mark_pilkingtonBruce,
Obviously I’m not one who needs satisfaction in this situation, but I do think you have done all you can here, and perhaps more than I thought would be done, thanks for clearing up the locked thread being related to the post deletion process.
The strangest aspect of all of this is that PP was apparantly unknown to all forumites and could have easily offered an apology and withdrawal when challenged without any great personal injury or damage to his true reputation, it would have all been quickly forgotten, and he himself could have deleted the offending posts as part of that process?
Moderating is certainly a difficult task, thanks for taking it on and helping to herd the cats for us all.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonBruce (and, I hope, the other mods)
Pushing the allegations made against me under the carpet does not alter the fact they were made and they were not “Potentially” libelous at all, it was libel, pure and simple. I was identified as the source of rumours that “I had made up”. I was identified by name.
Melvyn, (and Mods)
This an interesting and serious example of Forum ettiquite and moderating, not withstanding the injury obviously felt on your behalf, and I strongly sympathise with your desire to remove this accusation against your reputation. I have been following this issue as it developed and understand your ongoing frustrations.
Not that I am wishing to defend his actions but my recollection of his original posts dont include you being named, only being able to be identified via reference to a specific magazine article, as I recall it was others alluded to the journalist being a forumite and you then responded identifying yourself as the author of the article in question – obviously anyone familiar with the article could identify you from it – (I just wanted to make that comment as I cant view his original posts to confirm it, but that was/is my recollection).
Having said that I do think he should have responded to your reply rebutting his claims, he did suggest in his post that this was a long time ago and he was relying on memory, but has now had ample opportunity to tackfully retreat or step up to the plate and defend his claims.
Reviewing the forums rules I dont note anything defining the moderators actions in response to this situation, I think Bruce did the right thing deleting his unsubstantiated claims, particularly in light of your rebuttal and his lack of defence and sufficient calls for, and time to do so, but I was a bit surprised Bruce originally chose today to lock the thread during Moderator deliberation, as I couldnt see the benefit of that, while the original posts were left to stand.
You have been asking the moderators to do more, and I’m not sure they can or should do anything more other than deleting the offensive posts. At this stage despite the overwhelming evidence he is wrong and you are right I dont think they can unilaterally ban him or censure him any further than removing the offensive posts, legally it seems a case of “you” said and “he” said.
Obviously you are able still to PM/email him via the forum and seek a PM/email response and even request a public post of apology if he indeed responds or retains use of the ID ongoing.
One of the obvious issues is the fact that his use of a nickname rather than his own name allows him to slip off without any consequence of his actions, without even the obligation of ever defending or retracting his comments.
Where to from here? well the moderators have apparantly removed every vestage of the accusations, and in my mind thats all KP can do?
Can they disclose his identity? perhaps not due to privacy law? and in anycase may only have an anonomous email address or at best an IP location (which may represent his ISP’s server IP rather than his PC IP?).
It would seem to me some type of legal action in court would be required to compell KP to provide his identity and contact details, and that would probably require threats of legal action against KP themselves to cause them to “join” him into their defence?
For KP to provide his private details to you without being legally compelled by a court would likely open them up to other legal action from both he and the government?
All in all a very unfortunate situation arising from what was probably intended to be a throw away comment on his behalf?
I can understand your annoyance at having such accusations made, and the implications on your character and journalistic proffessionalism and more so that the accuser has chosen not to withdraw or defend those accusations in light of your response and invitation to do so.
I have for a long time considered the ability to hide behind nicknames and anonomous identities creates the ability for people to make comments in forums with impunity and say things without any thought of, or actual risk of consequences, ie even a ban of PP could result simply in a new ID/Nickname unless his IP is unique enough to be banned at that level.
Perhaps the answer is for forums to require membership details to be public, ie name/address and email address so that nicknames do not hide the underlying real identity, and the consequences of ones actions.(or even require posts to be under real names and not nicknames in the first place?)
I try and treat the forum like a virtual pub, and try to consider if I would be willing to make the same comments to someone face to face before I post them, especially if they are in anyway adversarial etc, of course I can still offend someone unwittingly, but equally I can apologise for that, (even if I consider I am correct).
