Ok thanks for that Mark V.Look forward to end of the recession eh?:)

Indeed – hopefully both will happen…. 🙂

Spitfires buried in Burma? With Lord Lucan, Elvis and Martin Borman. Yeah right…..

You know otherwise then?

Agree with Melv- it was a lack of a seat in the Stoke Spitfire 16 rather than ‘health and safety’ that prevented Mr Carter from gaining entry to the cockpit. Very pleased that he has got back in the air in a Spitfire courtesy of Matt and Ratts, well done chaps!

Maybe the 109 was part of the deal that let Meier have his spitfire VIII?

Mark – the Spitfire VIII is not owned by the Meier brothers, they maintain it!

This cannot be that difficult, giving that all the airworthy UK based Hurricanes are accounted for, (and not a recent Hawker restoration) and giving there’s only a limited amount of other airworthy Hurricanes, it is likely to be AE977

Given that we are told this aircraft is airworthy and has recenty arrived from abroad (and there are currently six foreign based Hurricanes), AE977 is the only candidate and colour scheme fits. Russell Group aircraft has opposite pattern camouflage, Jerry Yagens is in his museum at Va, AFC’s has its fin flash on the rudder, Mr Allen’s it is not…. nor is it Mr Potter’s (wrong scheme).

Indeed; I think we can stretch the point to say that anything built to original plans, and to the same specification as the original is indeed a replica.

Indeed, but its also perceived that a ‘Spitfire Mk.26’ is a ‘replica’ too. Maybe we need to come up with some other term for these ‘lookalike’ aircraft – particularly as some look more alike than others….

As stated before. I do not wish to be personal and I respect other’s opinions, BUT those opinions MUST be based on fact, not on surmise. I think that here we have a few(no disparagement meant whatsoever) “Anoraks” which (in my opinion) is an “armchair” expert, who’s stated “opinion ” if more often than not, misinformed and without practical experience. By that I mean claims of non authenticity of colours parts, remains, etc. etc. by some who’s only link with the pacticalities of aircraft are solely restricted to “book learning” and the internet and have never, nor probably will never have a toolbox and scarred hands from working on real proper FLYING AIRCRAFT. Nor, I hazard, have they owned or operated such a beast.

Stan – I completely agree with the first part of you post but take issue with the implied notion that in order to have a valid opinion you need to own, work on or restore historic aircraft. There are many noted historians and researchers that bring a great deal to the table of our understanding of historic aircraft and never ‘turn a wrench’ on a live machine! It does not seem right to me to apply such qualifications before their work and opinions, whether based on research (or reading/observation) can taken seriously.