PDA

View Full Version : Vulcan to the Sky Trust to return Canberra WK163 to display flight


Wokkafans
19th May 2016, 13:54
Vulcan To The Sky - Latest Press Release (http://www.vulcantothesky.org/news/778/82/Latest-Press-Release.html)


https://mxm.mxmfb.com/rsps/m/Bu3Hf0Y9k2PODm9TW8Bq7xVrR6xgoLfkFJ__wFE5Mzo

http://www.vulcantothesky.org/uploads/documents/Canberra%20to%20be%20returned%20to%20flight%20(2).pdf


"Record-breaking English Electric Canberra to be returned to flight


The team that returned Vulcan XH558 to flight is to return another iconic all-British jet to the airshow circuit

One of Britain’s most important jet-age aircraft is to be returned to flight. English Electric Canberra WK163 spent most of her life playing a central role in the development of advanced propulsion technologies followed by a period with the Royal RADAR Establishment, at the heart of British scientific and engineering innovation. In 1957, she shot into the headlines around the world when a prototype Napier Double Scorpion rocket motor fired her to 70,310 ft and a new world altitude record.

“WK163 was a celebrity even amongst the research aircraft,” said one senior engineer who worked on world-leading secret research programmes at the Ministry of Aviation. “She flew to the edge of space. It was an astonishing achievement.”

Since her final flight in 2007, this famous aircraft, with ‘holder of the world altitude record’ proudly written on her nose, has faced an uncertain future. Now she is to be restored and returned to the airshow circuit with the aim of helping to celebrate the centenary of the RAF in 2018. The restoration will be undertaken by Vulcan to the Sky Trust, the award-winning charity responsible for the restoration and operation of Vulcan XH558.

“WK163 embodies so much that is remarkable about British courage and innovation in the Jet Age; qualities that she can continue to inspire in us all,” states Dr. Robert Pleming, who led the team that returned XH558 to flight and is now chief executive of Vulcan to the Sky Trust. “I am thrilled to announce that the Trust plans to restore and fly WK163 for the British public, as we did with Vulcan XH558, with an education programme around her to inspire new generations of engineers and aviators.”

Entering service in 1951, the Canberra was the RAF’s first jet bomber, the answer to a 1944 Air Ministry requirement for a high-speed, high-altitude aircraft to replace the de Havilland Mosquito. It was the first aircraft to be powered by the new Rolls-Royce Avon, the company’s first axial flow jet turbine, a configuration that greatly improved fuel efficiency and is still at the heart of jet engine design to this day. This pioneering engine allowed a Canberra to become the first jet to cross the Atlantic without refuelling (in 1951), and gave the de Havilland Comet sufficient range to inaugurate the world’s first no-stop transatlantic jet airliner service in 1958.

The all-British Canberra was so effective that they were operated by at least 17 nations including France, Germany, Australia and the USA. Demand outstripped production capacity at English Electric (later to make the astonishing Lightning, building on Canberra and Avon experience), so many Canberras were constructed by other companies under licence. WK163 was built in 1954 by Avro at Woodford, at the same facility that built Vulcan XH558.

The Americans admired the Canberra so much that they also built a significant number. They can fly so high for so long that NASA still uses three US-built Canberras for satellite development. Sadly, today, there are only five Canberras known to be flying in the world, including the three highly modified, US-built aircraft at NASA. Only two of these are English Electric Canberras and currently, none are flying in Europe."

Wander00
19th May 2016, 14:00
Great news, until the Campaign Against Aviation seeks to ground it

Nige321
19th May 2016, 14:01
Is that the rattling of a money box I hear....?? :p

hunterboy
19th May 2016, 14:33
I guess Doc Pleming is realising he needs another source of income to fund his retirement ?

Wander00
19th May 2016, 14:34
Surely not

GeeRam
19th May 2016, 15:19
Hmmmmm.........

I wonder what makes them more confident about finding a suitable engine than Classic Flight, who IIRC, gave up trying to source one, which is why it never flew again after the engine failure in 2006....??

Simplythebeast
19th May 2016, 15:27
Waiting for the begging letters. Already had the email appeal.

bluetail
19th May 2016, 15:27
I read on another thread that they actually claim to have 6 Engines (Avon 100s) all with the correct paperwork to allow them to be used for flight.

All the struggles Atlantic had getting a replacement engine with valid paperwork for it in 2006/7 seem to have been got round....really?.

Simplythebeast
19th May 2016, 15:30
https://mxm.mxmfb.com/rsps/m/vma5ehqBDrBBQCrxJ3A2c9MFqvvQTV28cCsXZpPK_jU

Basil
19th May 2016, 15:36
(Avon 100s)
Reminds me when, at Cotty on the Argosy, one of our guys used to refer to them as 'Avon-engined Ansons' :E

Pontius Navigator
19th May 2016, 16:01
Now I would like to see an Annie flying. Lots of variants so you could get an interesting one airborne in UK.

Mike51
19th May 2016, 16:04
There are already two Ansons flying in the UK, they've flown together at Old Warden in the recent past

Herod
19th May 2016, 16:08
Is this the current max-cynicism thread? I for one wish them luck.

