Instruments alone are worth that much. Having said that: it is in appalling condition and I was offered a flyable one some weeks ago for 500 euros, including a roadworthy open trailer.

Funny thing is the buyer was a dealer from The Netherlands, who has since sold it on for a ridiculous price and it is now for sale here:

http://www.marktplaats.nl/a/verzamelen/luchtvaart-en-vliegtuigspotten/m978688009-zweefvliegtuig.html?c=8c285449651fa109c354bbabe740c1b&previousPage=lr

Price listed as “on request” but I am told it is now in the four figures… More than it would be worth if it were flyable (which it most certainly is not).

It was extensively spares recovered before it went to Lelystad (where it is in storage now) as part of the Spitfire deal.

the aircraft cannot exist in two incarnations at the same time as that would expose the folly and pretence of the whole “rebuild” exercise.

Problem is not the folly and pretence. Problem is provenance. Proof of provenance is needed to make a project eligible for registration with the CAA (or, for that matter, any other national aviation authority). Proof of provenance gets very difficult indeed if the aircraft it claims to be also exists in a different location, in a different form.

There have been long discussions of this forum regarding provenance, both from a legal and historic point of view. I am quite sure forum member will have to agree to disagree on the subject.

My personal point of view is that an airframe’s physical history is not a matter of black and white. Take an aircraft I operate. It looks original, sounds original, even smells original. It has been in continuous (well-documented) service for 55 years. However, it has had its wings replaced on four different occasions. It has seen two new front fuselages in this time, and had a rebuild of the aft fuselage and tail. This is not even mentioning wear-and-tear parts. In fact, looking at the paper trail, only about a foot of fuselage forward of the horizontal stabilizer, the stabilizer struts and part of the rudder are factory-original. All other components and sections have been replaced or remanufactured according to factory standards somewhere along its chequered history (which by the way was entirely normal in the service history of this type). What has been thrown out during its life time would more than suffice to rebuild two static aircraft. However, having one of these statics claim the identity of the original (which, to be fair, it partially would be), would threaten provenance and operation of the flying example. You know, the one which looks, sounds and smells original.

A Dakota with a full size Horsa replica on tow would be nice…

(location is most likely a Dutch airfield).

The MLD Catalina does not necessarily mean it’s a Dutch airfield. Most Cat ops of the MLD were in the Dutch East Indies and Dutch New Guinea. Could even be one of the very many airfields en route there from The Netherlands. Roundel identification on the Spit would help.

A canopy/window vent of sorts?

Much clearer dataplate now. It says:
– Baumuster (‘type’)
– Werk Nr. (‘serial number’)
– Anf. Z. (Anforderzeichnung, ‘Drawing reference’)

The Fl.-number specifically refers to the type of device you have. I think it reads Fl.27116? This fits in with a series of oxygen-related Fl.-numbers, but I am sure there’ll be an expert along shortly who can tell what it is, and what it was fitted to.

Bottle says:
Sauerstoff
Leer XXX KG, Füll XXX
(‘Oxygen’
Empty XXX Kg, Full XXX’)

Two lines below the ‘SAU’ of Sauerstoff there is usually a 5-digit Fl.number for the bottle. This again would help narrowing it down to a specific type.