A Harrier is a bird that hovers.
So is a Kestrel.
However, it has never been emprirically shown that male deer (linked in this cse to Kestrels) can hover.

D-Day recognition markings on that Mossie?
Here’s another superlative medium bomber in D-Day stripes. Again, no longer with us, but this one’s merely crossed the pond…

[Legends 2009]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_in_fiction#Avro_Vulcan

1. The earliest Hurricane Is had the 2-blade Watts wooden prop. They were then generally re-equipped with the DH 2-pitch three-blade metal one, then the Rotol variable-pitch one from 1940. During the Battle of Britain, if I remember, there was a long period where both types could be seen on serving Hurricanes, as the Rotol units were in rather short supply. As far as I know all Hurricanes from Mk II onward had the Rotol prop.

2.I believe that they carried both depending on the individual aircraft; I have certainly seen pictures of early Sea Hurricane Is with the DH units, even as late as 1942. However I believe as with the land Hurris, the Sea Hurricanes from the Mk II onwards had the Rotol prop.

3. Can’t help you on that one I’m afraid! If it’s anything like their Spit Vc I imagine it’s history and identity are a little murky.

4. The Hurricane IV had a “Universal” wing as with the Spitfire VC, which could theoretically be fitted with any of the types of armament available to the Mk.II. That is, bombs, 4x 20mm cannons, 12 machine guns, or 2x 40mm cannons (like the IID). I believe that it was also the only version stressed to carry rocket projectiles. I suppose, then, that all the difference is in the wing structure and alyout.

5/6. In short, I doubt it, but that’s just what I can tell from the following thread that seems to be the most recent one on the subject of Weeks’s
EJ693:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=105307&highlight=Tempest+Weeks
From what I have heard the Sabre engine provides an almost insurmountable problem to restore to running condition due to acute lack of parts and its enormous complexity.

There is also this, which is relatively up-to date with its reports.
http://www.hawkertempest.se/EJ693.htm

As for the other Tempests: this one (Mk. II MW810) appears to be making progress Stateside:
http://www.ezellaviation.com/tempest.html

Noit so sure about this one (Mk.II MW763):
http://www.hawkertempest.se/MW763.htm

It seems to me that much of the problem with duplication is due to the rather haphazard way in which aircraft have been preserved in this country. Some aircraft have been preserved well because they have been “lucky”: wasn’t the Vampire T11 prevalent in the nascent collections of the ’60s because it was small, relatively simple, and coming out of service in large numbers at that time? Then you have the odd NATO disposal policies that landed us with excessive numbers of Mysteres, T33s, etc. Keen to play their part (and with the best possible intentions) the enthusiasts of the day bought whatever they could afford. In many cases, they went for the aircraft that what required the least work work or money to aquire, transport, accommodate, and maintain; weren’t affected by disposal restrictions and had interesting histories. Therefore we have plenty of Hunters, Vampires, etc and almost no Valiants, precious few Phantoms and Swifts, etc etc.
Then by contrast, some much more significant airframes have survived merely by somebody of greater means and influence taking a shine to them, for example the protoype Mosquito, Just Jane or the trials Canberra at Newark.

Not quite sure if I’ve made it very well, but I think my point is that the duplication of our collections (and the gaps) and perhaps the tendency for “reckless” aquisiton is an artefact of the rather random way in which our heritage has been preserved, and the actions of well-meaning individuals at the start of the era of preservation.

I went on a short trip in a PA28 from Filton this summer (July-August, IIRC) with a university friend who has a PPL. We were allowed to take a peek into the RR hangar, and I had a good look at RM689. Now, I’m no expert on restoration, but I’d say she’s well over 50% of the way there. The fuselage and wings were primed and in jigs, and the engine was in the fuselage. Major sub-assemblies like the prop, u/c etc appeared to be overhauled and ready to go back in. It appeared that the major work was putting electrical and hydraluic systems back in, and re-assembly of the cockpit. Curiously, I didn’t see the Mk. 19, but the two-seater SM520 was there too along with a P-51D.