Pontius Navigator
19th May 2016, 16:13
Mike, TY, Wiki is wrong then.

NutLoose
19th May 2016, 16:19
Waiting for the begging letters. Already had the email appeal.


Yup and I sent them a message telling them what they could do with it.

Simplythebeast
19th May 2016, 17:36
Now if they were to get a Whistling Tit flying......that I would subscribe to.

MPN11
19th May 2016, 18:49
Good luck with the Canberra project ... spent my first 2 ATC tours telling them what to do.

I just hope they get some asymmetric practice done before they start displaying.

Gsxr600
19th May 2016, 19:56
I remember WK163 at Bruntingthorpe in the 90s, would be nice to see flying after all these years. Time will tell if there's the public interest to fund it to the same tune as the Vulcan. Maybe VTTS are hedging their bets, Mossie for the WWII piston enthusiasts and another Cold War bomber for the jet enthusiasts.

BEagle
19th May 2016, 21:43
To hell with the grumbling naysayers - if VTST can return the Canberra to the skies, then the very best of luck to them.

I would like to see some evidence of discussions with the CAA before deciding whether the project is worth supporting financially though.

GeeRam
20th May 2016, 08:19
I would like to see some evidence of discussions with the CAA before deciding whether the project is worth supporting financially though.

In what regard....?

CAA don't have an issue with the Canberra?

It's not in complex category, and this very example was display flying with Classic Flight for 4 years between 2002-2006 before the engine failure.

MidAir was operating the PR.9 OK for a couple of seasons until recently when they went tits-up. Such a shame that a buyer for that can't be found. Don't understand why VTTS just didn't buy that, it's ready to go and fly now it was half the price of the what they say it's going to cost to return WK to the air......:rolleyes:

Wander00
20th May 2016, 08:29
A memory stirred - as a kid managed one year to persuade the parents to take me to Farnborough. WK163 was flying and turned away from the crowd and had the rockets going - deafened my Mother for a week.

Wander00
20th May 2016, 08:32
Is the Canberra less complicated than the Hunter? I recall a Naval officer whose background was helicopters being offered appointment as last OC360. "But I am a chopper pilot" quoth he. "No problem - 70 hours on Hunters, like half a Canberra, and then convert to the Canberra." And he did just that.

Mike51
20th May 2016, 08:59
MidAir was operating the PR.9 OK for a couple of seasons until recently when they went tits-up. Such a shame that a buyer for that can't be found. Don't understand why VTTS just didn't buy that, it's ready to go and fly now it was half the price of the what they say it's going to cost to return WK to the air......:rolleyes:
The quoted £100k is NOT to return it to the air, merely to buy it, ship it to Doncaster and take it to pieces and decide what needs doing to it next. You be assured that it will take many, many times that amount to complete the restoration. I understand that its condition has suffered considerably from its aborted restoration and subsequent time parked out in the elements at Coventry. VTTS have a successful business model which involves continued funding rounds for a project that is always described as being on the brink of collapse unless, in the immortal words of Bob Geldof, you just "give us your ****ing money" - WK163 fits that model perfectly, doubtless with plenty of dramas to come, unlike XH134.

H Peacock
20th May 2016, 10:14
XH134, being a Canberra PR9, has powered flying controls on the ailerons and rudder. These systems are irreversible with no mechanical reversion so, in the highly unlikely event of a total hydraulics failure, the PR9 is unflyable. Unfortunately that probably puts XH134 in a category the CAA label as 'Complex'.

Every other mark of Canberra will have manual flying controls throughout and is therefore categorised as 'Intermediate'.

Tech Guy
20th May 2016, 11:22
Fair play to them. But I'd much rather see a Lightning or Buccaneer back in flight.

GeeRam
20th May 2016, 11:39
XH134, being a Canberra PR9, has powered flying controls on the ailerons and rudder. These systems are irreversible with no mechanical reversion so, in the highly unlikely event of a total hydraulics failure, the PR9 is unflyable. Unfortunately that probably puts XH134 in a category the CAA label as 'Complex'.

Surely then MidAir/C2Aviation would never have got XH134 back in the air under CAA regs as we know the Vulcan has been (and likely only ever be) the only 'complex' jet operated on a PtF, and MidAir flew XH134 for at least 12 months on the display circuit in 2013-4.

???

Stanwell
20th May 2016, 12:08
For as much regard as I personally have for the Canberra, I'm afraid it just doesn't have the 'wow-factor' - no matter
how well credentialled that particular airframe might be.
Then, as Mr Peacock mentioned above, it's a PR.9 with no manual reversion.
Give WK163 a nice polish, a touch of paint and display it in a museum, where it properly belongs.

I really don't think the VVTS have properly done their homework.


Anyway, if you're going to go to all that trouble and expense, better to get a Lightning up and flying on the display circuit.
South Africa have done it.
More chance of getting the punters (sorry, enthusiasts) to part with their pounds, I think.
.

GeeRam
20th May 2016, 12:20
For as much regard as I personally have for the Canberra, I'm afraid it just doesn't have the 'wow-factor' - no matter
how well credentialled that particular airframe might be.
Then, as Mr Peacock mentioned above, it's a PR.9 with no manual reversion.
I really don't think the VVTS have properly done their homework.

