: what is the origin and meaning of the new (old) flag at the 33rd mission? 12 �2.3 Dealing with the issues Faced with the possibility of people having pre-conceived ideas of the final outcome of the conservation treatment (even before the initial disassembly of the aircraft had been completed) it was vital that we deal with the issues rather than just ignoring them until the grand opening of the new display. Fundamental to dealing with the issues was a very open process of communication. As soon as information came to light that could modify our original plans (either photographic evidence or spot rubbings), we made sure that curators and managers were informed. In this way the significance and authenticity of the evidence, its historical importance and its effect on the final product could be openly discussed with the exhibition team. By following this approach nasty shocks and extreme sticking points were largely avoided. As the treatment progressed people “knew what they were getting” and more importantly, knew that any changes to their original mental image were based on sound analysis and strong historical evidence. In the public arena a good flow of communication was similarly of high importance. Conservation staff supplied the Memorial website with regular updates on the progress of the Lancaster work. In this way, “G for George” was not seen as a major icon which was removed for five years and then returned to display looking “wrong”, but rather an icon which had been methodically and carefully worked on to return it to a more historically authentic appearance. Given a formalized process for using the available evidence and incorporating any relevant changes into the treatment planning, what was the final agreed outcome? It was decided that, where possible, any historically verifiable details that could be shown to have been present on “G for George” at the point where it finished active military operations should be as faithfully reproduced as possible. This means that mismatched camouflage colours, hand-applied lettering, stenciling errors and the like have been included. It also means that features which were found to be incorrect (such as the “Russian flag”) have been corrected. Due to the display orientation of “G for George”, many of the more obvious mismatches in paint finish, while accurately reproduced, are not readily apparent to under casual inspection and do not challenge visitors to the Memorial. 13 �2.5 The final reaction During the course of conserving “G for George”, those aspects of the reproduced appearance that were considered unusual (mismatched paint), irreverent (swastikas painted on the propeller spinners) or unsightly (hand applied dinghy release and first aid markings) were the subject of extensive negotiation. A good deal of evidence had to be provided in order to reassure managers that these features were being reproduced with good reason. On viewing the finished product, the general consensus was that the conservation treatment had resulted in an historic object that was faithfully reproduced to an exceptionally high standard. It was agreed that the approach taken, rather than being substandard in its result, was actually at the leading edge of modern museum display techniques. Figure 13: “G for George” port wing - current display Figure 14: “G for George” starboard wing - current display 14 �The public reaction has been interesting to say the least. Many visitors, far from being at all bothered by any unusual aspects of “G for George”’s appearance, do not seem to notice anything unusual at all. Those that do notice a difference sometimes comment that the aircraft appears somehow more “real” and “lived in”. We believe this would not have been the result had a more pristine traditional restoration approach been taken. It is the children visiting the Memorial however, who seem to be more likely to notice the quirks. It is rare that a school group will visit “G for George” without around half the students present asking the guide “How come it’s got Nazi symbols on it?” Conclusion It was the intention of the Memorial’s conservation staff to use all our research and all the resources on hand to portray G for George” as accurately as we possibly could. From time to time there were quite legitimate concerns raised about the final effect our proposed repainting would produce. Certainly, some of the new paint features have raised substantial public interest and comment. Nonetheless the response seems to have been universally positive. We are very pleased to report that the reactions from stakeholders (particularly Bomber Command veterans from 460, 463 and 467 Squadrons and their families) have also been highly favourable. As “G for George” is one of “their” aircraft, their positive attitude towards the conservation treatment is highly valued by both the staff and the volunteers who worked on the aircraft. References Peter Dunn's "Australia @ War" web page at www.ozatwar.com 15 � https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/0f904db4ecf2faafa76e253e0883587f.pdf?Expires=1774483200&Signature=ONj-TUWHLtQXzxB2gW4abwAs2SjBu11YPLT7p2jXFszhwgzc0Fxb3CO3AUx4O-w8w0VYwvBDlLmloctk%7Es%7EeOoHFePspXRCxjL7sHDQ7ATA5TeRFknmYUOwhLBzTkXhZMPuedJberpjJXp7oARaOgH6JPpJhSvfEhcNYRmrB7g2YFqTli8waoYdZ6-WSwr8%7EC7yGh9GoQtZrSgj5qMBOWs5q1g5e2lGmYuuJLSumPEXP8JTzVuNOpijNDbZGLZZKVmngOJsraZpWQryNB6Yz6SOZWh0qtgkfplUtjq8aB-2yDK59vZCEIl1SbZlj5WllHeTZBhjHjizPGrh8FYgE%7Ew__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 744076f289ab2f7ccb1bddbcf3eaf152 PDF Text Text A spot of research: investigating the previous paint schemes of “G for George” Andrew Pearce - Question and answer session Chris Knapp: The idea of stencils and whatever being wrong and sometimes being a bit contentious and upsetting people – there is a positive side, it generates interest and you get people talking about it and you can explain things. An example we had recently – we’ve just finished a Blackburn Buccaneer and we’ve got all the drawings for the stencils and locations. And we ditched that because it’s totally wrong for our aircraft. We’ve got the photographs so we’ve got better accuracy. Do you know why the paint was mismatched on the wings? Is it at the wing join? Andrew Pearce: Yes, it’s quite simply a product of the production methods of the Lancaster. It’s because of the dispersed manufacture. Chris Knapp: It’s not due to battle damage and a wing being replaced? Andrew Pearce: In the case of the tail planes of George we know definitely they have been replaced. There’s quite detailed records that were taken by Harry Tickle, G for George’s senior fitter. He kept a very detailed log of what had been damaged. From our records we know that an incendiary fell from a Lancaster that was flying above George, burnt through the top skin of the tail plane, burnt through the trim cables inside the tailplane, burnt through the bottom skin of the tail plane