Wasn’t the majority of that sold to Canada some years ago to aid in a restoration there? I seem to recall that.

When I was there in early 2010 there was the complete wing tip-to-tip in the undergrowth behind the hangar, with cowlings and control surfaces and other sections stored underneath. Vertical tail, nose doors and rear end of fuselage plus engine and a bent prop in a shed. Other engine and bent prop in a semi-open hangar. IIRC the cockpit was sitting in the owners driveway under a tarp.

If the mortal remains already in the UK could be donated to the project, and subject to the remains condition from the initial forced landing (which largely destroyed the fuselage but appeared to leave the cockpit, wings, engines and tail intact) that might reduce the need to bring back everything from NZ, ie leaving the wing and tail group off the shipping cost?

The fuselage could hold items like undercarriage legs, wheels, elevators, ailerons in anycase.

Of course the wing in the UK has apparently been stored in the open on the ground all this time, and may have suffered structural damage via the undercarriage legs in the accident, but it is a plan B is the fundraising doesnt get over the line?

But returning an example of Bristols flying shipping container to the UK is great project though, and worthy of support by all Enthusiasts in the UK, good luck and best wishes of success.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Try the National Archives Australia website:

You could try different combinations in the search engine and see what other documents/photos surface.

Happy Hunting,
…geoff

A far better site is the adf-serials.com.au site, (already mentioned above) where all the military aircraft in Australia have been recorded by type and serial number, and their history card entries.

http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/

Go to the “RAAF series two” section and to the “A84- / Canberra” list, after the list of Australian GAF made airframes you will find all the RAF airframes listed that were operated at WRE at Woomera, there are even pics in the associated gallery.

Many of these aircraft ended their days as pilotless drones and targets for missile development.

I doubt these aircraft operated at Alice Springs too often?

Three of these aircraft are preserved in South Australia with two at the South Australian Aviation Museum and another at Lincoln Nitskes private collection.

Apart from the Canberras with RAAF serials there were many Canberras that flew in Australia retaining their RAF serials.
Trials Aircraft
The Weapons Research Establishment (WRE) was a joint U.K./Australia project based at Salisbury and Woomera and operated from Woomera, Mallalla, Evetts Field (40 km north of Woomera Airfield) and later RAAF Edinburgh.
Some 2 dozen RAF Canberras were flown by both the RAF and pilots from 2 Squadron RAAF operating as the Air Trials Unit.
RAAF crews flew RAF Canberras in support of various weapons programs including the British atomic bomb tests, Operation Totem (October 1953) at Emu Field, Operation Mosaic (May/June 1956) on the Montebello Islands 130kms off the WA coast, Operations Buffalo (September/October 1956) and Antler (September/October 1957) at Maralinga.
They were also used in trials of the Blue Steel missile and the Jindivik target drone.
Others were used by De Havilland Propellers on their Blue Jay (later Firestreak) missile program.
These trials Canberras all retained their RAF serials however most were issued RAAF Aircraft Status Cards and some wore (unofficial) Kangaroo roundels.
Target Aircraft
At the height of the Cold War it is an indication of how serious the threat to the UK of Soviet nuclear armed bombers was taken that they used relatively new, expensive and front-line aircraft such as the Canberra as target aircraft. These were used in the development of new weapons such as the Bloodhound, Thunderbird and Seaslug surface to air missiles to counter this threat. Small drones such as the Meteor U.15/U.21 and Jindivik may not of provided a large enough radar target and certainly didn’t have the endurance and range of the full size Canberra targets. Eighteen Canberra B.2s were converted by Short Brothers and Harland in Belfast, Northern Ireland to U.10 target drones for use on the ranges at Woomera. The first aircraft (WJ624) was flown in this form on 11th June 1957. Seventeen were shot down or crashed at Woomera and one (WJ624) remained in the UK to be later upgraded to U.14 status. They could be flown with a pilot aboard who flew it via a supervisory panel installed in the cockpit that, by the use of 13 push buttons, simulated the inputs transmitted to the aircraft when flown unmanned. When flown without a pilot aboard the U.10 was controlled via a VHF link from a control van. The aircraft had an explosive abort device on board in case of emergencies such as loss of contact.
The first target flight was in June 1959 and WD961 was destroyed by a Bloodhound missile while at 50,000 feet.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

And probably those are not C/D variants but J’s…

No, the recovered Dutch remains in Australia that I am aware of are C/D’s, but it seems Reevers is not acquiring his from oversea’s as spares for his J project in any case.

The opportunity this imported C/D project offers is to consolidate it with the Dutch remains and create a viable static.

With the loss of the AWM B25J many years ago, the Darwin USAAC B25D is the only current example of the type preserved in Australia, the B-25 played an important role in the South Pacific and the efforts by Reevers to bring more examples to Australia should be applauded.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Not exactly a new policy but just a change of the way dissenting opinions are treated. There are just so many holes that can be plugged before something completely disintegrates and I’m afraid the Nikumaroro hypothesis passed beyond that stage years ago.

The difference now is that DocBob and other dissidents debate and dissect the Tighar claims over on “Aviation Mysteries Forum” out of Ric and Martys reach for both moderation, censorship or outright banning.

It really doesnt matter if Tighar doesnt allow open debate, AMF more than makes up for it, and apparantly many Tigger fence sitters visit to read the alternative view.

http://aviationmystery.com//index.php

Regards

Mark Pilkington