I believe the weather in the colonies can be quite inclement during the winter months.It’s not very sensible driving around in something with no roof or doors is it,you must catch an awful lot of colds. ( Logical female brain at work again ) .

Actually the weathers quite enjoyable in winter these days, no rain to speak of, and our powerstations have created a massive hole in the ozone layer so you can tan and burn in the middle of winter if you chose to, winters usually a comfortable 15-20 while summers becoming a regular unbearable week of 40+.

but if you get too cold just put on fur lined thongs, and you will be warm, (which-ever type you wear) smiles

regards

Mark Pilkington

Of course my front is the baker’s back,however I’m the customer and the customer is always right .

I agree totally on that one, the staff are always “behind” the counter, therefore they are at the back, and the customers come to the front of the counter to be served.

Similarly you seat behind your desk, your visitor sits in front of your desk, whereas we all sit “around” a table, although the room layout and table setting may create a “head” and a “foot” of the table at either end.

(And again its strange “English” for a table to have 4 “legs” and one “foot”, but not have the “foot” at the end of any of the “legs” lol)

smiles

Mark Pilkington

imagine you’re standing at the back of an estate car putting something in the boot

So if the back of the car, (where the boot is) remains the back regardless of where you are standing, it seems relatively logical that the back of the boot, is near you and the number plate, and the front of the boot is in the direction of the front of the car.

The location you are arguing about is clearly at the back of the boot, in front of the rear number plate.

(Of course women of all nationalities are unable to navigate with street directories or maps – despite the ability to back seat drive, so its clear the front and back of the boot might be geographically challenging too lol)

Now in the debate of it being a boot or a trunk, even “upside down” here in Australia (where “Bruce” wears either boots or thongs), we know its a boot at the back of a car, not a trunk (the trunk is an old suitcase in the garage), and the engine is under the bonnet not the hood, and the hood is the roof on a convertable, (or also today the hat sewed onto a windcheater) not the bonnet over the engine, and certainly not the bonnet Miss Tuffett is wearing on her head.

A fender is a guard, and a flasher is an indicator (whereas a flasher is a man in a rain coat).

We also know thongs go on your feet wedged between your toes, and both blokes and shielas can wear them, not wedged up your butt, thats where a G-string goes and only sheila’s should wear those.

What has us really lost down here is why the yanks drive on the wrong side of the road, but its on the right, while we and the poms drive on the right side of the road, but its on the left, the Queens English really mucked that one up.

smiles

Mark Pilkington

.
CA-15 of course, and not because it was better, (or worse) but simply if more had been built we may have managed to keep one for posterity!!

smiles

Mark Pilkington

.
I’m not sure if your friend’s interest is limited to civilian airports/aircraft, but there are two major RAAF Bases near Sydney being RAAF Richmond base to the north west (@1h?), and RAAF Williamtown base to the north (@ 1.5h?), both are obviously secure bases but I understand runway activity can viewed from public areas, Richmond is primarily a Transport base with Hercules and C17s, VIP flight and perhaps some Wedge Tail activity?, while Williamtown is a fighter base with FA18’s.

Williamtown also has the Fighter World Museum with a collection of former RAAF fighter aircraft and replica’s on display.

While in Sydney a visit to the Camden Aviation Museum is well worth seeking (it is currently closed to the public but has monthly volunteer days that may provide for oversea’s visitor access? see website via link below for details

As James has mentioned the Powerhouse Museum is well worth a visit right in the city of Sydney with an historic PB2B (Boeing Canada built Catalina Flying Boat, last survivor world wide – and a trans-pacific pioneer flight holder as well) and original 1914 Melb to Syd Airmail Bleriot being the highlights in my opinion, then there is the Australian Aviation Museum at Bankstown, and if a car can be hired, or a flight to Canberra included, then the marvellous Australian War Memorial is well worth a visit.

And a car will get you down south to HARS at Albion Airport (@1h?) and the Fleet Air Arm Museum at Nowra (@1.5h-2h??)

There is a big contigent of flying antique and vintage aircraft at Wedderburn to the south west and another at Newcastle (near RAAF Williamtown) to the north at Luskinshire at the Luskinshire Aviation Flying Museum http://www.luskintigers.com.au/

And of course a trip to Temora on a flying day weekend is also well worth it, but I suspect its a long car trip from Sydney??

Of course if Melbourne can be included on the itinery major airports include Tullarmarine (Melb passenger) Essendon (Melb Commuter and Bus Jet) and Moorabbin (Melb GA) with Point Cook and Tyabb providing other interesting vintage and antique aircraft and the same visits providing access to the RAAF Museum at Point Cook, the Werribee B24 and the Museum at Moorabbin as previously mentioned by James.

Here’s a links page from our museum website that identifies the major collections around Sydney, and into Canberra and Melbourne, (I noticed a couple of the links may need updating)

http://www.aarg.com.au/Links-Museums-Australia.htm

Regards

Mark Pilkington

.
The other 6 issues in the growing “log of claims” might take another 10 pages to debate, but it seems worth while bringing the issue down to the essential basis of the thread, regarding the Dornier 17 skin morphing into a 109 fin skin on ebay.

It would seem clear someone? has their “facts” incorrect? and that should be easily clarified one way or other before moving onto answering the other issues?

