So is this the same restorer that David Burke mentioned who had mislaid it or is it still mislaid by someone else?
Must be wonderful to have a big enough property or enough stuff to “mislay” something like that.

I was told by a then employee that an enthusiastic collector of classic cars mislaid one of his collection in the mid 80’s. They were all in running order but were kept at several different locations and one car appeared to have gone missing. I never did get to hear if they managed to find it again.

I hadn’t seen the original thread beofre. It is great to read such a vivid and honest account of a misha[p that could hav had tragic consequences both for the “pilot” and potentially people on the ground as well.

Good to see you have such a great spares holding and are putting some of it to good use.
I had hoped to visit as the Guild of Aviation artists had a trip to MAM a couple of weeks ago and I was going along for the ride ( I can’t draw and have just about got the hang of pointing a camera). We had persuaded the driver that a diversion to Aribase and 963 was a good option but in the end 2 of us were so short of money that we didn’t make the trip. Next time – hopefully!

You could argue that any offensive military aircraft has the same potential, the sole purpose of a Lanc, Halifax or Sunderland was to destroy or kill.

I fully expected someone to reply along these lines and fully accept that as a valid point but the other way of looking at is that it is possible to appreciate the beauty of any aeroplane in flight regardless of its original purpose.
I suppose you can fire blanks from a gun but then it does seem that to many gun owners the sight of the destruction caused by firing the gun is as important as the gun itself.
Each to their own but owning guns is just not for me.

Sorry – never had any appeal whatsoever. To me the sole purpose of a gun is to kill someone or something. I can understand that people are in awe of their power and I can appreciate the workmanship and complexities if some of the designs but it is just not my thing.

Maybe they should do what they have done at Charles De Gaulle – roof over the M11 and reinstate the full runway (we can all have a dream!). Considering the total cost of building the M11 it seems almost penny pinching that they were unable (or unwilling?) to divert or tunnel the road to save truncating the runway in the fIrst place.

As we seem to be struggling just to pay for the groceries at the end of each week there is no way I will be taking out a subscription to watch F1 on Sky.
The Beeb have done a great job with their coverage but I don’t feel inlcined to watch half a season so it will be goodbye F1 and I will find something more constructive to do on a Sunday afternoon than sit in front of the television so in one way Sky will be doing me favour as the garden will probably land up looking loads better and the car will get cleaned more often.
I am a bit surprised that the sponsors are happy with this situation as they pay shed loads of money to put their names on the cars and the new arrangement will definitely reduce the audience so I assume the value of each car as a mobile billboard will reduce to reflective the reduced audience exposure (oh look – there goes another flying pig).
As far as I can see the losers will be the fans and the sponsors but of course there is one little man who will inevitably come out of this with an even fatter wallet but then expanding one mans wallet appears to have been the main raison d’etre for F1 for a long time now.
Of course I will still have the option of watching the BTCC coverage on ITV. The racing is more entertaining although some of the drivers do need reminding that circuit racing is meant to be a non contact sport.