I don’t know the history of the robot but will check to see if it is mentioned in the museum newsletters when I get a chance to go through them. As far as I remember it was acquired because it was thought it would be an attraction for children.
As far as a tribute site goes there are others here who have been talking about the possiibility of a book of some kingd although this isn’t likely to move anywhere for some time. The museum was the first purpose built commercial aviation museum in the UK. It was a great shame that it foundered and left many people who had put in an awful lot of work feeling that they had been short changed in terms of broken promises etc.

Great to see this saved. I have always thought that the Olympia is a particularly pretty glider and it would have been sacrilege to burn this one.
I think one of the main reasons that older gliders don’t get saved is because few are aware that there are cheap (albeit rough) ones out there.
I hadn’t realised that it was possible to buy a restorable glider for a few hundred pounds. I know it would still take more money and a lot of work to get one back in the air but the costs and work involved are probably more viable for those of us on lower incomes than the costs of a powered project.
My understanding is that with help and guidance from suitably experienced club members it is possible to do much of the work on a glider yourself.
Is this the case or am I oversimplifying things?

On a serious note the Panton Brothers have done a fantastic job with Just Jane and I appreciate the atmosphere and attraction of the taxy runs but it would be great to see her in the air again. The only reservation i have is a concern that there may not be sufficient demand for a 2nd Lancaster on the UK / European display work to provide any kind of income to help maintain her in flying condition.
I understood that the BBMF makes no charge for display appearances. Although they carefully select the displays they attend they do seem to cover most of the larger events which are likely to have the kind of budget to pay for a Lanc to appear. If I am right in thinking that the BBMF do not charge are there enough organisers out there who can’t get PA474 and will pay a viable rate (I know that the charges for a warbird display never covers the true operating costs) to have NX611 instead.

The problem with XB259 was that the Beverley had never been certified for civilian use (although one carried G-AOEI? at one time) so the cost of getting a civil C of A for XB259 was prohibitive. I think they also overcame the early problems with the Tristar engines so Court Line had less need of an aircraft able to ferry spare engines around.
I feared the worst would happen when she sat for so long at Luton and it is ironic that the sole survivor is the airframe that 35 years ago looked to have the most uncertain future of the 3 aircraft that were around then.

You are a lucky man. I would love a ride in WJ288 after all these years.
When I worked at the Southend Museum, in the early days, the cockpit of the Beverley was always manned when it was open. I spent many days sitting up there often in the blazing sun while the public looked her over.
The advantage of an attendant in the Beverley cockpit was that it was a great vantage point for keeping an eye on the rest of the outdoor exhibits as well. Sometime later it was decided that an attendant was not needed in the Beverley probably to cut costs. As a result the Beverley cockpit was wrecked, some idiot jumped on the wings of Gemini G-AKGD and the fabric on the belly of Anson G-AGPG was slashed. The vandalism spelt the end of G-AKGD which had already been suffering from glue rot and very nearly finished off the Anson as well.
It was a very ill conceived cost cutting exercise as the costs of repairing the damage to the outdoor exhibits would have been huge and their scruffy state after the vandalism couldn’t have done much for the overall image of the museum either. Yet another example of the management skills of the second curator!
By the way the Southend Beverley was XB261 which had I believe had spent her entire flying life with the A&AEE at Boscombe Down. The Beverley at Fort Paull is XB259 which spent her entire career at Farnborough. Strange that neither of the last two survivors ever saw normal RAF service!

Trumper as a follow on top your discussion with MKV.
As Mark V has said while it is feasible to run airworthy engines in a taxiable airframe it is a huge amount of work to fit one engine into any airframe and four would be an absolutely massive task.
It is cheaper to fit engines into a testbed like that used by Retrotec simply because it takes far less man hours than fitting to an airframe.
It also must be far easier to flush all the systems on a testbed to ensure that all the oil and coolant is completely clean reducing the risk of damage to an expensive newly rebuilt unit. Think of the problems Sally B has encountered this year which at least in part may have been caused by a problem with a complicated and in places very inaccessible oil system.
I know that a testbed doesn’t allow all 4 engines to be run together but I don’t see this as an issue as the object of ground running is to ensure that each engine is Ok. If each unit is OK then running them all together in one airframe should be perfectly OK unless there is a problem with the systems in the aircraft itself and I am sure all restorers run checks to find any systems problems well before they risk running a newly built engine in the airframe.

My comments weren’t specifically aimed at the original poster they were just intended to add to the general discussion.
If the original poster had told us all where he lives it may well be that some of the pilots who are forum members could have offered an explanation for the low flying in his area. He also didn’t specify what he meant by low flying. My idea of low flying is below 100ft because I equate low flying with air displays. In terms of a light aircraft on a routine cross country flight I would imagine the definition of low flying would probably equate to below 1000 feet or so (again I could be wrong).
If these aircraft are flying low then presumerably the poster can read their registration letters and then write to his nearest airfield who will firstly be able to confirm that they operate from that airfield and secondly they may be able to offer an explanation for the flight levels used in his area.
I am sure no pilot purposely flies low with the deliberate aim of causing a nuisance to those on the ground. If the original poster feels he has a genuine complaint then he now has a starting point to try to resolve the problem or at least try to understand the problem.
Incidentally I used to ride off road motorcycles. I hear plenty of them around where I live now. The noise doesn’t bother me unduly but the fact that they are being ridden illegally in places where they damage the sea wall and a local site of special scienctific interest does concern me. I am also concerned that their actions damage the hobby of people like myself who have ridden legitimately in organised competitions and now find that thanks to the actions of people who ride in prohibited areas we are unable to secure land to hold legitimate competitions. In these circumsytances I am happy to do anything I can to see those who ride on the wrong places prosecuted.