FMK.6John

Thanks John, for your excellent reply : in theory possible then, but I accept your point that it would be extremely unlikely due to the complexity of the systems and the non-currency of many of them , and lest it be thought that I would dare to libel the two afore-mentioned gentlemen, Heaven Forbid! I am sure the thought never entered their heads, for as the old adage goes, ‘There are old Pilots, and bold pilots…but no…’well , we know the rest! Would love to see one of those runs though…maybe next year.. Cheers Brian

Nice shots there XM, clearly showing the two hot air pipes in the fairing from the engine.

Just echoes what I was going to say too. Thanks Oxcart for kicking off this thread, and thanks to all the others with the knowledgeable inputs. Great fun, have enjoyed it…surely that’s what it’s all about….and not a grumpy or huffy member to be seen…!;)

“I still don’t quite understand why the fairing is raised and shaped like it is though, especially below the side windscreen area.”

Pagen01, it would makes sense , if as DeHavEng said, the left hand engine compressor fed the canopy de-icing, water dispersal, demisting,etc., and as it was not so with the earlier marks, it would make sense for the necessary piping to be fed along from the engine , and rather than have serious modifications cutting into the existing framework, the easier, and quicker option would be to run that , as you can see on the photo of ‘131’ along the outside of the fuselage just below the canopy (as you said, the side windscreen area).
There must be some (official) archive paperwork existing that would detail just when where and why that modification (if it was a modification) was required to be fitted to the later aircraft , or if it became standard in the factory-produced FAW 2’s.

Another interesting response in from my brother -in-law, who cannot really add anything more to what we now know, is as follows …

” Hi Bri – Sorry I can’t say for sure – terrible isn’t it?! But I do know that the Mk.1 suffered with cracked windscreens a lot because of the tension in the bolted down glass sandwich – we were always renewing them (‘orrible job!) So I think that fairing was something to do with relieving the tension, I do remember we didnt have to renew them so often on the Mk.2. Anyway if I see any of my old mates (there are not many of them around now!) I shall tap their brains and let you know “

Here are another couple of photos, one showing the drain-hole with slight staining, running aft down to the top of the number ‘3’ and the other, courtesy Damien Burke, which I hope he won’t mind me using,shows the hot air vent mentioned in the earlier mail , and which also shows well the strong central protective frame to withstand barrier entry in the event of a runaway landing, brake failure etc.:(

This shows the fairing in question, I stick with my original explanation, and will need some good evidence to disprove it. So there’s a challenge, get scratching,some Sea Vixen buff can surely corroborate the purpose. 😉
Brian S.

Great to see it emerge from the depths and in such apparent good condition, are there any pictures after it has been cleaned off ? And for you chaps in the know, is it straightforward finder’s keeper, or who would have legal claim to the aircraft after all these years ?

Ray Sturtivant, I.S.O.

So sorry to hear of Ray’s passing.

He always found time in his busy schedule to reply to my correspondence and share his vast knowledge unselfishly when I sought advice and assistance. His legacy lives on on many bookshelves.

Condolences to his family on this sad news.