There seems to be alot of sealant on it – possibly a droptank? The only other areas of a Canberra with curvature like that would be the tail, just forward of the tailplane, or the engine nacelles.

My guess is cranberry wing tip tank.

As has been said, I have looked into the feasibility of building a full scale replica (static) of a whirly for some time. I have amassed over 200 photographs, cockpit shots, a few drawings, and several other paperwork items. However, the cost will be staggering, and that is what is holding me back. I have enough decent drawings to make the rear fuselage including the tail, a good external reproduction of the forward fuselage, and with a bit of guesswork, the wings too. The main problem areas are the undercarriage units, the spars, and the engines. Kestrels would do, given the dimensions and the shape of the cowlings.

The entire aircraft would have to be made from scratch as the parts which do exist are in private hands. Perhaps if a project was started and became focussed and captured the public’;s imagination, then MAYBE some of these parts would be included.

I know of two complete aircraft in the UK…. well as complete as they could be having dived into peat bogs 60 years ago. Mag alloy was used throughout, so it is pointless digging for the wrecks even if you could get heavy machinery to their locations.

In conclusion, unless I win the lottery or find a very generous benefactor, (or persuade my boss he really wants to let me build one at work) then I’m afraid you will have the same chance of seeing a Whirlwind in my workshop in the next 10 years than you do of seeing a Stirling in Chinese markings…………..

coat, door, etc.:D

The Google earth download is linked to the NORAD site too – with GE and Noradsanta running it is possible to get an accurate fix on the rouge-attired fat fellah. GE updates every 20 seconds or so…:D

RAF Fylingdales is also helping in the tracking, and has a link to NORADSANTA on its website.

Nothing to worry about – there are plenty of styles, mediums and subjects to go around. Have you seen the galleries of the Guild of Aviation Artists? – and they are just hand applied media!

e-hangar is good, but alot of the big names don’t go there (or rather don’t post there). There is no shortage of buyers either. There will always be someone who once worked on an aircraft and want a picture of it. Private commissions are generally not publicised by the artist, and yet contribute to the majority of his sales. Its a big market, and appears to be expanding!

Its not some random American base… its NORAD!

http://www.noradsanta.org/

all credit there I think.:D

Here’s a question:

Given the detailed information given on the website, and the 360 degree views available, does it make you more or less likely to want to go and see the museum? Having seen what is on site, had a virtual tour of the hangars, been given the histories of the aircraft, etc…is there any point going?

I must hasten to add that Newark is a great museum and is well worth a visit.

My question is a generic one. Can you put too much information on your web site and actually give people a reason to not visit?….:confused:

1: CR42
2: Can’t remember
3: I-15