alot of work to avoid decent frame design and stressed skin….but good use of materials given then tech……

And here is how it should look when you have finished building your own, Graham….

It took lots of matchsticks, washing up bottles, toilet rolls and sticky-backed plastic to get one looking this nice, though!

😀

Nice one there Andy!
I am surprised that you do not have a real one Graham, especially given your website. I thought you had one for sale at one time?…the late Spit grips are not that rare. I think that since the cockpit occuppant’s attention is always focussed on the grip/column then it is worth spending out on a good and real one.
Cheers

Well said gents! 🙂

My attitude has always been that any item containing a cockpit part, cockpit, or exhibit with a cockpit is welcome….Lord knows that it is a feat in itself (time, effort, money) to take a cockpit to CockpitFest…..to take a larger lump is even more impressive….Stuart, I have always loved seeing your project and feel it has every bit a right to be at the Fest as any any other item…

On a related note, my Hurricane suffers from the flip side….because it has only been seen in public in cockpit form, the recent Hurricane Salute decided it was not worthy of a mention even though it is made up of 70-85% original Hurricane material!! At least your Spitfire was mentioned in the Spit special Stu! Yes I am disappointed because lesser projects were called survivors even though they are a bag of bits!!!

Anyhoo, back on topic….be there Stu as your project has evolved with the 10 years of CockpitFest

That’s a great record Rocketeer – any idea what you might be taking along in June?

Spitfire, if I can make it (will be bloomin annoyed if I cannot)….

good stuff! 10th anniversary edition…hoping to make it my 10th participation too!

snipped. A delicate topic, and perhaps lets just leave the rest to the imagination here. However, your general supposition on this specific matter is wholly incorrect.

Totally agree Andy.

Malcolm, I do not believe this is a good road to go down on a public forum…we all have imaginations and there are many many people out there who will have been personally affected by the violent death of a loved one who would not wish to read this. Yes they have a choice of what they read, but this is emotive and is not a clinical subject.

No, I think that is earlier than I am thinking. It was certainly still there well into the nineties.

Specifically, there were two 20mm cannon from a Mosquito in the collection. We have the other two (you see where I am going with this).

I would like to find a contact so I can make some enquiries.

Bruce

It was part of the Essex Aviation Group, Peter Rushen of TFC is still part of that group, they have a smaller display on the airside part of the hangar.

And this was important in what sense? To me it just sounds like an exercise in antiquarianism.

What led you to investigate the matter in the first place? You don’t even identify the type of aircraft in this post or the name of the pilot. If you did a historian might be able to verify your claims about there being some mistaken assumptions about the aircraft like its colour. Did you have a professional archaeologist verify that your excavation methods would ensure that you would not miss significant data? Have you published it so that qualified people can review and comment?

As to having established the “Exact trajectory of the aircraft“? – do we take your word or is there verifiable data to support this statement and why is that important?

Those are the sort of questions even the most inexperienced professional would ask.

Mmmmm Malcolm! I did not quite expect this kind of hostile reaction! Thankyou Tangers old chap for answering some of Malcolm’s questions.
I am not adverse to hostile questioning…comes with the territory! I will answer questions that Tangers has not answered, then get back to my day job!

I did not identify the aircraft or pilot due to the fact that the dig is on going. Unfortunately, in this field, we do get problems if you publicise what you are doing too much. I may not be an archaeologist but I am a historian…or should we debate the credentials of what a makes a historian as well?! I think/hope not. I do not need a historian to confirm the assumptions…they are what they are…based on facts….Do you think I do not do any research before backing up my theories?!

The county archaeologist approved the project plan for the recovery. We have had archaeologists attend one of the sites too and were quite complimentary. As has probably been said on this thread before, digging an old aircraft requires more a degree of technical expertise in engineering to get the most out of it. Far more experienced diggers than me will be able to point out that gut feeling and experience play a big hand. Sure a professional archaeologist will help make sure nothing is missed, but they are of no use without someone with a knowledge of the aircraft and basic crash investigation. I like to think that we have adopted best practice.
Whis is trajectory important? Well it adds to the story, is it verifiable? Yes, its physiscs. Just like the colours of the aircraft, it all adds to history….it is as important to know what colour an aircraft was as it is to know what colours old Saxon pots are I would have thought?
Will we write a paper, yes when it is all finished and we can also tell the story of the pilot, the aircraft and the circumstances.

Please note that I have not rubbished your views or called into doubt your professionalism or qualifications. For some bizarre reason you have done so towards me and you do not know me…..
Anyway enuff of this….I have better things to do!