PDA

View Full Version : XH558 gone tech


staplefordheli
1st Sep 2013, 12:16
Just heard she has a fuel leak on one of the tanks and is grounded at Donny today so no display

HEATHROW DIRECTOR
1st Sep 2013, 13:03
Open your wallets......

WH904
1st Sep 2013, 14:30
Not the first time it's happened, so more of a minor disappointment than a disaster. Shame though - that's my afternoon trip to Finningley scuppered... and I missed the Reds fly over earlier too! Grr!

hurn
2nd Sep 2013, 12:50
Bit more of a minor disappointment to the 300,000 sat on B/mth beach I can tell you. :(

Not much you can do about it though and no-one's fault this time, although to compound the disappointment the Sea Vixen had it's pilot recalled back to military duty so didn't fly either. :{
That in turn put paid to the five ship Heritage Jet flypast that was due to happen too. :ugh:

Ho hum, it was a nice idea anyway.

I'd also wager that 558 won't be flying to Leuchars this coming weekend either seeing as the fuel bag has to be sent down to Pompey for repair.

Lightning Mate
2nd Sep 2013, 13:16
300,000 sat on B/mth beach I can tell you.

I can walk to there in ten minutes but never go!

hurn
2nd Sep 2013, 13:29
Went down on Friday but avoided the place like the plague on Saturday due to the inevitable crowds, and was only going to go for the last hour or so on Sunday for the old jets and their formation flypast.

Thankfully I heard about the no-shows around 2pm so just carried on watching all the comings and goings from the garden.

Never tire of seeing Miss Demeanour though. Jonathon Whaley displays that Hunter superbly. :D

WH904
2nd Sep 2013, 21:23
I would have thought the Sea Vixen cancellation was as bad as losing the Vulcan. Whilst I have the luxury of having Finningley on my doorstep, the chances of seeing the Vixen are pretty slim in my part of the world. As for the formation flypast, I couldn't help thinking it wouldn't have been anything like as exciting as all the hype that surrounded it. Bearing in mind the distance from the crowd and the loose formation that would have been necessary, I doubt if it would have been all that spectacular in reality!

I suppose one could at least conclude that the flying hours that weren't used on the Vulcan might be valuable for the future, if the plan to fly again next year goes ahead. I just hope the Vixen gets out and about more too!

As for Miss Demeanour, I can't say I've ever been bothered about seeing it. Personally, I can't think of anything more ghastly than a military aircraft painted-up like a circus clown. I used to hate the Sea Vixen in Red Bull colours and I was delighted when it finally re-appeared looking like a Sea Vixen! I'm still not exactly overjoyed at seeing XH558 in her bizarre "one-off" scheme. If I win the Lottery I'll be financing a trip to the paint shop for her! :)

hurn
2nd Sep 2013, 22:52
I know what you mean about Miss D's paintjob but somehow it just really fits in with the whole seaside show thing when it's whizzing around with the sun glinting off it. You can see why they book it for the occasion as it appeals to the average seaside going punter and doesn't really look out of place.

Jonathon puts on such a good display though that it's hard not to enjoy it, and by all accounts he was the highlight on Sunday by putting on a really good extended display to close the show after the Vulcan and Vixen didn't turn up. Have to admit that it would have stood out like a sore thumb in the flypast though, what with the rest all wearing military type schemes.

I fully agree that the Sea Vixen however looks absolutely gorgeous in the current Navy scheme; it should never wear anything else imo. Just wish they'd fly the beggar more often, but it's an expensive beast and pilot availability seems a problem for them. Shame Brian Grant is no longer able to fly it.
I'm in a very lucky position to have still seen it flying multiple times already as it goes in and out of Hurn, but the same can't be said of the Vulcan so my only chance of seeing that this year has sadly gone.

With all the money still needed for VttS to break even this season, a fuel bag to fix and another £400,000 by end of October for an essential wing mod, I'm not all that confident it'll still be flying next year, but I suppose they've been through worse so we'll see.