:ugh:

No.....VTTS have acquired the non-airworthy ex-Classic Flight B.2 WK163, the PR.9 WH134 is the one owned by MidAir and currently up for sale.

Stanwell
20th May 2016, 12:55
Quite right.
Thank you for the correction. :ok:

Anyway, the basis of my post remains.

Avtur
20th May 2016, 13:10
Vulcan=Wow!, Canberra = yawn! Good luck anyway.

Martin the Martian
20th May 2016, 13:17
Pontius

re:Anson, Wiki is definitely wrong.

BAE Systems owns a C.19, G-AHKX, which is maintained and flown out of Old Warden, while another Mk.19, G-VROE, is owned by Air Atlantique/Classic Air Force/insert name here and flies in post war RAF training colours.

And they both look absolutely splendid!

Valiantone
20th May 2016, 17:09
Martin

Except that CAF at Coventry has ceased flying and is looking to sell all the fleet, hence the Canberra going to VttS

V1

sidewayspeak
20th May 2016, 17:25
Don't the Vulcan pilots and the 'charity' staff take a sizeable salary for themselves...?

When i heard that, it put me off donating. It's paying for an Old Boy's flying club.

BIGGLES29
20th May 2016, 18:36
VTTS need an un-airworthy airframe with all the associated costs and labour to fund a return to flight to support the team they have assembled. A ready to fly Canberra would not generate the work and funds to support their business model

GeeRam
20th May 2016, 19:12
I read on another thread that they actually claim to have 6 Engines (Avon 100s) all with the correct paperwork to allow them to be used for flight.

All the struggles Atlantic had getting a replacement engine with valid paperwork for it in 2006/7 seem to have been got round....really?.

Exactly.

I'm afraid I take everything that VTTS claim with a pinch of salt.

I dare say they do indeed have 6 x Avons, as a package with WK163, but to claim they are flight capable is hardly true, given the fact that CF/AA trawled the globe for some after the FOD damage.

This is from a new snippet posted by them elsewhere on the net back in 2012.

"From Steve Bridgewater at CAT/Airbase.

'Currently on “ a slow boat from California ” is a Rolls Royce Avon 109 engine that we are hoping and praying will be serviceable and allow Canberra WK163 to take to the skies once again!

As you are probably well aware the team has been working long and hard to source a replacement engine after WK163 suffered FOD ingestion on take-off from Coventry a few years ago. We have literally scoured the globe and explored numerous leads of inquiry but, until now, have drawn a blank.

However, we now seem to have sourced an engine which, on first inspection, looks useable. The paperwork (normally the major stumbling block) looks OK and the engine is inhibited. It is now en route to us for a full inspection and testing and, if all is well, we will aim to purchase it and install it in WK163.

There are, in fact, a couple of engines from the same source and if funds can be secured we will try to acquire at least one spare as well. '

Sadly, when that Avon 109 arrived at Coventry it was found it had sustained damage beyond repair during transit, and so, that's why WK163 has remained on the ground ever since.

Herod
21st May 2016, 16:31
Back in '57 I was a ten-year-old, living in Oz. Already becoming an aviation nut, I missed hearing of the altitude record. Wiki isn't much help. Can anyone point me to more information on this please?

Out Of Trim
21st May 2016, 17:25
It might be a wow; if they install the rocket motor again! :E

Pontius Navigator
21st May 2016, 17:28
I would hope they go for the classic clean wing, black and grey look.

Archimedes
21st May 2016, 17:39
Back in '57 I was a ten-year-old, living in Oz. Already becoming an aviation nut, I missed hearing of the altitude record. Wiki isn't much help. Can anyone point me to more information on this please?
WK163 Archives - This Day in Aviation (http://www.thisdayinaviation.com/tag/wk163/)

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1957/1957%20-%201291.html

aerobelly
21st May 2016, 17:43
Back in '57 I was a ten-year-old, living in Oz. Already becoming an aviation nut, I missed hearing of the altitude record. Wiki isn't much help. Can anyone point me to more information on this please?

A small amount here: THE ENGLISH ELECTRIC CANBERRA (http://www.bywat.co.uk/canframes.html) but a bit of you know what with this info might throw up something.

Ah, belay that. Archimedes has the better link.


'a

SirPeterHardingsLovechild
21st May 2016, 20:20
They should nickname it "Triggers Broom"


WK163 first flew after modification on the 20th May 1956 and whilst undertaking these trials the aircraft obtained the world record for aircraft altitude at 70,310ft on the 28th August 1957

Whilst at Pershore in April 1966 WK163 was converted to Mk B6 specification being fitted with Canberra MK B6 mainplanes and engines

Then during April 1972 the B2 nose was removed and replaced with a standard B6 nose from Canberra XH568


Martin/English Electric B-57 Canberra Registry - A Warbirds Resource Group Site (http://www.warbirdregistry.org/jetregistry/canberra-wk163.html)

Herod
21st May 2016, 20:36
Thanks for those links Archimedes. I'm surprised there was a 15 kt speed margin. I would have thought that the aircraft would have been well beyond coffin corner

dragartist
22nd May 2016, 11:52
What happened to the low hrs T4 from RAE Bedford? Would that not be a better candidate to get airborne? I have done a bit on T17s, PR7s, B2s, T4s and the PR9. Even worked on some of the same frames as my Dad 40 years earlier.

