On G-ARVM the wings were cut just outboard of the fuselage, and just next to the production joint where the center section is bolted to the wings. On G-ARVF this joint has been used to remove the wings and bolt them back on. No cutting involved.

HP111’s photo of G-ARVM at Brooklands is from a few years ago. The photo below shows the current situation (actually this photo is from June 2012, the engine stub is also blanked off now).

You would still have to prove that the aircraft is safe for that ferry flight. If they do want to fly it somewhere then I too would guess at a registration somewhere from deep, dark Africa. Time will tell 😉

Was the issue that the undercarriage wouldn’t come up? I heard them saying it had definitely locked down, I assume they were just unable to raise it?

Minor issue with main gear door sequencing, fixed locally and airtested the same day. And that enabled it to clatter on towards East Kirkby 😉

Actually, judging from the photographs I took at the time, only a small portion of the fuselage side is covered; enough for a roundel and airframe codes / serial.

IIRC that covered bit is the section which was reconstructed. As that is mostly new material, it was felt that covering it was fitting. The rest of the structure is mostly ‘as found’. I would like to see the aircraft stay as it is, as the patina of the original structure is just so impressive. Putting fresh fabric and paint over this would make it look less real in my eyes.

Edit: here are two photos from June 2012:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]219681[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]219682[/ATTACH]

Are there any aircraft who could raise their undercarriage after a belly landing and then get wheeled in to the workshops or aren’t u/c legs that strong?

They usually aren’t that strong, the forces on the u/c during such an attempt are very different from a normal extension and the actuators etc would not be able to cope with that. What does usually happen though is that the a/c is lifted off the ground and the gear is then extended so that it can be moved on its wheels.

Edit: I just thought of flying boats with amphibious gear. I guess they are the only ones that can extend the gear after a belly landing and continue taxiing :D:D

It got there around 15:30. The only hitch that I noticed was the Extra 300 that went up to welcome it, it landed after the O-2, got a flat tire and blocked the runway!

Never say never. How many years has “Miss Velma” been flying in the UK now under US experimental registration?

Indeed it’s been a few years by now, but a P-51 is a completely different beast (from many standpoints, including the CAA’s) than a Harrier. The P-51 is by now a very well ‘known’ entity on the civil register so having another one is small potatoes. A Harrier is still seen as a ‘complex’ type by the CAA and within that category the Vulcan is still the only ex-mil jet that has managed to get airborne again, and that was by working very much hand in hand with the CAA during the whole process. Art Nall’s Harrier is a lovely beast but I very much doubt that he’s talked to the CAA a lot during the restoration process.

It’s not the ‘experimental’ category that’s the problem. It’s the complexity and safety record of the type, combined with the ‘paper trail’ etc.