By: Mark12
- 5th January 2016 at 19:59Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The FACT remains the museum grandees made an equitable trade for a Spitfire, valued 'x', for a recovery operation to the point of exit, also value 'x'.
There was some risk, deemed acceptable at the time, but politics and timing conspired against the RAF Museum on this occasion. I applaud them for trying....and like Burma it is not over yet.
"I can get mildly offended by that"....hence opening up this thread again with the most flimsiest of unsubstantiated and uncredited rumour?
By: Fournier Boy
- 5th January 2016 at 20:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Agree with Mk12, speculation and as originally stated, without any form of confirmation as to fact. I can't see why Moggy should raise this to do anything other than incite a host of comments and recycle 68 pages of the same information.
Surely the job of the moderator is to limit finger pointing and accusations in a respectable manner, and not to wind people up. If posted as an individual, then I can't see what can be gained from an unconfirmed rumour.
There's no story here, nothing new to report. Shall we all move on now to something fact based now and act like grown ups?
By: David_Kavangh
- 5th January 2016 at 20:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
John Green, I think you need to understand the difference between "conserving" an historic item and "restoring/renovating" an historic item. That applies just as much to a work of art by an old master and a P40.
By: Fournier Boy
- 5th January 2016 at 21:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
'There's no story here, nothing new to report'
Right so you can confirm that the P-40 is still in Egypt then?
Can you confirm its not? Nope? Didn't think so - likewise neither can I prove the opposite. Hence you see the reason why there is no story here, it's a pointless exercise.
By: John Green
- 5th January 2016 at 22:06Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
John Green, I think you need to understand the difference between "conserving" an historic item and "restoring/renovating" an historic item. That applies just as much to a work of art by an old master and a P40.
You're arguing the wrong point. I have no misunderstanding with the terms to which you refer. Bruce wants to leave well alone, and display this aircraft as is. I, on the other hand, regard all aircraft not capable of flight, as 'dead' museum pieces. As an opposing example I quoted Shuttleworth. Make sense ?
If it can be made capable of flight then, fly it !
By: Moggy C
- 5th January 2016 at 22:38Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So what your saying is that speculation and reports need to be 'fact' before they can be posted ! Well that's half the internet gone then !
Quite so.
I heard that the container has been placed by two separate sources as being now in the USA.
I shared it here, heavily emphasising that the story is as yet unsubstantiated. I could have course have kept it to myself and had a smug little "I know something others don't" feeling but I didn't.
I hadn't realised so many people didn't want to be privy to any possibility, happier to wait until it is a certainty. An interesting glimpse into some psyches.
Moggy
Surely the job of the moderator is to limit finger pointing and accusations in a respectable manner, and not to wind people up. If posted as an individual, then I can't see what can be gained from an unconfirmed rumour.
Thank you for that timely reminder of the role of a moderator. Most useful. I would just point out that, as for the last ten or eleven years, Bruce, Peter and myself post here as individuals, separate from our moderation role. It is how it has always been and will be.
By: DaveM2
- 5th January 2016 at 22:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You're arguing the wrong point. I have no misunderstanding with the terms to which you refer. Bruce wants to leave well alone, and display this aircraft as is. I, on the other hand, regard all aircraft not capable of flight, as 'dead' museum pieces. As an opposing example I quoted Shuttleworth. Make sense ?
If it can be made capable of flight then, fly it !
And in doing so you opted to post a snide remark suggesting Bruce doesn't support Shuttleworth, which you and I both know isn't the case.
And any aircraft can be made capable of flight, and (if not a modern type) would be reproductions of their original selves. Scrap dealers would no doubt be licking their lips with all those skips full of 'non airworthy' structure.
By: Matt Poole
- 6th January 2016 at 01:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
For what it is worth...
For what any rumour mongering is worth...
Oh...it's not a rumour? Just fact without citation or substance, I guess.
The issue for me, and a few others, isn't whether Moggy is factually correct -- I would not be at all surprised to eventually hear he is spot-on...once someone with a backbone goes public with the meat of the matter. On many other topics, had someone else tried to pass off on the forum readers what Moggy posted, I'd guess that the results would have been a public shaming from a certain Moderator for having fanned the flames while revealing next to nothing.
Also from Moggy:
I hadn't realised so many people didn't want to be privy to any possibility, happier to wait until it is a certainty. An interesting glimpse into some psyches.
Give me a friggin' break! Clearly Moggy, as a private forum poster, not as a Mod, is clueless to the validity of any criticism. Which makes him clueless as a Mod, as well.