I always post under my own and real name, for better or worse I own the stupid and poorly thought comments I post out there into the wide web and world, and I think that is the heart of the problem here, you are publicly identifiable through the article reference, even if not publicly named, while he is simply an anonomous accuser.
As one of the audience of this issue, all I can say is that you have presented your case openly and convincingly, and his lack of responses destroys his credibility, I am not sure that is much consolation to your reputation.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonRoss,
The one advantage of a central Museum is a critical mass for funding and building infrastructure, one RAAF Museum provides for a core of staff and resources to achieve the task, a cluster of larger buildings in one location, a single site to manage public access/security (a unique defence issue) simply providing duplicate locations with toilets, offices, airconditioning all adds up, and can lead to none of the outcomes being achieved anywhere, particularly by a department such as Defence that is constantly being squeezed by the costs to run the “sharp end”.
At least at Point Cook the RAAF have belatedly (in the 1980’s after 60 years of existance) started to collect and preserve historic aircraft from their own operations, a central RAAF Museum at Point Cook creates the best chance for regional museum campuses at Amberley, Wagga etc to be established and ran with curatorial and other support from the main museum.
Without that central RAAF museum at Point Cook, Australia probably would not have the Boston, Demon or Seagull V preserved.
Despite that, regional RAAF Museums (such as Wagga) continue to suffer the problems of storage, staff, funding etc, and overseas examples exist in Canada and the UK of local base projects or collections being dispersed by an incoming CO unsympathetic to the heritage activities, and the lack of a central RAAF Museum at Point Cook would not improve the viability of those regional base museums.
The example best shown of a central museum is with the NMUSAF in the USA ,which then supports collections at active bases as a series of “reserve collections” and allowing for representative examples to be preserved and displayed in their operational settings.
In the same way the National Air and Space Museum in the US shows the outcomes that can be achieved with the scale and concentration of effort, of a central main museum.
In Australia today we have an un-co-ordinated series of state based volunteer museums, 3 major State Museum collections in Qld, NSW and Vic, along with the federally funded AWM and the three formal Service Museums at Point Cook, Nowra and Oakey, followed by some un-official base collections, along with two specialist flying collections and the wider private owner operator of warbirds and vintage aircraft.
With all of that Military aviation is reasonably catered for, and certainly in terms of post war aircraft preservation and perhaps WW2 examples, but little of the prewar and WW1 aircraft.
Even worse is civilian aviation which is far less catered for, particularly pre-war examples, and while the AWM and RAAF Museum can place a roof over large aircraft others cannot so easily raise the funds for buildings etc, the Qantas Founders Museum is in a dry location to preserve a 707 and 747 but the day will come when they need to be put under cover.
Without the efforts of volunteer and private groups we would not have any Wackett trainers perserved in Australia, no Beaufighters preserved, no B-24, no Lincoln, even no DH-60!, but it is dis-appointing that a country that has played such an important role in the pioneering of aviation, and relied on it so much for its own development – has not done more at a Government level to preserve its aviation heritage.
While the UK has the British Aircraft Preservation Council, and Canada has the Canadian Aircraft Preservation Association, the Australian museum’s lack any formal and real co-ordination and organisation, a previous Museum Association achieved little real outcomes and has fallen by the wayside.
Australia does have a central National Maritime Museum in Darling Harbour, as well as over 100 regional museums around the States, it not only preserves large ships perhaps unable to be undertaken by the smaller regional museums, but acts as a central curatorial and lobbying support for those regional museums.
It supported the funding applications to restore the historic Gem Murray River Paddlesteamer at Swan Hill, and oversaw the restoration project, it distributes over $500k per annum in Maritime Museum grants to the regional maritime museums, – imagine what a similar grant system could do to help our volunteer and regional aviation museums?
I do support a central Aviation Museum for Australia as I think it is the launching pad for management of the wider “Distributed” museum model, there are some fantastic collections out there, the Bull Creek collection with its Lancaster, Wackett, Moth minor and Anson, the Camden collection with its Beaufighter, Vengeance, Moth minor and Mosquito, the SA Collection with its DH60’s, Anson and Battle, the QAM with its DC-3, Ventura and KS-3 Wackett, Darwin with its B-25, Syd Beck and the P-39, these are all collections with duplicate airframes, but with some unique aircraft as their “jewels in the crown”, to attract both the general public and enthusiast alike.
