The “Lancaster” at Newquay is largely a mockup created by Jeremy Hall, with only its nose being original, and that is a post war RCAF maritime patrol nose.

While  it may be “an original post war Lancaster nose from KB976” that isn’t sufficient to bestowe the KB976 identity to this “airframe” or morph it from “mockup/replica” to “original airframe” status.

Most of KB976 survives in Kermit Weeks hands, with some “missing/damaged” sections exchanged with sections from a derelict RCAF fuselage KB994, while it is currently dismantled and stored, it is a complete kitset quite capable of re-assembly and at the least static restoration and display, and holding more than enough of most of KB976 to claim and retain that identity.

Kermit has the original cockpit, centre section and complete wing of KB976 together with the substituted centre and tail fuselage sections KB994 -more than enough to confirm that airframe as KB976.

The residue of KB994 and the “missing/damaged” sections of KB976 consist of the fuselage tail at Aeroventure and the Centre Fuselage and cockpit down under – acquired and shipped from the UK as part of the Lincoln RF342 recovery, but kept seperate from that project and its current situation.

Here is an excellent website recording the sad life of KB976, but it survives as a complete but dismantled Lancaster kitset stored in Kermit Weeks collection, and hence it is the real and only KB976

I am not sure it is from a C-47 wing as the irregular spacing of the double row of rivet holes on the artifact do not match the jig drilled rivet lines seen on the “matching” portion of the C-47 wing, but that doesnt prove its the Miami window patch.

As for Mr Glickmans skills to conclusively prove the artifact is the Miami patch through his “analysis” of some grainy out of focus film footage from Lae, well thats as likely as him ever delivering the peer reviewed analysis promised since 2014 that evidenced “he can see matching rivet lines” in a 1937 photo full of glare and reflections.

Tighar has long since been a cult following the utterings of a High Priest, based on nothing but pseudoscience.

regards

Mark Pilkington

I grew up last century when WW2 and John Wayne was our TV every Saturday as the afternoon movie, and when movies such as “Magnificent Men and their Flying Machines”, “Battle of Britain” and “Tora Tora Tora” brought our airfix models to life in our imaginations and play, – our fathers and others had been in WW2, and hence many of us became aviation enthusiasts.

But today my children, – now grown up adults, don’t share my hobbies, have no interest in Airshows or Aircraft Museums, and do live through an online access and view of the world, despite the difference between the virtual and real world experiences.

The same is happening with Steam Engines and Railway museums, – the kids no longer huddle over the tracks as “train-spotters” to take down railway plate numbers of diesel engines like earlier generations did with Steam Engines, and to be fair the kids are not “plane-spotters” riding their bikes out to the airports either.

Does it mean all museums are destined to fail and close? – no not necessarily, – the volunteer museum I am involved in, continues each year to increase its membership and visitor numbers, by offering cockpit entries in normal visits, and special cockpit entry days that attract lots of young families for the day.

But those open air museums on US Bases will eventually have to contemplate the future of their large collections that can only rely on the base commander or volunteers to continue manning the workload, even if the visitations drop off.

There are a lot of big, and historic types sitting in those US Base museums, and the costs to dismantle and relocate to them to other bases will eventually leave some to face the scrappers, and the USAFM probably wont want to “keep them all”.(we are already seeing that happen)

Unfortunately they will likely be beyond airworthy restoration and so it will be up to volunteer museums or regional collections to try and rescue some of them, but they will have to go under cover to really save them, and that’s extra cost above dismantling, transporting, re-assembling and repairing/restoring.

Aviation Museums with Static Displays have to try to “bring them alive” as much as possible, – give access to touch and climb in at least some of the exhibits to allow tactile experiences for the visitors, if its not FUN they wont come again.

That museum I am involved in, largely survives on its gate takings and shop sales, – membership fees don’t go far (and you don’t want to price your volunteers out of being a member), and government funding, corporate sponsorship and private donations are for special purposes and do not make up much of the annual turnover.

However it is located in the middle suburbs of a 3 Million person Capital City, it would struggle to do what it does in a regional city or small country town.

