John, not sure if you have quoted the correct serial there. The RAF had 100 Sentinels with serials as follows:

42-99487 to 42-99506
L-5
20

KJ368 to KJ387
Sentinel I

42-99549 to 42-99558
L-5
10

KJ388 to KJ397
Sentinel I

42-99539 to 42-99548
L-5
10

KJ398 to KJ407
Sentinel I

42-99591 to 42-99610
L-5B
20

KJ408 to KJ427
Sentinel II

42-99673 to 42-99689
L-5B
17

KJ428 to KJ444
Sentinel II

42-99700 to 42-99702
L-5B
03

KJ445 to KJ447
Sentinel II

44-16969 to 44-16988
L-5B
20

KJ448 to KJ467
Sentinel II

Source: Air-Britain publication “The British Air Commission and Lend-Lease”.

Note: The aircraft delivered to the British were originally allocated to the USAAF and were not part of a separate requisition, therefore these 100 aircraft should not be added to the wartime production total of 3,590 aircraft.

As far as is known, all 100 aircraft were delivered to combat units operating in the China-Burma-India (CBI) theater. Many that were not damaged beyond repair or otherwise “struck off charge” were returned to U.S. ownership after the war. A number of these aircraft were donated to the Indian, Burmese, Thai, Chinese, and Vietnamese governments, serving for some years in civiliand and government roles.

Part filmed at RAF Church Fenton when, I believe, the usual trade was Jet Provost shaped.

…and part filmed in Malta when Ruskin did a spot of illegal gun-running, supposedly to a Middle East country.

James and Brian, thanks very much for your positive posts. It’s just as I thought, a complete mess and farcical! As for ‘rubber stamps’ on the back of prints, I presume if it doesn’t have one or has been scanned and reprinted, it’s fair game! Much the same as a colour slide being remounted.
It’s pretty easy to prove a photo is yours if you have an exclusive photo opportunity and there was no one else there at the time, like an air-to-air sortie, but impossible with anything else. I’m not sure where we stand since the ‘digital revolution’ as cropping and Photoshopping can all play a part in dispelling copyright protection. A nightmare for all!

Albert, as far as I understand it the ‘rules’ given on Crown Copyright do not apply to any and all photos taken by any uniformed (or civilian) personnel with their own kit. The rules apply only to those photographs taken officially by the service photographic branch (ie, in the RAF, the Photo Section). Personal photos by all and sundry are restricted, yes, but only on a security basis, eg, we were not allowed to take photos of the QRA or nuke areas at Gielenkirchen – happened anyway!

But if Jog Bloggs takes a similar pic when on detachment or something, copyright will be his.
.

Phew, that’s a relief! Thank God common sense prevails, or I would have to recall all my books with my pics taken whilst I was in the RAF and those I have got planned!

I think I’m right in saying that this is now the only airworthy Heron left in the world? If she is to stay here and in her Jersey Airlines colours, it would be nice if the livery could be completed with ‘JERSEY AIRINES’ and the registration letters applied to the wings to make the livery complete. Apparently, I was told ‘they just never got around to doing that’.

WG774 was natural metal overall when it broke the speed record, then was painted purple around 1958. WG777 was also natural metal and I was wondering when it got painted dark blue, as it is now at Cosford, and why?
Did it ever fly in this colour, or was this a scheme applied after it was grounded and initially part of the RAF Finningly collection?:confused:

As I said, it’ll never happen in the UK.

As for insurance, how is it possible to fly Lightnings and Buccaneers in South Africa commercially? Are they uninsured?.

I am sure they are specially insured, but remember that rules and regulations overseas are different from UK

And what exactly are the CAA protecting us from? Do they think an accident is more likely when carrying passengers or that the passengers will somehow contribute to more damage on the ground?

If they are worrying about the passengers, well thanks very much but it’s their life and not yours. I would have thought that overall air safety would be better served that by ensuring the safety (in the most heavy handed way) of the one or possibly two passengers the Vulcan could carry.

The CAA inposed this rule after Don Bullock crashed the Invader at Biggin Hill in October 1980, carrying 7 passengers. It protects the liability of the display pilot, ensures no one intereferes with the controls during a display and makes it safer for the public on the ground. Anyone falling foul of this regulation risks having their display permit or even pilot’s licence revoked.

I doubt whether anyone will be able to keep these airworthy, due to finance and spares issues. I think one should go to the U.S.Naval Aviation Museum at Pensacola NAS, Fla., and be repainted back to its Navy midnite blue scheme. If the other was sold privately, perhaps it could be used as a ‘houseboat’? Just think you could be the only person to answer the question, “What’s life like on Mars”?;)