and fell out. The Lancaster tailplane has no repair in that section. We know it has to have come from a different aircraft. So some of the colour variations are yes, due to battle damage and replacement. Tony Coleman: I can relate to the problem of colours and people telling you it’s the wrong colour. With the tram system in Hobart – all our trams were the one colour from 1935 on. The trams that I’m working on are 1915-1917. There’s nobody in Hobart that can remember what those original colours were. I’ve got the colours from scrapes, but I still have to argue the whole thing of the 1935 colours. And that’s the other thing about colour photographs – I can only get black and white photos obviously of that period. But I can pick up the difference because they were green and cream – the trams were painted during the First World War because green paint became scarce and they were actually painted white/cream at that stage. John Kemister: The funny thing about the Lancaster project – the Russian flag actually, in the repaints, was put on in four renditions. How many variations of a hammer and sickle can you get? � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Big Stuff 2004 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2004 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Alison Wain Article An article in a journal or periodical Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource A Spot of research: investigating the previous paint schemes of “G for George” Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Andrew Pearce Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2004 aircraft authenticity camouflage conservation engagement restoration significance Treatment and Maintenance https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/e0e8b74c09aa3cb26df7d5cbd7a9d63a.pdf?Expires=1774483200&Signature=OPtKGR17QtgaZN7rST6W-TBwRyCPEYmDzdEPQ29eigAJhsKmBj4Cwf-NBcEYcNA8xvnSHAcywHXXiTEL2Zc%7EwincjIbHk8qm1p5oA0pqhqwJKSn%7EDF3luTJINoSVrPvtAhcFj-RFsMhk5NjxGHp9m4oIe%7Eoaf-62fzbV7MMzRQVIolgF3KPl-JqqAJs93XMBd-D-L1xgfCNifUv0Gl-iY4Apa3bsFSaUjNkgizvQ%7EFcCyfIazXmsRCJThgRuDlkXO4gdMBTL6ykj0xhGXczwCeui9S-WBuYpI0jzU%7E8dCJllg9TQ48sCZw8M2vAeitRJXwHE5%7ERxkfgaAdiDi67rNg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM d7beb2f3aa960b09233ee3285e28cc5d PDF Text Text Chris Knapp MSc ACR Conservation Manager Imperial War Museum, Duxford �¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ Dramatic effect Save space Help tell a story Just because we like it Or how about as bait to tempt visitors in to the store ����Do we choose an object that: ¨ Has little history ? ¨ Is core to the story we are telling ? ¨ Is common ? ¨ To keep it out of harms way ? ¨ Or just because it fits ? ��¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ The display designer ? The Director ? The curator ? The conservator ? The engineer ? The educator ? All the above ? �¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ Is the building capable of taking the weight ? Will it fit ? Is the object structurally sound ? Who is responsible for each stage ? Structural engineer Object engineer Design engineer �¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ Suspension system designer Suspension fittings manufacturer Suspension fittings installation Lifting specialist �¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ Design the complete suspension system Liaise with structural engineer Liaise with display designer Supply certified manufacturing drawings Supply copies of all stress and design calculations Supply post suspension inspection requirement report ���¨ Who manufactures and certifies the fittings to drawing ? �¨ ¨ ¨ Who installs the fittings ? Who verifies the installation ? Who accepts responsibility ? �¨ ¨ Who lifts the object in to it’s display position ? What are their responsibilities ? ��¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ Can you reach your object to clean it ? Can you reach your object to inspect the system and the object ? Do you record your inspection findings ? Do you have a plan in place to deal with any problems you may encounter ? Can you get your object down ? Can you still move other objects beneath it on the floor ? ��¨ ¨ ¨ You can mount on a pole You can raise on supports You can partial suspend ��������� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Big Stuff 2010 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Alison Wain Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010 Article An article in a journal or periodical Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Suspending Museum Objects Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Chris Knapp Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010 aircraft display stand hanging inspection mount suspension https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/ddd1ff7cd1a43bc9d03caff0536121c9.pdf?Expires=1774483200&Signature=TuYbd9fLsjSERn2I%7EMSHaR2NUWo-qGeY0mKaRnlTFYregepvUiP5NTVp%7EKbm08I3%7EEGzJplKC6CC-GZ%7EtNuTVamakhrwu%7EWygijjgEt5QvfrcMNqo6PKwIxkKhsNa0l16E5QjpBzFv7Iy7HmrcvyZJ9g6oZPrgU9FzQy-4Jwe-tdLm1wp5DfZ0nG2otP3uLwxXqq%7ELnWxIQrwXTz6zJ0v-IvK5WL0Axl5q5KnVjz5-1oOfr-1jBAdCJaAfjNW2k%7EKBKNO1DdQDEshvqtjgUQkYWkWVVhGAvoCAShYRiwAHo2DSZOUUE91pUUxxs8EgWFNmpWgGqSMbInQLSGoo23pg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 5c49088a3ef303ea5f7a5fd7af60a374 PDF Text Text Title: Changing Visitor Expectation at the Canada Science and Technology Museum Corporation Name and institution of presenter Sue Warren, CSTMC Text INTRODUCTION People feel a strong connection to the past through objects. It is the way we express our cultural differences, our religious differences and our aesthetic differences. We inherit objects and we pass them on to our children. In them we imbue our personal history and link it to something much bigger and more enduring than our own lives. While these personal items may be small, there are objects of larger size and significance which are passed on through society or government or institutions; and very often make up the collections of Museums. As custodians of these objects, Museums serve as the medium through which they are preserved and interpreted. It is not surprising, therefore, that Museums must act as arbiters in disputes over aesthetics, significance and relevance. It is the Museum’s interpretation which determines the final state of the object. The problem with historic objects, for Museums, is that they do not exist purely as an object; but more as a physical representation of the era, society, belief, or event to which they are linked. Whereas the ideal of Conservation is to preserve the materials and the form with minimal intervention; the subjective and the “aesthetic” considerations of preserving and interpreting the objects for the public, are often at odds with this. An archaeological object displayed in an “as found” condition; is much more likely to meet with public