New
By: Anonymous
- 6th January 2016 at 02:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think it should be said that in their capacity as Moderators Moggy, Bruce and Peter carry out an often thankless task with a good deal of patience, good humour, common sense, even handedness and fairness. Although that perspective is often not seen by those they are 'moderating', especially when the moderators views and actions might conflict with those of some posters or collective opinions of groups of posters taking a particular (and differing) view. They do a good job under difficult circumstances, and I am only too well aware of the amount of time they give freely to this onerous task. Without them, this forum would not function. They also post freely as posters, just as anyone else does - and both Bruce and Moggy have done so (above).
I think it is unfortunate they seem to get rather more in the way of brickbats than they do plaudits as Moderators. Personally, I think it is they who should be given a break!
By: markb
- 6th January 2016 at 02:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So what your saying is that speculation and reports need to be 'fact' before they can be posted ! Well thats half the internet gone then
Good! This is a non-story, unless someone has evidence that the crate containing the P-40 is no longer where it was, or proof that it is somewhere else.
By: David Burke
- 6th January 2016 at 03:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A story is a story full stop. The P-40 is / was in a ISO shipping container. Its location hasn't been confirmed for a while -therefore speculation in itself is perfectly valid .
Regards it being a 'non story' ! A clearly harrowing end to a RAF pilot - an unknown resting place - a recovery by British engineers - the Egyptian civil war - a traded Spitfire
and an unknown location for the recovered P-40 !
Sounds like a 'non story' preservation best seller waiting to be written !
As to this bit 'unless someone has evidence that the crate containing the P-40 is no longer where it was, or proof that it is somewhere else'
Doesn't really make sense - if the container is no longer where it was you don't need proof that its somewhere else !
By: David Burke
- 6th January 2016 at 04:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
'I would not be at all surprised to eventually hear he is spot-on...once someone with a backbone goes public with the meat of the matter.'
Where does the 'backbone' bit come into it ? The majority of what are effectively business deals have confidentiality involved. Whether the new owner if there is one wishes to remain private in their intentions is entirely their choice. Just because we exist in an internet world -it doesn't automatically mean we have a right to know the finite details of how or when warbird collectors carry out transactions.
By: Mark12
- 6th January 2016 at 07:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-- I would not be at all surprised to eventually hear he is spot-on..
...and well he might be, but unless the container was flown out to the US, the 29 day sea crossing to the US East Coast does not sit well with the last report I have of the P-40 in Egypt.
".....unconfirmed in any way, that the P40 container is no longer in the Middle East - but is now in the US."
By: Mark12
- 6th January 2016 at 07:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think it should be said that in their capacity as Moderators Moggy, Bruce and Peter carry out an often thankless task with a good deal of patience, good humour, common sense, even handedness and fairness. Although that perspective is often not seen by those they are 'moderating', especially when the moderators views and actions might conflict with those of some posters or collective opinions of groups of posters taking a particular (and differing) view. They do a good job under difficult circumstances, and I am only too well aware of the amount of time they give freely to this onerous task. Without them, this forum would not function. They also post freely as posters, just as anyone else does - and both Bruce and Moggy have done so (above).
I think it is unfortunate they seem to get rather more in the way of brickbats than they do plaudits as Moderators. Personally, I think it is they who should be given a break!
Like totally removing from the Forum a 'locked thread' with approaching one million hits?
By: Bruce
- 6th January 2016 at 08:05Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Deep breath time.
Firstly, let's stick to the topic of this thread, and not try and reopen the debate on Burma. The right time to continue that discussion will be if anything is found, at any point in the next 'n' years.
To answer John Green. To my mind, the P40 in question has ceased to be a flying machine, or have any potential so to be, without replacing most of it with new parts. In the case of many aircraft, which are historically insignificant, other than their having been built a long time ago, I could care less whether they are totally rebuilt using new parts, and all of the old stuff is thrown away. However, the P40, to my mind is an important historical artefact, and a unique survivor of the RAF's desert war. Yes, it could be 'restored' to fly, but then all its inherent history is lost, as well as its links to Dennis Copping, and it becomes a pale shadow of its former self. Posterity would be poorly served.
Is this a non story? I suggest that there is no smoke without fire. There is also nothing we can do about it whatsoever..
By: Thunderbird167
- 6th January 2016 at 08:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I for one welcome this, if the news is true, as it moves the container and its contents to a more secure location.
The rights and wrongs of the Spitfire payment are to me of no consequence. That was the considered commercial payment for what was agreed between the RAF Museum and the recovery team at the time. Alternatively the RAF Museum could have simply paid the cost of the work.
