It must have been substantially broken down to move it two times previously, but retaining the cockpit/main fuselage and centre wing retains the interpretation value of the type, at a far smaller width, length and height, and its height can be lowered even further by removing the undercarriage but that risks accelerated decay from underneath

Partial display with the remaining parts stored keeps a complete display possible in the future, but makes undercover display a massive cost.

Partial display with the remaining parts scrapped keeps a partial example preserved a bit longer and a smaller object to eventually put under cover.

The only surviving Do-17 in the world is a corroded partial display and will remain so, but without it, the type would be extinct and historians, researchers, enthusiasts and the Public would be left with photos, film, documents, drawings and relics as the only way to understand, visualise, interpret, research and learn about the type and its operations and role in history.

Isn’t this why we have museums packed with examples of silent airframes on display?

We “can’t save them all” and the BAPC is probably the best placed to assess the significance of the type   to UK aviation heritage and relative to museums full of duplicates of Vampires, Flying Fleas, Vulcans and Mysteres?

But once its gone its gone

Yes WJ244, I recovered the Former Southend Avro Lincoln RF342 to Australia, its currently in storage awaiting its chance to be “re-born”.

The Blackburn Beverley is certainly a very large aircraft.

100′ / 30M long
162′ / 50M Span
39′ / 12M High

If its going to survive long term it needs to be planning to eventually go under cover and thats a big ask, but there are plenty of other aircraft including large Vulcans and Viscounts etc that are of a similar age and not yet certain to get under a roof.

However this is an extinction event, if this one doesnt’ get saved “in some form” the type is extinct  – save for a cockpit section.

“If” it could be acquired for free from the current owner by a bonefide museum, and they could access the relocation funding offered by the existing benefactor?, then the issue is what is the short term objective?

If the Wing was cut outboard of the two inboard engines, the width shrinks from 162′ / 50M to perhaps @60’/20M –
(a 60% reduction) – the remaining wing section might be retained, or disposed of depending on its condition and the viability of eventually re-attaching them?

If the Fuselage is left on its gear you still have something very high, but the 39′ / 12M  height can be reduced if the tail or the tail and rear fuselage is left off, temporarily or permanently? that would seem to bring the height back to the top of the wing?, that would seem more like 25’/7.6M? ie a height reduction in the order of 40%?

If the Fuselage is shortened to the trailing edge of the wing, the length would seem to reduce from 100’/30M long, back to @50’/15M,  ie a reduction in the order of 50%, the removed tail booms and rear fuselage could be stored for later re-attachment or disposed of depending on its condition.

The resultant fuselage/wing section, on its gear, would still interpret the size and cavernous fuselage of the Blackburn Beverley, and retain a significant chunk of this unique British type in ongoing preservation?

“If” the Cockpit / Fuselage can be fitted out as a Theatre then it offers some additional value to its collection on top of simply being a large exhibit to manage and preserve?

It is perhaps geographically relevent to the Yorkshire area, and perhaps some Heritage Lottery funding could be attracted to support its future given its last surviving example status?

Once its gone its gone!
 

“Everybody has an opinion, but if you are not prepared to help financially you have no right to pass comment.

“If we don’t get the funding there’s two options, to chop it up or leave it where it is. It’s a shame, I think it’s fantastic, such a monster.”

In terms of how much time the aircraft may have left depends on the owner of Fort Paull and how long he is prepared to let them keep the aircraft there.

I think anyone and everyone has a right to pass comment on this one, as I recall, the purchaser outbid other interested “museum” parties at the time, claimed to have the resources to do the job (but instead has a benefactor who is willing to fund its relocation).

It seems now the bidder has realised its beyond him (and seemingly always was) and wants crowd funding to come to his reputational rescue or for museum to step in at the last minute and get him off the hook, so far he is removed and sold off the engines, and dismantled much of it in-situ, otherwise he has likely contributed nothing other than twarting a more viable acquisition occuring back prior to Covid by a bone-fide museum. 

If others such as Betchat and / Tom King go – they will then control the narrative- not him.

He can’t afford to go, and he knows everytime he goes he comes back empty handed and hence further undermining his claims that Earhart made it there and perished there – which she didn’t!

TIGHAR – The International Group for NOT ONE Historical Aircraft Recovery!

I think Gillespie would be worried other expeditions would come to the strong conclusion theres never been a Lockheed 10 on Gardiner Island.

Unsurprisingly Robert Ballard found no metal structures or engines in the reef  and “debris” locations that TIGHAR had claimed its sonar scans and video’s had detected?

Hello AM – I have sent you a PM

Regards

Mark Pilkington