There is such a thing as preservation (not restoration), it need not decay (any more than any other item, flying or not). It is not the fear of crumping that makes me come down firmly in the preservation camp, it is the complete replacement of the majority of the parts. Yes, I enjoy watching ‘trigger’s brooms’ flying, but I don’t want to destroy too many artefacts to make more.

In terms of economics, would there be much profit in making a flyer to carry this one’s plates? It will be an expensive process. I don’t know the answer, it’s a genuine question, not a rhetorical one!

Edit, I hadn’t seen Meddle’s post when I wrote this, apologies for the slight repetition)

Some perspective is necessary. A brownfield site might be a former colliery, car plant, shipyard, railway marshalling yard. There are industrial archaeologists, old car enthusiasts, ship nerds and railway enthusiasts who would get as upset as we are about airfields. In the grand scheme of things there is nothing special that separates airfields out as the ‘last’ resort where other options have been considered.
The decline in aircraft manufacturing – it is only an aspect of the decline in manufacturing generally in the failed service-economy experiment. No-one is picking on aviation in particular.

Uh? An aeroplane enthusiast complaining about having heard of an aeroplane?

Actually, I am extremely angry. I have heard of a Buckmaster! It should have been more obscure! Grrr! I’m going to burn all my volumes of Janes. That’ll show it!

Wow – told you Glenn, there’s always someone on here who knows!

I reckon there wasn’t a K9460 (or rather, that wasn’t a Spitfire – Fairey Battle?), and that entry for 2/9 should have read R9460, making it three sorties in that aircraft.

That one correlation between your work and Gerry’s list, RF-Q / K9940, was a ‘personal aircraft’ of another pilot, Thomas Elsdon – http://www.cieldegloire.com/002_raf_elsdon_t_a_f.php

It might be tedious to describe in the newsletter the mundane details of labourious and painstaking progress. We have completed a new set of manufacturing drawings for the rear fuselage. The materials are all purchased and ready. Mike is putting together templates for cutting but as you would expect there is a back and forth dialogue about areas that need further information before too much metal is cut. We want to get this right. Currently the focus is on an area around the radio hatch where the frame 10 strengthener extends around the aperture.

I am sure there’ll be lots of images of progress when it is more material than design work. But please be assured, it is happening!

Anson fuselages seem fairly common, and nicely modular being tubular frames, so one can be put together from several sources.

The hard bit is the original (wooden) Mk.I wing. It would surely have to be re-manufactured from scratch. Or would the plan be to repeat the New Zealand idea and use the later metal wing?

Just tried to get my head around this in terms of how it would apply.. http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP659.PDF

I think it means if it is to carry more than three passengers it would need all the drawings. Otherwise might get away with it based upon CAA inspection and approval.