As to its current or future ownership, had it ever been the case that the RAF Museum had secured title to the aircraft before instructing the recovery?
It would be good to see it preserved as is, just like the Halifax at Hendon as I think it tells a more important story than being in the air with several others of its type.
Time to park the thread again until there is some more concrete news
Posts: 16,832
By: Moggy C - 5th January 2016 at 19:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The FACT remains the museum grandees gave away a Spitfire and got nothing in return.
I can get mildly offended by that.
Moggy
Posts: 10,029
By: Mark12 - 5th January 2016 at 19:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The FACT remains the museum grandees made an equitable trade for a Spitfire, valued 'x', for a recovery operation to the point of exit, also value 'x'.
There was some risk, deemed acceptable at the time, but politics and timing conspired against the RAF Museum on this occasion. I applaud them for trying....and like Burma it is not over yet.
"I can get mildly offended by that"....hence opening up this thread again with the most flimsiest of unsubstantiated and uncredited rumour?
Mark
Posts: 1,037
By: Fournier Boy - 5th January 2016 at 20:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Agree with Mk12, speculation and as originally stated, without any form of confirmation as to fact. I can't see why Moggy should raise this to do anything other than incite a host of comments and recycle 68 pages of the same information.
Surely the job of the moderator is to limit finger pointing and accusations in a respectable manner, and not to wind people up. If posted as an individual, then I can't see what can be gained from an unconfirmed rumour.
There's no story here, nothing new to report. Shall we all move on now to something fact based now and act like grown ups?
FB
Posts: 985
By: David_Kavangh - 5th January 2016 at 20:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
John Green, I think you need to understand the difference between "conserving" an historic item and "restoring/renovating" an historic item. That applies just as much to a work of art by an old master and a P40.
Posts: 9,780
By: David Burke - 5th January 2016 at 20:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
'There's no story here, nothing new to report'
Right so you can confirm that the P-40 is still in Egypt then?
Posts: 150
By: 467 sqn RAAF - 5th January 2016 at 21:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As long as it survives as some form of memorial to Dennis Copping that's the main thing, restored or not.
Posts: 1,037
By: Fournier Boy - 5th January 2016 at 21:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Can you confirm its not? Nope? Didn't think so - likewise neither can I prove the opposite. Hence you see the reason why there is no story here, it's a pointless exercise.
FB
Posts: 9,780
By: David Burke - 5th January 2016 at 22:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So what your saying is that speculation and reports need to be 'fact' before they can be posted ! Well thats half the internet gone then !
Posts: 6,535
By: John Green - 5th January 2016 at 22:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You're arguing the wrong point. I have no misunderstanding with the terms to which you refer. Bruce wants to leave well alone, and display this aircraft as is. I, on the other hand, regard all aircraft not capable of flight, as 'dead' museum pieces. As an opposing example I quoted Shuttleworth. Make sense ?
If it can be made capable of flight then, fly it !
Posts: 16,832
By: Moggy C - 5th January 2016 at 22:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Quite so.
I heard that the container has been placed by two separate sources as being now in the USA.
I shared it here, heavily emphasising that the story is as yet unsubstantiated. I could have course have kept it to myself and had a smug little "I know something others don't" feeling but I didn't.
I hadn't realised so many people didn't want to be privy to any possibility, happier to wait until it is a certainty. An interesting glimpse into some psyches.
Moggy
Thank you for that timely reminder of the role of a moderator. Most useful. I would just point out that, as for the last ten or eleven years, Bruce, Peter and myself post here as individuals, separate from our moderation role. It is how it has always been and will be.
Posts: 743
By: DaveM2 - 5th January 2016 at 22:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And in doing so you opted to post a snide remark suggesting Bruce doesn't support Shuttleworth, which you and I both know isn't the case.
And any aircraft can be made capable of flight, and (if not a modern type) would be reproductions of their original selves. Scrap dealers would no doubt be licking their lips with all those skips full of 'non airworthy' structure.
Posts: 376
By: Matt Poole - 6th January 2016 at 01:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
For what any rumour mongering is worth...
Oh...it's not a rumour? Just fact without citation or substance, I guess.
The issue for me, and a few others, isn't whether Moggy is factually correct -- I would not be at all surprised to eventually hear he is spot-on...once someone with a backbone goes public with the meat of the matter. On many other topics, had someone else tried to pass off on the forum readers what Moggy posted, I'd guess that the results would have been a public shaming from a certain Moderator for having fanned the flames while revealing next to nothing.
Also from Moggy:
I hadn't realised so many people didn't want to be privy to any possibility, happier to wait until it is a certainty. An interesting glimpse into some psyches.