I’m certainly not proposing a central museum be created to rape and pillage them of those significant displays, but rather one be created to increase the focus and awareness of our aviation heritage and to undertake tasks the existing museums cannot, projects such as acquisition and return of a Sandringham? or other large scale projects, and to provide for co-ordinated grants, funding support and curatoral support, as is already done for Maritime heritage in this country.
A central National museum could encourage and support loans and exchanges between the regional museums, and better improve the preservation of aircraft, engines and artifacts in their care.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonRoss,
now there is a good topic,
I have always enjoyed the DH-60 Moth over the Tiger Moth, it just seems to have a bit more character.
It would be interesting to know the viability in creating a “kit” plane around the DH-60 not unlike the Wag Aero “cubby” it version of the Piper J3 (of course mindful of the copyright and design controls still held on the DH-60 by BAe?)
If drawings could be produced, there would seem to be an ability to manufacture steel fittings, wing attach plates etc from a laser cutting service, and supply those into a kit with drawings, leaving the builder to source wood, engine prop etc and construct the outcome.
I understand there is someone making new tigermoth fuel tanks, and certain DH-82 parts such as tail skids etc seem to remain available to use in place of new or home made parts.
A new 4 cylinder Walter Micron? etc set up with an inverted fuel system for “upright” mounting, or even a Gipsy Major on the same basis, with DH-60G cowling to hide the modern engine, would provide for a reliable and available engine solution.
The folding wing feature of the DH-60 would allow for reduced hangarage and storage, it may even be possible to custom design a trailer to allow for “Tow & Fly” as an airborne equivalent to the “Trailer Sailer”.
Sign me up for one immediately.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonHas Peter Garrett got an Air Medal??
Dave,
Our current Minister for the Environment, Peter Garrett, was the lead singer of Australian rock band “Midnight Oil”, whose song lyrics, and his own activities, were very much environmentally focused.
He was awarded Australia’s civilian honour the Member of the Order of Australia (AM) in June 2003,
For service to the community as a prominent advocate for environmental conservation and protection, and to the music industry
Australia replaced the British Imperial Honours system in 1975 with the Order of Australia, which has a number of levels, with the “member” being the 2nd lowest of the 4 levels of the general division, there is a duplicate military division with the same 4 levels.
I know NZ has recently re-introduced the Imperial system, how long before we see “Sir” Peter Jackson – “For creative and innovative services to the film industry and old aeroplanes” smiles
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonJust beign dense but was his an april fools?
Matt
Yes, the “Media Release” from Minister Peter Carrott in the first post of this thread is an April Fools Day Joke.
(posted at 12.57pm on the 31st unintentionally due to KP clock variations)
The Australian Heritage Minister is actualy Peter Garrett AM, and the National Aerospace Centre in Canberra is a long dead proposal.
I’m sorry if it did not become more obvious towards the end that it was not genuine or true, as was the intention?
But the offer of an F111 to each of the museum’s for swap and return of the Maurice Farman Shorthorn, Seagull V and Bristol Beaufighter still stands –
smiles
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonActually I,m amazed the RAAF funded Museum at Point Cook still doesn,t have a P40 or Spitfire in it,s stables.Seeing they and the Boomerang saw much more service than the Mustang.
QldSpitty,
Point Cook have a P40E, A29-28, its fuselage was restored by Jack McDonald years ago and was originally a cockpit section with Pearce Dunn’s Warbirds Museum at Mildura, the wings have been built new by Precision Aerospace at Wangaratta as part of the A-20 Boston swaps.
They also had two Spitfire remains dug out of the mudflats up north but I’m not sure of the current condition of those wrecks, and their viability for restoration. I would agree a Spitfire (mark V preferably) is missing from the collection, Ian Whitneys, now in the NMUSAF, was a 54 squadron veteran from Darwin, and would have made an excellent project.
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonIf we are just going to have a bunch of statics on display in one place to act as a tourist attraction, then I guess that the Gold Coast is the obvious choice for a location.
Ross,
I do agree with a distributed National Collection and even a Campus approach to a National Aviation Museum outcome given the size of Australia and the storys best told in their original locations and settings, but I’m sorry but I dont see anything obvious about the Gold Coast as “the” obvious choice at all for a single display location?
It is merely one of many tourism destinations in Australia, and already over catered for with 5 “manufactured” tourism attractions?