acceptance than is an aircraft or a locomotive in a similar condition. Understanding the reasons behind this, and tracing the origins of it; help us to analyze our own priorities and therefore to begin to change not only our expectations, but those of our visiting public. THE CHALLENGE Visitors to Museums of industrial technology or transportation collections, very often expect to see the objects looking as they did when new, they expect them to be on permanent display, and they expect to be able to experience them personally through touching or climbing or seeing them in operation. The truth is that people do experience the world through their senses; so the desire to touch and see and smell an operating locomotive, for instance, is not incomprehensible. A further truth is that there is tremendous value in experiencing historic technology this way. So how do we reconcile this with the fact that modern Conservation is a profession tied to the principles of preserving objects and their history of use, with minimal intervention and loss of originality? �Conservation is a relatively new profession and indeed continues to evolve and define itself, particularly in fields like ours. Our biggest challenge may be that minimal intervention has not always been a goal of Museum preservation; and the evidence of masses of restored objects in the collections of Museums worldwide confirms this unequivocally. Further, these restored objects demonstrate that the aesthetic for technological objects had been firmly established prior to modern Conservation, and that the visitor expectation for this is well entrenched. Since the visitor is largely unaware of the intentions and scientific principles behind Conservation, the responsibility for changing their expectations and indeed the accepted aesthetic for large objects, rests with us. In the case of technological objects, the visitor might assume that because they are big and were built for strength or speed; they do not deteriorate with age and use. Museums have perpetuated this myth by displaying industrial objects looking as new, and often by operating them. The same cannot be said of ethnographic or archaeological objects, nor of smaller social history objects such as costumes or domestic technology. So what is the root of the aesthetic to display transportation pieces and large machinery in this manner? One logical reason our technological history is displayed this way, is that while a coveted costume or piece of inlaid furniture or painting may be cherished and cared for through generations; an obsolete piece of machinery or a tool, or a defunct vehicle might just as easily be left to decay outside or in a field or a ditch. When these pieces are recovered, they are in need of cleaning and repair; and so this is what we have done. It was not a deliberate attempt to falsify or to misrepresent; but merely a desire to return the object to a condition similar to and more representative of, its useful lifetime. Another possible reason, and a less noble one, is the desire of Curators and Conservators, to display objects that look nice. Within the field of Conservation there are different and very subjective interpretations of what the goal of a conservation treatment should be. Although we follow a Code of Ethics, the extent to which treatments are taken is very much a decision of the Conservator and the “owner” or Curator. Degrees of removal of an original finish, of in-painting, or re-painting, polishing, replacement of missing parts; all of these decisions are made on a caseby-case basis. Often it is the aesthetics of the Curator or Conservator that decides this. Always, it is subjective. What is it that influences us? Is it that, in this day of revenue generation and pleasing the public, we feel that we have to put on a good show? This pressure certainly exists today in major Canadian Museums. It is a battle for the visitor dollar, up against competition like theme parks and movies and shopping centres. Programming and special events take floor space from exhibitions; and exhibitions must be “marketable” and showy. Displays must link to Twitter and You Tube, and must appeal to a �generation whose attention span generally precludes any in-depth understanding. Our Public Programming divisions are telling us that the visitors want to see bigger events and more interactive displays; but all this is at the expense of safeguarding the collection, and at odds with Conservation’s prime goals. CSTMC EXPERIENCE CSTMC has by no means solved these problems. What we are doing, with each case we review, is reaching a clearer understanding of what our goals should be with respect to interpreting objects for the visitor. For us, the crux of the issue rests with two key assumptions: that restoration does have a very important role in Museums; and that Conservation and Restoration are not always at odds with each other. What must be clearly and objectively defined, is a set of criteria to be met before an object undergoes restoration. These criteria cannot be based on a Curator’s opinion, or a personal preference; but must be objective and take into consideration the technology, history, social context and future significance of the artefact. An excellent paper on this was written by Joanna Barr in 2006 entitled “The Conservation of Working Objects: Development of a Conservation management Tool”. While this paper deals with Operational artefacts, the principles for deciding when to operate and when to restore are very similar and transferrable. Borrowing the ideas from this 2006 paper, I updated the 1987 version of the Conservation Policy for CSTMC; and introduced a process to rationalize restoration vs. conservation. The criteria identified in this process are: 1. How does the object fit within the Museum’s mandate. 2. Aesthetic value : scale, colour, texture, materials, smells; 3. Historic value: age, provenance, association with people, places or events; 4. Scientific value: rarity, original materials, technology, manufacturing techniques. alterations or modifications; and 5. Social value: spiritual, political or cultural meaning for a particular group. 