Jeepman -instead of a ‘whatever’ why don’t you qualify why what the IWM has said is ‘spurious’ when its technically well reasoned and I cannot see anyone else taking them to task about it!

I bow to your superior knowledge of the English language, although I don’t know who appointed you to police this board – I thought that was the role of the moderators.

As far as I am concerned, in the absence of an original airframe, the AAC has the “DNA” of the Ju52, which was a significant aircraft, in terms of it’s use as a pre-war airliner, a wartime transport aircraft as well as it’s post war civilian and military use by any number of users including the RAF. In my mind, any one of those roles suggests that it therefore represents an appropriate exhibit in the Duxford collection.

Toucan go

Spurious reason for disposal: No 1

copied from the tender information sheet

“Although painted to represent a JU-52 aircraft of the Second World War, this aircraft is actually a post-war derivative. While it is similar to the Ju-52 there are numerous differences of detail. The aircraft therefore has minimal provenance of relevance to IWM’s remit and is not an accurate representation of its type of aircraft, meaning that the item’s significance to IWM’s collections is very limited.”

I should think that the number of people who actually know the differences between a Ju52 and an AAC1 are probably 1 in 10,000. I’m one of the 9,999 and if it looks like a Ju52 to most of us, it probably is a Ju52.

Let the muso’s have their way – hopefully it will find a home where it will be cherished.

Something else – if I donated an object to the museum and it was subsequently disposed of then I would think twice about donating in the future…….

Pictures of the Firefly incident seen on Hyperscale

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.228830613900295.50474.100003200742943&type=3&l=8244cc6459

Taken from Paul’s link:

“Then the men want to flush the machine free to hold small parts and then cut off the wings,” says an army spokesman.

I wonder whether that is an entirely good idea……….

Andy “two umbrellas” Saunders eh…….

Was this originally offered to the FAAM when it was accompanied by a Bloch (152??) but turned down because it was felt to be too far gone – or was that an old wives tale?

Very strong Snipe rumours -the RAFM has some substancial parts and I think that now is pretty much the time when it will happen!

Jeepman – interesting point there !! I have some trees in the back garden that were missed in the cull for WW1 aircraft -thinking about building an original WW1 aircraft using ‘new old stock ‘ wood !

That’s unworthy David!

The frame was built by the original manufacturer at the time against a Government contract and presumably would have appeared as a complete aircraft had not those contracts been slashed at the conclusion of the war.

It was then kept by the firm as a reminder of the war work they had done until they went into administration when it was passed to the RAFM. That makes it more than a reproduction in my mind – even if it is a “late production”.

I’ve got a lump of bauxite on my desk – I’m just going to go out to the garage to turn it into a Spitfire:diablo:

The shot of the shadow of the Stearman in it’s own smoke was probably serendipitous – but very memorable