Although it would be nice so see a second airworthy Lancaster, there would be a battle to get airshow bookings and in these times of financial crisis airshow organisers would be hard put to pay for two airworthy fourengined aircraft (double the cost?).

We have seen in recent years a lot of money spent on getting the Vulcan airworthy and that has proven to be a real money pit (with all due respect for the persons and organisations involved, I take my hat of to them if I had one 🙂 ). Making a Shackleton airworthy is the same story and so is making NX611 flyable. This is leaning in the same direction, and will not get the broader picture for people to see. Not everyone goes to airshows but like to spent their spare time in museums or old airfields such as East Kirky where you can see a Lancaster taxi or experience a ride in it. An airworthy Lanc and one that can taxi is in my humble opnion a better option than two airworthy Lancs, and as has been said before, if NX611 would be heading for an airshow, this leaves EK without a major attraction.

Why if all that money is spent on the Hampden restoration, getting a third Wellington on it’s feet, making sure substantial effort is being poured into the Whitley, Hornet, Boston, Stirlings, HP 0/400, HP42 etc. you name it. Then the whole thing would be more balanced.

Just my view

Cees

Me too, must be a European thing:p

cees

IIRC some Dutch Spitfires were used as decoys on airfields ( Eindhoven being one) until the late fifties and then scrapped. Mk XIV MT853 was used as target practise on the Harskamp gunnery range and then scrapped (when I was in the Army and frequently visited there, I tried to find any remains of it).
Weren’t some scrapped in the early sixties in Britain?
Cheers

Cees

No matter you experience over the last 20? years, this comment shows a breathtaking arrogance.

Well it is not intended as such, thanks to the emoticons.;)

Cees

Absolutely right, it is understandable his view, but without wanting to reignite the endless debate on is it archaeology or not blah blah blah It is not archaeology.

I wouldnt give up on it, I think you will find it’s probably due to a lack of involvement on his part in this sphere, rather than his Amour Propre

Exactly!

Cees

OK James my 20 years experience in wreckrecovery/aviation archaeology isn’t much but it’ll do.:D

Of course there is a reason for my snibby remark about “proper” archaeologists and that is the constant battle about what is archaeology and what is not, that has been discussed before. The disagreement between archaeologists who have followed a “proper” study and those who have “studied” in their spare time gathering information and skills to pusue a serious hobby (I would prefer to leave out the wreckhunters who only are in for it to get cash)

But I digress, whatever it is called, it doesn’t matter, it’s more the view “proper” archaeologists have on us “wreckologists/wreckrecoverers/dare I say it aviation archaeologists” see earlier topics on this forum.

what matters is what is being done.

Question: why going to such lenghts as applying for a license to dig and ask permission from the landowner and then wait what the County Archeologist has to say? If he says no then walk away? Waste of time if you ask me.

If a potential important “proper” archaeology is on site then applying for a license would be pointless in the first place.

Just my point of view.
Cheers

Cees

Who cares what he thinks? :rolleyes:

You have a license and permission from the landowner, so go for it. This topic has been discussed recently.
Or do you wish to recover this aircraft using a teaspoon over a period of months?

Cheers
Cees

It was indeed involved in a fatal accident but the damaged airframe was recovered to the UK and is now being converted into the first Tr.16 as G-PBIX for Pemberton-Billing LLC by Airframe Assemblies at Sandown

Excuse me for a bit of side-tracking but when can we expect the updated version of FlyPast’ favourite aircraft type survivors book?

Need me fix:cool:

Cheers

Cees