Aircaft preservation insights.

Suggestion

Based on the example on the Bluebird K7 example, let me change the inflection of this thread slightly. Why not offer HLF funding for already extinct aircraft types, that may have a particular historical significance, or being a good example of the manufacturing process involved. A wellington is a good example of a uniquely applied technology (although it is obviously not extinct). The Hornet as the pioneering use of aluminium to wood Redux (Araldite) technology, The Whitley for its very unique airframe frame/hoop/section construction.

Where there might be substantial remains of of a type left (but not a complete one) restoring these sections together actually destroys much of the original. These original parts are exhibits in themselves, if they are unique survivors of a particular type. In this case, why not support a professional reproduction of the whole, and retain the origional partial remains alongside?? This is surely a national museum task to preserve the history over $$ value concerns.

Melyvn,

In your first post you accused the writers of the report of not having a clue about preservation of aircraft….

Nope, sorry, I said the point about replicating airworthy aeroplanes was unworkable tosh. Second post had that it was naieve.

Which as individuals they may not have, but they certainly manage to get sources of information that know a ‘certain amount’ about it.

I think there was a very limited range of people with that knowledge represented.

In your second post you accuse those who know about preservation of being ignorant about restoration and operation of historic aircraft. Which may well be correct, however I doubt that those responsible for the FAA Museum and the National Civil Airliner Collection, usually known as hte Science Museum, would agree with you that they know little about restoration.. and that the PFA knows little about operation of rare, unusual etc aircraft.

That is not quite what I said, The original point was about replicating original aircraft so they could be flown instead and that comes from people that don’t have much experience in actually rebuilding to fly. That is clear if you have ever had to go through the process yourself. I have posted that Graham Mottram of the FAA museum should be honoured for his leadership over the Cobham Hall, where did I say he knoes nothing about preservation? That one building does more than many other (very worthy but underfunded and well-funded but misguided) museums put together and Dave Morris’s work on the Corsair has been outstanding also. Also remember that the Science museum does not do that much restoration, they house. As for the PFA, I could not imagine that my aeroplane would have flown without them. Did you read this?

I was shocked at how little the PFA were mentioned and how the Suttleworth seemed to be targeted.

which might suggest that I was not criticising them too much! As it is, they are excellent on new builds and helpful on historics but their function in these cases is only to offer engineering advice, that is what they do, they are not involved in the day to day operation of the aeroplanes, just the build and permit procedure.

For sure the conclusions are, to many unrealistic and unworkable for a variety or reasons. But those conclusions are the items that are vulnerable, as they are the interpretations of information…and in that interpretation you should find fault. The information was there…however it was not used in a way that you feel was reasonable, knowledgable or intelligent, but it was there.

I fully agree with your first point but I don’t agree they had the information they needed. Were the Shuttleworth invited to contribute? Was anyone at Duxford? There was a lack of anyone on the list that had actually spent a significant sum on an airworthy aeroplane. It still smacks of trying to make decisions for people that were not consulted.

However consider the issue of the crash of the last airworthy Mosquito, the crash in 1964 (not certain of the date) of the last pre WW2 RAF biplane fighter, the Bristol Bulldog….oh the angst, the wailing and gnashing of teeth 10 and 15 years later that this plane had been allowed to fly… to be damaged…. or even Black 6…restored to flight status, retaining a remarkably high % or original material….in fact it was deemed to be one of the most original 109s in existance….and after the crash it looks no different but is not nearly as ‘original’ as it was….

I have said that there are exceptions but it was not the last ever Mosquito, the Bulldog was rebuilt (admittedly with somewhat less original material but a considerable amount given the state of it – and rather more than some of the other ‘original’ aeroplanes in the same collection!) but I agree it was not the best idea to fly that one. I am sure Fluffy or Russ Snadden might comment but from reading “Black Six” there is little doubt that the aeroplane is more original now than would have been the case if the team had not embarked on the road to airworthiness.

None of these incidents were necessary, as replicas could have been built.

No, categorically no.That is the whole point. With whose money? At whose insistence would British Aerospace be told they had to replicate the Mosquito? How much would a replica Bulldog cost (my estimate and it is conservative is about £2 million based on tooling required, materials to be obtained to original specs and having the engine remanufactured), leave Black Six to the mercy of those that were simply not interested in it and wanted it stripped out? (For anyone that is not familiar with it, “Black Six” is a great read). If Mosquitos were so easy to replicate how come we can put Mustangs and Spitfires back together easily, more Hurricanes are now flying than ever yet no one has yet successfully made a Mosquito wing.