Would you also propose to relocate the Echuca Paddle Steamers and Whalf to GC along with the Soveriegn Hill Gold Museum and AWM simply to concentrate tourism into the GC further? why not Ayers Rock too and be done with it?
The GC is irrelevent to Australian Aviation History.
I personally think a prime National Aviation Museum could still be created, along with one or two campus collections, however I doubt either outcomes will ever now happen.
Were a prime Museum to be created I still consider Point Cook to be the “obvious” choice with its intact 1914 and 1920’s infrastructure, an intact WW1 and 1916 Seaplane base on the Southern Tarmac, its strong early role in both early military and civil aviation, its strong association with a number of important National Flights and aviation personalities, and the fact that a number of its remaining buildings are at least 7 years older than the oldest aviation buildings anywhere else in Australia.
Point Cook is clearly Australia’s most important National Aviation Heritage site, perhaps followed by Richmond/Ham Common, although the oldest surviving building at that site is unfortunately now a very young 1937 building, with Longreach, Essendon and Ballarat being the next most historical intact aviation sites with significant and important surviving built infrastructure.
The Department of Defence administered civil aviation from Melbourne via the Civil Air Board until the creation of the Department of Civil Aviation in the 1930’s and many air worthiness and other civilian licence and engineering aspects were managed at Point Cook and later Essendon.
Victoria also played some other small roles in Australian aviation in the form of:
The first successful Balloon flight in Australia 1858
The first successful powered Flight – 1910
The first Australian built powered flight – 1910
The first passenger (powered) flight in Australia- 1911*
The first paying passenger (powered) flight in Australia – 1911*
The first cross-country flight – 1911*
The first military flight – 1914*
The first south north crossing of Australia- 1919*
The first civilian licence refresher courses in Australia – 1919*
The first civilian licence training courses in Australia – 1923*
The first air-sea search and rescue flight in Australia – 1920*
The first circumnavigation of Australia- 1924*
The first international flight of an Australian aircraft – 1926*
The first non-stop east-west crossing of Australia (Kingsford Smith)- 1928*
The first emergency use of a parachute – 1929*
The first crop dusting trials in Australia – 1930*
The first Airmail to PNG (Ulm) – 1934*
Creation of CAC – 1936
Creation of Ansett – 1937
Creation of DAP/GAF – 1940
Creation of TAA – 1946
Thats in no way to minimise the achievements undertaken in other states, and in particular Qld and NSW, however all of those historical events marked (*) occurred at or near Point Cook and I could not see the relevence of the Gold Coast as an appropriate site from any logical point of view, other than to saturate an existing tourism market over those in other states?
Experiencing History and Cultural Heritage is about a lot more than enjoying fibreglass volcanoes, batman, movieworld, waterslides and Big Banana’s?.
History is best told where it happened, exactly like Longreach for QANTAS, in part thats why the tourists “still” go to the paddlesteamers in Echuca, and Sovereign Hill in Ballarat, Port Arthur in Hobart, and even the AWM in Canberra, despite the “obvious” importance and attraction of the Gold Coast.
I sometimes wonder if there are traces of the old ‘Brisbane Line” mentality alive and well
I’m not into parochial State rivalry as per my earlier comments in other threads in any case, (and am a strong supporter of the Queensland Air Museum as best I can be from the other end of the country), but I do note you are often the one promoting the virtues of the “Queensland” Vintage Aeroplane Group as against more National groups such as Australian Warbirds, SAAA or AAAA?, you seem to be the one constantly promoting one place (Qld) over all others?
Queensland does have important aviation stories to tell about Hinkler, Kinsford Smith, Qantas, the RAAF and USAF in WW2, and hopefully the existing displays and artifacts will be retained and added to, the development by Steve Searle at Beaudesert is promising, and with the B-25, Avengers and A-20 could focus on the US forces in Qld in WW2, hopefully his collection will be permanant and exist indefinately, and its closeness to the Gold Coast might counter the plastic and fibreglass fluff.
But there really is a lot more to Australia than just the Gold Coast and Queensland, and the majority of us seem very pleased to live and work in the rest of it.
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkington.