6. Future value: the potential value of the information contained in the object. Once Museum decision-makers have worked through the process, the implications of restoration and conservation become more evident; and the decisions to restore or conserve, more objective and responsible. Once the public is made aware of these decisions and how they are arrived at; it engages them both physically and intellectually. EXAMPLES FOR DISCUSSION: AVIATION MUSEUM The first two objects for discussion are examples of aircraft, for which Conservation was the agreed approach. The rationale for choosing �conservation over restoration was different for each; and yet the process for developing that rationale was the same. Borel Morane: A history of the conservation of this aircraft is on the Museum website at http://www.aviation.technomuses.ca. It was acquired in 2005 and is the first aircraft in the collection to have been entirely conserved. It is one of a very few with historic fabric, and the only one displayed as an iconic relic rather than in a condition of past use. The Museum’s Borel-Morane was imported into the United States in 1912 and it is the oldest known surviving aircraft to have flown in Canada. Georges Mestach, an early Belgian exhibition pilot, was one of a handful of Europeans to fly in North America at that time and in 1911 was the first aviator to have flown at Quebec City. He and his manager/mechanic, Ernest Mathis, unloaded the Borel-Morane in New Orleans from the ship that carried it across the Atlantic. Soon after, they began exhibition flying throughout the continent with stops that included Winnipeg, Quebec and Sherbrooke. However, the Borel-Morane proved no match for Winnipeg’s stiff prairie wind and Mestach badly damaged the aircraft in a crash against a fence. The machine’s checkered career also included a crash at an air meet near Chicago that resulted in North America’s first midair collision fatality. The damaged aircraft was then sold in 1913 because of import duty irregularities. Mestach continued to fly for the new owner until the aircraft was purchased in 1914 by Earl S. Daugherty of Long Beach, California, an early American exhibition pilot. Although Daugherty suffered a fatal aerial accident in 1928, the aircraft remained in his family’s possession until purchased by the Museum in 2002. Although the fusillage and wings were structurally intact, there were numerous areas of damage. Most important for us, was the presence of most of the historic fabric on the wings. Although the exact date of the fabric was not known, analysis of the doping layer by the Canadian Conservation Institute, showed that it was cellulose nitrate dope, over cotton fabric which, though historic, is not original to its earliest state. Some of the hardware was lost, the tires were a disaster, and the propeller broken. Balancing the equation was the fact that it was a significant iconic aircraft, with most of its parts intact, and that it had most of the historic fabric in a relatively good state of preservation. Measured against the six criteria for conservation vs. restoration; 1. Mandate of the Museum: To foster scientific and technological literacy throughout Canada by establishing, maintaining and developing a collection of scientific and technological objects, with special but not exclusive reference to Canada, and by demonstrating the products and processes of science and technology and their economic, social and cultural relationships with society. The Borel Morane met all of the goals of the mandate statement �2. Aesthetic value: while the aircraft was largely complete, was structurally intact and stable, and retained most of its historic fabric and dope; its aesthetic value is linked to the quality of original materials and to the rarity of finding this kind of material preserved in this context. There is a huge educational value in seeing and smelling original materials, and a visual value in appreciating the way those materials age. 3. Historic value: the aircraft obviously has significant value to the history of aviation in Canada; and a well-documented provenance. Altering anything on the aircraft to repair, improve or replace; would result in the loss of some of the “story” behind that aircraft. 4. Scientific value: the primary scientific value for this aircraft is in the original materials and construction techniques. Repairs from previous accidents are in evidence in the wings, and in the fusillage; preserving not only the structure of the aircraft, but the repair and maintenance routines from the airmen who flew and serviced them. 5. Social value: Culturally, the extremely well documented provenance and importance to the history of aviation in Canada, are embodied in this iconic aircraft. Spiritually it is a testament to the pioneer aviators and to their descendents. Politically, it was a triumph for the Canada Museum of Aviation & Space to purchase this from its American owner and bring it back to Canada where it’s historic significance is so relevant. 6. Future value: just as today’s analytical tools and techniques are advanced beyond the imagination of a generation ago; so future generations will develop techniques to better understand the original materials and their deterioration. Resistance to the idea of conserving had come from a variety of sources, including restoration staff and senior staff. It was a true departure from the accepted way of doing things at the Aviation Museum: namely restoration projects with conservation of some small elements or components. The Borel Morane proved an excellent catalyst for discussing with staff and then demonstrating to the public, that in some cases the importance of an aircraft is more than just the technology; it is the history, the materials and techniques of manufacture, and in this case particularly, the context. The aircraft was exhibited initially with an adjacent exhibit on Conservation consisting of graphic and text panels explaining the role of Conservation. It served as a bridge of understanding between the deteriorated- looking aircraft and the replica displayed next to it. An appreciation for the antiquity of the aircraft was the goal; and visitor feedback proved that the goal was met. The second project was slightly more contentious to resolve, but the dialogue during that resolution was more interesting: Northrop Delta This was originally proposed as a restoration project. An external group had expressed an interest in restoring the aircraft, and from the perspective of our Curator at the time; it offered the opportunity to gather together and inventory what parts we had, and to have an aircraft restored for us. �The Northrop Delta , built by Canadian Vickers in Montreal, was the first stressed skin all-metal aircraft to be built in Canada. It is notable as the first low-wing monoplane in Canada, and also the first use of the then new plastic Perspex. The test flight of the prototype took place on August 16th 1936. These aircraft were regarded with some suspicion as curious tales were told of their apparently erratic behaviour and then un-known characteristics. Pilots spoke well of them, however, and they performed extremely well in the photographic missions for which they were intended, as they were commissioned by the RCAF to photo-document and map the Canadian North. The Northrop Delta was chosen over British and Canadian aircraft, based on its speed (195 mph) and reported manoeuvrability. Canadian Vickers Manager Richard Moffett obtained a sales and then a manufacturing license to produce the Canadian Delta for the RCAF. Initially a prototype was constructed based on bare components shipped from Inglewood CA to