I'll wager if you win the lottery you'd paint it in the old style camo scheme like this.

http://www.avrovulcan.org.uk/andy_leitch_vol1/317cot1.jpg


Am I right? :)

WH904
2nd Sep 2013, 23:01
That's certainly the paint scheme I'd go for, although the forward portion of the radome would of course have to be black :) It's a blessing that XH558 didn't have to suffer the indignity of that TFR thimble!

Krystal n chips
3rd Sep 2013, 05:59
" Personally, I can't think of anything more ghastly than a military aircraft painted-up like a circus clown.

You're not Brian Sewell by any chance ?.....colour schemes make no difference to the vast majority of people who watch air displays...they go to see the flying and the aircraft for a day out....that's it.

And, whilst the Hunter is a former military aircraft, it's also now part of a commercial operation.

Can you make the distinction ? .....probably not.

DaveReidUK
3rd Sep 2013, 07:14
colour schemes make no difference to the vast majority of people who watch air displays...they go to see the flying and the aircraft for a day out....that's itIn other words the crowds would be equally happy if they saw it painted in an authentic scheme. :ugh:

Shaggy Sheep Driver
3rd Sep 2013, 09:21
Oh, come on! Why do you think these aeroplanes are so painted? FINANCE! It costs a fortune to support them, and if painting them in Red Bull colours means they fly rather than moulder in a museum, bring on the glitzy paint!

In fact that Vulcan thing (Vulcan to the Skip?) could do with following that course of action - get some real sponsorship behind it instead of rattling the begging bowl several times a year. But I understrand it was a condition of ite lottery grant that it stays in RAF colours. Pity.

Groundloop
3rd Sep 2013, 09:31
If we are discussing paint schemes for the Vulcan and it is always being described as a "Cold War Bomber" then it should be in overall anti-flash white with pale markings.

WH904
3rd Sep 2013, 09:39
Krystal, underscoring a word doesn't make the assertion true, although you're probably correct to state that the majority of air show spectators don't care what colour an aircraft is painted. But that rather misses the point, doesn't it?!

Obviously, the majority of air show spectators are completely clueless. They'd watch anything if it performed a loop or trailed some smoke. They don't care, as they've simply turned-up for some entertainment.

But from the viewpoint of an enthusiast, or indeed anyone who has an understanding and appreciation of classic aircraft, colour schemes and insignia are very important. True, there are those that simply appreciate seeing the aircraft no matter how it looks, but there are many others (myself included) who really cannot see the point in restoring/retaining an classic aircraft and then tarting it up in some ludicrous paint scheme. It simply makes the aircraft look ridiculous.

What I can never understand is why anyone would want to spend huge sums of money flying a warbird, and not invest a bit more time ensuring that it looks precisely as it did whilst in military service. I mean, if you don't care about such issues, then why not buy/fly something cheaper like a clapped-out biz jet, or an L-39 or whatever?

I agree that most air show spectators don't care about such issues, but it begs the question as to what the aircraft is restored and operated for. The amusement of Joe Public or the enjoyment and appreciation of those who actually have a clue about what they're looking at?

It's quite remarkable to see just how much difference a truly authentic paint scheme can make. For example, there are various Jet Provosts flying around that look vaguely convincing but they are let-down by slightly dubious colour application, and awful serial transfers that are a completely wrong font. Minor matters maybe but they spoil an otherwise great restoration. On the other hand, T5 XW324 (that displayed at Bournemouth) is pretty-much perfect and looks magnificent. Did the crowds notice? No, of course not, but isn't it a good thing that some owners make the effort to do things right for those of us who do care?

It's a bit like painting a London bus yellow, or a pillar box blue. It's completely at odds with the object's history.

I accept that XH558 was inherited with a bizarre one-off scheme applied at Kinloss, even though I (and lots of my colleagues) hated it from the day it was done. The need to apply a protective and "cleanable" coat for air shows made good sense, but whoever thought applying a wrap-round camouflage scheme to a maritime Vulcan, and then giving it a gloss finish so the colours are completely different those worn by the handful of other Vulcans painted the same way (in matt finish), was utterly bonkers. But repainting the aircraft is obviously an expensive proposition so I can't blame TVOC for sticking with what they've got. It's frustrating that so much of the airframe has now been repainted, albeit on a piece-by-piece basis. If it had all been done at once, we could have said goodbye to the silly colours once and for all.