But no replica would have attracted so much interest and passion in either the teams or the viewers, which is why we still want to see original a/c flying, not replicas, unless the orginial no longer exists or is too precious to be released….Wright Flyer, Spirit of St.Louis, Vimy etc etc…

No, as stated before it is not that simple. Take a Fokker DR1. There are no originals left. If one was found it would not get flown. However, there are hundreds of replicas and yet very, very few of those are representative of the original aeroplanes as the construction varies and a Dr1 with a radial or flat-four DOES NOT fly in the same manner as one with a rotary.

But how about a unique aircraft… the last one there is? Do we fly or not? Who is going to judge and make the call? The owner? The ‘Establishment’?

It is, and always has been, down to the owner, who in many cases has invested a large amount of money simply so that it CAN be flown. In my first post I mentioned some aircraft that should remain in museums, which sort of covers your point, but in answer it is not the ‘Establishment’ that should be making those decisions. Should that major Aerospace museum be able to force me to ground my aeroplane and give it to them? Of course not.

So whilst I think the conclusions are great in theory they are far too flimsy to withstand any critical appraisal from those who have far more specialised knowledge of the issue than the writers of the report. The danger is that rather than the message being taken to pieces dispassionately, the messenger gets it in the neck and the discussion goes off on a tangent.

Ha! welcome to life on a Forum (insert annoying smilie thing to signify I found the comment genuninely amusing). I agree but I still believe the report was fundamentally flawed by lack of consultation with operators (just the lack of the Shuttleworth, given the amount of times they are mentioned, is an obvious one). I have no intention to give it in the neck to the messenger, and I am not in table thumping mode either, just a little dismayed that a report such as this, old as it is, and which recommends something that is simply unworkable was not researched better and those that were at the sharp end of its proposal (keeping on the subject, the one that was first highlighted) were not consulted to any great degree. That makes me wonder how well ther finger was on the pulse.

I’d also love to know which architects have ‘done well’ from HLF funded museums…..certainly a number have gained high profile awards from them, but financially?.. I’d love to know…;)

OK, How many of them worked for free???? (insert another annoying Smilie) and do you think all those millions went on bricks and mortar?

You know, when I was standing in that museum, being told that I should give them my aeroplane I really wanted to say “You haven’t got a ******* clue have you? They know a LOT about restoration of static and original aeroplanes, care and maintenence etc. but it was a dumb request.

Just for a laugh last night I tried to work out what a replica Cloudster would cost to make and I reckon you would not get much change out of £150,000 AND you would have to prove the engineering to the CAA as it would not be a Cloudster but a “MH1 Cloudsterlike” or something. At the end it would be worth at most £40,000

I know this is going over old ground and as it’s too late to work out how to capture the appropriate links to the actual thread but I would like to re-quote a couple of my posts from February 2006 on the “State of Preservation Today” thread.

“There is little doubt that someone could write a University thesis on this topic and still leave much ground un-touched. Here are a few of my thoughts and a couple of question questions.

Several years ago I attended a seminar organised by the British Aviation Preservation Council [BAPC] at Duxford in the summer of 2000. The seminar reviewed the way forward to protect the Benchmark and Significant airframes on the National Aviation heritage Register [NAHR] and one very interesting figure emerged from the review. Assuming a typical cost of between £250 and £300 to provide one square metre of basic under cover aircraft accommodation, it would “only” cost between £35 and £40 million to get all the Benchmark and Significant airframes listed on the NAHR under cover. I highlight the word “only”, because this is a small amount when you look at what has been poured into ventures like the Millennium Dome, etc.

For up to date costing data refer to Flypast – March 2005 and Newark’s Heritage Lottery Funded Hangar, project cost £533,000 to provide 2,400m² of basic under cover accommodation at a cost of £222 per m². Admittedly this does not provide accommodation to the standards being achieved by the national museums with their environmentally controlled facilities, but it certainly slows the deterioration to a more manageable level.

In the drive for funding opportunities many independent museums have become Registered Museums through the Museums and Galleries Commission Registration process [now called Resource]. This means that many voluntary managed museums are already working hard towards, and achieving standards similar to those attained by the national museums.

My first question would be why have the national museums like Duxford, Hendon, Cosford and the Fleet Air Arm Museum been forced to seek HLF funding to complete their building projects?

