Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Flt Sgt Copping's P-40 From The Egyptian Desert

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • markb
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Feb 2009
    • 257

    Let's establish some facts before we start getting all angry and "offended", please.

    Comment

    • Moggy C
      Moderator
      • Jan 2000
      • 20534

      The FACT remains the museum grandees gave away a Spitfire and got nothing in return.

      I can get mildly offended by that.

      Moggy
      "What you must remember" Flip said "is that nine-tenths of Cattermole's charm lies beneath the surface." Many agreed.

      Comment

      • Mark12
        MEANS MOTIVE OPPORTUNITY
        • Jan 2000
        • 10863

        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
        "...the story had been forensically examined and was deeply impressive. I knew that the whole story was a load of myth and baloney"

        Comment

        • Fournier Boy
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Mar 2007
          • 1044

          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

          Comment

          • David_Kavangh
            Senior Member
            • Jan 2000
            • 1017

            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.
            Last edited by David_Kavangh; 5th January 2016, 20:39.

            Comment

            • David Burke
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Jan 2000
              • 10028

              'There's no story here, nothing new to report'


              Right so you can confirm that the P-40 is still in Egypt then?

              Comment

              • 467 sqn RAAF
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Dec 2012
                • 156

                As long as it survives as some form of memorial to Dennis Copping that's the main thing, restored or not.

                Comment

                • Fournier Boy
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Mar 2007
                  • 1044

                  Originally posted by David Burke View Post
                  '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.

                  FB

                  Comment

                  • David Burke
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • Jan 2000
                    • 10028

                    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 !

                    Comment

                    • John Green
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Mar 2011
                      • 6643

                      Originally posted by David_Kavangh View Post
                      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 !

                      Comment

                      • Moggy C
                        Moderator
                        • Jan 2000
                        • 20534

                        Originally posted by David Burke View Post
                        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

                        Originally posted by Fournier Boy View Post
                        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.
                        Last edited by Moggy C; 5th January 2016, 22:42.
                        "What you must remember" Flip said "is that nine-tenths of Cattermole's charm lies beneath the surface." Many agreed.

                        Comment

                        • DaveM2
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Jan 2000
                          • 761

                          Originally posted by John Green View Post
                          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.

                          Comment

                          • Matt Poole
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Dec 2004
                            • 459

                            Originally posted by Moggy C View Post
                            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.
                            RAF LIBERATORS OVER BURMA (subtitled FLYING WITH 159 SQUADRON) by Bill Kirkness DFM and Matt Poole, published by Fonthill Media

                            Comment

                            • Guest's Avatar
                              Guest

                              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!
                              Last edited by Tangmere1940; 6th January 2016, 02:49.

                              Comment

                              • markb
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Feb 2009
                                • 257

                                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.

                                Comment

                                • David Burke
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Jan 2000
                                  • 10028

                                  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 !
                                  Last edited by David Burke; 6th January 2016, 04:15.

                                  Comment

                                  • David Burke
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Jan 2000
                                    • 10028

                                    '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.

                                    Comment

                                    • Mark12
                                      MEANS MOTIVE OPPORTUNITY
                                      • Jan 2000
                                      • 10863

                                      Originally posted by Matt Poole View Post
                                      -- 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."

                                      Maybe just a 'typo'.

                                      https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/...0819a5fd97a0c0
                                      "...the story had been forensically examined and was deeply impressive. I knew that the whole story was a load of myth and baloney"

                                      Comment

                                      • Mark12
                                        MEANS MOTIVE OPPORTUNITY
                                        • Jan 2000
                                        • 10863

                                        Originally posted by Tangmere1940 View Post
                                        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?
                                        "...the story had been forensically examined and was deeply impressive. I knew that the whole story was a load of myth and baloney"

                                        Comment

                                        • Bruce
                                          Independent analyst
                                          • Jan 2000
                                          • 10225

                                          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

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X