Naturally, I accept that Joe Public has no interest in colour schemes and insignia. But then I couldn't care less what Joe Public thinks. Krystal seems to be implying that aircraft are restored and operated purely for air show performances. That's not entirely true, and even if we presume that displaying for the public is the main motive, then surely the whole point of restoring and operating a classic type is to demonstrate and illustrate the aircraft as it was, rather than simply amusing a crowd of dimwits who just want some noise and spectacle?

I kind of agree with Hurn in that Miss Demeanour is evidently a popular attraction and doubtless looks good, performing at the seaside. A Hunter is a Hunter after all, but regardless of how many air show punters like it, I think it looks ridiculous. Likewise, as all my colleagues know, I'm a devoted Vulcan fanatic, but XH558 still looks seriously odd, at least to me. I tend to look at it like this - XH558 was in RAF service for a while in the colours and markings it now wears, so one could say that it does at least represent a period in the aircraft's history. Whether it was a good period however, is another story! :)

hurn
3rd Sep 2013, 10:10
As far as Hunters go, for me it doesn't get any better than XE601 in the ripple scheme.

The pure lines of a single seater, a beautiful paint scheme and the best blue note I've heard from a display aircraft of the type.

It's probably colourful enough and authentic enough to keep both the average punter and purists happy. Just a bloody shame it's not displaying in the UK anymore!


With regards to the Vulcan, it's scheme is what it is, and there's not much VttS can do with finances what they are. However I think the recent topside repaint does improve it's looks and gets rid of those odd looking bits on the wings where panels were removed and repainted during restoration.

This is from the FAQ's on the VttS website regarding repaints and sponsors, although at this stage it's not ever going to be an issue that needs addressing.
VTST feels strongly that XH558 should remain in her military colour scheme in recognition of her heritage importance, however if a significant sponsor asked if the colour scheme could be changed then the request would be seriously considered. Re-painting XH558 in a new scheme would be very expensive - estimates are in excess of £400,000 - and we would only agree if there was a commitment to restore XH558 to her original colour scheme at the end of the sponsorship. The Heritage Lottery Fund has indicated that whilst they wish us to maintain XH558 in her military colour scheme, they would permit us to change it as long as the original scheme was restored at a later date.

ShyTorque
3rd Sep 2013, 11:07
But then I couldn't care less what Joe Public thinks. Krystal seems to be implying that aircraft are restored and operated purely for air show performances. That's not entirely true, and even if we presume that displaying for the public is the main motive, then surely the whole point of restoring and operating a classic type is to demonstrate and illustrate the aircraft as it was, rather than simply amusing a crowd of dimwits who just want some noise and spectacle?

But the "dimwit Joe Publics" are usually the people ensuring the preservation of the aircraft, by paying to attend the airshows, or in the case of XH558, paying directly by their contributions. Would you prefer the Vulcan to be painted in a colour scheme using the last of the preservation funds, then parked up for ever, never to fly again?

WH904
3rd Sep 2013, 11:33
But the "dimwit Joe Publics" are usually the people ensuring the preservation of the aircraft, by paying to attend the airshows, or in the case of XH558, paying directly by their contributions.

Yes, they are to some degree, but I don't quite see how that has any influence on how an aircraft is finished and presented. The two points have no relationship.

Would you prefer the Vulcan to be painted in a colour scheme using the last of the preservation funds, then parked up for ever, never to fly again?

No, but then I never said that I did.

If you read what I said, my point was that Joe Public will watch anything, so it's irrelevant what aircraft are displayed for the public. They simply don't care. The people who do care are enthusiasts (ie those who know what they're looking at). So it seems reasonable to assume that if a classic aircraft is restored and displayed, it's being presented primarily to enthusiasts, even if it's the wider public that is paying for it. So surely, it makes good sense to complete the restoration properly and finish the aircraft in a proper paint scheme? If you don't then surely it's not a complete restoration?

