Lancaster Fuselage Delivered to Scampton

Hi All,
Mark,
Many thanks for explaining the complexity’s of a reproduction Dambuster if I had the money it would definitely be winging it’s way to Jeremy and his projects, many thanks also for highlighting the differences in all those preserved you mentioned good luck with your own Lincoln project excellent post. :eagerness:
Oscar duck & JollyGreenSlug,
Many thanks for your posts such a shame about such a lovely aircraft.
Just another thought if you would please, the Shackleton’s I am right in saying they were basically modified Lancaster’s am I ? How hard would it be to back engineer from Shak to Lanc or would it be impossible ? :confused:

Geoff.

PS: We had a flying Halifax post-WW2 in Australia ex-RAAF SQn aircraft flown here by a RAAF crew and it too meet the scrappers axe.

Yeah, this one…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Va01JA4BuVk

Well written Mark. I can’t wait to see your Lincoln project move forward.

PS: We had a flying Halifax post-WW2 in Australia ex-RAAF SQn aircraft flown here by a RAAF crew and it too meet the scrappers axe.

Being as Mr Hall has two Lancaster project’s on the go I would think the IIC that Bruce mentioned (Rather than the MkX of KB976) would be an Ideal candidate ?

Geoff

Geoff,

He has an excellent reproduction RAF mk I cockpit and now this RCAF mk X fuselage as shown on his webpage via the link posted above.

I cant speak of Jeremys reasons or plans, but its perfectly logical to present his fuselage reproduction as “KB976” as otherwise its original and unique Canadian “long nose” would be inaccurate and a distraction on any other wartime RAF identity or model presented.

This is why KB976 shed the RCAF “long nose” in the first place.

Jeremy single handedly has increased the “Lancaster” display population from 4 to 6 through his very impressive RAF mk 1 cockpit and now this RCAF fuselage mk X mockups.

Through my involvement and acquisition of the Lincoln RF342 and Lancaster fuselage of “KB994”, I have come to admire the achievements of this Avro design, and been dismayed at how little made it into preservation, and then often only through luck and the efforts of individuals, not by government intent or planning.

It is surprising and sad that of the @3,000 Lancaster aircraft built in the UK to serve in Bomber Command, and that played such a big part in suppressing Hitlers war production, only 4 complete examples remain preserved in the UK, and Jeremy’s efforts therefore make a significant contribution to expanding the reach of the Lancaster story to a wider audience.

Its sobering to think there are more wartime Avro Yorks preserved in the UK than there are of wartime UK built combat veteran Mk I Lancasters, and the Duxford Canadian Mk X with late war Ops service is not a product of government preservation planning but more a result of a rich mans hobbie and dreams in acquiring and importing it from Canada in the 1980’s that gave the IWM an opportunity to later acquire it for long term preservation and display in the UK while its twin sister KB976 has had a much harder and sadder life but still holds onto hope dismantled in the USA.

The display of a combat veteran mk I at Hendon, a late war ops veteran Canadian mk X at Duxford, a post war French mk VII at East Kirby and the flying mk I with BBMF give the UK at least ONE example of each major Lancaster model other than the mk II, and a mk II fuselage mockup still doesnt present the primary point of difference (ie the radial engines) in any case.

So the construction of an FSM / reproduction Canadian mk X “long nose” using the original “long nose ” from KB976 and presenting it in RCAF “KB976” markings is very appropriate and fills in and examples that final post war technical evolution of the basic design, as against the Lincoln and Shackleton offsprings.

RAF Bomber Command played a very important role in the war and in my opinion the lost crews and vets have been treated poorly by a political correctness attitude over civilian losses in wartime that has overshadowed its contribution and the personal sacrifices (a bit like the way Vietnam vets were treated on their return from an unpopular war.

The refusal to issue a medal extends that, but the new memorial at least tries to redress that.

That apparent attitude saw only S for Sugar be preserved in the UK (and even then really only by luck) as a combat veteran and luckily Australia separately saved G for George. (Sadly a Stirling selected for preservation by the AWM was not brought home and a Hampton that was, was latter scrapped.

The same disinterest resulted in no Stirling being preserved in the UK or for that matter no Halifax either, and this is why the construction of the “Friday the 13th” reproduction at Yorkshire is such a wonderful and important project as was the later RAFM recovery of a sunken Halifax.

In fact the Spitfire was made the UK wartime “hero” and Hurricanes headed for extinction too, and the Wellington in the RAF Museum was for a while a sole survivor also dodging the axeman.

So we and the world are very fortunate that the BoB film in the 1960s kick started much of the aviation preservation movement and caused many of these airframes to be appreciated and preserved before they too were lost for ever.

There would be nothing (other than decision, time, money and resources) that would preclude Jeremy building his RAF mk 1 cockpit into the Dam-buster display you propose, but I suspect given its internal completeness, Jeremy has been more content to limit it to a more manageable and transportable cockpit display, that allows for easy viewing and entry.

