It’s real alright; scroll down this thread:

http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=16396&page=2

You will also see that apart from the original post-ee(?) no one actually responded.

Yes, you can almost hear the tumbleweeds.

You’d think someone that used to post OMFGBBQ LEDGENDS!!!!1111 every five minutes would be a little more tolerant of the enthusiasm of others.

I was annoyed when the F-22 and the NBA team in Toronto, Ontario, were named Raptor, because it was too contemporary pop-culture and Jurassic (Park).

The basketball team may have chosen it with JP in mind, but I would think the USAF are more aware of its original avian meaning; it follows on nicely from Eagle and Falcon.

So perhaps we need another birdy name for JSF…

How about booby?

I’ve given this careful consideration and the correct usage is a ‘Tedium of Anoraks’.

A “Windbreak of Spotters”.

I’ve PM’d you TT.

I’m surprised that no-one’s mentioned the basic archaeological principle of leaving something behind for the next team with better kit, or different equipment.

There’s an important difference, in that archaeological remains left in situe, having survived as long as they have already, will continue to do so, as they will be more or less stabilised. Airframes dating to within living memory are a little different than sealed layers and associated bone, stone, ceramics, copper alloy, iron etc, and 60 years later, we still have a chance to recover artefacts more or less intact that will undergo further deterioration. Left for future generations, this evidence may have gone.

Then again, we know far more about the technology and events of the 1940s than we do true archaeological remains, so is there a need to “rescue” the remains and bring them to the UK or the US? Perhaps, perhaps not. If so, my vote would go to a preserved diorama over a full rebuild, for the same reasons as discussed previously.

Luckily the countermeasures systems are state-of-the-art, including a towed decoy system (even if it is launched using a big spring).

It does look like the RAF Camera Guns (as opposed to a Gun Camera) I’ve seen, which as you say were used as a training “weapon”, the film recording likely “hits”. They’re really just cine-cameras shaped like Lewis guns. This pdf has some info on the US version:

http://www-tech.mit.edu/archives/VOL_042/TECH_V042_S0093_P001.pdf

[edited to add]
IWM camera gun:

And another example , showing significant differences with yours…