Peter,
As you know, we have a Lancaster centresection floor and spar web section with our Lincoln project at Moorabbin, that approximates to the removed section in FM212 (possibly the elusive KB941 centre-section supposedly acquired from Canada by Charles Church, and perhaps consumed in the rebuild of the KB976 Centre-section now with Kermit Weeks, and the centre-section remains of KB994 remain intact in that fuselage project).
At this stage this section will possibly be used as the basis of donor parts for a Lincoln cockpit replica floor, given the cross-section dimensions are identical.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkington.
The Blackburn Botha and AW Albermarle both seem to tie for the title from my point of view.
The Botha was designed in 1938 and apparantly suffered from changing RAF requirements, and perhaps was not that far behind the Blenhiem in performance and capability, although it was 3 years behind that design and actually built as a competitor to the later Beaufort design. It suffered from lack of access to the larger 1130HP Taurus engines that the Beaufort received.
The Botha entered front line service with one squadron on coastal patrols before exhibiting servere underpower and instability, it transfered to target towing and training roles where it suffered futher casualties and couldnt even be palmed off on the Russians.
The Albermarle was designed in 1940 and in some ways resembles a tricycle undercarriage Beaufort, its performance however was little better than the Blenhiem and Botha, despite being 5 years younger than the Blenhiem and 2 years after the Botha, and suffered from its specific choice of non-strategic materials. It was quickly removed from front line bomber service but did perform reasonably well as a makeshift paratroop transport. Again the Russians were the unwilling recepients of these handmedowns.
The UK developed some excellent aircraft during WW2, the Lancaster, Mosquito and Spitfire being obvious examples, but it is interesting to compare the development of similar twin engined medium bombers such as the B-25 and A-20 of 1939, or the Hudson of 1938 in the USA with these two designs from the UK to realise how aircraft design had been delayed in the UK with the continued interwar focus on wooden biplanes led by DH, as against the stressed metal and monoplane construction being pursued by the US and Germany prior to WW2.
It is sobering to consider that while the Americans’ were entering the Boeing 247 and DC2 in the 1934 air-race, that the equivalent modern aircraft in the UK were the DH86 and DH89, and perhaps the Avro Anson, all excellent types, but not as technically advanced as their American cousins, and a gap not closed in the remaining pre-war years.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkington.
Of course my “media release” above is an April Fools day joke, and in some ways a very “sad” joke being played on a Nation with such a rich Aviation Heritage, as it seems successive Australian Government’s appear never able to deliver such an outcome despite the near 35 years of talking about it.
There are some elements of truth in my fabrication above, retired AVM David Evans was the chairman of the National Capital Authority and did indeed propose a National Aerospace Centre for Canberra in 2000 at a cost of $25M to $40M just for the building, and was apparantly basing its creation on the then intended closure of Point Cook and opportunity for relocation of the RAAF Museum to Canberra, and use of its collection in his NAC.
http://www.nationalcapital.gov.au/downloads/corporate/publications/misc/PZOutcomes.pdf
National Aerospace Centre
A National Aerospace Centre is proposed as a major addition to
the cultural institutions in the place of the people. The Centre will
recognise and celebrate Australian achievement in aviation, space
exploration, communications and satellite technology.
The Centre is intended to become the hub of a national and
international network of exhibition and archive centres, all focused
on the dynamic interpretation of aerospace history and ongoing
achievements in these and allied fields.
An Interim Aerospace Council of eminent Australians has been
established to advance the development of the Centre. The primary
role of the Council is to promote the concept with interest groups
and to advise the National Capital Authority on exhibition, capital
and revenue strategies, business planning, organisation structure
and the marketing and commercial aspects of the project.
Various feasibility studies have been completed addressing
objectives, exhibition and administrative requirements, siting
operations and funding. A floor area of 10,000 square metres
will be required for core exhibition spaces, offices and concessions.
In addition, it has been proposed that a parking structure be
located with the institution to cater for the parking needs it
generates and any additional parking needs related to adjacent
institutions or events.
A preferred site has been identified adjacent to the National
Science and Technology Centre. Master planning for this site
has started and includes investigating the staged construction of
the Centre. Concurrently, opportunities for private sector
investment and patronage are being explored.
An Aerospace Centre in the place of the people would demonstrate
Australia’s achievements and innovation in this exciting industry.
