Didn’t really know I had to own one to participate on this forum. So no, I don’t have one. But, keeping in line with your reasoning, what about yours, had it for long?
T J

Haven’t got a Mustang but I do actually have 6 aircraft ranging from modern to warbird matey.

I dont think anyone will doubt the fact that it will be a beutifull example of a P51 and a beutifull example of Mr H’s fantastic work and be great to see it in the air. I think the problem is when you try to say that it is a particular A/C with combat history that was shot down in combat. It may well contain bits of said A/C but it clearly is not that A/C. I rearly dont see the point in trying to do it! It will be a fantastic aeroplane in its own right and be great to see another P51 gracing the skies, be thankfull there are people like Mr H who is prepared to spend his time and hard earned cash on such projects, as for the rest of the crap bandied about on here, who gives a f***!!!! as long as another beautifull A/C takes to the air.

Agree with the sentiment in the last line, I think the point is the CAA needs an identity, lets face it, a few of the Spitfires flying today are new aircraft with a few original bits in. Maybe its the spirit of the original aircraft!

can someone shed any light on the spitfire lost at woodford, is it being restored and if so will it be registered as the same aircraft.

Last I had heard the Spit 14 was progressing well and was looking like an aeroplane again.

Don’t let the sad purists get you down Y11F, I’m sure when MH has finished his latest project it will be every inch a P51 and as immaculate as Janie, the T6 and the rest he has rebuilt.

And you always send the form off the very day you sign it?

Fair enough.

Moggy

Yes.

Direct quote from LASORS 2005

‘If intending to revalidate by flying experience, the Certificate of Revalidation must be signed before the expiry date of the previous rating has passed otherwise the SEP/TMG rating renewal requirements of F1.5 will apply.’

The CAA are VERY clear on this point at all the examiner seminars I’ve attended and the form was introduced to stop cowboys backdating.

A certain Harvard mark 4 known to you in an open sided outhouse in deepest North Norfolk and a mint condition Spitfire reflector gunsight in a run down shed complete with transport box given for nothing by the owner of the shed.

If it’s in a museum we’ve lost it anyway.

Moggy

Correct. Just being in a museum doesn’t make them safe. How many large static aircraft have been scrapped out of museums in the last few years? I know of a couple. The sight of the Victor and Shackelton at Duxford always makes me a bit sad, they look like heaps of junk that have no attention given to them at all. Compare them to XH558 which is being looked after with a view to fly (please don’t start the it will/wont argument!).

“Just out of interest, which aircraft do you currently have custody of and throw hard earned cash at?”

Don’t know what difference it should make to the debate but I am neither an owner or custodian of any aircraft!

Why I feel qualified to contribute to this debate is that I “throw hard earned cash at” a number of classic and rare motorcycles.

I do, however, get all of my riding enjoyment out of the more popular machines I “own”.

The VERY rare ones I keep well-maintained and displayed, yet as true to their “as-built” condition, rather than risking exposing them to some “sorry I didn’t see you mate” type in a Volvo.

I therefore feel, very passionately, that these rare machines are NOT mine to own, but that I am merely helping a particular marque of machine to be around for a longer time than it might if I don’t do my small part in its preservation.

Skipper

Interesting point of view, I think when my machine reaches the end of its expensive rebuild I’ll keep her flying rather than moulding away in a hangar though.