There is nothing to stop someone else following in his footsteps to create a full length Dambuster fuselage display ( and I suspect one is actually already underway or planned based on original fuselage remains).

Others (such as Norman Groom) have followed Jeremy’s lead and built complete reproduction cockpits (we have two here in Australia, a third is in storage in NZ).

But a reproduction of that full fuselage length to cover the bomb bay mods etc is a serious undertaking and would need another effort of vision, time, money and material by “someone”?

Do you have some spare time on your hands? – smiles

Regards

Mark Pilkington

What an amazing project! Had no idea this was going on!

Jeremy had some details and pictures of the aircraft on his website :

http://www.avro-lancaster.org

Smirky -the picture (no.2) certainly appears to show the Scampton machine being reworked . From memory the ‘Night Flight’ fuselage was more faithful internally hence how it was constructed . Reworking it to the standard it arrived at Scampton is time -effort and a money.

Wow ain’t that the truth!

Ed- I will help Mark out ! The last picture shows the genuine nose part . That is the original part from KB976 -the cockpit and rearwards is reproduction.

Smirky -the picture (no.2) certainly appears to show the Scampton machine being reworked . From memory the ‘Night Flight’ fuselage was more faithful internally hence how it was constructed . Reworking it to the standard it arrived at Scampton is time -effort and a lot of money!

Hang on a minute, pic 2 above is the Night Flight mockup photographed at Brooklands as I remember seeing it with the long nose. Not very representative from the outside in daylight.

What is the origin of the Scampton fuselage as it doesn ‘t seem to derive from the Night Flight version?

No problem Mark; thanks for the explanation.
I understand a huge number (12,000?) of Canadian wartime rivets were used during its construction.
Is the cockpit section a replica, or is it from a particular aircraft?
Regards,
Ed

Not sure if I misunderstand your point Mark but the original does say: “the nose and reconstructed fuselage of Lancaster 10AR, KB976.”
I don’t think anyone claims it’s KB976 beyond the nose.
Very pleased to see it at Scampton anyway.
Regards,
Ed

Ed I was treading carefully in regards to two issues, particularly as I have never seen it close up and rely on information from sources, including Jeremy etc, hence I was simply seeking to clarify my understandings.

The first was to clarify what it is being claimed as? (the reconstructed fuselage of KB976)

As David mentions, the words “reconstructed” is usually applied to an outcome using original parts, even if from different airframes, ie a wing from here, a tail from there etc, this in my mind (and my long term understanding) is largely a full scale mockup, reproduction or replica fuselage with an original Canadian long nose from KB976 on the front.

The reference to its being the fuselage of KB976 is therefore confusing since the notional fuselage of KB976 is with Kermit Weeks along with the rest of the aircraft (as a composite of original parts from both KB976 and KB994), with all of the remaining parts accounted for, hence this fuselage is displayed as KB976 but its not the restored/reconstructed fuselage of KB976 in my view.

The second was to clarify what it is based on? – again the word “reconstructed” confused me.

David mentioned it being based on the “Thorpe Camp” Fuselage, and I wondered “if” a very derelict or crash remains fuselage had been “reconstructed” and that then was different to my understanding that it was an all new replica / reproduction – hence my request to David to post his photos and elaborate.

It has turned out I already had photos from Jeremy of it in early condition which clearly shows it is a mockup, I was just never aware it was a TV/Film prop and from a show called “Night Flight” and had been located somewhere called “Thorpe Camp” long enough to adopt that as its identity?

I think its great that the Lincolnshire Association have it on display, and even better that its displayed as the very unique Canadian Mk X RCAF long nose version rather than a wartime RAF Mk1, ensuring that this element of the real nose from KB976 is emphasised.

I also think its then quite appropriate to present it in KB976’s markings on the same basis, and tell the story of this unique model of Lancaster.

Full Scale Mockups, Reproductions and Replicas all have their place in museums (as do large scale models) when the original / full size is not available and the type is an essential element of the museums story.

I just prefer to ensure that provenance is clear, and that confusing or misleading information doesn’t jumble the “colour scheme” up with whats “underneath” it.

This is a major problem in Warbirding where non-descript aircraft are repainted in famous airframes markings and then focus so much on telling the story of the more famous aircraft that it gets blurred as to which is the “real” one, ie confusing or misleading information jumbles the “colour scheme” up with whats “underneath” it.

We had the ridiculous situation recently where two restored flying airframes on either side of the Atlantic were legally claiming to be the same identity, and that identity had some rich operational provenance, “luckily” the imposter was then “discovered” to be another airframe of “rich operational provenance” and the various sellers and purchasers and airworthiness authorities didn’t have to worry about any law suits etc.

