RE: Trenton Halifax Pictures

Hi ageorge,
The nose section you’re talking about is on display at the Imperial War Museum at Lambeth in London,and not with the RAFM at Hendon. I think they felt it made a good stablemate for the Lanc nose,so were unwilling to part with it.It’s also been converted as a walk-through exhibit,so grafting it onto the nose of the Elvingdon example might not be as simple as it sounds.

RE: Aircraft restoration volunteers.

Thanks Galdri,some useful advice.It’s always good to hear from people with experience in the field.I think I’m the guilty party who posted the original queery about becoming involved in restoration work.You’ll be glad to hear that I’m prepared to do other stuff apart from just working on the planes,but I think commuting to Iceland would be a bit much!
Whilst we’re on the subject,I’d like to thank all the folks who took time to reply to that previous posting of mine,something that for one reason and another I ommitted to do when the topic was ‘current’. Thank you one and all!Unfortunately I still haven’t managed to get myself in anywhere.I was thinking about volunteering at Brooklands,but it’s a more awkward commute than it looks and it works out almost the same journey time as Duxford.These are also the people who are prepared to throw an immaculate SeaVixen out into the cold,so there’s probably something wrong with them anyway! lol

RE: The Ultimate Corporate Warbird !

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 06-10-02 AT 02:31 PM (GMT)]Hi Wombat,
As far as I know,the Beaufrieghter conversions were derived from Beauforts rather than Beaufighters.A corporate Beaufighter wouldn’t be such a bad idea though! 🙂
Attachments:

RE: Lancaster

Hi folks,
I think the main reason why we don’t see/won’t be seeing any of these reproduction Warbirds in the UK is becasue of CAA legislation.It is certainly the case with Flug Werke 190’s that they would be treated as an entirely new type of aircraft by the CAA.Every component would have to be quantified as though it were a brand new design.The CAA have a system whereby only a small number of reproductions can be built before they are treated as a new aircraft.I think this number is 6,so the 8 FW190’s being built exceed this ‘watershed’ and so would have to be treated as a new design,rather than as a modern version of the original.I also wouldn’t be surprised if the CAA would have doubts about the Chinese engines being used in these machines.
As for the 262’s,I’m not sure where the CAA would stand,being as there are only 6 being built.Common sense says that they would be allowed to fly in the UK,but the CAA may know better.
I should point out that I’m actually in favour of the CAA’s standpoint on this.To my mind,these Flug Werke machines are a new design.Various changes have been made to the aircraft and it’s systems,not to mention the powerplant.I think it’s unwise of the authorities in other countries to treat them as though they were a proven design.
Just to add to the point about B29’s/B17’s in RAF colours,I would say that a Coastal Command scheme would be wrong for the B17G that’s in the RAFM.The only accurate RAF scheme I can think of would be one of the special spoofing Fortress III’s with aerials and radomes aplenty. This would be a good idea in my opinion,but I can’t see it happening somehow.
As for the Boeing Washington idea,I wouldn’t like to see ‘Hawg Wild’ at Duxford resprayed as a Washington.She is currently painted as the Korean War veteran she actually is,which in my opinion is best.

RE: MiG-15/17/19

Thanks Arthur,I never realised they were so close to home!Glad someone agrees with my tastes 🙂
Would I be right in comparing the role of the Su-15 to the BAC Lightning?To my mind the Su15 wins hands down in the looks department.
Do you have any pictures of the camouflaged examples?? I’ve only ever seen one camouflaged Flaggon and that was in a two-tone light grey scheme which looked rather neat.Would have to say the natural metal examples looked better though.:)

RE: MiG-15/17/19

If we’re allowed to delve into the realms of classic Sukhois then my choice would be the Su-15 Flaggon.It might not have had the most auspicious service career (shooting down Korean airliners doesn’t do much for your image),it still looks mean and purposeful and it had a long and stable career.I think the reason we don’t hear too much about them over here is the fact that they were all based on the Eastern side of the USSR,ready to face any American bombers coming accross the Pacific.
Coming a close second would be the Su17/22 Fitter,particularly the colourful Polish Su22’s.The basic design is 30-40 years old by now but they’re still going strong.

RE: MiG-15/17/19

Hi ageorge,
The MiG15 in the programme was Polish Lim-5UTI two seater G-OMIG previously operated by The Old Flying Machine Company at Duxford.She was sold off a couple of years ago and is now in Brazil awaiting reassembly.
I think my favourite of the three in looks terms is either the Mig15bis or the MiG17(any version),particularly in natural metal finish.I know the MiG19 was a highly potent machine in it’s day,but to my mind it just doesn’t look so nice.
Are the Chinese now the only people operating the Mig19/J6? I heard all the Pakistani examples have now been withdrawn,is this so?