Stuart – are you suggesting that executive decisions be removed from those who make them?

Andy, you didn’t want to be drawn on the “Duxford value for money debate”, but if you did , my question would be ; is £29m the sort of money to spend upgrading an existing building, to house just 30 A/C at a unit cost of £900,000?

My view is that the 163 is a rare enough type that it should have remained at Duxford, it is after all the “Imperial War Museum”, not the RAF museum and as such should be displaying axis A/C types, this is our heritage that they are disposing of.

I am far less concerned about profit (or not) made by a company, set up to make money (like all others) i.e not a charity; if the DH9 was actually sold to IWM for anything like £1m, then it is a pretty expensive static aeroplane, and one that (notwithstanding its rarity)would struggle to make that on the open market (in my view),as a trade, then its harder to see its net worth, or indeed the net worth of the 163.

Would I remove executive decision powers…. yes, along with some of those making them.

Tangmere,(Andy) I dont think that this is as about whether certain individuals have made “a few pennies” along the way.

Please don’t think that this is an ungrateful response, I for one am glad that it was recovered and restored ,and also think that the word “replica” is probably as injust in this case as in many others.

Another way of looking at it is, that the IWM have paid nearly £1m for the A/C, and Air(waste of)space, cost £29m, or nearly £1m per A/C housed therin, so, once housed it represents £2m expenditure; maybe thats why admission is so expensive , when other branches of the IWM are free admission (and not because it’s a “live” airfield like they say),

Value for money?

Sorry guy’s don’t know why I was talking about J79’s while the thread was about something different, I must have been under the affluence of something !!!!:rolleyes:

Are you sure thats not effluent….

I couldn’t make my mind up whether they were building the “bomb” or the rotating gear that mounted and spun it, bearing in mind that they continually refered to it as “the machine”; the Navy would have had overall control because upkeep was a mine, and with regards to the whitecliffs and dockyard; Andy, have you never heard of coastal errosion? I think a “could do better” in red biro across the btm corner of the exercise book, (just above the pencil drawing of the Lanc).

Stuart,

I am saying that aircraft (flying ones at that) have been built from less, and can think of at least two that are currently airworthy, and a few that are on the way back up.

A competent metalworker will make the best of this item, and will re-use a number of parts without any problem.

The CAA are not the issue – the signing inspector is. So long as the work is good, I see no problem with re-using some of these parts.

Bruce

Bruce, if by “this piece” you mean the whole piece, then I agree that there are quite a few usable, albeit minor brackets /stiffeners etc, that could be used, if you mean frame 8, then I very much doubt that will go again; it could be patched up for a static, but if I were in the position of having to sign it off, knowing a mans life could be at risk, then I would err on the side of caution, and I know of at least one other man “in the trade”, who would do the same.

As I understand it all Spitfires are rebuilds, because of the design authority issue (or something similar), yes I can think of two mkI “rebuilds”, both i believe went in at about 400 mph, and at least one of those has bits spread about over several owners, none of which amount to anything significant; as to whether there is an ownership challenge in the future, we’ll have to wait and see.

Seahawk, I think the D type analogy is a good one the spitfire does indeed have an aluminium “tub” with a tubular front section (engine bearers) but whilst they really do just hold the engine, all of the front end past the fire wall fixes to the engine ,which in turn fixes to the engine bearers, which fixes to the thigh bone etc etc , truly monocoque.

I am aware of the D type court case , but not the out come; who won?

Jaguar’s made a habit of stamping chassis no’s into the front “A” frames, but Supermarine didn’t (mores the pity) ,nor are there any on the piece of cockpit section in question, in fact the only evidence that it is LA546 is, er your own, as one of two people that found it (the other now deceased), if you said it isn’t LA546 then no one can prove otherwise….

[QUOTE=Junk Collector;1101285]:)

I think he didnt buy it reading whats been put because it left the yard before the main bulk of stuff did ???

I meant up until Tony bought it, it was in the care of a leading light in the aviation world , and was obviously obtainable.