I think that if this money had been directed at the Independent museums, many aircraft could already be under cover. I guess the answer surly comes down to Government funding or more precisely the lack of appropriate funding for the national museums.

The Government have already diluted the effect of money the public contributes via the National Lottery by widening the causes that the Lottery supports. This problem could be further exaggerated if the current review of the HLF comes up with the wrong conclusions. HLF are currently undertaking their strategic planning for the period 2008-2013, the consultation closes on February 28th 2006 and I urge everyone who has concerns to check out their website and comment www.hlf.org.uk/future/

Another Government policy has contributed to the lack of funding for the national museums and has a creeping effect on many voluntary / independent museums across the country and is not just pertinent to the aviation sector. The Government’s policy of reducing and in some cases eliminating admission fees at many national museums has not only reduced income at the nationals but also impacted on the independent museums. I’ve heard many people question why they should have to pay to visit independent museum when other “larger” venues are free”.

Also:

“Bruce

In my first post on the Cosford thread I noted, “I read somewhere that Newark Air Museum used the BAPC [British Aviation Preservation Council] produced National Aviation Heritage Register when deciding that the Varsity would go inside their new building; rather than the Vulcan, Hastings and Shackleton. As these types were already displayed under cover in other collections”.

I understand that the NAHR and the aircraft status on this Register was one of the main justifications in their Heritage Lottery Fund [HLF] application, along with developing the training theme, which is not covered elsewhere.

I guess the Jetstream going inside follows the training lineage from the Varsity and I believe they are using the Sea Harrier to complete the VTOL lineage that started with their Meteor FR.9 test-bed that has local significance with Rolls Royce Hucknall.

JDK

One other point of clarification to my earlier post, to attain Registered Museum Status any museum must have an approved Collections and Disposals Policy.”

Surely it is way beyond time that a national collection be established, that a register of so called Benchmark airframes be drawn up and a body formed to steer societies and individuals by legislation if required to care for and correctly maintain these priceless relics, and if that means grounding them for their protection so be it, the matter of constructing flying replicas could also form part of such a body under an educational umbrella were the construction process itself becomes a teaching tool to train candidates in methods of preservation of airframes after all would it be so bad to see a flying example of a mosquito again, even if it was actually brand new.

So after sixty years of trust ownership a Government operative will turn up at the gates of Old Warden airfield one morning and announce that this, this and this are now the property of the state.
I should co-co.

Looking at the way the Government of this fair land seems to make a b*lls up of even the simplest task–I would imagine the Bleriot, Dep and Blackburn would be reduced to kindling within five years.

I’d say that the reason why the preservation movement in this country is as healthy as it is, is probably because it has little or no Government meddling–unless you cite the CAA and it’s best not to go there.

I was also somewhat unhappy about the author’s comments on the way the trust was run and funded.
Oh how easy it is to sit on the side lines firing bullets. Perhaps these people should see how hard it raise to raise the annual costs of keeping The Collection going–bl**dy hard work by a small but very dedicated team and much pulling out of hair.

And if anyone thinks I take the comments about Old Warden personally–you’re right I do.

Andy

Cypherus – The notion of the HLF completely funding the Vulcan would scare many people. The project cost is at £5.5 million – where would you stop ? Is any sum of money okay to spend preserving one aircraft. The HLF works with match funding – that way it aims to put some semblance of responsibility on the project’s co-ordinator to make it work. By and large every aviation project related to the HLF in the U.K has been a success – ask the likes of Newark about their on time and budget hangar and I am sure you will receive a positive response about the HLF.
As for indentifying ‘benchmark’ airframes – the National Aviation Heritage Register has already done this. The BAPC itself aims to help groups and co-ordinate aviation preservation efforts in th U.K. I am not sure how you feel a new group would legislate on how people preserve things – for example would private owners be covered by it? Who would judge whether a small group was doing a good job or indeed whether it was ethical for National collections to hang aircraft on bits of wire!

Did someone call?

Who on earth pays for people to come up with this tosh!

Bruce

Ultimately,US…!:mad:
Alan

Diverse comments.

To replicate or copy a priceless airframe, and I keep the point contained too aviation, would obviously be a very expensive undertaking for any organisation or individual but the point has been made very well about the risks involved in flying these airframes at all, it has also been questioned as to who should have the final say in such matters, owners or establishment, I am going to sidestep the comments regarding profiteering as I suspect that it could in someway be deemed libellous should anyone be of a mind to do so.

