I have posted my views before and agree pretty much with Bruce.
I think it is reasonable that the provenance and the extent to which an aircraft is new build is documented for future purchasers so that everyone knows what they are buying but we have to accept that nothing can be composed entirely of the original parts which left the factory decades ago.
In theory the car world adopts similar practices although there are some cars around with rather dicey provenances and there are currently debates about some cars which acheive lap speeds far over those possible in their heyday thanks to modern bits inside old engines ( a practice which shouldn’t, in my view, be allowed where the sole aim of the new bits is to increase power output to the huge detriment of originality) but having said that there is rather less chance of someone recovering the remains of a long lost Ferrari or Jaguar D type from the Russian tundra or the bottom of a lake so maybe the car owners have an easier time monitoring the provenance of their pride and joy..

Just looked at the dispaly list and would love to go again but a hernia op last week means I can’t even make the end of the road at the moment. Pleasure flights in a JU52 or AN-2 and the Caudron Racer from the states have got to be the icing on the cake.
The owner of the Caudron was hoping to come to the UK and was planning an appearance at Old warden so lets hope that happens.

I have been with AOL since I first got internet about 4 years ago. everything was fine at first but ever since AOL was sold by the original owners the service has been pretty naf. Their revised software crashed my computer so badly on two occassions that I had to get a computer shop to rebuild windows for me at £80 a time. the only compensation I got from AOL was a reduction in my monthly fee when I asked for my migration code so that I could leave. After a few months they reduced my level of service to the level everyone else gets that pays the reduced fee so my compensation was almost non-existent.
If it weren’t for the fact that changing provider seems to be fraught with problems and can involve some time with no service at all I would take my custom elsewhere tomorrow.

You have some great models there. I have a great interest in all air racers ( unlimiteds, goodyear/Formula One and pre war) and accumulated a fair number of kits in varying scales but have landed up buying diecasts as my eyesight isn’t good enough now to make kits to a decent standard.

Don’t know if they use the same method for The FE2 but years ago the Gunbus replica G-ATVP was at Southend to do some filming for Candid Camera and they had a sort of sock with a rope on it that they put over the end of one pop blade and pulled the engine over from outside the cage of rear struts. It looked the safest way of doing it but on that particular day the engine was very reluctant to start so a lot of climbing in and out all the struts and rigging was needed.
The FE2 looks superb – now if only the second one could find its way over here. I am sure it could be found a good home possibly in the Biggleswade area?

Another web search for Portsmouth airport turned up a site which says that wet grass had caused several accidents culminating in the two involving the Channel Airways 748s and that as a result operating restrictions were placed on the runway which meant it was difficult to operate viable services from there. As a result in 1971 the council decided to close the airport as it was making a loss (reported to be £9000 for 1970).
It does seem to be fair comment that the accidents were the catalyst which led to closure. I am pretty sure that Portsmouth had a reputation for being boggy and if the council had invested in a paved runway then it would have continued to be viable.
After the loss of the 748s I think Channel may have continued services into Portsmouth using Herons. Channel did try some innovative routes particularly within the UK and from what I remember they had mixed success. I always thought that the main problem which beset Channel was the anti jet lobby at Southend. In the 60s it was planned to lengthen 33/15 to take jets and Channel was going to operate BAC 111 and Tridents from the airport. The plans included major work to move or lower Warners Bridge which goes over the railway but it did mean that the approach and take off paths were over the less heavily populated areas of the town.
Thanks to some rather short sighted money grabbing a few years ago whcih led to the closure of 33/15 to sell off land for a trading estate the current expansion plans at Southend have to focus on extending or removing approach obstacles for 06/24 which has flight paths over the main population areas. Needless to say there is currently a heavy anti aircraft lobby doing their bit to halt the plans but amazingly none of their letters in the local press have acknowledged that it is only thanks to the 60s anti jet lobby that the airport is forced to develop what could be viewed as the wrong runway.
Just maybe if the 60s expansion plans had gone ahead we would still have Channel Airways together with a thriving airport and a great deal more employment for the area.

Jamie This isn’t the original newspaper report but it does give the full story of the enquiry. The first two scans are top and bottom of the same page.

The newspaper has almost disintegrated after 40 odd years but if you want better scans please send me a PM and I will try to help. I have also put all 3 scans in an album on the forum. If you click on my user name you can access the album and I think it will be easier to read the text from there.

Thanks Roger. Am I right in thinking that the Bleriot is now hung from the roof at MAM. I am pretty sure it was hung when I came to a Rochdale Owners Club AGM at the museum a couple of years ago.