Some (all?) were supplied as -7B standard with the four cannon solid nose, 204 at Cosford included.
Wiki (which seems quite goofd on the Neptune) suggests 15 were built and supplied to Holland, 204 was converted to glass nose in late 1962.
Answered my own questions really!
unsure as to why the cannon was specified, big old bird for strafing!

I think you have a typo about the Atlantic, the Dutch received them from 1972, they did equip 320 Sqn.

I phoned them this morning, and have an email request in with them, however it seems they may not have anyting to do with the Cat disposal.

Also Mark has put across well what I’m getting at, one mans ‘destruction be excavator’ could be someone elses badly taken apart for transportation – a long shot I know.

The sellers website for the Buccaneer is here, http://www.mckays.ie/category/weston/
Description mentions engines removed, however pics show them still installed.
It appears the very nice Beech 18 (G-BSZC) is at the same location and up for sale as well, hope it has a good future.

WB556, I think the transportation costs are going to be way more than just a couple of wagons, road permissions, police, escort work, and ferry costs will all have to be considered, I do hope you pull something off with this though.

BTW do we actually know that the Catalina has been properly scrapped, and not just cut for transportation? I can’t find confirmation anywhere.

This isn’t a direct answer to your question, but an experience of mine,

About four years ago I got involved in purchasing an airframe from DSA (Disposals Services Authority who dispose of equipment for the MoD) they were also involved with the mass selling off of equipment on the same site and were visiting in relation to that, which meant I got to meet them and ask some questions to some high up staff (who were very nice) within the agency – this wasn’t long after the mass disposal of Jaguars.
From the conversation, it soon became apparent that the idea of all airframes/equipment beaing available for anyone to bid on is a false one, they are entitled to discharge items directly to their preferred bidders, and indeed was the preferred route.

This can mean that an airframe may go to a preferred contractor, rather than sell for less money to say a museum, or for more money to a private individual. When pushed on rare items that may still be in the system and up for disposal, it was actually quoted to me that if a Merlin engine was sold, it could as likely go for scrap than be sold to an individual.
The given reason behind this is simplicity, one scenerio is that an aircraft is actually just part of a larger lot of other equipment, the one preferred bidder is trusted to put in a price for the lot, and turn up on site and remove the whole lot.
The same is true for single airframes, the DSA knows the preffered bidder will come on to a station with the minimum of fuss, remove the airframe and go, where as unknown Joe Bloggs (who might have bid more) may come on to site with a Mondeo and a trailer, seeking local assisstance with disassembly and removal, and possibly leaving a mess behind.

So in simple terms, some airframes may never become publicaly available through DSA (or Edisposals), but be offered directly to the preferred contractor.
The item may never get a chance to be offered to a museum, or indeed the highest bidder.
How the choice to dipose of directly, or by open tender is made is unclear to me.

This was four years ago, things might be different now, but from my observations things are the same.

The problem with the Bucc is that there are plenty of those preserved on the UK mainland, so someone would really want it to bear the unnavoidably high transportation costs.

Trouble is its alright being an armchair preservationist, but if they had said if you want it come and get and I want it off the premises in a weeks time. How many people would actually have moved to save it?

I hate that ‘armchair enthusiast’ stance, many on here are very actively involved with aircraft preservation to varying degrees, usually within the means possible to them. Others cannot do much for various genuine reasons.
Because we can’t all second guess the owners wishes, and spirit away a Catalina on our properties doesn’t mean we can’t comment on a situation – indeed the forum would be a pretty baron place if that was so!

What can occur is that people here with the can do approach might have been able to take action (such as the case with the Percival Prince), or even collectively and by donation in the case of the HS748.

Especially when you consider there are still around 23 still flying, and another
50 or so on display, or in various states of preservation around the world.
I’m sure the owners of the aircraft must have weighed up the various options ?

How many Catalinas are there in British museums representing the truely remarkable work they performed with Coastal Command?

If this Cat was scrapped it is pretty sad news, whichever way you slice it.

I know it shouldn’t, but it amazes me the types that still get scrapped, surely this could have been a fitting exhibit in an RAF Coastal Command scheme for any museum?
On more selfish grounds, it would make a fine cockpit project!

BTW, looking at the pic again, do we know it was scrapped, or possibly cut for transportation?

Well if b/w is your thing here it is a higher res and less contrast. 🙂

Nice! I think it can be overlooked how good a quality some wartime B&W images actually were, however replicating the ‘black’ of the yellow roundel ring effect of orthocromatic film is something else!