What is it ?
BBadanov,
First I must come out with my hands up ! You're right, of course. I can only offer in excuse that the copying of Page 172 was carried out late at night, and my eyesight is not as good as it once was. The omission was inadvertent, I assure you, and not intended to "twist" the meaning in any way to deceive. Nevertheless, it should not have happened, and I apologise for it.
Having said that, we are really of the same mind, I think. No one disputes that there was an EZ999, or that it came out to the RAAF, and that its subsequent life is fully documented, and that the Museum says that it is what they've got on display.
The doubters question that last statement. Originally, we based our case on the fact of the rear 0.50 Browning. But now we know (Wayne Brown) that this was a replacement. Why they could only get hold of a 0.50, when they had another 167 Mks. I & II from the "British" allocation to scrap, all with the the "proper" twin 0.300/303 fit, is a mystery. You would think the Museum would take pains to display their "Mk.IA" with all the right kit - even if they had to make wooden "dummy" guns.
Now to Peter C. Smith: as I see it, it is immaterial if he says "the markings EZ999 now carries are fictitious" or "the markings EZ999 are fictitious". Either way, his meaning is clear: what we are looking at is not EZ999. How he based that statement we don't know. But he is an enormously respected aviation historian, and he would have not have said that without good reason.
As I said, we have to wait and see.
Cheers, Danny.