I've heard the points made by Shaggy many, many times and I'm afraid I just don't accept them. A Sea Vixen that flies in Red Bull colours is pointless. Yes, Red Bull enables the aircraft to fly, but why waste money (and fatigue hours) on flying the Vixen if it doesn't look like a Vixen? It might as well be any random cheap jet that happens to be available. I mean, what is the point of flying it if it's dressed-up like a tart?

Likewise, I also heard the claim that HLF insisted that the Vulcan should retain its paint scheme without any ugly additions. Whether that's strictly true I don't know, but if they did make this stipulation then good for them. It illustrates precisely what I was getting at. If the aircraft is to be restored and flown, then it should indeed be displayed in its proper colours and markings, otherwise don't bother flying it. Aircraft such as the Vixen and Vulcan are far too valuable to be squandered on grotesque advertising.

I think one of the problems with the Vulcan is that there are lots of Vulcan "fans" who don't really have much understanding of the aircraft or what it was all about. In essence, they just think it "looks pretty" and it makes a lot of noise. That's all well and good, but it's a bit of an insult to anyone who really does have an interest in the aircraft, when people say "paint it any colour you like." It's a free country of course, but if we adopt the attitude that any aircraft can be finished in any colours or markings, it just wipes away a lot of the aircraft's history for a lot of us. If the comments from VTTS are indicative of their position, I think they should be ashamed of themselves. If they ever accepted money to paint the aircraft in fancy colours, I know for certain that a huge proportion of the people who gave money to the project would be wanting a refund. They paid for a restoration, not a travelling billboard.

I agree with Hurn that XE601 was/is a great loss. True, it looked nice in its earlier grey/red scheme but it was a real pleasure to see a unique Hunter continue to fly in civilian hands without any changes to its operational paint finish. Agreed, it sounded magnificent too! I can confidently say that given a choice between seeing Miss Demeanour or XE601, I know which one I'd be ignoring! :)

INT_QRU
3rd Sep 2013, 13:30
Anyone have an update on the chances of her flying at Leuchars on Saturday? Heading there more or less specifically to see the Vulcan and the Viggen.

ShyTorque
3rd Sep 2013, 13:32
Speaking from my ex-military pilot's point of view, it's the actual sight and sound of the aircraft in the sky that counts, not authentic colour detail.

If it's possible to do both, all well and good. But if the original paint scheme has to be changed as a compromise to keep the aircraft in the air, either to please the public, a sponsor, or for advertising reasons, I see that as far better than the aircraft spending many sad decades as an aluminium edifice sitting in a dusty museum - or even worse, rotting outside. You can go to Hendon or elsewhere to see many authentic paint jobs getting dusty.

Adrian Swire's Hunter was bright shiny red - it looked fantastic, even though it bore no resemblance to it's earlier history. Especially the day it flew past me inverted.

WH904
3rd Sep 2013, 14:17
I think it is an issue that divides people neatly into two camps and I know which one I'm in! :)

Thing is though, you can indeed see aircraft in authentic colours and markings in lots of places. But on that basis one could paint-up any of these aircraft in silly colours and it wouldn't really matter much, whereas flying an aircraft uses money and fatigue hours that could be used when the aircraft actually looks like it did when it was in military service. Like I said before, if one doesn't care about authenticity then one may as well fly any old plane, surely?

I agree G-HUNT did look great and it was a real thrill when it first appeared. But the thrill soon wore off when more Hunters re-appeared, and most wearing their proper military paint schemes. Suddenly, a red Hunter just seemed like a bit less interesting :)

WH904
3rd Sep 2013, 16:16
XH558's appearance at Leuchars this weekend has been cancelled because of the fuel leak problem. One wonders whether it's worth the effort to get the aircraft back in the air for just one more display date, or whether it might be better to tuck her up for the winter and wait for 2014?

Wonder just how many flying hours are actually left on the airframe before the much-discussed modification programme is needed? Maybe they could scrape another (small) display season in without even doing it?