Valiantone
22nd May 2016, 13:35
The last T.4 that Bedford had was WJ992.

And after a (rumoured) attempt to sell it on to another Canberra user seemed to have failed. I assume it was spares recovered and it now sits looking rather sad for itself on the dump at Bournemouth...:uhoh:

V1

langleybaston
23rd May 2016, 15:52
They won't be seeing my hard-earned, that's for sure.

I fear no Canberra is capable of stirring the public into stumping up, worthy though it certainly is.

Now a Lightning ................... !

Out Of Trim
23rd May 2016, 16:07
I agree, I think the Canberra project will not generate enough public interest or indeed their money ! :sad:

Krystal n chips
23rd May 2016, 17:07
A decidedly non scientific consensus from people I know who enjoy air shows, but are not spotters / purists carried out last weekend in passing conversation, was that there was no way they would even think about attending one just because a Canberra was flying....that, and their memory extends back more than three years when the last one flew.

" Interesting to see, but nothing out of the ordinary " was the best summation.

However, as an alternative they would like to see, and pay for, a Shack.

Simplythebeast
23rd May 2016, 18:16
Ive already started supporting the shackleton. The begging letters for the canberra will all end in the bin.

Wander00
23rd May 2016, 18:23
Just had a memory triggered. When 360 formed in 1966 we were short of aircraft and a couple of times they lent RRE a couple of crews for a week - as JP I was top of the list each time. I got authorised for a trip in 163, at least I am sure because it was now a B6, and I was recalled from the marshalling point as the high ups decided I could not fly the B6 on a task sortie until I had done a CT sortie. So never did fly a B6

Gsxr600
23rd May 2016, 18:50
Krystal n Chips and Simplethebeast, completely agree with you. I love Cold War Jets but if I was to chuck some money in the bucket it would be for a Shack before a Canberra. Not taking anything away from the Canberra, I'd be interested to see it flying, but its no Vulcan.

The problem seems to me that the Vulcan is a tough act to follow. What would be as spectacular or make the same impact than a Vulcan or even get close...that could realistically return to the air in UK Airspace? Lightning, yes that would do it, but never going to happen. Replacing a 4 engine heavy like a Vulcan with a much smaller 2 engine machine like the Canberra or Mosquito just wont inspire their existing supporters I don't think.

I think they missed an opportunity - they could have acquired an airworthy VC10 and had it delivered to Robin Hood not so long ago, probably with a stock pile of spares. But realistically there seems little chance of seeing any four engined British heavy fly again: Victor, VC10, Nimrod, Comet (Canopus has been outside for 20 years now). So the next best thing has to be the Shackleton.

I wish them all the best, but doubt I'll be putting any money of my own behind either project.

MPN11
23rd May 2016, 19:30
Oh, poor Canberra ... so nice to look at, a great performer, backbone of BC once upon a pre-V-Force ... and now cast into the dustbin of history.

Have you guys no soul?? ;)

The Helpful Stacker
24th May 2016, 02:01
I'm not really that enamoured by the drive to get a Canberra back into the air.

Now if they were looking to return a Lightning (unlikely) or Buccaneer (less unlikely) to the air I'd be interested.

Indeed, the Bucc is good looking and 'The Last All British Bomber', a good sell for the airshow circuit no?

Wander00
24th May 2016, 07:23
MPN - well said that man...................

GeeRam
24th May 2016, 08:14
Then during April 1972 the B2 nose was removed and replaced with a standard B6 nose from Canberra XH568

Noses were swapped back again after both aircraft were sold from RAE, prior to XH568 being prepared for it's ferry flight to it's new owner in the USA.

So, only the mainplanes/engine nacelles etc from an unknown B.6 are not the original WK163.

GeeRam
24th May 2016, 08:21
Oh, poor Canberra ... so nice to look at, a great performer, backbone of BC once upon a pre-V-Force ... and now cast into the dustbin of history.

Indeed.

In many ways the Canberra is way more important and significant in the scheme of things, we haven't sold much to the USA post war after all, as well as numerous sales to other countries. And with the Vulcan no more, there's no other 'large' jet with such a spritely performance....especially in PR.9 form, which again makes the choice of WK163 over the already airworthy XH134 even more confusing.

MPN11
24th May 2016, 08:55
Only 62 sqns operated the Canberra ... a minor event really :D

Canberra Squadrons of the RAF (http://www.bywat.co.uk/sqds.html)

bvcu
24th May 2016, 09:48
i think this is also a practical decision , canberra is relatively simple a/c to maintain compared with something like a shackleton so should be able to manage airshow commitments without to many problems . Lots of work for the NDT man.......!

Gsxr600
24th May 2016, 11:21
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the Canberra returned to flight, and I agree, it is more important historically than the Vulcan and much more successful - in roles, export success etc. However the point being made here is that it may not be able to "impress" non enthusiasts in the same way the Vulcan could, or I suspect a Shack would. And by "impress" I mean, part with the money to fund it.