Montreal. The engineers at Vickers built three more by hand-forming and laboriously bending steel over the Alclad flanging. Furthermore they adapted the Delta to fly on twin Vickers Type 75 floats as well as Vickers Type F streamlined skis. At this time, warlike appendages were also added, though this was not widely known outside of the RCAF and Vickers: A .30 calibre Browning machine gun was installed in one wing, and bomb racks were fitted. Four more Delta were delivered in November 1937: Delta Mark II’s (of which ours is one). The chief external difference was the incorporation of extra windows in the cockpit sides under the existing windows, to improve the view from the very wide cockpit in flying photo “lines”. Windows were also placed in the cockpit floor, and the Mark II’s had provision to put armament in the wings, bomb racks and guns. At this time, the three original airplanes were returned to Vickers to have these extra windows added so that they became Mark IA’s. With the impending outbreak of WW II, the Canadian Air Force was so strapped for machines, that the Deltas were brought into action as armed coastal patrols. Canada did not officially declare war until September 10, 1939, but the Deltas were on active service on the 3rd. On August 27th, six Deltas departed from Ottawa to Sydney Nova Scotia. Four arrived safely, but one force-landed in Maine and was accompanied by another to render assistance. Delta 673, which had force-landed in Maine, was temporarily repaired and flew back to Megantic, Quebec for an engine change. On September 14th, No. 8 General purpose Squadron became No. 8 Bomber Reconnaissance Squadron. This was also the day that Flight sergeant Doan and LAC Rennie left Megantic in Delta 673 for Sydney. They never reached their destination, and despite searches along the flight-route, no trace was found of the airplane or crew. �No. 8 BR ranged over the Atlantic ocean between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, but experienced problems with the floats and ocean landings. The floats were twisted in ocean swells, and the fittings corroded in salt water. Pilots reported that attempting to take off into ocean swells resulted in popping rivets “akin to machine-gun fire”. During the summer and fall of 1940, eight more Canadian Deltas were built for the RCAF, but these were gradually replaced by Canadian built Bristol Bolingbrokes and the Deltas transferred to the west coast. A total of twenty Northrops were built at Vickers Aircraft Department in Montreal, bringing the company up to full capacity for its works during WWII. At this time, the company moved to Cartierville and became Canadair Ltd. Of these twenty; five were destroyed in accidents (three of them fatal), two were removed from service, and the remaining thirteen were sent to schools on the decree of the 1941 Secretary of Defence. These instructional airframes were disassembled and reassembled over and over , and some survived as late as February 1945. The wreckage of Delta 673 was found in July 11th 1958, forty miles north of Fredericton New Brunswick. No evidence of the crew was ever found and F/S Doan and LAC Rennie became the RCAF’s first casualties. The aircraft was acquired by the Canada Aviation Museum in 1966. The question of whether to conserve or restore centred around the results of the research, and specifically the fact that this was the first Canadian aviation casualty of WWII. The aircraft is significant not only for its technological advancements, but because of the way in which it had been lost and found again. Placing the object within the guidelines for restoration/conservation, the conclusion seemed unarguable: 1. The Museum’s mandate of preservation and research was clearly met by preserving this aircraft in its relic state. 2. Aesthetic value is low for being a representative of the technology; but the aircraft has immense aesthetic value as a crash-site icon. 3. Historic value is high based on its service record and the role it played in Canadian topographical mapping and military response. 4. Scientific value: This is the last surviving example of the Canadian built Northrop Delta. It has scientific and technological significance as the first stressed-skin low-wing aircraft built in Canada and could therefore illustrate manufacturing techniques; and was the first Canadian built aircraft to use Perspex, of which some remains in the window frames. Through evidence of modifications for mapping and for armament, its service history is manifested in the wreckage. 5. Social value is implicit in a crash-site involving loss of life. The aircraft is a symbol of Canada’s commitment to the war, and a symbol for the Canadian people, of the sacrifice of the military personnel who served and died in the war. Spiritually, it is a memorial for the families and survivors of those airmen who lost their lives. 6. Future value of this aircraft is difficult to measure. As a source of reference, research and reproduction, it has a high value to future �generations. Interpreted as a crash-site memorial, it could have tremendous value as a historical “document”. With this much history in the remains of the aircraft, it is an iconic object representative of much more than just the technology. Many parts are missing, including the wings, engines, all interior components and the floats; so that restoration would involve replacement of more than half of the aircraft and this would have to be based on historic documents and plans making it “generic”. Further, taking into consideration that it is the last known one in existence, a strong case was made to preserve it “as is” and keep the history of the aircraft intact. Our hope is to display the wreckage with an interpretive diorama and a history of the working life and significance of the aircraft; and of the airmen who died in it. While we do not have the funding to carry this out in the near future, I would not anticipate any resistance from visitors once the story of the aircraft was explained. SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY MUSEUM The third example of changing visitor experience, comes from the collection of the Science and Technology Museum. This is an example of a very easy way to change visitor expectation; and while it may seem a little absurd in the context of this conference; the solution to our problem has been so simple and so inexpensive, that it bears relating. The Governor General Rail Cars These two cars are an important part of our rail collection. They are not on display, but are accessible to the public through guided tours. Over the years, they have been used inappropriately for past Presidents’ entertaining, and for many tours both official and unofficial. We have struggled with numerous different types of carpet runners and rubber runners down the hallways; and with ropes to keep people out of the compartments. All of these had their problems, and in