I think it would have been better if it had been left in bits instead of badly mocked up. As it is you cannot see what is original and what isnt (bar the obvious) so their efforts obviously centered on they making it look like it was a complete genuine aircraft.And that is where the problem lies, there efforts center on making it look ‘great’ when it so obviously isnt and didnt need to be.

Personally I think it would have been far more reflective of that spitfire’s story to simply host/preserve the dried out remains as found.I think the story of finding it, or how it got to its final place and its active life is far more informative/unique than to have yet another spitfire to gaze at.

Sure at some point in the future someone will probably get hold of it, junk the junk, junk the original bits and build an entirely new one, and that is probably no better.

Q: Do all the bits that all the resto shops junk when they ‘restore’ an aircraft go in the scrap bin or back on museum aircraft never likely to fly again? do they exchange the next best and recycle the fleet.?

I tend to agree. Either display the remains, preferably with some sort of conservation effort, and tell the story of that aircraft, its pilots, ground crew and squadron: Or do a complete number on it so that its at least representative of the Spitfire as a type, can be used to tell people there about their country’s and the Commonwealth’s role in WW2, and will last that much longer. This Frankenstein’s monster serves neither purpose, and to congratulate the “restorers” in a condescending “ah, bless, at least they had a go” way, doesn’t do anyone any favours. I don’t need to go into some of the superb restoration efforts undertaken elsewhere with near-zero cash and manpower. Why should it be any different in this case?

and not too many animators. I don’t want to be watching “Catch the Pigeon”.

And a different director. In fact, let’s hope he puts himself in a cryogenic chamber or something and hands the whole thing over to his chum Shpiegelbeagle.

Does anyone else find that dummy with the projected moving (and singing..) face absolutely terrifying?

Can anyone confirm the rumour that they planned to hang the TSR2 until they discovered the wing was only held on with 4 bolts?

That and there wasn’t a yard-arm big enough.

So I suppose the question is….

Will Rob be at Legends?

Yes is damn well does make a difference to me and I am sure it will a difference to other people in my predicament.

Now let me explain

Last years admission 1 X Disabled Daughter £8.00
Last years admission 1X My wife as Carer £8.00
Last years admission 1 X Disabled (ME) Back broen in 4 places £8.00
Total £24.00

Multiplied by 2 days = £48.00

This years admission £22.00 X 3 = £66.00 X 2 days =£132.00

£108.00 difference, so is does make a difference, see what I mean……… 😡

Rob, I’m not sure how you work that out. See http://duxford.iwm.org.uk/upload/doc/AirShowPrices2006.doc

The price for both disabled people AND carers is £10 on the gate, £8 in advance.

And if you’re debating pricing, I’d suggest laying off comments such as those in your first post e.g. IWM “giving a damn”. Where’s the relevance to event pricing? That’s where it stops being valid comment and becomes incoherent rant.

[edit – blimey, three simultaneous posts.]

The Phantom was/is with OFMC and was one that Mark Hanna flew in service.

And yes, it’s now part of IWM’s collection.

I’ve seen this before, in promotional material for a certain well-known UK aviation museum. My guess is that MS Word doesn’t “know” the word “Supermarine” and people don’t know when to stop clicking “correct”…