If that’s true it seems odd that the two most relevant American aircraft to Duxford’s American heritage

Really?
Two of the more relevant yes, but “the two most relevant” definitely not.

The tank is not a tiger no where near might look like one but it is maybe a Siberian tiger being a T34 with a tigeresque body?
Curlyboy

Whilst you are correct in what you state, I think that in the context that DCW was compiling this interesting and amusing angle of Duxford, it is not really important.

I like the thought process behind this DCW. I had never given it a thought just how much big cats had influenced the named aviation/military world. Very good.

Signed

I see a John Delaney’s name associated with this.
Is this the same John Delaney from Duxford?
It would seem really that there are probably too many shows on at the same weekend now?

I’ve only just noticed the P-36 only has a fuselage roundel on the starboard side!

You mean the Hawk 75 didn’t you?

There was a case ( and others here will know more than me) when the original and weak skins from a flyer project were discarded and acquired by some group or individual, and eventually reconstructed into something substantial enough to cause problems with the owners of the ‘original aeroplane’ as there was a prospect of two airframes wearing the same identity.

This is not welcome or acceptable to anyone owning such a valuable asset, and so any such material, whilst on the face of it useless scrap can not readily be released or dispersed as long as it represents some, or all of the ‘DNA’ of a given aeroplane.

If the Calais wreck were to be reconstructed and put on display, it is obvious what unwelcome observations would soon be made about the machine flying around at Duxford.

Please excuse me of a little thread drift here, but this reminds me of a situation which seems to me to be both similar and yet different as well as being very tragic.
The American WWII destroyer the USS Murphy was severed into two halves by another ship whilst on a convoy escort and the front half sank taking many officers and men with it. The rear half stayed afloat and was towed back in and a new front half built and attached. The problem then was that the USS Murphy was both ‘officially sunk’ and remains as such to this day and yet was still ‘officially part of the fleet force’ at the same time? Very confusing for the victims families.
The irony now, is that the ‘whole’ destroyer was scrapped in the early 70’s, but the ‘sunk struck off’ half of the ship still exists albeit at the bottom of the sea.

I did at least enjoy the programme, even if there were some of the aforementioned ‘omissions or incorrections’, but as a general viewing interest programme into our world of warbirds, I thought it was good.
I did like the engineering insight a lot, clearly showing the proud skills that are present there.
The only bugbear for me was the ‘yet again portrayal that the spitfire won the battle/war’.
There’s nothing like fudging the real facts, but I decided I would not let any of these ‘elements’ spoil the enjoyment of the programme for me and it didn’t, so for the interested but uninitiated out there I’m sure would have loved it moreso.

but having shown the substantial remains of the original aircraft there is no mention of what happened to that significant artefact. Even if parts were used as a pattern

This begs me to ask the question of just how much of the original aircraft was used in its ‘restoration’? Looking at the pile of corrosion that was shown during the programme, it looks like pretty well none of it, so why is the word restoration is being used?