Yes they did, and it was a Cockpitfest prize-winner as I recall in 2002…or was it 2003?

Looks like another “Lancaster” morse code thingy in this collection.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/RAF-Guages-Switches-Lights-Regulators-Spares-JOB-LOT-/130393311302?cmd=ViewItem&pt=UK_CPV_Aviation_SM&hash=item1e5c0c0846#ht_1008wt_1167

Are those Hornet fuel gauges in the 4th photo? DC?

Cracking stuff Jon! Looking forward to watching this one come together. Keep up the good work.

M

Sorry to ‘pounce’ but if anyone has any photos of Pembrey (especially the mid-1950s) I’d love to see them too.

I agree with Bruce.

I say restore!

Mark

That’s the ‘universal nose’ used on the later night fighters. It looks ‘odd’ in this shot because it’s unpainted.

I had a similar thought, the port side, with the bottom of the windscreen frame still attached top left? :confused:

It’s possible but the design of the ‘windscreen frame’ looks a little odd. Having said that it’s had a battering so that may not be a good indicator.

However, I can see panel joints that are right for a Hunter and a group of four holes in the skin which match where a Hunter’s hood control box would attach.

The “Explosive Canopy” warning triangle is intriguing though. Yes, the later marks did have an explosive hood jettison system (in fact you can see the bottom of the starboard jettison gun on a couple of the other photos) but I’ve never seen an “Explosive Canopy” triangle on a Hunter only the standard “Ejection Seat” warning triangle. It’s also normally located further aft that the one in the photo – about where the jagged edge of the rear section is. So unless this particular aircraft had an additional warning triangle applied for some reason it’s a bit of mystery.

Interesting that this Hunter has clearly seen a bit of BDR action so, as a training airframe, maybe it had non-standard markings applied???

Edit: Looking again at the windscreen frame I can see that the windscreen ‘hoop’ has been completely removed right down to it’s base – so it does indeed look like a piece of Hunter. It just needs reattaching to the back part and rubbing down with a bit of wet ‘n’ dry! 🙂

Firstly study the front face of the yokes. Every Oxford yoke I have seen has the four bolts that you can plainly see in photo 1. By contrast, every Mosquito yoke I have seen has a slightly differently machined face, with the two extra metal (steel?) inserts that you can see in photo 2. I do not know what the purpose of these is, perhaps Bruce can explain it to us?

Alan, the two “inserts” you mention are the points where the lock for the brake lever bear. This lock is a small lever hinged onto the left end of the brake lever. When rotated, with the brake lever depressed, the ends of the lock lever swing towards the inserts and prevent the brake lever from returning to the unbraked position. It’s crude but effective.

It’s also a good way to tell an Oxford yoke from a Mosquito yoke. The yoke in the auction is an Oxford 2nd pilot’s yoke, i.e. right hand seat, as you will note it has the brake lever mounted to the right of the yoke and has no brake locking lever. The 1st pilot’s yoke, on the other hand, has the brake lock BUT the brake lever is mounted to the left of the yoke and thus ‘points’ the other way. It’s a mirror image of the one in the auction with the addition of a brake lock lever in other words.

Now, the Mosquito yoke is a sort of ‘merger’ of the two in that it has the brake lever mounted on the right hand side of the yoke, but also has a brake lock lever. That means that all three styles of yoke, although at first glance similar, are different from each other in respect of their brake lever and lock arrangements!

So, to cut a long story short, this is a right hand Oxford yoke!