However I'm only speculating, it would be marvellous if both airframes could be restored to flight.

Valiantone
24th May 2016, 16:34
XH568 was on the display circuit briefly before 163 was. And after some time on the ground at Bruntingthorpe. It was broken up after spares recovery and the nose went to the USA.

Possibly to the mob whose name escapes me that operated the other ex RAE pair. WT327 and XH567 Although they were not the only pair that went out there. a pair of ex FRADU TT.18s went before them or followed them

Not sure of the status of any of them (except 1 of the TT.18s is in a museum) or the Aussie B.20 that went over there either.

Canberra gets my vote as they entered service at my old local:eek:

V1

Tinribs
24th May 2016, 17:01
I flew 163 at RAE (RRS) It was used for a variety of trials flights and like many of our fleet it was a mixture of types. The earlier Canberra marks, but not the PR9, had transport joints just behind the cockpit that could join bits together. Over time the reshuffled bits seemed to go their separate ways and I am not sure which bits went where. We may be fairly sure the wings and centre fuselage are original .

GeeRam
24th May 2016, 19:34
Valiantone
Possibly to the mob whose name escapes me that operated the other ex RAE pair. WT327 and XH567

Air Platforms Inc of Lakeport, California.

tartare
25th May 2016, 03:39
That article about the altitude record is a very interesting read.
Only 10k short of a U2.
What would it have taken to get the Canberra to FL80?
Lengthened wings - even moreso than the RB-57D?
Or would the airframe need to have been completely redesigned due to coffin corner restrictions?

EDIT - my question answered:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin/General_Dynamics_RB-57F_Canberra#Specifications

Wander00
25th May 2016, 09:45
Would not want to have a EFATO on that beast - bad enough on lower powered models

MPN11
25th May 2016, 10:19
We had a RB-57F operating out of Tengah in the late 60s ... take-off was always conducted on "partial power", and full power only applied at about 300' agl or so. At that point it then went up rather steeply!

and if an engine failed during takeoff, TF33 main engine thrust was limited to 70% power to maintain directional control.

Tinribs
25th May 2016, 14:13
It was normal practice on the 9 to set 85% for take off and only apply full power once airborne above safety speed with the gear up. 85% RPM gave about half thrust

MPN11
25th May 2016, 18:43
Ah, those big over-powered gliders, eh? :D

Interesting parallel ... thanks for that snippet. :ok:

Valiantone
25th May 2016, 20:00
Thanks GeeRam

V1

GeeRam
25th May 2016, 20:56
Thanks GeeRam

Air Platforms Inc went bust a good many years ago, and both Canberra's are now registered to High Altitude Mapping Missions Inc. of Spokane, WA, and both have still current FAA certs., valid until 2018 according to the FAA Registry, so both could still be airworthy..??

Krystal n chips
26th May 2016, 04:41
So that's the spares source sorted then.......;)

World War Two fanatic puts Worcestershire hoard up for auction - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-36211451)

Pontius Navigator
26th May 2016, 06:46
Usual editorial accuracy from the beeb.

Wannabeupthere
26th May 2016, 11:14
POST EDITED - To prevent stupid rumours I heard getting spread.

GeeRam
26th May 2016, 11:35
I may be wide of mark

Very.....:ok:

wonderboysteve
26th May 2016, 11:42
Im still under the impression from sources un-named that the VTTS lot could have had more engines and carried on flying to the planned end date IF they had stumped up the cash to RR

Unfortunately there is no truth in this at all. VTTST had the last eight Olympus 202 engines that were acceptable to RR; it was the lack of willingness of the latter to support them post 2015 (due they said to a lack of sufficient competence within the company) that grounded the Vulcan.

Wannabeupthere
26th May 2016, 11:58
Fair enough, I will hold hands up and say I was stupid enough to believe a mate of a mate story.

Gsxr600
26th May 2016, 15:55
wonderboysteve, this is actually only partly true. Martin Withers was asked the exact reason for ceasing flying in an event I attended and this is what he said as I recall.

It was Marshalls who were unwilling to continue OEM support beyond 2015. VTTS did find an alternative company (Cranfield) who were willing to assume the role, but Cranfield were not acceptable to RR. So you could argue it was Marshall's that pulled the plug rather than RR, as RR were willing to continue further if Marshalls had not withdrawn. The remaining engines, through careful management, had sufficient life for a few more seasons.

Pontius Navigator
26th May 2016, 17:06
What was the mtbf on the engines at the end of their Service life or VTTS? In early days IIRC it was well below 1000hrs.

Mike51
26th May 2016, 17:52
It depends, whether with or without added silica gel

Gsxr600
26th May 2016, 17:56
The engines hours were irrelevant as RR insisted VTTS operated their engines up to a maximum number of cycles. A cycle being going from throttle fully closed to fully open and back again - or incrementes thereof.

In the early years VTTS were using engine cycles at an unsustainable rate due to the sort of flying they were doing, but adapted how they flew transit flights and even displays to essentially try and leave the throttles alone and in the same position as much as possible. To this end they were managing to get a lot more "hours" from the engines and had sufficient cycles remaining for a few more seasons beyond 2015.

