I’m pretty sure they’ve looked after that. They are the premier aviation school in the Netherlands, sponsored by the Dutch MoD, KLM and other major players in Dutch aviation. Actually: there’s one thing that is definately not good: let an aircraft just be. Unless they have the money to keep the airframes to flight status (and almost no museum has those resources), standing idle (ie in museums) is FAR worse than running engines once a year.

Back on topic: what would be a key issue to scrap a plane, instead of restoring her? Appearantly oxidation is not. But there has to be a moment where restauration is simply not worth the effort. Does it really have to fall apart? Who has ever had to make that decision?

When we moved the B25 at Overloon under cover I was surprised at how little major corrosion there was and that had been outside for more than a quarter of a century. As has been said, get it off the grass build a roof over it. Try getting an oil company to sponsor you with some preservatives. If you have any difficulty then pm me and I could try through the company I work for. It has worked in the past.

F.2’s had round tails but when they where converted to F.2A’s then they had the stage three square tops fitted and also 600 Gal ventral tanks and cranked wing leading edges.

F.2A’s outwardly appeared identical to the F.6, only difference being the shorter cable ducting on the fuselage of the F.2A.

Regards,

John.

Well that and the lack of cannons in the ventral tank, wings not stressed for overwings, cockpit not to full OR946 standard, 200 series instead of 300 series engines and recuperaters instead of the fueldraulic system.

I’d be seriously interested in one of the F-104’s!:dev2:

Garry.

Pm me what kind of price range and I’ll chat with Piet about it. I might even be able to arrange transport to the UK.

Do you have a photo?

That (44″) is the external diameter over the injector nozzles, structure, “feathers” (if the reheat is a variable type), etc.

The numbers you give are probably the internal diameter of the exhaust pipe around which all of the above structures were mounted.

The Spey pipe is larger to handle the higher airflow, and the external diameter is not larger because of the improved materials and design technology between the development of the Avon reheat module (~1960) and the development of the Spey reheat module (~1966).

Just for reference, I get my data from the engines sections of old Jane’s Aircraft (usually accurate but has an occasional goof) and various websites, including this one:
http://www.jet-engine.net/miltfspec.html
which seems to be fairly consistent with Jane’s, but which has its own share of errors.

First, it is an ejector nozzle.
Second, they are called fingers.
The numbers I gave were indeed inside diameter, that is why I used id on the end.
There was in fact a material change, the Avon 200’s used Nimonic 80 and Avon 300’s and Speys used C263.
I was just curious as to the 8″ difference in internal diameter.
The measurement you quoted is in fact the largest part , that being the variable ejector nozzle and shroud. The rest of the pipe is far smaller in diameter.

Actually, Avon 200/300 diameter is 41.5″ main body, 44″ afterburner, while that of the RB.168 (Spey) is 37.5″ main body, 44″ afterburner.

Never having laid a tape measure over them in my youth I must admit you have me at an advantage.

I do agree that the Lightning would pose a bit more difficulty, with the circular intake being either enlarged to a greater diameter or reshaped completely.

I disagree with you, as you (fairly) rightly posted the air-flow rates of the Avon 200 and 300 series. It is well documented that when the 300 series Avons were fitted to the Lightning, they had to modulate the engine somewhat as the intake could not deal with the increased airflow at lower speeds. Also, sticking an RB 168 into the Lightning would have entailed up-scaling of the whole airframe. There wasn’t enough internal diameter to fit a Spey in there. Fitting an Avon in a Lightning was like putting on a pair of tight jeans, there wasn’t much room over.