Give me a friggin' break! Clearly Moggy, as a private forum poster, not as a Mod, is clueless to the validity of any criticism. Which makes him clueless as a Mod, as well.
By: Anonymous - 6th January 2016 at 02:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think it should be said that in their capacity as Moderators Moggy, Bruce and Peter carry out an often thankless task with a good deal of patience, good humour, common sense, even handedness and fairness. Although that perspective is often not seen by those they are 'moderating', especially when the moderators views and actions might conflict with those of some posters or collective opinions of groups of posters taking a particular (and differing) view. They do a good job under difficult circumstances, and I am only too well aware of the amount of time they give freely to this onerous task. Without them, this forum would not function. They also post freely as posters, just as anyone else does - and both Bruce and Moggy have done so (above).
I think it is unfortunate they seem to get rather more in the way of brickbats than they do plaudits as Moderators. Personally, I think it is they who should be given a break!
Posts: 261
By: markb - 6th January 2016 at 02:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Good! This is a non-story, unless someone has evidence that the crate containing the P-40 is no longer where it was, or proof that it is somewhere else.
Posts: 9,780
By: David Burke - 6th January 2016 at 03:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A story is a story full stop. The P-40 is / was in a ISO shipping container. Its location hasn't been confirmed for a while -therefore speculation in itself is perfectly valid .
Regards it being a 'non story' ! A clearly harrowing end to a RAF pilot - an unknown resting place - a recovery by British engineers - the Egyptian civil war - a traded Spitfire
and an unknown location for the recovered P-40 !
Sounds like a 'non story' preservation best seller waiting to be written !
As to this bit 'unless someone has evidence that the crate containing the P-40 is no longer where it was, or proof that it is somewhere else'
Doesn't really make sense - if the container is no longer where it was you don't need proof that its somewhere else !
Posts: 9,780
By: David Burke - 6th January 2016 at 04:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
'I would not be at all surprised to eventually hear he is spot-on...once someone with a backbone goes public with the meat of the matter.'
Where does the 'backbone' bit come into it ? The majority of what are effectively business deals have confidentiality involved. Whether the new owner if there is one wishes to remain private in their intentions is entirely their choice. Just because we exist in an internet world -it doesn't automatically mean we have a right to know the finite details of how or when warbird collectors carry out transactions.
Posts: 10,029
By: Mark12 - 6th January 2016 at 07:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
...and well he might be, but unless the container was flown out to the US, the 29 day sea crossing to the US East Coast does not sit well with the last report I have of the P-40 in Egypt.
".....unconfirmed in any way, that the P40 container is no longer in the Middle East - but is now in the US."
Maybe just a 'typo'. :)
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Th%C3%A9us,+France/@44.4862921,6.1601276,13z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x12cb6902a7d6fdeb:0x40819a5fd97a0c0
Posts: 10,029
By: Mark12 - 6th January 2016 at 07:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Like totally removing from the Forum a 'locked thread' with approaching one million hits?
Posts: 8,464
By: Bruce - 6th January 2016 at 08:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Deep breath time.
Firstly, let's stick to the topic of this thread, and not try and reopen the debate on Burma. The right time to continue that discussion will be if anything is found, at any point in the next 'n' years.
To answer John Green. To my mind, the P40 in question has ceased to be a flying machine, or have any potential so to be, without replacing most of it with new parts. In the case of many aircraft, which are historically insignificant, other than their having been built a long time ago, I could care less whether they are totally rebuilt using new parts, and all of the old stuff is thrown away. However, the P40, to my mind is an important historical artefact, and a unique survivor of the RAF's desert war. Yes, it could be 'restored' to fly, but then all its inherent history is lost, as well as its links to Dennis Copping, and it becomes a pale shadow of its former self. Posterity would be poorly served.
Is this a non story? I suggest that there is no smoke without fire. There is also nothing we can do about it whatsoever..
Bruce
Posts: 993
By: Thunderbird167 - 6th January 2016 at 08:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I for one welcome this, if the news is true, as it moves the container and its contents to a more secure location.
The rights and wrongs of the Spitfire payment are to me of no consequence. That was the considered commercial payment for what was agreed between the RAF Museum and the recovery team at the time. Alternatively the RAF Museum could have simply paid the cost of the work.
As to its current or future ownership, had it ever been the case that the RAF Museum had secured title to the aircraft before instructing the recovery?
It would be good to see it preserved as is, just like the Halifax at Hendon as I think it tells a more important story than being in the air with several others of its type.
Time to park the thread again until there is some more concrete news