The report mentioned was cited as something of interest published to give an insight into preservation of worthy items and how this might be achieved, the key points on aviation were listed and when I read it though I believed it may form the basis too promote discussion possibly on a national archive of Aviation related matter, seems I may have mistaken past indications that this might be a worthy objective in someway.

The HLF in my opinion has indeed missed the mark as far as aviation is concerned, by choice, lack of insight or constraints imposed, instead confining it’s activities to one off gratuities that fail too see a project through time and again, I cited 558 as one such project, the goal was known, the price fairly estimated and yet they choose not too fund this project to completion instead left it hanging on the goodwill of the nation notoriously fickle as it may be, and risked wasting all the money that had to date been inserted, as we saw this was not the case but could so easily have been.

Surely it is way beyond time that a national collection be established, that a register of so called Benchmark airframes be drawn up and a body formed to steer societies and individuals by legislation if required to care for and correctly maintain these priceless relics, and if that means grounding them for their protection so be it, the matter of constructing flying replicas could also form part of such a body under an educational umbrella were the construction process itself becomes a teaching tool to train candidates in methods of preservation of airframes after all would it be so bad to see a flying example of a mosquito again, even if it was actually brand new.

Melyvn,

In your first post you accused the writers of the report of not having a clue about preservation of aircraft….

Which as individuals they may not have, but they certainly manage to get sources of information that know a ‘certain amount’ about it.

In your second post you accuse those who know about preservation of being ignorant about restoration and operation of historic aircraft. Which may well be correct, however I doubt that those responsible for the FAA Museum and the National Civil Airliner Collection, usually known as hte Science Museum, would agree with you that they know little about restoration.. and that the PFA knows little about operation of rare, unusual etc aircraft.

For sure the conclusions are, to many unrealistic and unworkable for a variety or reasons. But those conclusions are the items that are vulnerable, as they are the interpretations of information…and in that interpretation you should find fault. The information was there…however it was not used in a way that you feel was reasonable, knowledgable or intelligent, but it was there.

However consider the issue of the crash of the last airworthy Mosquito, the crash in 1964 (not certain of the date) of the last pre WW2 RAF biplane fighter, the Bristol Bulldog….oh the angst, the wailing and gnashing of teeth 10 and 15 years later that this plane had been allowed to fly… to be damaged…. or even Black 6…restored to flight status, retaining a remarkably high % or original material….in fact it was deemed to be one of the most original 109s in existance….and after the crash it looks no different but is not nearly as ‘original’ as it was….

None of these incidents were necessary, as replicas could have been built. But no replica would have attracted so much interest and passion in either the teams or the viewers, which is why we still want to see original a/c flying, not replicas, unless the orginial no longer exists or is too precious to be released….Wright Flyer, Spirit of St.Louis, Vimy etc etc…

But how about a unique aircraft… the last one there is? Do we fly or not? Who is going to judge and make the call? The owner? The ‘Establishment’?

So whilst I think the conclusions are great in theory they are far too flimsy to withstand any critical appraisal from those who have far more specialised knowledge of the issue than the writers of the report. The danger is that rather than the message being taken to pieces dispassionately, the messenger gets it in the neck and the discussion goes off on a tangent.

I’d also love to know which architects have ‘done well’ from HLF funded museums…..certainly a number have gained high profile awards from them, but financially?.. I’d love to know…;)

IMHO I do not think that it is the contributors that can be called into question or their sources, but more the age of the report; especially when you consider the significant changes that have taken place in the last two years, not least to the population of airliners in preservation.

I sincerely hope they have gained a little more understanding since then!

Also I respectfully suggest that we should not undervalue the level of understanding that the Heritage Lottery Fund [HLF] has on the topic and the problems involved. I have already posted several times about how the National Aviation Heritage Register – referred to in the Transport Trust document has been used successfully by museums to secure HLF funding.

The Register, as I understand it, was put together by the BAPC, who certainly were thinking the right way even if I don’t agree with all their points. The HLF merely reacts to this and also gets some bad press (the gutter press “Lottery funds home for lesbian single mother whale drug addicts” sort of thing) but a LOT of money has been spent on some ‘Landmark” projects, not all of which have been, in my opinon, that wise. Several architects have done well from some museums and perhaps the HLF should look at their own document, which highlights the problems of archival and artefact storage, before they shell out even more for a museum that is interesting to look at but hopeless inside.

They do get it right, but even then it was down to the vision of a museum Director.

