Warbird Information Exchange

The RAF Museum Wellington X MF628 is in the process of being dismantled. It's being prepared for transport to the RAF Museum's conservation centre at Cosford where it will undergo restoration. Rumour has it that it will reappear in a silver and yellow training scheme with the front turret removed (replaced by the original fairing) to represent it's last service scheme. I think this would be all well and good if we had several more Wellingtons sitting in museums but since this is the best of only two examples I'd rather it was restored to commemorate the Wellingtons and their crews who carried out bombing missions.

The full history of this aeroplane can be found here http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/london/collections/aircraft/aircraft_histories/69-A-171%20Wellington%20X%20MF628.pdf

_________________
My Flickr Photo Album

PlaneTalk Forum

I agree. The Wellington was an iconic aircraft during the early years of the bombing campaign. Bomber Command veterans have never received thier due for the sacrifice and efforts they expended when they were virtually alone in carrying the war to Germany. The Wellington should be preserved as representative of a combat example regardless of its particular history.

_________________
"I can't understand it, I cut it twice and it's still too short!" Robert F. Dupre' 1923-2010 Go With God.

I almost always prefer to see an airplane painted in a scheme it actually wore during its service life. In this case I agree with you fellows--Bomber Command soldiered on with the Wellington for a long time. I'd rather they restore it to a combat scheme and configuration.

Scott

The only way this makes sense is if the aircraft is going to be restored to its own former configuration. I understand that this particular airframe never flew ops as a bomber and the trainer config might be the most faithful to this particular artifact. I always favor that approach. However, assuming that when first constructed it was as a bomber looking much the way it does now, that would seem to be a way of being faithful to the artifact and representative of the Wellington's most important use at the same time.

It will, of course, still be a memorial to Bomber Command either way. There is no rule saying that an airplane's paint job determines whether it is a memorial or to whom.

As to whether Bomber Command airmen have received "their due," it seems to me they have received as much recognition as any other group of airmen of the war. I dunno, I guess you could argue that nobody ever gets their due, but Bomber Command certainly has not languished in obscurity.

The photos are fascinating, anyway.

August

For one thing the Bomber Offensive has never recieved a campaign ribbon and since the war governments have done less to honor Bomber Command than say the Battle of Britain or the Battle of the Atlantic. Revisionist historians make the point that the offensive was all rather pointless and not as effective as originally claimed. That at least is the point of a number of books on the campaign or the RAF that I have read.

_________________
"I can't understand it, I cut it twice and it's still too short!" Robert F. Dupre' 1923-2010 Go With God.

Thanks for sharing, Rob!

Just three thoughts. While they've indeed not 'languished in obscurity' they have undergone the most debate over the merit and ethics of their behaviour and task of all RAF commands and campaign groups. They were denied a campaign medal, unlike most other major campaigns and finally, their chief, Harris was one of the few senior commanders not to receive the recognition that almost all the others did. It would be hard to say their treatment was equal to other groups. Most of that can be ascribed to Churchill's U-turn from bloodthirsty punitive hawk to tactical-warfare dove at the point of the Dresden bombing.

And the earlier hard yards work was undertaken in Wellingtons, Whitleys (extinct) and Hampdens, the later heavies obscuring the greater demand placed on the earlier crews in these more primitive machines - IMHO.

Just some thoughts,

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Tks for the pics & info Robbo.

Just one question looking over the airframe.....

I did not look that much in need of a restoration.

Am I missing something here ?

I ( but that`s just me HEHE ) would have favoured 'other' stored goodies.

Michel

So, it looks like it has not ever had a full, in-depth restoration that it needs, but only a series of IRAN's? I'm glad they are doing a full-up restoration on it, it sounds like it was needed.

BTW, I agree with Robbo about preserving it in it's Bomber Command scheme, since that was it's most important role during the war and it is so under-represented as a surviving type.

It'll be getting 'conserved' not 'restored'. IRAN as a description makes sense, as Warbird1 said, ironically, as in 'inspect (conserve, stabilise) and repair as necessary'. As it'll be restored for static, many original parts that would be replaced on a airworthy restoration can be stabilised and kept, ensuring a greater proportion of the artefact remains original and authentic. I'd guess that the fabric was replaced in the restoration before the RAFM was opened in the 1970s, and way, therefore be due for replacement anyway, having been (probably) done to RAF rather than museum standards.

But I'd agree with Michel, although the complex chess-game of what comes next and why often throws up unlikely-seeming results.

Just as an aside, a number of military aviation museums find a focus on training rather than actual combat avoids some of the harder topics and is more 'family friendly'. Whether that's justifiable or not is another matter. The RAFM, with the Bomber Command hall is not ducking that issue, though.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Personally, I hope they don't return MF628 to it's post war silver 'T' scheme.....I mean we're not exactly falling over a surplus of Wimpy's on display are we

It was built as a B.X and clearly served in some brief capacity with 69 Sqn as a B.X as well during the war, for whatever reason....likely perhaps as a spare machine, sqn hack, crew trainer etc.

I reckon the best bet would be keep it in it's B.X configuration and perhaps paint it to represent a wartime OTU aircraft, in memory of the many hundreds of prospective Bomber Command crews lost in training accidents before they even made it an operational unit.

A fitting tribute indeed. The losses at OTUs are often forgotten, there were plenty of lives lost in training, nickel ops and the Thousand Bomber Raids.

Here is the story of one unlucky crew from 22 OTU.

http://www.bombercrew.com/wales/walescrash.htm

_________________
Remembering those that served in Bomber Command!

www.bombercrew.com