The engines destroyed by the silica gell were reportedly very nearly at their end of their allowed cycles anyway. Even if they were not it turned out this error wasn't to cause the end of flying. Of course this is just the official line VTTS have reported.

Pontius Navigator
26th May 2016, 18:12
Gsxr, if you were answering my question it was not what I was asking.

IIRC the expected time between failures resulting in a shut down and engine change was 1000 hrs. However I know many cases where the engines got nowhere near that with 300 hours, perhaps one year's use before an unscheduled change.

Did this improve over the following 15 years?

EAP86
30th May 2016, 08:41
I believe that the silica gel practice came about as a result of VTTS failing to prevent corrosion on turbine discs by proper storage. RR's first reaction to the degree of corrosion was to scrap them. I think they did get around to some form of recovery eventually. While I wasn't involved, I believe RR was not too happy about the competence of VTTS which may have coloured their view of the change from Marshalls. I believe the CAA would have also had to approve the change to Cranfield; did they have any issues?

EAP

wonderboysteve
31st May 2016, 11:39
Gsxr600
wonderboysteve, this is actually only partly true. Martin Withers was asked the exact reason for ceasing flying in an event I attended and this is what he said as I recall.

It was Marshalls who were unwilling to continue OEM support beyond 2015. VTTS did find an alternative company (Cranfield) who were willing to assume the role, but Cranfield were not acceptable to RR. So you could argue it was Marshall's that pulled the plug rather than RR, as RR were willing to continue further if Marshalls had not withdrawn. The remaining engines, through careful management, had sufficient life for a few more seasons.


Unfortunately RR were not willing to continue, even in the event that Marshalls had been.

I'll ask MW whether he considers himself misquoted, next time I see him.

NutLoose
31st May 2016, 11:46
Quite rightly too, better to have ended on a high while the going was good, than to risk it all for one extra season....

Still we do have this to watch fly :)

And damned impressive it was

https://c5.staticflickr.com/8/7176/27086474660_8769213869_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/HgxgeN)

https://c7.staticflickr.com/8/7418/27263299222_e4ae2826ba_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Hxax29)

Sorry the second shot is not as good, but I was shooting half way down the runway. :)

NutLoose
31st May 2016, 11:52
I believe that the silica gel practice came about as a result of VTTS failing to prevent corrosion on turbine discs by proper storage. RR's first reaction to the degree of corrosion was to scrap them. I think they did get around to some form of recovery eventually. While I wasn't involved, I believe RR was not too happy about the competence of VTTS which may have coloured their view of the change from Marshalls. I believe the CAA would have also had to approve the change to Cranfield; did they have any issues?

EAP

And common sense would have dictated the Silica Gel used should have been placed in the jet pipe NOT the intake. Sadly common sense seemed to be lacking, but hey ho, no use crying over spilt compressor blades.

Stanwell
31st May 2016, 22:04
That scale jobbie is pretty impressive, Nutty.
Any details on it?

Lima Juliet
1st Jun 2016, 06:42
I believe it is 1/5th scale.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oV8h4OEFOsI

Gsxr600
1st Jun 2016, 19:53
wonderboysteve,

its certainly my recollection of MW's explanation, he made the point more than once, that it was Marshall's decision to discontinue which triggered the end of flight and RR would have continued (but not with anyone else such as Cranfield). It sounds like you know him personally and may have heard things differently. If I've misunderstood I apologise - his comments were made at the Vulcan Restoration Trust Christmas event so a good 40 or 50 others in the room also listened to what he said, they may have heard differently to me, though he seemed quite clear to me.

Nutloose, I have also wondered the same thing. The Silica gel incident couldn't have built confidence, to say the least.

Anyway, whether RR or Marshalls felt enough was enough, or whether it was a joint decision hardly matters now.

glad rag
2nd Jun 2016, 14:02
" The Silica gel incident couldn't have built confidence"

if we are leaning towards RR I'd say pot kettle and black!

NutLoose
3rd Jun 2016, 19:52
Some good news on XM603 at Woodford

https://youtube.com/watch?v=kWl3fT_nFh8

flipflopman RB199
3rd Jun 2016, 20:37
" The Silica gel incident couldn't have built confidence"

if we are leaning towards RR I'd say pot kettle and black!

Glad Rag

Please feel free to elaborate. Don't be shy about including any facts, as opposed to your freely given opinion. :rolleyes:


Flipflopman

Valiantone
7th Jun 2016, 19:19
Well its been re-registered as G-CTTS.

V1

bobward
7th Jun 2016, 21:35
Does this mean that VTTS are no longer involved withe the 'Peoples Mosquito' project?

Apologies for thread drift......:)

GeeRam
8th Jun 2016, 09:09
Does this mean that VTTS are no longer involved withe the 'Peoples Mosquito' project?

Don't think anyone is involved with the 'Peoples Mosquito' project anymore, it all too predictably fell apart a year or more ago IIRC.

