There will be an interesting discussion with a certain UK beer maker if this is true.
Take a look at:
As far as i know, the airspace building is being built around the original superhangar then they are going to dismantle it, so i would have thought they will remove the green doors before long. I think the hangar space will only be slightly bigger, just more space at the sides for exhibitions e.t.c. and more aircraft crammed in.
Not exactly – much of the original hangar 1 structure will remain, with extensions to both sides and the front (this is why the old doors are ‘within’ the building now). The entire building will then be re-clad.
The “plastic” that is being applied to the north end of the building – Is this the the permanent wall or just weather protection?
Are the green doors from hangar 1 staying in place? It seems a bit silly if they are because this great new space that they claim is being created will technically be the same hangar space as the previous hangar one and a bit shut off for the restoration side…Cheers!
The blue plastic is a vapour check membrane that will be covered by the external cladding.
The doors will remain in the old position.
Is it airworthy, who owns it and will it ever fly again?
I am told it has had its engines run very recently and moved under power (but not flown yet).
Thanks for that – will tune in.
You are welcome Roobarb – nice to be called an official ’roundel spotting ace’ at last! I also note the correct shade of roundel blue was used for once.
It will be nice to see RW386 in the light of day again soon, although she did not seem to have suffered inside the metal box for all those years
Very nicely done – including the correctly placed fuselage roundel (further forward compared with a high back Spitfire) which results in the first letter of the squadron code being painted across the cockpit door.
That doesn’t seem like very gentle taxiing to me, but what do I know.
The ‘taxiing’ footage looks to me more like a quick edit to the roundout from the landing but filmed from the opposite side (the background scenery is different).
Yep I remember it, it was a very good supplement. We have included TE184 as airworthy, rather than resting as it flew into Duxford not so long ago. 😉
It did indeed but ‘airworthy/resting’ may now be a more accurate description.
Mark 12, I never thought I would hear you say that 😉
I believe the chap who wrote that supplement to Flypast, Spitfires on the Wing, a three years back, had problems defining an airworthy Spitfire.
I agree this is the most problematic part of the excercise. The chap that wrote the supplement was Peter Arnold I recall, you may have met him. He decided to sub-divide the term ‘airworthy’ in to different catergories and I think this was a good idea. However since then some of the aircraft in the airworthy/resting catergory (for example NH238) have not been active in over fourteen years and their inclusion as true airworthy examples may now have to be reviewed simply due to the passing of time requiring increasingly more effort and time to return an aircraft to flight.
So if the San Diego Aerospace museum was not reopened to the public, what is this?
http://www.aerospacemuseum.org/
It referred to the fact that the original building did not re-open.
On your points Mark V- it’s interesting to use your definition of a ‘total loss’ because very few historic aircraft are ‘lost’ as such these days.
Thats why I wrote it. Most of the total losses have been in museum fires. Flying accidents do not consistently result in such a 100% loss.
Rich, you may be advised to start a new thread on this as this one really concerns a request for information on the Duxford airshow in September.