G-CCOM

[QUOTE=EN830;1108271]Unfortunately Melvyn’s last attempt to sneak a cargo into the country came a cropper on the south coast of England, as this photo shows.

That’s not just any old cargo, it’s one of Melvyn’s Jumpers! 😀

[QUOTE=bloodnok;1107594]yes its a shame (have fond memories of basic training at swinderby and doing duty airman at watton QUOTE]

Yeah fond memories……..running round the airfield being shouted at by some sad PTI who I’d dearly have liked to meet one night when I was wandering round Honington with an SLR! Bedpacks flying out of windows, German measle epidemics, buffing floors endlessly, delicious food…not and those psycho Rock-Apes who’d obviously all been affected by spending too much time getting some extra cash at Porton Down. 😀

Watton duty airman, did you ever work out how to put people through on that switch board thing? Boy I must have cut a lot of people off on that. And was that place creepy when I lived there for 5 months through the winter of ’83. Great place for giving the bike a damn good thrash down the runway though! Ever go in “The New Inn”, the pub that time forgot. Even the landlady was covered in cobwebs! 🙂

[Of course it didnt actually COST anything, as it was traded for another aircraft….

Bruce[/QUOTE]

What was that then……….;)

Tangmere, if you read my post again you will note that I respect the craftmanship of the rebuilders and the achievement of the project in what it has been able to construct from the materials it started with. I have an opinion on the value of said project versus a genuine Me163 and this is a forum for discussion. The fact that it was not the only Me163 is not being doubted and this has been debated in depth before. This is not the only DH9 in existance in the world and we have the excellent 9A at Hendon, another superb recreation using original parts where possible. If the museum had been able to acquire and fund the rebuild of this DH9 in another way it would be a different matter for me, but the disposal of a rare and significant piece of aviation history such as the ME163 is not acceptable in my opinion, in exactly the same way as the disposal of the Pucara won’t be either. Saying they no longer fit in with the Museum’s collecting remit and there’s others around just doesn’t wash with me. I’m sure others have opinions and as a forum it is interesting to hear them.

Hi Roobarb,

How many hurricanes have you done the fabric on now? It must be quite a few now.

I’ve been told the the fuselage is relativley quick and easy to cover, far quicker and easier than the tailplane etc. Is this the case? Can you let us know how long it took you?

AT

This is the third one I’ve been involved in on the re-fabric front, but have yet to do a fuselage so I can’t comment. Due to an “unforseen unserviceability” on my part, Vintage Fabrics were called in and did a lot of the work for me for which I’m very grateful. I’m now back on the serviceable list and I’m just tacking up the port elevator in Darrens picture. Personally I’ve never found the tailplanes to be much of a problem, they’re just heavy to keep turning as you position the fabric. The fuselage fabric is held in place by lock stringers and glue, there’s no sewing or stringing so that cuts down on manhours from that point. However there’s an awful lot of linen to handle and it’s a very large area to dope. Linda and Andrews arms are probably still aching! 😀

[QUOTE=Mark12;1100342]We all seem to be assuming that this is a fully permanent paint job.
It may just be semi-permanent, for a period in the low countries, and then returned to the much loved Irish livery, with the appropriate solvents.

I can assure you that the Irish scheme was keyed with wet and dry and totally ruined as part of the preparation for applying the aeroflex cammo. It does not however rule out the application of a further colour scheme over the new one in the same fashion. How about canary yellow as per G-AIDN. Or there’s always the Indian Air Force scheme :rolleyes: