Location: UK (and now rarely behind enemy lines but still enjoying foreign climes.)
Posts: 893
Almost a year ago I wrote the following on the Vulcan to the Sky, The End? thread:
"I think this Vulcan thing will end in tears. Aircraft like this are just too big, expensive and difficult to run outside of their original military environments.
Before the easliy-excited amongst you raise your blood pressure to dangerous levels I will add that I am a professional aviator, former military with time on a V-type. The Vulcan was a great airshow draw and it would be great if it could perform again. However, I really don't believe it is a viable project. You have to get over it."
Location: UK (and now rarely behind enemy lines but still enjoying foreign climes.)
Posts: 893
Sorry Beags, but I believe that ultimately the project will falter. No offence intended, that is just my strong conviction. It is not the sort of aircraft that a group of well-intended but resource-lean folk can keep airworthy. And that is before the CAA get involved. IMO.
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 15,741
The CAA have been involved - and totally on-side - since Day One. Hence the process leading to Permit issue is completely in line with the Authority's requirements.
This is not a gang of well-meaning enthusiasts patching up and old aeroplane to get it flying again - the Vulcan is receiving a total restoration to modern day requirements under the engineering management of Marshall Aerospace.
About the only significant threat to the programme is from the purveyors of doom who have little idea of the whole project.
I can see why you have put myself and TSM in the same mould, but just because we share similar views clearly doesn't mean we are one and the same!
airsound, you are so pro Dr Pleming, you could very well be him, but I would't dream to suggest it!
This latest forum is not about 'doom and gloom' BEagle - far from it. It appears that things are progressing well and test flights are now at the planning stage, and I am delighted at that. And you are right, it will happen when it happens.
My problem is that now all of these people have given so much of their hard-earned cash to the project, you want to actively discourage them from coming to see it on its' first launch. That's simply not fair is it? I just think it will cause a great deal of ill-feeling with the public.
G-KEST - looking at your profile, callsign and location, you could well be mistaken for someone who has (had) close connections with the CAA? That being the case, instead of being rude about my points and questions, why not try to address them and answer them in a reasonable fasion that befits your position Sir? (I am correct in my CAA connections am I not?)
I had 14 years with the CAA until retirement in 1998 dealing with the operational regulation of private, sporting and recreational aviation. This included the UK's vibrant airshow scene in all its aspects.
I have been actively involved with air displays as a pilot since 1955 and this continues to the present day.
I think if you look back through my posts you will find the answers to your points have already been made. My comments are, of course, personal ones.
The cost in paint wouldn't be much different (lots of one colour, as opposed to green grey,) and as the surface would have to be primed anyway the camouflage scheme would be lost so it wouldn't show what was underneath.
But there would still be the cost of having the paint stripped, and then professionally re-applied, the cost of the paint itself, flying control removal, rebalance etc....
XH558 is not being repainted in the camo colours she currently wears, she is simply being 'touched up' in the areas that have had repairs carried out on them.
This is all money that TVOC doesn't have at the minute, as every spare penny is being spent on actually getting her airworthy at present. Hopefully it will be something that is looked at in a few years time, but certainly not in the immediate future.
Pull the lads out of the sandpit, Load her up with her Original Weapon Load, a fun bus or two on route for tanking purposes and lets see if the things REALLY WORK....
First post here although I have been a lurker for many months.
I have been a supporter of the Vulcan return to flight both in spirit and in monetry terms. Although I would very much like to see her fly soon, I have no great desire to be there at the trial flight.
Like perhaps many others, I keep close tabs on the very informative website, which has updates every week generally and live pictures of the current situation.
Once she is on the display circuit, I will see her at the first opportunity.
Meantime, cut the team a bit of slack and give them our full support. It saddens me to see some doom mongers amongst you.
If you want to ensure it gets in the air quicker (and she will) put some money in the coffers or hold your words - others will do it and ensure the project is completed!
I know I spray cars. I thought they were going to give it a full lick of paint anyway, so the colour wouldn't make much difference. But yes a touch up job is more appropriate.
Is the paint solid colour? (I'm assuming it's not basecoat and clear then?)
Isn't all of the white paint that the country has not already bought for Gordon Brown's trips around the bazaars? All that black coal is not a pretty sight...
What sort of surface finish standard do you aim for? obviously on a car minute imperfections stand out like the balls on a bulldog but impossible to achieve over an plane the size of a Vulcan?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 66
Posts: 5,335
IIRC the original white was matt not gloss. The gloss white underside came with the second stage camouflage.
After the white there was a quick over paint on top for the grey/green. This naturally did not weather well and aircraft were then returned from CWP in a polueurethane finish. This, we were told, was applied by roller and added some 4000lb to the AUW.
If you were to take just a few minutes out of your obviously extremely busy pontificating day, you would see very clearly from my public profile and Dr Pleming’s biog details on the VTTS website that we could not possibly be the same person. In fact, neither of us makes much effort to conceal our identities, unlike you and many others on these forums. We’re perfectly prepared to stand up and be counted, and don’t wish to hide behind pseudonyms. G-KEST is similarly readily identifiable to anyone with any knowledge of display flying and historic aircraft, and the regulation of both. I’m led to the sad conclusion that you don’t know much about those subjects.
As for my support of Dr Pleming - I have to repeat, wearily, all the things I said to you in June last year. At that time, you may recall, you and The Swinging Monkey, et al, were mega-doomsaying about the whole project (as is your wont), and then you shut up for a while when we managed to get big media coverage which partly resulted in a last-minute reprieve after Jack Hayward and others fronted up some desperately-needed big funds. I have to wonder if that success in what was, at the time, a real touch-and-go situation, didn’t actually disappoint you and your sad cohort.
As I told you at the time - I support Dr Pleming because he is an exceptionally able, not to say courageous, businessman and entrepreneur. The Vulcan project is very lucky to have him at the head of a highly talented team - I continue to maintain that, without him, Vulcan would be nowhere near as close as it is to getting To The Sky. Yes he’s also a friend of mine, but if you knew me better, you might also know that I would not be offering this kind of public professional support if I didn’t thoroughly approve of what he’s doing.
Any chance of your ceasing fire on your constant sniping while we await what I expect to be the first engine runs, within days, and the first flight, within weeks? (Merely a personal prognosis, of course)
Show them our support!
Linear Mode
