reeversAt which point does a battered, incomplete airframe cease to be a “warbird” and become a pile of parts?
about the same time a piece of mangled Spitfire gets dug up and “fully restored to original condition”
reeversThanks for the correction Dave.
We meant to say the same design origins, given the prototype of the Wirraway first flew in 1937 and entered production in 1939 (must have been a test series on) whereas the Yale didn’t enter production as the Yale until 1940 as stated.
Interestingly, and we didn’t know this, but the NA64 aka the Yale was an upgraded version of the pre war French order of the NA57 which first flew in 1937. So close and so similar but we’ll make the necessary corrections.
thanks
reeversKB882
It was last on ebay 7 th Oct for it to be in the UK already 22nd Nov is pretty impressive didn’t know Concorde was being used to fly freight.
Well once again Dave Parrot aka Battle has all the answers……..to the wrong questions.
The FN4 was delivered to the nominated export agent and as such has left Australian border control.
It is now under the control of the new UK owners. What method of freight was used is not known to us
And nor should it be. Reevers has released the goods as have our Agents. To us that completes the export and import requirements and the goods are now in the UK.
Should anyone want further details we suggest making inquiries in the UK.
Note: if air freight was selected then 7 – 10 days is about the time it takes
Peter Smythe
reeversWhat is the one thing worse than a troll?
A troll with no Lancaster!
If you want to ride on the coat tails of another organisation’s achievement in securing the Lanc, then crack on, fill your boots. Nobody is impressed.
Even less impressive is your arrogant attitude and your desire to belittle others.
Though I do find I have to admire your cojones in putting your name to your posts…
No troll here old boy and not putting your name to a post is a reflection upon those who do not. We, or I or us is used to describe the activities of Reevers and in the case of KB882 we have definitely not hopped on any coat tails. As this thread has progressed we (Reevers) has received a number of emails thanking us (Reevers) for reigniting the topic of the future for this Lancaster. I (Reevers researcher) can state that the previous discussions had about KB882 were well and truly exhausted – refer to numerous online media reports. It was Reevers who put an informal expression of interest to the council on the basis of feedback from concerned Canadian enthusiasts. At the time of submission of this EOI there was a new council elected and so the opportunity to raise the concerns about KB882 was initiated via Canadian national radio, TV and print media. The thought of a group from Australia coming into their country and challenging the new council on its heritage obligations was not going to be tolerated – that was obvious to us (Reevers) and our Canadian colleagues. The result of all of this was the new council had to re engage potential stakeholders in order to make null and void our intended legal argument of negligence under the current Canadian laws. There was no input in our EOI from any other party’s.
The people on this thread are some Australian based clowns who think there version is the only version and some of the U.K. Based critics are people who have failed secure sought after items for there own projects. The FN4 was sold after the EBay listing. We (Reevers) find using sites like EBay are a good way for all parties to monitor the market interest which then gives the buyer and seller confidence in the post listing negotiations.
Australia never had shackle tons so there is next to no interest in them here. Meteors are still plentiful in Australia and if you know who to ask a good example can be secured. So our (Reevers) focus is and will be on raising awareness about warbirds like KB882 that could have a link – if only in type – to Australia.
We (Reevers) will follow the progress of KB882 and will donate in either financial or other ways.
Peter Smythe
Per Reevers
reeversKB882
:stupid:
Now that is just plain rude and smacks of arrogance.
reeversLancaster KB882
:sleeping:
reeversI certainly did check out Rich’s profile and looked at some of his comments. I don’t think my response to him or his comments were misplaced. The Shackleton and Meteor are not in the same criteria as KB882, as expressed elsewhere we look for those projects that
need to be saved, not kept running etc. Its obvious the Shackleton has the private sector momentum unlike KB882. Further, if you had also done your research you would have seen that Reever’s had no intention of “taking” a gifted aircraft from anyone. That was just
an emotive and negative response to the good work of others. The FN4 turret is already in the UK with a museum (so stick that in your eye). The overall comparison of thread activity of Rich compared to myself puts him in a very well used armchair. I don’t want to share my pitiful excuse for a project to justify my existence and or contributions but some people do just by writing a response here. As stated, we know about Elsie and a number of other aircraft in the same condition and position of protection requirements. The answer to all of this is, if don’t like it don’t read it. I personally enjoy getting the blood circulating if it will help create constructive ideas and actions about warbirds. Finally – Reevers was notintending to bring the Lancaster to Australia for Reevers, but for a larger group more capable of doing the aircraft justice. As it appears this may not happen, there is no point in disclosing the details of those discussions. We’ll continue to focus on our current projects and the ones we have planned for the immediate future, but still keep one eye on KB882.
Peter Smythe
per
Reevers
reeversrichw_82 we know about Elsie and yes we have made inquiries. However all things must be given a priority. Can you update us all on your efforts with regards to KB882 or any other item that has deserved to be saved?
Armchair pilots and desktop advisors are sadly commonplace and given too much emphasis. Actions speak louder than words. If you had any idea about the behind the scene discussions etc you would know just what a
fool you are. People like you are a part of the problem, not a part of the solution. Reevers will help any genuine group to help preserve a warbird, but we know this phase of the politics has been achieved before. When we
see the actions we’ll back up our words with a donation.
Peter Smythe
per
Reevers
reeversGreat News and a wonderful outcome for all parties involved in saving this Lancaster.