Shaggy Sheep Driver
3rd Sep 2013, 19:29
I've heard the points made by Shaggy many, many times and I'm afraid I just don't accept them. A Sea Vixen that flies in Red Bull colours is pointless. Yes, Red Bull enables the aircraft to fly, but why waste money (and fatigue hours) on flying the Vixen if it doesn't look like a Vixen? It might as well be any random cheap jet that happens to be available. I mean, what is the point of flying it if it's dressed-up like a tart?

Crikey, a Sea Vixen is a Sea Vixen, no matter what colour it is! As has been said, it's the shape, the sound, and the fact that's an ancient aeroplane that still flies that's important.

If de Havilland had painted one up in a made-up shceme to go sell them to foriegn air forces, would that be OK?

When we aquired our Chipmunk it was navy blue with a creme stripe. The first time we re-painted it we considered an 'authentic' scheme but reasoned there are loads of Chippies in museums in authentic schemes. So we painted it bright red with a blue stripe.

Now, it's gloss black with a white stripe, and looks just superb (a more attractive scheme than the BBMF one). Thing is, it's been a delight to fly for well over 30 years no matter what bleedin' colour it was! ;)

WH904
3rd Sep 2013, 19:51
But as I said, it depends on your point of view. It's like the Chipmunk you mention - I'm sure you're happy with it but I (and countless others) would think "what a waste" and be wishing it wore its "proper" colours. You don't like the BBMF Chipmunk, whereas I think it's the most interesting machine they have on their fleet now! Looks magnificent! :)

Shaggy Sheep Driver
3rd Sep 2013, 20:01
Actually I DO like the BBMF Chippy. I like ALL Chippies, even that bright yellow one with the massive shark's teeth on the cowlings!

The colour don't matter. The aeroplane does. :ok:

Groundloop
4th Sep 2013, 09:13
If some people are obsessed with "authentic" colours have you complained to the RAF about a Tucano flying about in a WW2 North African Theatre paint scheme with ficticious squadron codes "RAF"!

Shouldn't all RAF Tucanos be black (or possibly red/white/grey)? :ugh:

DaveReidUK
4th Sep 2013, 10:18
If some people are obsessed with "authentic" colours have you complained to the RAF about a Tucano flying about in a WW2 North African Theatre paint scheme with ficticious squadron codes "RAF"!It's a currently in-service aircraft, so whatever scheme the RAF choose to paint it in is, by definition, authentic.

Looks dreadful, though. :O

cuefaye
4th Sep 2013, 10:21
I'm with you 904 - except that the red Hunter is highly 'authentic'

WH904
4th Sep 2013, 14:55
As Dave says, it's more a case of accepting that if the RAF (or whoever) opt to paint an aircraft in a certain scheme then so be it, even if it does look rather odd. It's in service and that's how it looks, good or bad. The point is that a lot of us wholeheartedly appreciate seeing aircraft restored either to static or flying condition, but restorations often seem to stop short of fully replicating the colour scheme and markings that the aircraft wore whilst in service. Consequently, to a lot of us, they just look silly and it's very disappointing that they just don't look as they did.

Okay, some people simply like to see the aeroplane and don't really care what paint is applied to it, but the same people often don't seem to grasp how annoying it is to the rest of us, who just wish a little more attention to detail could have been made. Like I said, if such issues don't matter to you, then why care if an aircraft flies or just sits in a museum? Surely, if one appreciates how an aircraft looks and sounds in the air, it isn't too much of a stretch to accept that an awful lot of people really do care how an aircraft looks, right down to wearing the right colours and the right markings?

The Vulcan is a bit of an exception in that it did wear its current paint scheme while it was still in RAF ownership, so it's fair to say that its finish is "legit" but at the same time, it doesn't look like any other Vulcan that ever flew. It just looks odd and although it's clearly unreasonable to expect money to be lavished on repainting it, the fact that it doesn't really "look like a Vulcan" is a source of continual frustration for a lot of people - me being one of them! :)

cuefaye
4th Sep 2013, 15:06
WH - I assume you got my drift re-the red Hunter?:)

Shaggy Sheep Driver
4th Sep 2013, 18:02
Okay, some people simply like to see the aeroplane and don't really care what paint is applied to it, but the same people often don't seem to grasp how annoying it is to the rest of us, who just wish a little more attention to detail could have been made

WH904... It's not 'attention to detail that hasn't been made', it's either that the owners painted it that way because that's how they obtain sponsorship to keep it flying. Or, like our Chippy, we prefer it in the non-RAF scheme. And it's our aeroplane, so our choice.