But I agree with the comments above

[LEFT][COLOR=#222222][FONT=Helvetica][SIZE=13px]t’s not just aviation related attractions that seem to be suffering in this way, cars, buses, trains, industrial heritage museums all seem less attractive to the internet/’computer screen’ generation than they were to our generation.

regards

Mark Pilkington[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

Here some various modern photos from the net, of Wirraways flying with their younger T6/SNJ cousins to contrast the shorter rear fuselage, fabric covered metal tube front and rear fuselage, round rudder and straight trailing edge wing (copyright as per any branding)

Regards

Mark Pilkington

I purchased a rare original North American Harvard I (NA-16-1E) manual from Canada (they only ever had 30 examples of the type) via Ebay a few months ago – it has just arrived.

Its very easy to see the “family resemblance” with its “NA-16” sibling the CAC Wirraway

regards

Mark Pilkington

Hi Mark

I note these examples were 2 degree washed-out. Without the washout things would be – indeed were – beyond marginal.

Do you know the story of an attempt made to shortcut introduction of washout, so urgent was it? A wing was put in a jig by NAA with rivets drilled out, literally twisted and then re-riveted. As soon as it was removed from the jig, it sprang back, throwing rivets all over. I will dig out my source for that later.

Matt

.

I would be keen to see that information as I have an ongoing interest in the NA-16 family of aircraft, – I have recently been collecting original NAA Trainer manuals and am currently waiting for a rare NAA Harvard I manual to arrive from Canada.

I would agree that the original zero-wash-out wings would not be a good idea to replicate, and the BT-9 had a number of mods to improve its wing, and the CAC Wirraway seemingly benefited from those lessons, – my earlier post was simply to suggest that a Harvard Mk I “could be replicated” through using the Wirraway wing design as the basis of new Harvard I wings given both are NA-16 derivatives, and that the ongoing operation of Wirraways in Australia suggests they can be flown safely by experienced pilots.

However, again as per my earlier post, if I was trying to create a flying Harvard I reproduction, I personally wouldn’t bother making new straight trailing edge wings and would instead use the later T6/SNJ taper wing for its ease of obtaining, its ongoing parts support and of course its better flying characteristics, and that a fabric covered full steel tube frame with short length rear fuselage, and flat bottomed rudder, would deliver most of the obvious visual aspects of the Harvard I compared to the Harvard II to IV, and most would not be aware of, and notice that its wing was a taper wing and hence incorrect for the type.

I am not sure what Pat’s objective was in converting a set of Harvard II taper wing outers to Harvard I straight trailing edge wing outers, as changing the wing outers is probably the least recognisable element of a Harvard I, and hence a Harvard II with Harvard I wing outers would still be hard to identify on a flight line, and would be a poor reproduction of a Harvard I if it retained the metal skinned fuselage etc, and fitting the flat bottomed rudder would simply make it look like an SNJ-2.

Where as the fabric covered fuselage, and flat bottomed rudder of a Harvard I would make it stand out as “different” on a flight line of T6’s, SNJ’s and Harvard II to IV’s , regardless of the paint schemes.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

The only reason I ask is that I am currently exploring the possibility and feasibility of retrofitting a set of Harvard Mk 2 outer wing panels to a set of Harvard Mk 1 panels. Does anyone know if this has been done before? I see that there is currently an NA-50 replica for sale on Barnstormers that states that it has been modified from the later wing to the earlier straight trailing edge type and is six inches shorter than the standard Harvard wing panel. I would imagine that the earlier straight trailing edge wing panels also have 12 ribs rather than the 13 rib standard. Does anyone have any drawings that lay out the part numbers for the ribs on the early outer wing panels?

Pat,

it would be a major task to modify the later T6 forward swept trailing edge wing outers to become straight trailing edge wings for a NA-50 replica or Harvard I replica, although Matt Denning in Queensland Australia has been building CAC Boomerang wing outers for years and they are effectively shortened/clipped wing versions of the straight trailing edge Wirraway / NA-16 wing.

There is only 1 surviving NA-16 example – in Boliva in South America, and no other known survivors of the various NA models with the early straight trailing edge wing such as the BT-9, BC-1, NJ-1 and Harvard I etc.

But there are a healthy number of CAC Wirraways surviving with the NA-16 wing and a smaller number of CAC Boomerangs with the modified version and I have no doubt Matt could punch out a set of Wirraway/Harvard mk I straight trailing edge wing outers based on his production capabilities of Boomerang wing outers.

The drawings of the CAC Wirraway wings do exist

regards

Mark Pilkington