My understanding is that WWII torpedoes did have the propellers turning in flight and before they entered the water, is this incorrect then?

They had a detuner pipe let rip here, insulation and perforated metal blasted quite a way up!
Geeky question Tony, is the detuner at Brize the same design as the one above?

And I applaud people like yourself for doing so, probably doing this work for very little reward, but I don’t think we can criticise one seller for separating an aircraft, especially if we aren’t in a position to buy it whole – that was my point in the first place, the cockpit will be a more attractive proposition to more people, ie increasing the sellers chances of sale.
Just my two penneth

But how would this seller have the choice of separating a cockpit of a ‘less desirable’ version?
This is their airframe, and they obviously deemed it better to break the airframe and sell the cockpit, you never know the other bits may have even gone to help another Hunter.

One thing that troubles me with this EBay thread is that we like to sit on judgement on other peoples decisions and practices.

My thoughts aswel XF940.
There have been various whole (but tatty!) Hunters for sale with seemingly poor uptake.

Baz, maybe you should have spoke to the seller a few weeks ago, he may have gone a bit further with the saw to ensure indoors delivery and display!:D

C’mon, I like Hunters but that is just wrong David, see Demobbed here, http://www.demobbed.org.uk/aircraft.php?type=600.
There’s at least 15 F.1/2s and about 30 T.7/8s and 10 GA.11s (not bad for a sub series) in British preservation, and even without crunching numbers they seem to be in every museum that I have visited (in fact is there a resonable size museum without one?) – no other British post-war type is preserved complete in such high numbers either in the UK or overseas.
It must one of the most numerous vintage jet types flying aswel, not a bad thing at all, but I’m sure one tatty airframe being turned into a cockpit section is not really going to make a difference.

Sorry nothing against the cockpit guys but why butcher a complete aircraft if you don’t have to to make a cockpit section ??

Surely a cockpit section is a far easier thing to sell and would appeal to far more people, and will possibly make the same money as a complete airframe, the rest of the airframe might also earn a little bit in scrap aswel.
Complete examples are displayed to saturation point in museums throughout the land and there are many airworthy examples to see.
The Hunter in particular is a nice sized cockpit for a trailer and larger garage.

That Canberra is a lovely example, but agree is a bit of a swine to keep unless you are geared up for it, just wish I had the cash space, and vehicle for it!

Ok, I shall defer to your knowledge, I thought S.38/39 was the Shorts type and part no. identifyer, SA.1/2 being the SBAC type no.
Certainly feasible as Gloster seemed to have used their own type no’s on the Meteor and then the SBAC no for the Javelin.