Are you saying that the Germans sent every amputee back to this country to have artificial limbs fitted? you’d think that they (the Germans) would have been able to knock up a few tin legs themselves ,unless it was a materials shortage issue; maybe they stopped limb development, after consistent prosthesis failure agravated by all that goose stepping, which appears to have been mandatory.

Andy,

Don’t get too excited. I think you will find that the entry in question is for D.Vader.

Mark

May the farce be with you..

Did I hear a mention of Headcorn?

Yep….know what you mean! Does that mean you can afford to buy me a drink at Shoreham then? (Or the Stork Hotel?) Andy

I wasn’t aware that there was a bar at Shoreham; unless of course one of those blue portaloos you have there, is in fact the Tardis, in which case The Stork hotel it is; and mines a large one, (as Sid James might have once said!)

Its a long way back to the origins of this thread (in fact it would be quicker if we wait for the inevitable rerun on the discovery programme!).

I thought that there was only one 109 shot down on the day in question,(presumably someone else claimed that 109, and I’ve forgotten who) it being the one Andy Saunders part excavated .

As it buried itself on impact presumably there was no way of knowing at the time (of baders collision) whether its tail was on or off, therefore whilst some, (no names) may have thought privately , about the probability of friendly fire , potentially there could also have been a conflict between two pilots r.e their individual claims, i.e one 109 and two RAF pilots both claiming a 109; absolute proof was at that time, unavailable.

I wouldn’t have thought that there needed to be any trials regarding the injestion of abrasives, as no engine will tolerate it ,as obviously the grit “scours” the bores reducing the compression; with a sleeve valve engine ,it will probably prematurely wear the sleeves as well.

Hornchurch, I really don’t want to dissuade you from going, maybe just to guide you (so to speak) ,as previously stated it is a private museum, and as such its up to you to abide by their rules.

It could be that its more of a “collection” ,that is opened up to the public, than a mainstream museum; when people ask me if they can take photos I invariably say yes, but its my perogative to say no, and not have to give a reason (as it is anyones).

I think a lot of the small museums have similiar problems with theft, and sadly vandalism; at the “museum that will remain nameless” (where I once directed the traffic) we had a young lad, who overheard a conversation, r.e the model trainset, the gist of which was , “really all the track needs to come up”.

Somehow he got left inside the building ,unsupervised, for an hour or so , which was enough time for him to rip all the track up!!

[QUOTE=Hornchurch]Sounds like an interesting recipe…….. if me & a few fellow ‘Grizzly’ types turn up on a ride out, only to have some muppet attempt to take my/our mobile phones & ‘notebooks’ 😀
(I can predict the outcome & the ‘anoraks’ won’t be happy ‘bunnies’, however good their C.C.T.V. skills 😀 ).

Like Dave T says, strange policy, that certainly won’t attract a re-visit from some folks, equalling a (deserved) loss of revenue.
Low attendance & It’ll presumably go the way of Southend’s museum ?

How paranoid d’ya wanna get ? (shades of Mc Carthy’ism’ creeping in).

At the risk of dissuading you from visiting a fine museum, its probably worth remembering that not all museum types are anoraks , and I think the currator at Hawkinge, isn’t averse to a little bouncing of his own….

Another reason that cameras are banned, might be the proliferation of virtual museums on the net, where you get to see everything for nothing; at least in this way you have to visit the place to see what they’ve got.