But, I see a solution to your obsession. Any sponsored aeroplane that is in a scheme you don't like, simply approach the owner, and out-bid the sponsorship deal with a deal of your own. That would give you the right to dictate what colour it's painted.

Every aeroplane where a private owner has painted it in a non-RAF scheme, buy the aeroplane from them. You will then have the right to paint it any colour you wish.

What? You don't have the funds to do this? Then stop bellyaching and accept the reality that he who pays the piper calls the tune!

WH904
4th Sep 2013, 19:54
Cuefaye I don't know what you're referring to? G-HUNT?

Shaggy, I'm not "bellyaching", I'm expressing a view. It's a forum. You can make the assertion that dubious paint schemes have simply been "painted that way" by the owners but I've been around long enough to know that it's almost always because the owner doesn't really care about such things, it's that simple.

Obviously, it goes without saying that you can do what you like with your Chipmunk, that's a rather pointless comment. Likewise, suggesting I buy aircraft to paint them is just childish, so perhaps we can end our exchange here.

Moving on, I see that the people at Kemble have painted their Canberra in a beautiful silver paint scheme, spoiled only by the bullet fairing on the fin. But already there are people complaining that the aircraft's last operational paint scheme has been overpainted:-

FighterControl ? Home to the Military Aviation Enthusiast ? View topic - Canberra PR9 XH134 Flies Again (http://www.fightercontrol.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=287&t=83513)

I guess everyone has a different view! Personally, I think returning the aircraft to its first paint scheme is quite refreshing. I'm not quite so sure about painting their two Hunters similarly, but in fairness to them, they say they have made proper records of the aircraft's paint schemes so they can return them to a "proper" finish when they've finished seeking sponsorship. Seems fair enough although if the Canberra or Hunters end-up like billboards it'll be the Red Bull Vixen fiasco all over again:)

Shaggy Sheep Driver
4th Sep 2013, 20:56
Not childish, WH (though it's ironic you should use that word), just pointing you at reality, which you seem to be detached from. If you think aeroplanes enjoy particular scemes because 'the owner doesn't care about such things' I wonder what planet you are from.

You don't make a major descision like a colour scheme by tossing a coin - there's a reason for it. Usually, it's either that that's how the owner likes it having thought about it a lot and photo-shopped and drawn alternatives to see how they will look, or that's how his sponsor demands it and without the sponsor there's no flying aeroplane.

If you don't see that, and continue to think colour schemes just happen to be what they are because the owner doesn't give a damn and had some leftover paint in the shed, or stuck a pin in a paint chart to decide the scheme, then I give up on you.

WH904
4th Sep 2013, 21:06
then I give up on you

Glad to hear it. I don't "think" colour schemes are often as they are, I know, because I ask. If you knew much about the subject, you'd probably be quite surprised at how some aircraft come to wear the paint schemes that they do.

Tankertrashnav
4th Sep 2013, 22:07
The railway preservation world latched on to this years ago. They soon realised that if you painted a face on the front of any old loco and called it Thomas then the punters would come along with their kids, who in any case had never seen a steam loco before, authentic or not.

The grumpy old real-ale swilling blokes who haunt these places moaned but they were outnumbered by the family groups who were providing the finance to keep the thing running.

Same principle with aircraft - I couldnt care less if they painted 558 sky blue pink if it meant it kept flying.

Having said that it would look ace in anti-flash white though - as did all the Vs :ok:

http://itdoesnthavetoberight.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/17_avro_vulcan_bomber.jpg

pulse1
5th Sep 2013, 07:05
Talking of ''sounds'', I popped down to watch the night display at Bournemouth on Friday. I could hardly hear the delicious sound of the RR Spitfire because they were blasting out Land of Hope and Glory over the sound system. :{

WH904
5th Sep 2013, 07:32
Don't get me started on that one! :)

One recalls the latter days of the RAF's Vulcan performances, when XH558 used to turn-up to display accompanied by the theme from "Harry's Game" every time. The temptation to stick one's foot through the tape recorder was always almost irresistible :)

Shaggy Sheep Driver
5th Sep 2013, 07:50
Tankertrashnav, terrible generalisation of heritage railway folk there. Those 'grumpy old real ale swilling blokes' are probably train spotters who come along to the railway to rivet-count and wouldn't know where to start if you gave them a big 9F to light up, or a complex signal box to work.

