Kermits Lancaster “kit” is largely based on KB976 despite the Hangar collapse, based on the parts of KB976 and KB994 elsewhere it would seem the containers hold:
KB976
Wing outer panels, Wing Centre-section, Cockpit, tailplanes, fins & rudders and I assume Engines and props.
KB994
rear (mid upper turret) fuselage section
Tail (rear turret) fuselage section
Based on the number of containers required to shift the Lincoln from Sadtoft the 5 high-cube (9′) containers and 3 standard containers shown in the photos could easily be accomodating all of those parts, although the Lincoln Centre Section was too large even for a enclosed high cube container and required an open top, the centre-section of KB976 was understood to be in pieces for repair when acquired by Kermit?
At least Kermit did acquire the major KB976 kitset and has it safely under lock and key, and more importantly under cover, so it did not trapse around the UK in a derelict state, or got split up into smaller seperately owned piles of parts as happened to the remaining parts from Charles Church’s Lancaster/Lincoln holdings.
The remainder of KB976 that Kermit didnt acquire was passed on from Charles Church to Aces High with the “Tail” fuselage ending up on display at Aeroventure in the UK, and the and rear (mid upper turret) fuselage section passed onto Imperial Aviation at Sandtoft along with the stripped cockpit and centre-section (covered wagon section of fuselage but with spars and wing ‘stubs” removed in Canada) from KB994, the Sandtoft parts have been subsequently acquired and shipped down under as part of the Lincoln RF342 acquisition.
Therefore most of Kermits Lancaster is KB976 less 2 sections of fuselage which are KB994, and probably best described just as “KB976”
Most of the Lancaster parts we have acquired and shipped downunder with the Lincoln are from KB994 other than KB976’s rear (mid upper turret) fuselage section, these fuselage sections are expected to be restored to a fuselage display and nothing beyond that- probably best described as being “KB994”, although by length or weight its more truelly a hybrid fuselage of both IDs.
The future of Kermits Lancaster project may be uncertain but at least its stored all together and under cover, for him to eventually, or someone else to undertake.
I would agree with others that there is no urgency for Kermit to commence restoration, and certainly no logic in repatriating it back to Canada where there is already 10 Lancs in varying need of increased support and care, I personally think a Lancaster on display within the US is an excellent preservation and display outcome for future generations.
There is also as JDK stated little prospect of the Australian/NZ Lancs being “resurrected” one is a rare mark 1 combat veteran and National Icon, the other 2 are mark VII aircraft but both are undercover and well loved by their respective collections.
I think our generation is a little too demanding to expect ALL aircraft projects to be under restoration, (and under restoration to fly) to suit our own time lines, its more important that all of these airframes are conserved or preserved from further deterioration, and then made available for many generations besides us, and not neccessarily all in the air?
Restoration to ground running is an exellent “half way house” of bringing history to life again without the financial costs, operational complexities, risks and compromises that airworthy restoration can dictate?
If that means Kermits aircraft doesnt hit the workshop until 2030 does that really matter? as long as its stored appropriately in the mean time?
I also think that we dont really know and appreciate how good we have it, two Lancasters airworthy, another 2 ground running with perhaps 1 more airworthy/ground runner in the offering? currently we have 10% of the survivors flying, not a bad result, and given only @20 complete airframes survive they are a rare and endangered species to be operating in terms of operational spares and risks of loss, ignoring the complexities and costs.
I personally think our generation, and perhaps the next, will see “peak-warbirds”, as equivalent to peak-oil, at least for WW2 vintage aircraft.
The number of unrestored/available wrecks or derelict/abandoned airframes are dwindling rapidly in the last 20 years, after a major increase in activity in the 20 years before that after the “battle of Britain” and Tora Tora Tora springboarded the warbird movement.
National and public collections are occasionally acquiring airworthy aircraft to complete their collections, while the operational parts for certain engines, tyres, undercarriage legs etc are all drying up, other than for high demand types such as Spitfires, Mustangs, P40s, T6 and T28 where new-built parts are flourishing through the demand, or the inventory of NOS stocks will last for many years? Thats also not to take into account the attrition and losses airworthy aircraft have suffered and unfortunately will continue to suffer either through pure “accident”, pilot error or equipment failure.
More unique/orphan aircraft will be harder to support ongoing, will suffer metal fatigue life issues with spars etc that require expensive and uneconomic maintenance/repair and overhaul.
(In Australia an AD to put inspection panels along the wings of Tiger Moths and regularly inspect the wooden spars has dinted the Tigermoth market price considerably)
We are already seeing younger generations pilots wanting to fly aircraft of their own vintage, hence the T28s, DragonFly’s etc dispersing the market, and the lower level warbird market of Nangchangs etc, all of which may make 4 and 2 engined bombers and even single engined piston fighters expensive and difficult for anyone other than large operators such as CAF to undertake.
The other issue for warbirds in the next 30 – 50 years will not only be spares for the WW2 piston engines, but also the high octane fuels, “global warming” reactions threatens a massive shift away from fossil fuels in the longer term, few of our Warbird engines are certified for automotive fuels, none are likely to be certified for ethanol? or combined cycle gas or hydrogen that future automotive developments may deliver?
I therefore think the current situation of two flying lancasters is something we should be cherishing.
regards
Mark Pilkington
Sign In