We (Reevers) identified this Lancaster as a potential aircraft to purchase. Yes its in Canada and yes Canada has heritage laws to protect such items as this Lancaster. However on completion of our research
we discovered this Lancaster was in dire straights and needed action to protect it it from further deterioration. So much for it not being lost, but it was clearly forgotten. One of the first actions we took was to communicate
with other Lancaster historical groups in Canada to gauge the interest, history and reasons for why this big bird had been left for so long. We understand and appreciate the efforts of those who were trying very hard to work
with KB882 with very limited funds and little support from the local government.
Reevers engaged a Lawyer in Canada to obtain an opinion about what options were best for this aircraft’s future. Our intention was always to seek an outcome that would see the Lancaster remain in Canada, the second was to see it removed to another location within Canada and the third was to use a loop hole in Canadian Heritage Laws and purchase the Lancaster and bring it to Australia. Reevers has had a lot of support for our efforts and these can be found on our own FBP and even the FBP for KB882. We know Canadians are passionate about this Lancaster but action had to be taken and with the advice of several Canadian based advisors Reevers appeared on Canadian Radio and in numerous newspapers highlighting the issues of this Lancaster.
We had been advised that government promises had been made in the past to have work done to save this Lancaster but these proposals had come to nothing. We now hear that plans have been made to save this Lancaster by relocating it to an appropriate facility. For some people to say we had nothing to do with this latest development is just plain wrong and is a reflection upon the mindsets of like minded people who allowed KB882 to sit neglected for so long. International shaming has played a significant part in this latest announcement. Facts are facts, the many people involved know what the true story is and what part we played in this collective effort.
reeversJust you tube FN4 and you’ll find a good mix of restored turrets in collections. As for this particular Turret it will be added to the others we have in storage for restoration to go on flying aircraft such as our A-26, B-25 and hopefully a good start on a B-17
and potentially another 2 or 3 types of medium bombers. As stated – it wasn’t purchased because it was thought to be from a Lanc, it was purchased to supplement what Reevers already has.
As mentioned, to us, there seems to be enough FN4’s around – perhaps a call for help could provide results? – just a suggestion.
Peter
reeversMany thanks Walter for the explanation.
I can follow the discussion and comparisons a bit better now.
Sabrejet – dont think it needs renaming as the body of the first post does say “if Confimed” and
Whitley-Project – I think it very unfair to assume that Tristan sold it as a Lancaster Turret, we’ve said several times we’ve had input from others who claimed it to be from a Lancaster and we have always remained open to discussion and learning
about the turret. As for the FN4 being rare, perhaps in the UK but Reevers does hold some other FN4 parts and we know of at least 4 other complete turrets here in Australia – perhaps a reflection of the EATS and just how many Australians served
in the RAF.
Despite the for and against, time will tell and we are glad we secured it and it is now safely stored away for future work. Finally I’d like to thank those who have been supportive in helping us to get to know this turret better – Lancaster, Manchester, Whitley, or Sunderland we don’t mind one bit. We have it and thats what counts.
Peter Smythe
reeversJust trying to stay civil and on-track ( 🙂 ): from the other discussion thread it seems that FN4 was not fitted to Lancaster but it does present some very interesting alternatives. Walter previously posted this:
The FN4A was used on Whitley V, Stirling and Manchester aircraft whereas the FN4B was used on the Saro Lerwick and the Short Sunderland, superceding the FN13 on the latter.
Though most likely Sunderland, wouldn’t it be amazing to think a large Manchester relic like that survived?
Any record of one in Aus?
Sabrejet – Manchester? not to our knowledge but yes we did use Sunderlands but not 100% if they were based here in OZ either. The Mod plate reads Type 50A / 104 and serial 347 as per previous pics. It clearly has 4 x mounts and while other parts are currently difficult to read we will give it a good clean and hope some other identifying features can be located. it seems we’re at a 70/30 stage of 70% thinking its Lancaster and the 30% thinking its from another type or for another use. Nevertheless its been saved and added to our “Collection” just to keep this folly going. But seriously we would realy like to learn more about it and if its not Lancaster but still a type used in Bomber Command then the RAAF connection is still there.
reeversLooks like the same one alright, Nash & Thompson FN4, definitely not Lancaster…
Cheers,
Walter
Hi Walter – can you give us an idea of why you think its definately not Lancaster. We would appreciate any feedback and advice because like so many others, we are still learning.
reeversG’day
As it has been pointed out, this D is not a complete aircraft, certainly nothing like the J we have. The Dutch operated J’s here as well and we will be presenting this B-25J as a representation of a NEIAF B-25 named “Pulk”.
The intention with the D ‘project’ is to secure it and place it into storage. We have many spares for the J already and more are being offered on a regular basis. I guess this D could be used for some of the remaining Dutch B-25’s but given it has its own
history it would be a shame to lose it. Interestingly, this particular B-25 was destined for the NEIAF but was taken on by the USAAF instead. It almost survived the war but a bad landing rendered her uneconomical to repair so she was stripped and left in situ.
It was then recovered in the early eighties and secured by a collector who has been following Reevers progress. As such it has been offered to Reevers on a ‘subject’ to basis, so we simply need to wait and hope the administrative cogs turn in our favour.
Peter Smythe
per
Reevers.
reeversG’day detective
no mystery here, these details have been posted previously (but asking different questions) and all pics are available on our website and FB page. Not looking for numbers or visits on the pages but a google of reevers and beaufort should give you some answers.
couple more pics of what we have if that helps
[ATTACH=CONFIG]244284[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]244285[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]244286[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]244287[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]244288[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]244289[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]244290[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]244291[/ATTACH]
Peter Smythe
per
Reevers
Sign In