The NAC proposal was fiercely opposed by both the AWM and Questicon Science Museum at the time who felt it was simply duplicating their existing franchises in the National Capital of both Aviation and Technology displays. Interestingly AVM Evans was proposing displays of military aircraft such as F111’s etc derived from his own RAAF experiences, and the outcome did not seem to address the lack of civil aviation preservation at the National Level.
AVM Evans had been a strong proponent of Canberra during his time in the Chair of the NCA, and had opposed the creation of any “National” museums in the States and Regional centres ,arguing those cultural icons needed to be located in the Nation’s Capital. However that Canberra centric focus had not stopped the National Maritime Museum being previously established in Sydney, nor National museums of Wool, Rail and automobiles being established elsewhere in Australia.
The reality being that Australia is a vast country, and Canberra is not neccessarily the appropriate, best or most relevent location for all cultural activities to occur.
Since AVM Evans’ retirement from the NCA chair, the proposal has been quietly shelved in the dustbin where it belongs.
The project would have resulted in yet another high cost “Italian marble” building in the Parliamentary triangle, with significant display staff, restoration staff, and the need for other offsite storage and restoration workshop building infrastructure, and the various building and staff costs would have been well beyond the original projected $25M to $40M cost.
Unfortunately it lacked even the basic focus of whats its collection policy and real purpose was intended to be, and the building and staff costs probably would have consumed funds more correctly spent on the non-existant aircraft and artifact collection, hence the strategy to solve the RAAF’s problem of relocating the RAAF Museum from its site at Point Cook to allow that base to be redeveloped into a housing estate, and to provide a ready made collection for the National Aerospace Centre, despite it being a 100% focus on Military Aviation and directly duplicating the role and collection of the AWM.
The successful lobbying campaign to retain the RAAF Museum at Point Cook, and to retain the site as an operating airfield resulted in commitments to first retain the museum, and later the airfield at Point Cook, by the then Howard Government and so by 2001 the NAC was on shaky ground and by March 2004 the NAC was buried with the retirement of AVM Evans from the Chairmanship of the NCA.
Perhaps one day Australia will belatedly invest in a National Air Museum outcome, until then it will be left to the existing volunteer collections to preserve aircraft outside the interest of the Government run service and military museums.
Point Cook, as Australia’s most important National Aviation Heritage Site, remains the logical place to achieve such an outcome.
regards
Mark Pilkington
speaking on behalf of himself.
mark_pilkington.
No misleading statements about being from a Spitfire with this one smiles
Russian aircraft something Item number: 120396622363
I cant tell you much about this item apart from it coming from a Russian aircraft.
will ship worldwide just tell us where you want it and will quote you. Any questions please ask
smiles
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkington.
There have been many static restorations being claimed to be restored to “airworthy condition” as a measure of the quality of work, rather than the actual intended purpose.
I wonder if that is the situation here, as it would seem a massive project to reconstruct the wing centre-section floor to be structurally sound for flight operations, it would seem to be a significant load bearing area.
Regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonMark
Thanks, that’s an impressive list of aeroplanes that one day will grace the skies again. I hope they don’t end up overseas (since the $A has dropped).
I had heard of the Cadets, are they under active restoration?
I don’t have such a list for up here in Qld/Northern NSW
cheers
Ross
Ross, I will leave Howard (Avro Cadet) above to confirm the current status and progress of his 5 Cadets.
There are some great restorations up north as you would be sure to know, John Sinclair’s Dragon, Ralph Cusack’s Beaufort just to name two of the more significant ones.
It is a pity groups such as the QVAC / AAAA / Warbirds dont have forums or websites that track and update these restorations, in a similar way to Gary Austin’s work on the CAF’s B-24 on the WIX forum.
I know the individual restorers are often too busy and uninterested in such “documentaries” but it is a great way to encourage others into the hobbie, but also to encourage those with forgotten parts in the shed to come forward and contribute them, rather than have them tossed down the tip.
I often find the “work in progress” more interesting than the completed outcome as access to internal structures etc provide a great insight to design and construction methods hidden later by fabric and paint.
regards
Mark Pilkington
mark_pilkingtonKen,
your photo looks more like WB518 than WB271, with wing tanks, the K ship tail marking and apparant “518” under the wing, and lighter blue spinner?
WB518
WB271
regards
Mark Pilkington
Sign In