The Cobham Hall at Yeovilton is how more museums should be spending more lottery money. Graham Mottram and his team at Yeovilton deserve a medal for that building alone. I wonder which Director will get a knighthood when he retires. The one who funds architects or the one that saves his collection?

Thus a Le Mans winning Jaguar might be worth £1.5-£2.0 million, a replica could cost £150K to build and is probably now worth £250K in it’s own right. The fact that it has modern brakes tyres and suspension means that it isn’t true to the spirit of the original and this is causing concern to the FIA, which monitors motorsport. It will be interesting to see how they deal with it.

As usual, it depends what you want to do with the copy….
On my last visit to Duxford, I was passed in the opposite direction by a Jag D-type (presumably a replica). If you want to drive a D-type on the road a replica is the way to go…not only is it more reliable but safer too.. Not to mention your risk of loss is less if someone in a Metro hits you.
I have a replica of a vintage racer and aside from the financial and operational benefits, it’s still a lot of fun despite its fairly young age.
And Ozplane is correct, if built by a recognized person/firm, it becomes an artifact in its own right.
Still, if you want to race at Goodwood or Pebble Peach, the FIA wants it to be the real thing…(albeit modifed with modern safety gear and tyres.).

For aircraft do we go to an air display to see an artifact fly or the design/shape of a vintage aircraft?
Would a new build Mosquito be any less thrilling to see and hear?
If so, what about the Mustangs and Spitfires we see that have “new” fuselages or wings? I’ve seen the GeeBee relpica fly along with a very technically modern Wright Flyer. Both were exciting to see in their natural element…and from 1000 feet, you can’t really tell the difference.

You can make a case either way.
Still, It would have been nice if the last flyable Mosquito lost (plus the other “one of a kind” flyers lost: Martin B-26, A-20, “Black 6”, the CAF “He-111”) had been a replica instead of the “real” thing.
This debate will get into high gear if the unthinkable happens to PA474, the CAF B-29…or XH558.

Interesting to note the ‘date’ of this report..
Heritage Lottery Fund
July 2000

But even better the information in Appendix 2- Sources of Information:

[I]Aviation
John Bagley, former keeper National Aeronautical Collection, Science Museum
John Berkeley, Vice Chairman, British Aviation Preservation Council
Chris Parker, Popular Flying Association
Dick Roberts, Secretary, Air Display Association Europe
Cdr. Dennis White CB, former Director, Fleet Air Arm Museum
Literature
UK and Ireland Civil Aircraft Registers, 1999 ed. compiled by Barrie Womersley published
by Air Britain (Historians) Ltd
Wrecks & Relics, 17th ed. April 2000, compiled by Ken Ellis, pub. Midland Publishing
National Aviation Preservation Register, First ed. may 1998 compiled by Ken Ellis and
others. Pub. privately BAPC[/I]

I leave it others to judge whether these sources are worthy or not….

Some of those gentlemen are very worthy indeed. I don’t know all of them but have met several. Few, as far as I can tell, have had any experience of operating or rebuilding to airworthy vintage aeroplanes. The fact they were consulted on the content does not mean they have any great effect on the conclusions and I am not about to change my point about them.

I had not noticed the date but even the some of the information is still very incorrect (Rearwins in 1999. Sportster – Flying, Cloudster – Under restoration, Skyrangers – both flying. Total – four in the country, 75% airworthy.) Not all of those publications are necesarily correct either. Wrecks and Relics is fun but it is only as good as the information that is given to it and some of that is very suspect. My Cloudster was listed as “Tichfield” for years.

I wonder if many other people had ever been told by a senior official at one of the largest aeroplane museums in the world that they shold ground their aeroplane and give it to said museum, not sell. Give.

Been there, done that. Some people in national museums have NO IDEA what operating or rebuilding an old aeroplane is all about.

has anybody followed the ongoing debate between the Bluebird project people and the HLF about the restoration of K7? It’s very much germane to this discussion. It recorded step by step on the diary pages of their website

In the end they seem to have given up and are striking out on their own with the help of a number of organisations known to us.

Incidentally it looks as if they also have had some good publicity today on the 40th anniversary of DC’s record attempt

Something similar has been around in the world of historic motor racing for some time. Since the supply of genuine factory built Jaguar D-Types and Maserati 250Fs is finite there have been a great many copies or continuation series replicas built. Initially they were passed off as genuine to the uninitiated but more recently they have started to be purchased and raced by the owners of the true originals which stay in their garages. This, of course, means that they are developing a value greater than the cost of production. Thus a Le Mans winning Jaguar might be worth £1.5-£2.0 million, a replica could cost £150K to build and is probably now worth £250K in it’s own right. The fact that it has modern brakes tyres and suspension means that it isn’t true to the spirit of the original and this is causing concern to the FIA, which monitors motorsport. It will be interesting to see how they deal with it.
I’m not sure that this would work with Melvyns Rearwin but I could see that a batch of repro Spitfires might be possible.

