It looks like ‘Connie’ Edwards has already modified the rear canopy to a one piece moulding.

Mark

Interesting to look then at this site

http://flaps-aviation-aviacion-luftfahr.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/hispano-aviacion-ha-1109-ha-1112-buchon.html

which seems to show a one piece moulding

I think only two were coverted to two seat status – I wonder if they differed in the rear canopy.

Forever the optimist I thought I would post this in case anyone has any 1939 Vickers 90cm Searchlight lumps in their shed or collections. We rescued one from the South Coast last year that was going to be scrapped but it wasn’t complete, we need any internal parts, also a cooling fan (mounted on the top of the light) Mirror, Lens, data plates etc etc.

Here are a couple of pics of the restoration underway…

Might be worth posting on HMVF to see if anybody can help

For the Grauniad readers on the forum

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jan/08/channel-5-accused-of-supporting-grave-robbing-over-tv-show-battlefield-recovery

It is available on Demand 5 if you want to catch up though.

If you go back to August, there was a minute of the Disposals committee which suggeste dthe Havoc swap did not go ahead. Note that RW393 is now at Hendon

http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/freedom_of_information/A_and_D_Meeting_summaries/October_to_December_2012_A_and_D_Committee.pdf

These minutes don’t appear to be linked on the RAFM website anymore

Those minutes (as well as those of the Senior Management Team) were only uploaded after I pointed out to the museum that although they were listed in the RAFM Freedom of Information Act Publication Scheme as being available on the RAFM website, this was not the case.

Subsequently I was informed that as the Trustees were ultimately responsible for matters relating to the Museum, it would be their minutes that would instead be published in summary form rather than those of the two previously named committees. Summaries of the Trustee meetings are available here

http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/about-us/policy-performance/freedom-of-information/trustees-meeting-summaries.aspx

Actually, I do recall some grumbles at the time – as the value of the restored Spitfires were being equated to the value of the airframes received for RAFM. Clearly, a comparison that should not have been made. As Mk12 indicated, PK664 is not in the best of states, and is missing a large number of high value items. It was, incidentally, the first airframe to be inspected by Tim Routsis and his team before setting up Historic Flying, and having done so, he came close to giving up his dream on the spot. ‘They are all like this’, he was told. Fortunately, that proved not to be the case.

Bruce (and Peter A) please don’t get me wrong – I’m not getting exercised on the use of PK664 (or any other spare/surplus Spitfire airframe to be honest) as currency – simply the use of an/any asset with some value (however diminished) in a deal that ultimately seems to deliver nothing. There is a difference.

If the RAFM is as bereft of funds as it seems to be – then with the best will in the world it surely shouldn’t have been chancing (or even allowed to chance – where are the checks and balances – ie role of the Trustees – in this sorry tale???) it’s limited tradeable assets on a deal that wasn’t focussed enough to actually deliver an airframe to the converted art gallery at the top of the stairs in Hendon.

The rights and wrongs of the Spitfire payment are to me of no consequence.

The stewardship of what are ostensibly national assets by a national organisation should be of everybody’s consequence. Items are held on behalf of the nation.

As an individual, I don’t think that many of us would release an asset or funds in what appears to be expectation (and no more) of receiving said item. When buying a car I wouldn’t pay the delivery costs in the hope that I might later buy it from the showroom……………..

it will never be as good as the black and white John Mills/Bernard Lee/Dickie Attenborough film…………………………:dev2: