An extract from Air Publication 101B-1301-1A “Hunter F Mk.6 & 6A Aircraft Servicing Manual” should help.

All depends exactly how hard it has become I suspect. It definately can become so hard over time that only meths will touch it. I have seen the results of a ‘only meths will shift it’ canopy and it was crystal clear – no crazing, wrinkling etc. at all.

Would be wise to try the “warm soapy water” first though – I presume the heat from the water will soften the latex? In theory.

Errrr Mark, the first photo on the 2008 page shows what looks alarmingly like a camouflage sheep in the foreground.

Just what do you lot get up to at CockpitFest! :diablo:

Roy, as a Welshman I take great offence at the implications of your post.:D:D:D

(P.S. His name is Gwyndaf and I take him everywhere I go.)

For what little my opinion is worth, three of us are already laying plans to attend next year with two sea hawk cockpits – one restored, one not (yet) – and the reason for the effort is to meet up with like-minded people and hopefully put faces to the e-mail and forum names of people we’ve come to know over the years. I also understand that there might be some beer there :diablo:

Excellent news Roy. Looking forward to it already! 🙂

For what it’s worth my opinions on this whole issue are as follows. These are based on attending all except the first Cockpifest and exhibiting at the past four. They’re also influenced by the comments and feedback I have seen as administrator of the International Cockpit Club website for over six years.

Firstly, I too am dismayed with the negativity of this thread. It really does not reflect the friendly, encouraging and upbeat atmosphere of Cockpitfest.

As many have said it is impossible to please everyone with an event such as this. There will always be those, obsessed with detail, who will be upset when what they perceive to be a ‘tatty’ cockpit wins a prize. There will always be those that attend fully expecting to win something and then get the hump when they don’t.

There will always be an obvious ‘readers’ winner – despite what some might say it’s always a big ‘un, a shiny one, a modern one that everyone recognises or one with a ‘gimmick’ of some sort like a simulator. I’m not complaining about that but let’s not pretend it’s not the case – that’s how it is so we just have to accept it.

Chances are, there will always be an organisation of some sort attending, whether it be the Coltishall Cockpit Collection of previous years or Boscombe Down Museum more recently. Maybe they do have an advantage in the facilities they have access to but, to be fair, they generally acknowledge that and the event would be the poorer without them. I can understand Stuart’s point though.

I have long been of the opinion that the prizes are not necessarily a good thing. Yes, they may encourage a better quality of exhibits but that’s not really the point of Cockpitfest in my view. I suspect any potential gains from the competitive element are outweighed by the risk of putting potential attendees off. This is a view held by many so should not be ignored.

I’m sure XF940 won’t mind me saying that he was discouraged from attending for several years by this very issue. I am truely delighted that he has now taken the plunge, attended and changed his view. That, in itself, proves the positive ‘vibe’ that Cockpitfest generates.

The whole issue of prizes is a double-edged sword – how many Cockpitfest ‘virgins’ would attend if the competition was removed? Equally, how many regulars wouldn’t bother if there was no chance of a reward and recognition of their work via a prize win? In the latter case I would be disappointed if the answer was anything other than zero. I love the event and have always exhibited with no expectation of a prize. And I don’t see my attitude changing any time soon.

I am also now of the view that a ‘theme’ to the event maybe not such a good idea after all. Now that’s not a dig at you Tony in any way – you managed to get new attendees to make the trip to Newark this year, an effort which is to be commended and was appreciated by all. Rather I feel that it may have the negative effect of discouraging owners of other types. Cockpitfest needs variety and the periodic injection of new ‘blood’ so we need to all we can to entice owners in.

I hope this thread doesn’t gives the impression that Cockpitfest is in some sort of crisis. That couldn’t be further from the truth. The event is still growing (witness the presence of an overseas exhibitor for the first time this year) and the atmoshere this time around was one of the best ever I thought.

Roll on Cockpitfest 2009!

P.S. thanks for your post RichyD, but admit it, it was only the free Pig and Ale that enticed you to attend wasn’t it? 😀

There is, but I dont think its a Mossie one – doesnt look quite right.

Bruce

I agree, it’s certainly not Mosquito. I think it’s Oxford.

Thanks for the welcome Peter!

I really would like to get some thoughts about the originality and also advices how to optitimize the two panels, especially the one from the Spitfire.

Jochen

It’s probably impossible to say what this BFP was actually “out of” given that it appears to have been assembled from separate parts rather than been recovered from a specific aircraft. It’s a standard blind flying panel of course so, in most cases, it’s only that ASI that will give an indication of what type it is suitable for – in this case yes, Spitfire is appropriate going by the 480 MPH ASI.

The panel itself appears to be NOS and may well have never been fitted to anything. The instruments have probably been collected and fitted to the panel later – note there are no interconnecting pitot or static pipes nor any vacuum pipes present. The DI also still has it’s blanking paper disc still in place suggesting that it too may be NOS.

The ASI, Turn and Slip, and Rate of Climb indicators have all been incorrectly fitted. Notice how they stick out of the front of the panel. They should be mounted on spacers at the rear so that their faces are flush with the front of the panel. Indeed the spacers do appear to be present, but incorrectly fitted between the instruments and their mounting nuts rather than between the instrument and the panel.