These are now serious allegations, made repeatedly over 5 pages, naming the individual publicly, and it is good to see Nick has chosen to answer his critics openly, it would seem easy to clarify who is mistaken in this situation?

>

Tangmere1940
Rank 5 Registered User Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 918

E-Bay Dornier 17-P…thereby hangs a tail!

——————————————————————————–

In October 1939 the RAF shot down their first enemy aircraft over France – a Dornier 17-P downed by “Boy” Mould of 1 Squadron. The Dornier crashed at a little village called Toul and some years ago the wreckage was recovered after some detective work involving the late “Al” Brown. When it was recovered “Al” acquired and kept some of the wreckage – although at about the time he fell ill a number of items were disposed of. These items went to a militaria dealer on the South Coast and, again, changed hands until another dealer evidently placed them for sale on e-bay. Here the story takes an interesting turn.

The said items were bought by an e-bay seller who frequents this site. In fact, to be precise, he won them on 23 June 2008. Here, the story takes an even more interesting turn.

On 22 July 2008 the same e-bay seller who had won these Dornier 17-P items placed at least one of those items back for sale on e-bay….only this time the said Do 17-P item had now become part of an Me 109 E tailfin with an established Battle of Britain history.

Me-109E Reply to Andy Saunders

——————————————————————————–

I bought the Dornier items 4 or 5 years ago now and no the piece had no Swastika painted on it.

I sold these items last year and as far as I am concerned they left me in an original un tampered state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tangmere1940
Reply to Nick Jones…….

[So….if you didn’t repaint the Dornier skin, who did? Unless I have misunderstood this, it came to you without the swastika section but when you tried to sell it the swastika section was there. Or have I got this totally wrong?

Tangermere/Andy has provided clear evidence of tampering with the Dornier item, and he and Galland26 seem able to clearly identify the ebay identity and the dates purchase and re-sales were made.

At the moment the only commonly agreed fact seems to be Nick sold it last year, and deny’s involvement in modifying it, that doesnt seem to preclude someone else buying it in June 2008 and re-selling it in July 2008?

The missing element seems to be clearly linking Nick to that ebay identity?

Tangmere/Andy, your first post was quite definite in its accusation, of the then unidentified ebay seller.

I assume your recent comment above about “misunderstanding” this, or “getting it totally wrong” is not your actual current view of the situation? and that those are only rhetorical comments?

The thread has now run for 5 pages and gathered many other accusations against Nick based on that first strong accusation?, I assume you are maintaining your accusation, and not so far intending to withdraw it?

As you are now naming Nick openly and directly, I assume you are confident of the links between him and the ebay identity who re-sold the modified material, surely the “e-bay identity” purchasing the parts in June 2008, and selling them in July 2008 can now also openly be named, and then clearly linked to Nick? for him to defend?

and

Nick – surely you can then simply confirm if that “e-bay identity” is you or not, and clarify if you did win them in June 2008 and attempted to sell it as a 109 tailfin in July 2008, and if not, confirm when and how the part did come into your possession, and then identify the “ebay identity” you did use to sell them last year? (obviously you should know the ebay identity and perhaps real identity? of the buyer you sold them to? if that person is responsible for modifying and re-selling them?)

Galland26 seems to be holding screen dumps of ebay evidence and emails relating to all of these June/July 2008 Ebay transactions in anycase? – can you confirm the “e-bay identity” associated with 109 tailfin sale in July 2008, and can you clearly associate that “ebay identity” with Nick?

Hopefully the clear facts can be tabled and agreed by all?, and the person who is mistaken (who ever that is?) can explain his position?

Certainly from whats now been presented above, I have to say I’m not able to confidently determine who is correct??, and that now risks casting a doubt over all concerned?? for those of us simply viewing this issue remotely? hardly the expected or desired position after 5 pages?

regards

Mark Pilkington

I think the suggestion that “most” of these dig recoveries are from fatal wartime crashes is way off mark.

Also, there is an Aviation Archaeologists Association. I think I am right in saying that they do not support or condone the sale of any such artefacts by its members.

The description of avaition archaeology as being “simply a money making enterprise” is, again, way off mark. The sale of artefacts, often surplus from such recoveries or from old collections, is a by-product of the activity. Is is not a raison d’etre for the activity itself.

I’m not accusing all participants of those actions, and perhaps I do hold misconceptions, generalisations or pre-conceived ideas about this hobby that are “way off mark”, but they are based on observations of magazine articles, forums and ebay sales of the visible activity?

Perhaps I do look to the ideals and standards assumed of those already operating in the Aviation Archaeologists Association, ie with rules not condoning sale of artefacts etc, and question the motivation of those who simply recover, trade, collect and undertake significant sales, without any formal preservation, recording and provenance standards and wonder what societal benefit they provide in being given a permit by MOD for such digs, over leaving the items in the ground for a more appropriate investigation and recovery?

Obviously there are those with such high standards who simply choose not to join an Association but are acting in an honourable way, but if my misconceptions are wrong about this hobby its probably because the ideals and standards of the Aviation Archaeologists Association is not seen to be the norm as visable to us outsiders?.

But I will honour your request not to hijack your thread which is seeking a debate with the seller of the Dornier/109 ebay item, and look forward to his publicising the defence and rebuttals supposedly provided to the Mods.

regards

Mark Pilkington