the end we decided to re-evaluate our procedures for tours. The cars are significant to Canadian History and illustrate our long-standing relationship with England and the Royal Family. They were built in 1927 in the Montreal rail yards of the Canadian Car & Foundry Co. Of standard design, they were the first all steel cars to be used by the Governor General. The exterior was painted Royal purple with the royal crest applied in gold accented by gold cluster leaves and gold striping along the sides of the cars. The interior design was influenced by the wife of the then Governor General, the Marquess of Willingdon . Colour schemes were tailored for Lady Willington, who had a fondness for lilac. The first run with the GG was March of 1928. The details of this tour are shrouded in secrecy, with documentation at the time using various code names for the GG and his destinations. This was apparently necessary because of the perceived threat from the strong Canadian Nationalism movement, combined with anti-British sentiment that evolved after WWI. �With the Great Depression in Canada, of 1929; fiscal restraint led to a movement for the accountability of government railway expenditures. Previous agreements by both national Railway companies (Canadian National and Canadian Pacific), to transport the GG cars at no charge, were re-negotiated and a tariff of $1 per mile was assigned. This led to conflict between CN and CP and the Government which was not resolved until the early 1940s. However, in the meantime, the GG cars travelled extensively throughout the 1930s with trips to the Maritimes, Western Canada and the Eastern US as well as several trips around Ontario and Quebec. Two major modifications during the 1930s were the 1935 exterior painting of both cars to standard CN green, including removal of the gold leaf clusters and stripes; and secondly, the addition of air conditioning to both cars on May 19th 1937. In 1939, the cars provided accommodations to King George and Queen Elizabeth I on their Royal Tour of Canada. Incidentally, we also have in our collection, the automobile that was used during this tour. The tour marked the first visit to Canada of a reigning British monarch. Both rail cars were repainted in Royal blue, with the royal coat of arms applied to each side of the car. At the request of His Majesty, a buzzer system was installed between royal cars and the engineer’s cab so that the royal couple could be alerted when large crowds were standing beside the tracks , and they could then move to the rear platform to greet the crowd. This buzzer system does not exist today, but there is no record of when it was removed. Service of the cars during the war was somewhat controversial, as the Railway companies were obviously concerned with operational and maintenance costs, and felt that service of the special train took away from the war effort. Nonetheless, there were some significant trips by Princess Alice and the Governor General in 1942, and then Princess Alice’s trip to Toronto in 1943. Both of these trips were intended as war effort public relations, according to the official GG documents. The 1950s were the decade for Royal Visits to Canada. The Royal Tour of 1951 for Princess Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh, followed by and 1958 visit of Princess Margaret to Eastern Canada and finally the 1959 tour of Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip. This was the last time the cars acted as the official cars for the GG and carried members of the Royal household. The last official function of the GG cars was for the funeral of Governor General George Vanier in 1967. The cars transported the body from Ottawa to a burial site in Quebec City. By now the coming of high speed light weight trains meant that the GG cars were outdated and possibly unsafe. Two new cars were built to replace them, and the originals were �re-named #3 and #4 and donated to the Museum after being used to convey VIPs to and 1967 Expo celebrations. They had one last moment of glory in 1977, when they carried the Royals to Wakefield on October 16th, pulled by the Museum’s 1201 Locomotive. In preparation for this, the cars were taken to the CN shops in Montreal to be “restored”. This largely included repainting the exterior, re-carpeting the interior, and replacing worn curtains and upholstery trimmings. None of the essentials were altered at this time. Since that time, only minor repairs have been undertaken The Cars have always been an attraction for visitors, and it has been a challenge to both make them accessible, and to protect them. The only way to experience the object is to walk through it; and this is something we are all familiar with when opening historic houses or structures to the public. Prior to the summer tour season this year, we priced various systems for protecting the carpets (the runners were constantly creeping and tripping people); all proved to be difficult to install, and expensive. So , we ran a pilot project this year, to ask visitors to wear disposable “booties” while touring the cars. These are the type of disposable foot-coverings that are common in Canada in the winter months, where professional offices such as Doctors or Dentists, request patients to leave winter boots at the door. The immediate correlation most visitors make with these booties, is that of a “professional visit”. Secondly, it provides an extra few minutes for the tour guides to reiterate the rules of conduct once inside the cars. It was an incredibly simple solution, and far less intrusive than replacing the carpet runners. The cars look much nicer without the added carpet runners, there are no more tripping hazards, and visitor feedback has shown that the overall impression given to visitors is that this is a privilege. We calculated that we could purchase approximately a five year supply of booties for the same cost as replacing the rubber carpet runner in one of the cars. AGRICULTURE MUSEUM The final example is from the collection of the Agriculture Museum: Farmall Tractor: The 1938 tractor was acquired in 1989 in good original condition, though suffering from decades of neglect in a farmer’s field. The tractor had a well documented provenance and a documented history of use since the donor was a family member of the original purchaser. The decision to conserve what was left of the original finish, was based on the fact that it retained a surprisingly high proportion of its original paint and structure. At the time there was little conflict over this decision since the new Curator of Agriculture was much in favour of conservation rather than restoration. There was some concern about a structural repair that was necessary to the frame of the tractor; but this was successfully TiG welded by one of our aircraft mechanics, with the loss of only about 2.5 cms either side of the weld. �Where conflict was anticipated, was in the