As you’re probably already aware the Lysander kit is a re-issue of the old Matchbox kit, so it’s worthwhile checking out some online build reviews to see which are the most challenging bits of the build. I seem to remember the wing strut sockets are a touch too far outboard, and so the wings sag slightly if you don’t cut/drill new sockets slighlty further in.

This is from my dodgy memory, so it might be worth double checking.

I think that may be a Henschel Hs126 tail, whatever it is it’s in a remarkably good state of preservation.

Edited to add: Looking at it again, it looks as though the fin MAY be from a 109, although the rest of the wreckage looks like a Hs126.

I have to agree with what’s been said about Matchbox’s ecclectic releases, my first ever kit was the 1:72 BAC Strikemaster when I was 7 or 8. Seem to remember I finished it in a rather odd gloss dark brown. Have built a myriad of kits since then, most of my childhood kits were Airfix or Matchbox as those were the only brands the local model shop stocked.

I have to say I still enjoy the less expensive Airfix, Revell etc as it means I don’t have to worry about fudging them up. Fudge up a 1:48 Hasegawa/Roden/Wingnut etc and it’s far more irritating! 😀

Welcome back to the forum Neilly, and thanks for these interesting pics.

Does anyone know if a decision has been made on what colours the Wellington will be finished in? Last I heard there was talk of returning her to 1950’s trainer colours (silver with yellow bands), is this still being considered?

With regard to possible colour scheme changes, I seem to remember this paint-scheme was suggested on another thread a few months back and I thought it was a great idea. It’s “Latest Rumor”, a very late B17F with chin turret, no cheek guns, etc. An almost exact match for Sally B’s current configuration, aside from the stepped waist windows. Sharks teeth, yellow prop bosses, red bordered insignia, named engines etc. A really great eye catching scheme that wouldn’t require a full repaint. There’s a profile on the following link, second aircraft down.

http://www.markstyling.com/3ad_b17s2.htm

I was thinking about this operation just the other day and wondering why more fuss wasn’t made about it in later years, one of the greatest ops of the war and with an undeniably noble objective.

Gatward wrote a section for Max Arthur’s “Lost Voices of the RAF”, and it’s well worth a read.

As for the Beau, it was Mk.IC T4800 ND-C of 236sqn. I just googled the serial and came up with this image from the IWM archives:

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205211341

Edited in the light of Mark P’s post below, the picture is NOT T4800!

Does anyone know why the job would have been given to a Coastal Command Beau squadron rather than a squadron in 2 Group? Seems an odd job for Coastal…

Well I can see where you’re coming from David, and what you say about the decline in manufacturing etc makes alot of sense. However, as I said above it’s important that the Ventura is retained as it is a significant RAF type in the care of the RAF Museum. Even if we did have to be VERY patient, there will hopefully be generations beyond our own who will be glad that we waited. If it were deteriorating where it is now, I would agree that it needs moving on, but as it stands it’s indoors and it will keep pretty well.

I would also still insist that we have to do all we can to keep the skills and enthusiasm going. Perhaps things are declining, but we have to approach the problem with a church-like outlook. Yes, churches often have empty seats, but if those seats weren’t empty they wouldn’t have room for future newcomers. It wouldn’t be very encouraging if a church moved into a portakabin, even if it did reflect present numbers.

In relation to some of the other points raised in this thread about bringing stuff out of storage occasionally, I do agree it would be a good thing in general. It certainly sounds plausible with regard to smaller exhibits, but again there are potential pitfalls when it comes to things like exhibition space and the size of larger exhibits. This is particularly true of aviation museums, where in some cases airframes are kept in storage because there is simply no room in the museum, and where the museum has to plan ahead for a major stir-up of exhibits due to space restrictions, door sizes etc.

I think we need to have a slightly more charitable approach to the RAFM element of the discussion. I’m not associated with RAFM in any way, but I feel somewhat obliged to play devil’s advocate and say a few words in thier defence regards the Ventura and BP Collection etc.

With regard to the Ventura, I agree very much with Mike J. It is atleast under cover and we aren’t privvy to the RAFM’s exact plans for it, for all we know they could dispatch it to MAPS next week. It should be remembered that there are still two or three Venturas sitting out in the elements in South Africa, they have atleast ensured that one was rescued and stopped from deteriorating any further. As for handing the aircraft on to another more capable museum, I have to ask where that might be. The UK aviation preservation scene suffers from a general lack of indoor workshop and display space, and it is hard to see another UK museum wanting to take it on given it’s poor condition and overall size. It would be a big restoration task for a smaller museum, and very tricky to house once finished. Perhaps a large museum like IWM might be capable of taking it on, but they have a restoration queue of thier own and I can’t see much benefit.

As for the Boulton & Paul Collection, I think it’s a decent outcome considering the efforts that were put into the collection over the years. Again we aren’t privvy to RAFM’s plans and it would be a bit hasty to criticise them for taking the collection in. The bottom line is that the collection is now in the care of a national museum which has to abide by national standards, which is about as safe as a collection can be. RAFM do loan exhibits out to other groups, such as the Meteor, Hunter and Phantom at Tangmere, so even if some of the B&P objects can’t be displayed by RAFM, there’s a chance of them being seen elsewhere.