NutLoose
8th Jun 2016, 10:03
I wonder if anyone has got the Canberra to the sky website and registered it before them

Mike51
8th Jun 2016, 15:37
Don't think anyone is involved with the 'Peoples Mosquito' project anymore, it all too predictably fell apart a year or more ago IIRC.
It is still ticking along slowly, with wing ribs currently being manufactured in New Zealand.

TPM a Registered Charity ? Reg marks G-FBVI reserved ? wing ribs update ? The People's Mosquito (http://www.peoplesmosquito.org.uk/2016/03/07/tpm-a-registered-charity-reg-marks-g-fbvi-reserved-wing-ribs-update/)

TEEEJ
8th Jun 2016, 17:28
Nutloose wrote

I wonder if anyone has got the Canberra to the sky website and registered it before them

Someone in Italy owns the following. Registered 5th May 2016

Canberratothesky.org - Canberratothesky (http://servicehostnet.com/domain/canberratothesky.org)

kwick
1st Jul 2016, 19:33
Will visit Pisco tomorrow, a city where a peruvian air force military base is located, to accompany a colleague that has just bought three complete Canberra aircraft from them. Peru was a fleet user of the type. We will be there for coordinations and pictures will be available. Does anyone know of someone interested in Canberra parts or engines?

Valiantone
1st Jul 2016, 19:43
Interesting news Kwick, I would be interested to know which jets he got as the Peruvians bought a batch of the RAF B(I).8s in the mid 70s.

Still wish someone had not decided to get rid of the one we had at Cosford:{

V1

kwick
3rd Jul 2016, 00:33
Hi V1,
Will let know which model he has got, and which is the status on them, would be nice if in some way something can be done with them.
Best regards,
Kwick

canberrasig
9th Jul 2016, 19:20
Hi V1,
Will let know which model he has got, and which is the status on them, would be nice if in some way something can be done with them.
Best regards,
Kwick
I'd be very interested too to see which ones he's got. If I could add any photos you get to the album on my site that would be fantastic.
FAP Canberra's Fuerza Aerea del Peru - IPMS UK Canberra SIG (http://ipmscanberrasig.webs.com/apps/photos/album?albumid=15386605)

John

NutLoose
26th Sep 2017, 17:31
Out of interest as I have been on an extended vacation for a while, are you aware that the Vulcan, Canberra in a partially stripped down state, their tooling and equipment are currently residing outside near the sewerage works, they also have I believe deinhibited the engines as well and as they have no engineers anymore the chances of them being inhibited is probably rare.



Worse than the Canberra having the Horizontal tail off is the wings are open too, they haven't even done what any engineer would have done and taped it all up to protect it. Unless taken beforehand I suppose.

http://www.visitdoncaster.com/system/uploads/image_content/image/1121/mobile_high_res_Canberra___Vulcan.png

so you are left with this open to the elements

http://www.vulcantothesky.org/uploads/images/AirLeague/Canberra.JPG

NutLoose
26th Sep 2017, 17:43
Robert Pleming writes with an overview of what has been happening since the success of the Survival Appeal:

We are now six months on from the successful conclusion of the £200,000 Survival Campaign, required because of the effects of the loss of the
Trust’s ability to host visitor tours and events at Doncaster Sheffield Airport (DSA).

As a business, the Trust needs to do whatever is required to remain trading and solvent, and to discharge its contractual responsibilities. As a charity,
the Trust has a duty to provide public benefits, specifically the safeguarding of its heritage assets XH558 and WK163 but importantly also to explain
and educate in any way possible what is interesting, valuable and relevant about these assets.

As a summary for new readers of these newsletters, the loss of the Trust’s ability to trade in DSA’s Hangar 3 at the end of January necessitated a
radical restructure of the Trust, to reflect the significant reduction in revenue but also the temporary cessation of many activities. Undoubtedly the
most significant loss was that of the ability for the public to visit the aircraft, due to the move of the aircraft to Hangar 1, to which public access was
denied, and subsequently to external airside parking. In 2016, the Trust welcomed over 19,000 visitors to Hangar 3. In 2017, that has shrunk to the
couple of hundred visitors participating in XH558’s ground engine run days, plus a few hundred more that have attended events and talks that the
Trust has arranged around the country.

The Trust went from 22 full-time employees plus 2 part-time employees (five of whom the Trust inherited when it took over the lease of Hangar 3 in
January 2016), supporting a £2.4million annual turnover, to 8 full-time employees plus 1 part-timer (three of whom still service a profitable facilities
management contract for Hangar 3) for a projected annual revenue of £800,000. As ever, a few contracted consultants continue to contribute in
specialist areas such as fund-raising. The Survival Appeal enabled the Trust to absorb the shock of this huge change.

DSA’s offer of a lease on a plot of land on the airport’s boundary on which a purpose-built Heritage Hangar could be constructed provided a feasible
route forward to the eventual resumption of the Trust’s charitable activities, and the way by which the Trust could discharge its responsibilities to the
Heritage Lottery Fund for the preservation of XH558 in full working order, and the delivery of educational activities for the rest of the century.