exhibit; where a conserved “relic” would be introduced into a display featuring all restored tractors. In the end the appearance of the tractor was never questioned by visitors; and in fact we had the very rewarding experience of having the son of the original owner (himself an elderly gentleman) comment to Museum staff, that he recognized a repair that he had carried out on the broken tool box when he was a young man working on the farm. Had the tractor undergone restoration, this small element of the history of the object would have been lost forever. CONCLUSION If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then restoration is a close second. The desire to look after something of beauty or value has shaped the way conservation defines itself today. The loving care restorers put into objects is a measure of their dedication to that object. However, the homage that restoration pays to the object itself, is often at the cost of the history and more ethereal significance that Museums are obligated to preserve as the “context” of the object. While Conservation as a profession has more than a few skeletons in the closet (questionable materials, treatments, and over-treatments); the trend today, world-wide, is definitely toward preserving the original rather than restoring. We had thought that the visitor would reject this trend; and, as Canadians do; were not addressing the problem head-on but rather trying to circumvent it and prevent a confrontation. What has become evident to me, through these examples and other such experiences; is that it is not the visitor who is dictating the expectations; it is us that have underestimated the willingness of visitors to interpret artefacts in a preserved state rather than view them restored. From a Conservation perspective, preserving the original materials should always be the priority of a Museum. CSTMC receives more requests to see original paint schemes, fittings and lay-outs, than anything else. Model-makers, restorers, researchers, collectors and veterans use the national collection as a reference source. Nowhere else is this information going to be protected and preserved. Any time an object has been restored, no matter how “faithful to the original” it is, there is a loss of authenticity. One of our colleagues at Vintage wings Canada tells me that he is sad when he visits our collection because it feels like a graveyard. The truth is that he does visit regularly to verify layout, parts or measurements, and sometimes he comes looking for parts to borrow or use (which he doesn’t get). In reviewing these case studies for this presentation, it is obvious to me that our expectation of resistance from the visitor has been largely exaggerated. The public is quite willing to accept a conserved object in a deteriorated state, and to accept restrictions on access; as long as these are explained and interpreted. The Museum visitor demographic is changing, particularly at the Aviation Museum. This seems to me a perfect time to introduce new ideas about display expectations. In retrospect, it is �the expectations of museum staff that have been more difficult to change; but changing, they are. With each example of this restoration/conservation debate, we have come closer to a solid understanding of how we make these decisions and how we can disseminate this process to the public. Each time we display a conserved object rather than a restored one, we re-define the aesthetic and change the status quo a little bit more. Perhaps with time, we shall have the public clamouring for more unrestored relics. September 2010 �� Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Big Stuff 2010 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Alison Wain Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010 Article An article in a journal or periodical Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Changing Visitor Expectation at the Canada Science and Technology Museum Corporation Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Sue Warren Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010 aircraft conservation interpretation railway restoration significance trains https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/c839065b5cfc1e3a017dcb1d229d12e2.pdf?Expires=1774483200&Signature=M5JBghvR4rY8nd8xqeFyN-0IX71pyRBEWs7-zlfK8omuikaRy4PpcxLdYd33dHDGcbgxMZEvpge40WK9fPXmu4TMY8r4ELlM2AlmykK5jaEacyr0-gr2hB3tUMlXY-K20bg4M-D22Xmr%7EGkXgWD1-B3ndpkzZH4frfW77MrVCpq1UDPqUbTLHQyP7AyF3mAXH%7E56gNW5Tnp69mz%7EEHhVTMtYNPZETdynCzjkGnYXQ3R1H%7E7jSlR6n2k46fkvkF7-KZfk1rlM6nCw2p2LGC1eVsTdvMX6sdzehcLB0dQ4D4Edu6oIFVk8RTL3lKX0qFgqMqBUPznBycw7S1kttDR88w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM f5ffbfa16324b98cecae1e9938596219 PDF Text Text Big Stuff 2010 “Volunteer Training – a Success Story” Presented by Brian Barker (Project Manager - Imperial War Museum Duxford) �1983 – Just Arrived at Blackpool Airport �Year 2000 – indecision ! �January 2006 – Too late, only option - scrapping �A Plan is Born! • June 2000 The BAPC held a ‘Survival Strategy Meeting’ at IWM Duxford. (Attended by RAeS, HLF, Transport Trust, DCMS & 17 Museums) • 2001 HLF agree to BAPC & IWM Duxford forming a joint training venture and applying for a grant. • Feb 2002 BAPC Steering Group appointed to develop and manage the HLF application. • September 2004 HLF Bid approved. • June 2005 National Aviation Heritage Skills Initiative Team formed at IWM Duxford �BRITISH AVIATION PRESERVATION COUNCIL NATIONAL AVIATION HERITAGE SKILLS INITIATIVE (In partnership with the Imperial War Museum Duxford) Website Sponsor �Project Aims: • To design suitable training for volunteers in the conservation & preservation of aircraft. • To gain national accreditation for the training courses. • To provide that training on site at Duxford and at BAPC member organisations across the UK. �Selection of The Training Team 1. Must be experienced instructors 2. Must be aviation engineering technicians 3. Must have credibility with the students 4. Must be seen as independent �Brian Barker – Project Manager Joined the Royal Air Force as an apprentice 1966. Served on Vulcan BMk2 aircraft in UK and Cyprus. In 1977 become an Aircraft Servicing Chief on Victor K2 aircraft and saw service in the Falklands War. 1983 moved to the RAF Directorate of Ground Training and In 1989 moved to HQ RAF Strike Command as a training manager. Left the RAF in 1994 moved into civilian aviation as the Operations Director of an aviation consultancy. 