Lol. I think the piston S.55s had cartridge start, but Wessex were always electric start (unless those weird Gazelle-engined contraptions were different?)

Whats worse is the total absence of Hi-Viz jackets, what were those people thinking?????
My kids and I spent many a happy hour in the cabbage field at the approach end of El Torro marine base in Orange county watching the jets come in, the back seater would sometimes wave at the kids as they passed by. Am I an idiot? I don’t think so and my kids 20 odd years later still remember our trips to the base with fondness. there’s way to much spoiling the fun for a perceived risk which unless anybody can tell me different has never actually become a disaster?

I totally agree. Too much nanny state-ism on here. I remember years ago sitting on the take-off end of a B-52 and thinking, “not a bad way to depart this world”.

…they don’t seem to get much mention anywhere (rather like the UK Skyraiders and Sabres).

There’s a lovely book on RAF Sabres by Duncan Curtis that goes into a lot of detail regarding their US funding. Still a few on Amazon I see.

Yes, but what did they use for the mockup? The structure looks like original Wellington. Maybe new manufactured to the same standards.

I agree – it looked pretty real (inside and out) to me.

No, they are both ex-RAF F.6s. Interesting, I appear to have answered my own question with a bit of Googling.

From: http://hunterxf382.weebly.com/history.html

I’ll leave this thread up in case it is of interest to others – I for one wasn’t aware that the RAF received any MAP-funded aircraft.

RAF Sabres were all MAP-funded, and certainly a good many Hunters. In fact I think the Hunters were aimed at being a one-for-one swap with the Sabres, but (like the original intent for the Sabres) mainly those in 2TAF.

It’s a difficult one to answer, since people seem to have so many different requirements. However, having visited the Skyfame Museum at Staverton years ago, I do have a penchant for ‘lots of exhibits/minimal explanation’, since part of my enjoyment is in learning for myself. I know not everyone would feel the same way however.

Recently I’ve visited some really nice collections in the UK (though the old and sadly long-gone Jet Heritage museum at Hurn takes some beating) and abroad (for instance the lovely ‘live’ Olympic Flight Museum, the Nanton Lancaster etc) and I think – for me – the things I really appreciated at all of these were threefold: the ability to get up-close/hands-on to the exhibits, the space around them to enjoy each exhibit in its entirety and the absence of museum staff trying to ‘explain’ each exhibit!

Unfortunately I have also recently been to a couple of aircraft museums, where I had just fancied a quiet and unhurried visit, only to be accosted by museum staff and accompanied the whole way round, despite not asking for such assistance.

…not to mention his belief that the all-flying tail was an on-the spot US-invented solution to control problems with the XS-1.

Nicely put.

I think these artifacts should be regarded as national monuments, and cared for as such: if the means exist to recover each and every one (with the exception of war graves), then it should be done as a moral obligation. And using private funds as a means to doing this seems an entirely sensible idea, given the appropriate controls.

To just say ‘no’ is unhelpful at best, and to treat these objects as a way to (presumably) control the value of one’s assests is also morally questionable.

But the USN has the final say, and so sadly I imagine there’s little that can be done.