Yes I would love to see a Ju88 in the air along with many other axis aircraft-they’re just a relevent to our heritage as allied aircraft are. but with regards to powerplants-do they have to be original?

A CASA 111 with Merlin engines is passable , but an aircraft like a Ju88 that has circular cowlings with annular radiators could effectively use any engine that would fit inside.Yes there will be technical problems to solve,such as weight imbalance-but externally who would know the difference?

I believe that the majority of aircraft at Hendon are in authentic colour schemes.

Certainly the Hurricane wears the squadron codes that were worn during the Battle of Britain.

Hurricane P2617 served with No.607 (County of Durham) Squadron during the Battle of Britain and it is appropriate that it retains these markings.

Fair point, but the point I am trying to make is Spitfire P7350 is ex-BofB yet has changed its codes to represent other squadrons,whilst retaining its identity via its serial number-but nobody seems to mind.

Take the Wellington at Hendon,the last time I saw it it carried no codes-wouldn’t it be nice for, Say a 425 Sqn veteran to walk in & see it wearing KW-E,or for a 613 Sqn vet to see the Lysander coded ZR-K.

Likewise what would be wrong if the original codes were kept on one side?
Would significence really be lost,or could it be gained by just covering the whole spectrum of the different Commands & squadrons,by applying alternate schemes to aircraft?

Anyway before I lose the plot of this thread for everybody else entirely-it is about a Shackleton & its subsiquent fate,after all.I have made a note of your comments (& in all fairness they are good points) & shall create a new thread to debate the issue. 😉

BTW, am I the only one who thinks Coatal Command is woefully under represented in the national collections?
I cant think of any representative types, it would even be nice to see a Lancaster in post war Maritime scheme (11 years service). Thank god for Newark and Gatwick, and hope Duxford works miracles with its MR.3/3.

I agree you could make a fantastic museum dedicated to Maritime, what with the Sunderland, Walrus, the boats from Duxford (which look out of place) a Shack and that lovely Neptune which is crying out for attention. Be a massive project.

I agree their numbers are woeful,but there is the Beaufighter TF.X, Sunderland & Walrus at Hendon-what does disgruntle me with the nationals(& a number of you may disagree with me) is, unlike the BofB MF who change an aircraft’s scheme every few years,they keep their aircraft in the same schemes year in year out!

I accept if an aircraft is historically significant then yes, keep it that way,but any aircraft types that have little history,then why not do the same? Personally I would love to see the Liberator in Coastal Command colours,all of the RAFM’s other US aircraft could wear RAF schemes.(do we really need 2 US collections in national museums?) For Bomber & Fighter command aircraft just use removable vinyl codes so a different squadron can be represented-look at the BofB hall,the representitive types are there, but 73 squadrons served during the battle,yet so few are represented.

I also agree If those “in charge” of our national collections got there heads together (& cut out the rivalry)they could easily gather up many of the types that coastal command used,from the Tiger Moth to the Sunderland, add the only surviving U-Boat & produce a first class Coastal Command/Battle of the Atlantic museum. The added bonus would be that space is then freed up in which types that are in storage can get to see the light of day.

Although at first glance the A4 & A5 appear externally similar,the A4 had improved engines- 1,340 hp Jumo 211J-1’s as opposed to 1,200 hp Jumo 211b,for the A5’s.

Armement varied but overall had increased over that of the A5-the rear part of the canopy had two gun rings instead of one & the gondola was improved.

Overall weight of the A4 was incresed through armour for the crew & greater bomb capacity.

A minor difference was the A4 had an extended rudder counter-balance.

Hi DS

Yes, I’ve seen it and it looks magnificent in it’s own wright. It cannot be used for a reconstruction without replacing the formers which have all been cut off at the base unfortunately, but it’s a prime example of what I was aiming at.

In the UK a mid fuselage section of a Wellington was found in use as a green house and incorporated into the Loch Ness Wellington. IIRC there was also a nose section of a WWI British flying boat in use as a shed. Anyone have pics of turret cupolas retrieved from gardens? Peter, the Nanton museum recentely got a Type E tailturret from a Halifax from the UK.

Keep them coming

Cheers

Cees

I stand to be corrected but understand the WW1flying boat nose section is a Felixtowe now preserved at Flixton.