2001 formed his own company providing training and recruitment advice to various companies. �Keith Trigg - Instructor Joined the Royal Air Force as an apprentice Airframe Fitter and served for 25 years. During that time he was the Supervisor and Senior Instructor at the Chinook Maintenance School. Then moved to Australia and served for 7 years as a Reservist in Royal Australian Air Force. Immediately prior to joining the team Keith spent 10 years at Imperial War Museum Duxford, 6 years as a Conservation Officer and 4 years as the Assistant Conservation Manager. �Graham Britnell - Instructor Joined the Royal Air Force as an Airframe Engineering Technician in 1978 and served for a total of 28 years. In that time worked on VC10s, Hunters, Buccaneers, Phantoms and Tornado aircraft spanning the environments of training, operational exercises and worldwide detachments which have included areas of conflict. 1992 – 2002 employed at RAF Cosford as the senior instructor/course design specialist. Graham is pleased to note that all the aircraft he worked on can now be found in collections and museums around the world. �Diane Barwick – Administrator 2005-2008 Prior to joining the Imperial War Museum she was a manager with a major retail company. Before joining the Team Di had spent the previous 4 years at the Museum working in a variety of administrative posts. In addition to being the initial contact for advice and information regarding the Project Di is responsible for day to day financial control, purchasing and procurement. �Scott Downes – Administrator 2008 -2010 Prior to joining the Imperial War Museum He was a manager with Lloyds TSB working in London. He iscurrently attending the Open Arts College with the aim of establishing his own photographic business. He is the contact for advice and information and provides day to day financial control. Scott has taken a leading role in co-ordinating the external validation of the project and produced the Team entry for the National Training Awards. �Development of Training Strategy (Constraints identified from the Training Needs Analysis) 1. Training Courses could not be longer than 1 day 2. Sessions must be available on any day of the week including Saturdays and Sundays 3. Where possible training would be delivered on site at the members location 4. Volunteers must have the choice as to whether or not they wished to be assessed �NAHSI - Draft Training Strategy – June 2005 Foundation H&S, COSHH etc Pre-requisite A1 Structures Corrosion Control B1 Making your Aircraft Safe C1 A/c Materials Handling & Recognition D1 Other Exhibits A2 Environment Monitoring B2 Jacking Lifting & Ttrestling C2 Skin Repairs 1st Level D2 Packing, Storage & Displays A3 Surface Finish Paints & Treatments B3 Dismantling & Assembly of Aircraft C3 Skin Repairs 2nd Level C4 Wooden Structures & Fabric E1 Customer Services �June 2005 IWM Duxford The Transport Trust hands a sponsorship cheque For £1000 to Barry James of the BAPC �February 2006 – The Team take delivery of their vehicle. �March 2006 �Following a recommendation by the City & Guilds Accreditation Panel the Project Team made contact with ‘Cambridge Assessment’. �1st March 2006 – Brooklands Aviation Museum. The very first NAHSI Training course �11th April 2006 – first training session in the NAHSI classroom at IWM Duxford �29th April 2006 – Introduction to Aviation Heritage Aeroventure, Doncaster �28th June 2007 – ‘Skin Repairs 1’ at IWM Duxford for Aeroventure, Doncaster �Aircraft tools purchased for practical training sessions ���August 2007 – in response to requests from the Volunteer workforce the Team became an Accredited provider of Customer Service training �18th October 2007 Mr Tony Evans of The Midland Air Museum becomes the 1000th attendee of NAHSI training. �27th October 2007 – the Project Manager presents the first BAPC Level 2 Certificates at the BAPC 40th Anniversary meeting , Rolls Royce Heritage, Derby ��4th June 2009 – ‘Introduction to Aviation Heritage for Brooklands Aviation Museum �17th November 2009 – ‘Dismantling & Assembly’ at IWM Duxford for Duxford Aviation Society �The ‘Team’ – September 2010 �NAHSI - Draft Training Strategy – June 2005 Foundation H&S, COSHH etc Pre-requisite A1 Structures Corrosion Control B1 Making your Aircraft Safe C1 A/c Materials Handling & Recognition D1 Other Exhibits A2 Environment Monitoring B2 Jacking Lifting & Ttrestling C2 Skin Repairs 1st Level D2 Packing, Storage & Displays A3 Surface Finish Paints & Treatments B3 Dismantling & Assembly of Aircraft C3 Skin Repairs 2nd Level C4 Wooden Structures & Fabric E1 Customer Services �NAHSI Training Strategy – March 2010 Introduction To Aviation F1 Heritage Corrosion Control A1 Introduction To Basic F2 Engineering Making Your A/C B1 Safe Aircraft Structures C1 D1 Skin Repairs Level 1 Wooden Aircraft C3 Repairs Dismantling & Assembling B3 Aircraft Skin Repairs Level 2 Projects & Planning M1 Fabric Repairs A2 C2 B2 A3 Customer Service Jacking Towing & Lifting Surface Finish Evolution Application Techniques Management/Supervisory Level Presentations C4 City & Guilds accredited C5 Environment Monitoring M2 Only presented at IWM Duxford English Regional Tourist Boards accredited – ‘Welcome Host’ Presentations (2-3 hours) for Management & Supervisory staff �Location of BAPC Member Organisations IWM Duxford �Statistics: 1st March 2006 – 31st Aug 2010 • Over 700 Volunteers enrolled. • 29 BAPC Member Organisations involved. • 655 Training sessions delivered. • 3848 Training places filled. • Over 60% of volunteers opting for City assessment. �Volunteers Comments • “First class – thank you very much. Most useful and informative. Look forward to the next!” • “Excellent course content – well presented and extremely useful in the work that we do.” • “Really enjoyed the day and am very pleased that I attended. Many questions were answered that I had not even thought about asking.” • “My only regret is that I didn’t take this course years ago. I now know that I have been doing much wrongly” �EVALUATION OF THE NATIONAL AVIATION HERITAGE SKILLS INITIATIVE (NAHSI) November 2009 Published for and on behalf of National Aviation Heritage Skills Initiative Dr A R Bennett For the Faculty of Education Chelmsford Campus Essex CM1 1SQ �Extract from the Main Findings • The NAHSI training programme has a significant and demonstrably beneficial impact on museums’ exhibition work and on the volunteer workforce who are actively engaged in heritage conservation and restoration of aircraft and aircraft components. • Evidence from representative samples in the research found training to be of real personal value for volunteers. Training is technically focused around participant competences and skill levels, and the course curricula embrace the range of skills, prior qualifications and experiences of the volunteers. �AVIATION HERITAGE SKILLS �What happens next? �Any Questions? � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Big Stuff 2010 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Alison Wain Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010 Article An article in a journal or periodical Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Volunteer Training – a Success Story Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Brian Barker Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2010 aircraft training volunteers