IMHO I do not think that it is the contributors that can be called into question or their sources, but more the age of the report; especially when you consider the significant changes that have taken place in the last two years, not least to the population of airliners in preservation.

Also I respectfully suggest that we should not undervalue the level of understanding that the Heritage Lottery Fund [HLF] has on the topic and the problems involved. I have already posted several times about how the National Aviation Heritage Register – referred to in the Transport Trust document has been used successfully by museums to secure HLF funding.

Interesting commentary.

Seems healthy sceptics are alive and well, but your comments broadly follow my own thinking on the subject, The recent X558 debacle only served to highlight the fact that the HLF, who seem to be the instigators of this report, do not have a grasp of the facts in even the most minor fashion, They rightly point out the truth about storage but have allowed the solutions to this too go unchallenged with the closure of so many RAF airfields any one of which could have formed the basis of a national collection for so called Benchmark models, they have idly sat back and watched any number of airframes either sold abroad or left to rot when the solution is clearly written up in this document.

In short the UK was for years a world centre of aviation excellence which successive governments squandered away for us, and today we still do not have one central body dedicated too the preservation of important airframes either flying or static and continue to rely totally on diverse bodies, groups and well meaning individuals to maintain a dwindling fleet in often appalling conditions, often under funded and with little future prospects of continued support, it’s long past time the HLF among other government bodies looked hard at forming a national collection dedicated to preserving as many models in flight condition as possible and collecting together those that need protection under a national heritage register similar too that currently provided for buildings. Now that’s a can of worms if ever I saw one. :dev2:

It crossed my mind to wonder, if the Vulcan is ever at a stage where it could fly, whether the operators could immediately ‘ground it’ and apply for the money to build a replica since it would then be a unique flying survivor?

Moggy

Interesting to note the ‘date’ of this report..
Heritage Lottery Fund
July 2000

But even better the information in Appendix 2- Sources of Information:

[I]Aviation
John Bagley, former keeper National Aeronautical Collection, Science Museum
John Berkeley, Vice Chairman, British Aviation Preservation Council
Chris Parker, Popular Flying Association
Dick Roberts, Secretary, Air Display Association Europe
Cdr. Dennis White CB, former Director, Fleet Air Arm Museum
Literature
UK and Ireland Civil Aircraft Registers, 1999 ed. compiled by Barrie Womersley published
by Air Britain (Historians) Ltd
Wrecks & Relics, 17th ed. April 2000, compiled by Ken Ellis, pub. Midland Publishing
National Aviation Preservation Register, First ed. may 1998 compiled by Ken Ellis and
others. Pub. privately BAPC[/I]

I leave it others to judge whether these sources are worthy or not….

I’ve now read much of this with interest.
My first thought was if any of this was written in consultation with any of the museums mentioned?
A small operation in bedfordshire I’m very fond of gets more than a few mentions…
I wonder.

As usual on these occasions, a total lack of knowledge on the cost of aviating is displayed.
Which knowing what I do is expensive.

A.

It was interesting to flick through that and see what little understanding they have of aircraft preservation and how wrong some of their information was. It was a very naieve and amateur document IMHFO.

The preservation charts were at least out of date (by several years) and not correct. Case in point.

Rearwin Aircraft 6 in the country.

Er, no. Four. Skyrangers G-RWIN (being recovered) G-BTGI (flying) Cloudster G-EVLE (Flying) and Sportster G-AOEF (being rebuilt)

The list says 17% flying, I say 50%. The other two are having significant sums of money spent on them.

There were two others on the register, Cloudster Instrument Trainer G-BGAV that returned to the US about fifteen years ago and another Sportster that was registered but apparently was never shipped to the UK.

Ah, the difference between looking up the type on a register list and actually knowing what you are talking about!

I was shocked at how little the PFA were mentioned and how the Suttleworth seemed to be targeted.

2/10, needs more work. Go see Headmaster.

It will cost more than the original item is worth, and will be worth less than the original when it is done.

And there, in just 22 words, is all you need to know.

Moggy