Over the spring and summer months, under Andrew Edmondson’s leadership, considerable work has been done pro bono by a team of local design,
engineering and construction companies, firstly to create a workable but cost-effective design for the new 2500m2 Heritage Hangar tailor-made for
public visits and events alongside aircraft engineering, but also to carry out the tests and inspections required for a successful application for planning
permission to Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council. Last week, that application was submitted, together with the required and not insubstantial
fee of over £15,000. We expect to receive a decision in December.

The work done on the design of the new hangar also generated an estimate for the total cost of construction and fit-out – some £2.8million, including
start-up working capital. Unlike many other charities, the Trust does not have an endowment or capital reserves, so the plan is to find an investor or
consortium to fund the build, with the added attraction of contributing to the development of the Airport.

In parallel with the planning activity, a Business Plan for the Heritage Hangar has been created, based on the successful business model in Hangar 3 of
visitor tours, events, merchandising and catering. This Business Plan has been to subject of extensive review and will continue to be updated, as we need
it to be as robust as possible. The Business Plan is aimed at demonstrating that an investor funding the construction of the new Heritage Hangar will be
assured of an acceptable return on an investment.

We are already talking to prospective investors, and expect to gain valuable feedback on optimising the attractiveness of our proposition over coming
weeks. As with any charity embarking on a new direction, we are drawing on advice from various quarters, especially from those who have experience
of similar projects. It’s difficult to be definite on timescales, but we very much hope to open for business in the new Heritage Hangar in 2018. If there
is anyone reading this who believes they have the relevant experience to help, please contact me – [email protected]

In addition to all this work aimed at securing the future for the Trust, the team’s fundraising, merchandising, events and outreach activities have
continued with a stream of imaginative and exciting ideas. These have been and will continue to be vital to the continued existence of the Trust since
its restructuring; please watch out for further initiatives in coming weeks and months.

Support of the Trust’s activities by growing numbers of volunteers all around the country is becoming very important, especially to the Trust’s abilities
to deliver public benefits in terms of talks and events away from Doncaster Sheffield Airport itself. During the summer, our volunteers enabled the
Trust to be represented at several of the major airshows, where we were heartened by the expressions of interest and good wishes from the many
supporters who visited the stand. The Trust now has over 50 active volunteers, and we expect this to grow – do let us know if you would like to join
the team. (See here for an appeal for specific volunteer roles.)

We understand that there are a number of questions that have arisen over recent weeks to which Dr Stephen Liddle, one of our Trustees, has kindly
responded in a “Question and Answer” page, which follows on below.

I hope we will have further significant news on progress to bring you in the coming few months, and will broadcast this to you all in our regular
e-newsletters and on social media, however I also plan to provide a further comprehensive update to supporters in six months’ time.

As we approach the 10th anniversary of XH558’s first post-restoration flight on 18th October, I wish all her supporters the very best.

Robert Pleming.

An extensive Question and Answer section compiled by Trustee, Dr Stephen Liddle, to respond to the most frequently seen queries with regard to the end of flying, XH558’s location and the future. (Click link below and scroll down to the bottom for the questions please.)

6 Month Review | Vulcan To The Sky (http://www.vulcantothesky.org/6monthreview.html)



Funny I thought they generated the 200k on the pretext of moving between hangars, not to tide themselves over.

NutLoose
26th Sep 2017, 17:53
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=191&t=1646701

hunterboy
26th Sep 2017, 17:54
Blimey, he doesn't stop does he? How much is he paying himself now?

sandiego89
26th Sep 2017, 19:55
Blimey, he doesn't stop does he? How much is he paying himself now?


Indeed. I still don't understand 8 full time employees, and he as a "consultant"- all for 2 aircraft sitting outside in the elements, essentially out of the public view?


This seems more of a "gig" for some.....

NutLoose
26th Sep 2017, 21:23
I believe he no longer receives payment.

jetsam
27th Sep 2017, 22:12
Hi Tinrins,
90%N1 on take off I remember but sometimes we were naughty!

jetsam
27th Sep 2017, 22:21
Will visit Pisco tomorrow, a city where a peruvian air force military base is located, to accompany a colleague that has just bought three complete Canberra aircraft from them. Peru was a fleet user of the type. We will be there for coordinations and pictures will be available. Does anyone know of someone interested in Canberra parts or engines?

Hi Kwick,
I flew seven Canberra types inc. WK134 and XH 169 the two 'System IIIb' aircraft on worldwide Recce missions and would be interested to know if these Peru aircraft are airworthy and flyable.
Very interested to get a chance to fly a PR9 again! -or at least be involved.
An incredible aircraft that demanded huge respect in flying it safely.
As someone else said, and I can attest - it was actually twice a Hunter or vv. At least the avpin starter didn't need the flames beating out like on the Hunter!

jetsam
27th Sep 2017, 22:26
Will visit Pisco tomorrow, a city where a peruvian air force military base is located, to accompany a colleague that has just bought three complete Canberra aircraft from them. Peru was a fleet user of the type. We will be there for coordinations and pictures will be available. Does anyone know of someone interested in Canberra parts or engines?

I'd Ben interested to learn more. I flew the PR9 at Wyton and world wide including 134 and 169, the two special fit System IIIb versions and concur it is twice the Hunter orvv which I also flew.