Another case has a reconstructed RAAF P40 recovered from PNG restored and resprayed in an RAF desert camouflage and flown in Canada presented as that second aircrafts provenance, (to promote a Canadian pilots story), and then associated with the recently discovered Desert Crash P40 in Egypt because they have such similar “histories” – (where as one is the real McCoy, and one is an imposter, although to be fair that is admitted in the fine print).

I guess I would describe it as a Reproduction Lancaster Fuselage displayed to represent Canadian Mk 10 KB976 of the RCAF, with the original long nose from that aircraft fitted to it.

Its an excellent display, and again congrats to the Associations for displaying it as KB976.

I wasn’t wishing to “have a go” at any one, just clarify my understandings.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Hi All,
With other Lancaster restorations on going what would the feasibility of trying to recreate a (Lancaster B Mark III Special (Type 464 Provisioning) ?
Being as Mr Hall has two Lancaster project’s on the go I would think the IIC that Bruce mentioned (Rather than the MkX of KB976) would be an Ideal candidate ?
To my mind Mr Hall has the perfect opportunity to recreate this modification as all other Lancaster restorations are true to the aircraft identity restorations are they not ? Or do all aircraft restorations need to be true to the aircrafts actual identity ? After all they did a similar alteration to Lancaster’s for the film so the drawings must still be available from when they altered the Lancaster’s for the film, except this alteration would be a complete replica of the changes made to the design before the raid.. Here is a link to the KB976 with all it’s history if interested:- http://www.timefadesaway.co.uk/strathallan/kb976/kb_976_intro.html

Geoff

No ! The Seven Dwarfs nose is still that . The machine at Scampton is the extreme nose section of KB976 and the fuselage from Thorpe Camp that was built for ‘Night Flight’.

I am getting very confused

Reconstructed usually means :build or form (something) again after it has been damaged or destroyed

Clearly the Lancaster from picture two at Brooklands is the Thorpe Camp example – its not reconstructed its new.

Its certainly not KB976 other than having the original Canadian long nose from KB976,

Not sure if I misunderstand your point Mark but the original does say: “the nose and reconstructed fuselage of Lancaster 10AR, KB976.”
I don’t think anyone claims it’s KB976 beyond the nose.
Very pleased to see it at Scampton anyway.
Regards,
Ed

Many interior pieces within one of Jeremy’s Lancs are actually off of FM213 / VeRA .
When she was being dismantled by CWH years ago, much of the interior which at that time was deemed non useful, ended up in a dumpster behind the old
Museum location.
I asked for and was given permission to take all of it and spent 3 hrs loading up my truck
We stored the parts for many years . Eventually Jeremy sought me out and over approx a five year period, he purchased most of the what I had
but not all . We still some parts

The Thorpe Camp fuselage was built for ‘Night Flight’ from memory. I published a picture in FlyPast at the time. The fuselage went from just in front of the windscreen rearwards for a twenty five feet if I recall.

I must post a picture of the Thorpe Camp fuselage that is the main bulk of this machine as it makes an interesting contrast.

Please do David, as I admire Jeremy’s efforts and only know of the provenance of the Canadian nose section forward of the windscreen?

I would be very keen to know more about the “Thorpe Camp” Fuselage that you refer to?

It had been my assumption that this fuselage from windscreen back was actually a mockup built by Jeremy?

​

KB976 Scampton 18AUG2014 Tom Allett.JPGRAF

Scampton’s Heritage Centre received a terrific boost on August 18 when the nose and reconstructed fuselage of Lancaster 10AR, KB976, arrived by road from Brooklands.

Owned by Jeremy Hall, KB976 has a notable history. It is one of only three so-called long nose Lancasters (designed to carry an early warning radar) ever built and it was also the world’s last operational Lancaster; retiring from service with the Royal Canadian Air Force in 1964.

Its certainly not KB976 other than having the original Canadian long nose from KB976, which for a period sat on the front of the derelict fuselage of KB994.

The Majority of KB976 sits with Kermit Weeks, other than its damaged centre fuselage which is down under and its rear fuselage which is in the UK.

Of course the mortal remains of KB994 sit in a few places.

Its (KB994’s) cockpit is downunder along with I believe its cut off Covered Wagon centre section portion. (one is here and I assume it is KB994)

Its (KB994’s)centre fuselage is with Kermit for a future KB976 restoration, in swap for the damaged centre fuselage of KB976 which is also down under.

Its (KB994’s) rear fuselage is also with Kermit in swap for the damaged rear fuselage from KB976 which remains in the UK, which would be a fitting addition to this Lincolnshire display to complete the end to end fuselage.

I understood Jeremy acquired the Canadian long nose, then build a Lancaster Mk X Reproduction fuselage to sit behind it, and if so, that’s a magnificent effort on top of his mark I cockpit reproduction.

Regards

Mark Pilkington