The RAFM has a mk 24 Spitfire; To all but the real enthusiast, there is little difference between that and a mk 22 so I don’t see the problem. If it had been a combat veteran mk I, perhaps. And the mk 22s last public appearance had been in a dis-embled state anyway. To trade that for a P-40 with a traceable WW2 history seems a fair swap to me. And recovering it was the right thing to do – you just need to look at what happened to the BOAC Hermes at the other end of the sahara to see what could have happened.

Where the speculation has come from and where I think criticism has to be laid, is the complete lack of any information from the RAFM at any time about the recovery or their plans for the P-40. That just allowed speculation and rumour to flow.

Now, I wouldn’t expect anything to be said before or during the recovery, and there may well be very good reasons for that, both legal and political, but what has dribbled out (Through channels such as the planning application to replace the cinema with the P-40, and the last annual report – not the most recent one) has been partial and only (IMO) confused the issue, especially when Kennet have done presentations on the recovery elsewhere (I’m not pointing any blame at Kennet BTW).

Now I suspect that the RAFM was hoping for the grand reveal of the Kittyhawk at Cosford or Hendon, but when that wasn’t possible, the silence only led to speculation.

Good news..but…I tried to resist asking….what is that Spitfire in the UAS video taken at Leuchars on Fb? seems to have a L serial ?

No 1 Squadron’s pet, presumably moving or has already moved to Lossiemouth

Hayward Hall at the Museum of Army Flying as well.

But Hunters are allowed to fly by the CAA anyway. No one has operated any aircraft yet that is not already cleared by the CAA so would they try and block it or have they no say in the matter?

HHA’s Hunters have the same status as, for example, BAE’s PC-9s – owened and operated by a private company, but on the MIlitary register, so outwith the scope of the Civil Aviation Authority. The MIlitary Aviation Authority has responsibility.

The ‘Kestrel’ at Tarrant Rushton was actually a P.1127 development aircraft, XP980, that had the wings of Harrier XV751 fitted to it, which may have given it the appearance of a Kestrel. This aircraft later went to Culdrose as a ground handling airframe, then was reunited with the correct wings and restored for the FAA Museum at Yeovilton. The Cosford Kestrel is XS695 which also was previously a ground handling airframe at Culdrose ignominiously painted to look like a Sea Harrier!

XP980 doesn’t have it’s own wings – I’m pretty sure they are now on XP984 at Brooklands (having previously been on XS695) – XP984 had been given the correct wings for XS695 by the time it was restored by BAE (‘984’s and Kestrel wings being externally almost the same). However, when RAFM decided to restore XS695, they reclaimed the wings from Brooklands. ‘984 and ‘695 seemed to swap wings originally when at Culdrose.

I just posted this photo in the ” how low can you go” thread, I just thought it would be good to post it here as well. What a great aircraft with incredible pedigree.

Leuchars?

A civilian registration, agreed, but also a military registration too (ZA250) – and when operated by the manufacturer that surely is a different class of civilian owned and operated wouldn’t you say?

It initially flew and toured the world as G-VTOL, ZA250 was added at a later date (due to a change in regulations or the interpretation of regulation IIRC)

I’d agree that private operation is a different class, but that wasn’t what they said! 🙂