That is the Birlingham collection, owned by a farmer. There used to be two Vampires, but it seems that one returned to nature. The cleanup has been very enjoyable to watch on Facebook, and some of the drone footage of the collection is stunning. A magazine (I forget which) covered the restoration recently and mentioned, somewhat prematurely, that the JP will be undertaking engine runs. Nice to see a ripple’d JP, either way, and be reminded that they weren’t all just red and white!

Finding MIA,s is something the USA strives hard for..

They went to great lengths to find the remains of John F. Kennedy Jr, but less so the NFL players Marquis Cooper and Corey Smith. Perhaps it depends on who you are!

I see a few more have come out in defense of this hobby. Perhaps it would be pertinent to read this: http://new.archaeologyuk.org/best-practice

To quote:

All archaeological discoveries have the potential to add to our knowledge, but for this to happen, any new finds must be reported and recorded so that the information they offer can be shared. Also, the place (or context) in which any find is made will yield additional knowledge, as will any materials found in association with the find.

Any disturbance of the relationship between finds and the features they relate to within the ground will result in a loss of knowledge unless it is undertaken carefully using archaeological techniques and with full recording.

Digging for objects can destroy archaeological evidence. In some parts of the country, for instance, top-soils are thin, and archaeological remains may be close to the surface. Even objects apparently adrift in plough-soil have an archaeological setting. Some items will be casual losses, but these can still add to our knowledge.

Many other items will come from archaeological sites (e.g. settlements, cemeteries, buildings) remains of which may survive under the plough-soil or nearby. The cumulative plotting of individual finds can build up into historical patterns. This is why even a single find can add to our existing knowledge.

Clearly lost on some of you, but an important point none the less. This is why I feel that simply digging random objects up (aviation-related or not), and them squirreling them away to your shed or attic, is perhaps not best practice. There seems to be a rich tradition of snaffling away any wreck material you can fit in the back of your car. Glossing over this fact by citing the one time you were able to post wreck remains off to the family of a deceased airman doesn’t cut it for me.

All very noble, if somewhat petulantly worded. I’m not against the discussion of this stuff, but it does seem to be very well represented on this forum at the moment. Going back through time, every page has two or three threads of simply ‘I have a thing and I want to know what the thing is’.

Less a place to celebrate actual whole, complete, flying aeroplanes, more of a sad, depressing hive where sad, depressed old men show off bits of scrap metal asking what part of what obscure aircraft they might have once belonged to?

Can we not have a seperate forum within Historic for Archaeology, mystery parts identification and aerojumbles?

The impression given is that most of you are obsessed in an unhealthy way over lumps of bent, oxidised metal than you are about flying restorations (or “replicas” as the sadder elements would say).

I tend to agree, minus the ageist tone. For me there is a fairly strict hierarchy of interest I apportion to all things aviation. At the top of the list has to be historic aircraft that are still airworthy. You get to see aircraft doing the job they were designed to do! Below that top tier is static complete airframes, as you still get a sense of scale and a ‘feel’ for the aircraft. On a probably-even pegging are ‘unusual visitors’, be it modern military aircraft or obscure types such as an AN-12 or P3 Orion. Unless you put the effort in you will only see these sorts of aircraft a couple of times a year, and they are usually noisy or weird enough to garner my attention. Below that is incomplete but substantial historic airframes, such as a cockpit section. Below that, on an even pegging, is civilian and general aviation. Fair play to the guys hunkered down at the perimeter fence logging every 737 and Dash 8 that passes by, but that stuff is boring to me.

Below all that, and the stuff of absolute least personal interest to me, is the fragments of scrap metal, and I agree that it should have its own sub-forum. While I would consider it interesting to find some Halifax geodetic framework or an old wheel washed up on the beach, I’m not going to be pilfering that stuff and sneaking it home. Considering the fact that a lot of high-ground wrecks are getting smaller over time, it seems odd that collectors on here apparently never loot their stuff and somehow acquire all their material by honest means. Beyond that, the context is missing on these items. Who cares if it came from a Spitfire, Seafire, Tempest or whatever? It isn’t any of those, it is a piece of tangled metal. A Spitfire executing moves at an air display is one thing, and dredged up scrap metal is another. I don’t understand the need for personal ownership here, especially when this stuff is simply getting lost in attic spaces and at the back of garages. If this stuff is important then put it in the public domain but, more reasonably, it is irrelevant scrap metal here, or a smashed up dial there. Interesting to the owner, and a small band of people beyond that.

As an aside I totally admire the dedication of those that can identify the source aircraft of some of the scrap posted on this forum given the lack of obvious visual cues.

I wouldn’t fault much of that. I’m not too Wilde about Oscar but, he probably got it right !

I don’t recall Halal abattoirs cropping up in The Picture of Dorian Gray, but I did skip a few pages towards the middle where Gray ‘experiments with every vice’, so perhaps it was somewhere in there. :applause:

I read it – it’s a piece of propaganda. CapX is edited by Robert Colvile, former head of comment at the Telegraph. Although it claims to be a straight news site, it is actually owned by the ‘Centre for Policy Studies’, an equally false-colours organisation founded by ‘Baroness’ Thatcher and Sir Keith Joseph. No, I am not being an arm-waving tinfoil hatter – look it up if you don’t believe me!

I thought we’d hit a new low when Guido Fawkes’ dreadful webpage was cited on here.

How does making tuition free favour the better off in society?

That stumped me as well. I read an article a long time ago that suggested that one needed to ‘woodshed’ for 10,000 hours or so to become good at something. The thinking was that children from more affluent areas typically excel musically, academically or at sport because they had calmer home lives with fewer adult responsibilities (getting a younger sibling dressed for school because the parents are AWOL for example). I suppose the notion is possibly that the better off are more likely to be heading to university anyway, and any lingering barriers (which probably wouldn’t arise from not being able to cough up tuition fees) are removed.

I’m torn on the issue of tuition fees. The matter could potentially quietly resolve itself if we reversed the Blairite policy of allowing vast numbers of school leavers to gain degrees. It hasn’t really helped much, beyond a piece of paper, as I know a lot of graduates doing fairly menial jobs because their identikit CVs don’t gain them any real traction in the job market. Ironically it is the graduates from affluent backgrounds, who were able to volunteer in their chosen field during holidays or ****** off and build schools in Africa, who probably have the slightly richer range of experiences on their CV when they graduate. However I’m not sure how you can reverse this policy easily. Revert red brick universities back to Polytechnics? How would you begin a task like that?

Either way, in the grand scheme of things the issue of large student loans is an issue for the loan companies and not the graduates. If half the population aged 21 to 25 owe £40k or whatever, and they are paying that off with minimal interest from their £18k salary working in retail, then that isn’t really their problem.

Interesting to see some responses, admittedly from The Metro (aka the Daily Fail but with more pictures and fewer words), that young voters don’t like Labour’s proposal to scrap tuition fees. Apparently those fresh out of Uni, saddled with £40k + debt, don’t want to see their wee brothers and sisters given a free ride. And I thought it was Baby Boomers who were supposed to be greedy and bitter.

Apropos fox hunting, beyond trying to win back the Middle English vote, perhaps it is a ploy? If Labour don’t loudly shout this one down, because they are too busy demonstrating their dyscalculia (a made up disease for folks wot can’t do numbers, John) or slowly hemorrhaging and leaking from within, then they look pretty weak! Fox hunting is your sterotypical nasty Tory issue; definitely not the preserve of the working or middle classes. If Labour dither around with this one then they look half-baked. I could simply be reading far too much into this.