The folk who spent years restoring that railway, and the locomotives, and who now run it, have to be a bit more hard-headed than them or their railway wouldn't survive. I'm steam loco crew on one such railway and a signaller on another and though I'd prefer not to have engines with plastic faces, historic tank engines painted blue with yellow-painted motion, and worst of all one engine I drove, an ex-Manchester Ship Canal unique tank engine, had had its tanks physically cut and altered to look like Thomas!

However, we live in the real world. If we are to enjoy driving and firing steam locomotives, and operating signal boxes on our railways we need to attract funds. So when we run a 'Thomas' or a 'Peppa Pig' event and the trains are packed and the platforms crowded with kids, parents, and grand parents it makes me smile at the thought of all that cash coming into the railway's coffers! And all those new people getting exposed to the fascination of a steam railway!

I suspect WH904 wouldn't see it that way! Quite where he thinks our income would come from if we stayed 'strictly authentic' I really don't know. The grumpy old blokes sure wouldn't keep us afloat financially!

Groundloop
5th Sep 2013, 08:23
Let's hope some of the moaners on here don't get quite as obsessed as some railway "fans".

When Pete Waterman owned Flying Scotsman he had it repainted from LNER green to BR Green - because that is how he remembered it running in revenue service.

He started to get death threats demaning he repaint it back. As a result - he sold it.

treadigraph
5th Sep 2013, 09:15
Speaking of Rolls Royce Spitfires, when they conclude the restoration of RM689, I'd love to see it in the beautiful two-tone blue civvie scheme it wore in the 1960s.

Spencer Flack's Hunter, Spitfire and Sea Fury looked superb in the red "house" scheme.

Tankertrashnav
5th Sep 2013, 09:26
Tankertrashnav, terrible generalisation of heritage railway folk there. Those 'grumpy old real ale swilling blokes' are probably train spotters who come along to the railway to rivet-count and wouldn't know where to start if you gave them a big 9F to light up, or a complex signal box to work.




Quite agree, and with the rest of your post!

ShyTorque
5th Sep 2013, 09:26
Let's hope some of the moaners on here don't get quite as obsessed as some railway "fans".

Hear, hear! Life is really just too short..... :hmm:

Shaggy Sheep Driver
5th Sep 2013, 14:36
When Pete Waterman owned Flying Scotsman he had it repainted from LNER green to BR Green - because that is how he remembered it running in revenue service.

He started to get death threats demaning he repaint it back. As a result - he sold it

That's not how Pete tells it.

He never owned 'Scotsman' but bought a share in it when McAlpine owned it to help him out. But he got out when he realised he couldn't do what needed to be done with the engine because Bill had promised there'd be no major changes. Which is a bit daft when you consider there isn't so much a single rivet remaining on 4472 that originates from when the engine was built.

He went on to say, when asked if he wished he owned it now:

"I tell you what. If I owned 'Scotsman' I'd do whatever needed to be done to the engine to make it good for a century, just like I did with the Super 'D'. My engine! My money! My restoration! A proper job! All these 'you can't change that because it's original' moaners would cut no ice at all with me."

Groundloop
5th Sep 2013, 14:44
Well, that's how he told it in a number of TV interviews at the time - and since.

And a quick search has just found this:-

Waterman definitely owned it, I was watching a program just the other day with him talking about the hate mail he got for repainting Scotsman into BR green.

What shade of green should the Flying Scotsman be painted in? - Yahoo! UK & Ireland Answers (http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080918151434AACQM51)

Shaggy Sheep Driver
5th Sep 2013, 15:22
As I say, he only ever part-owned it with Sir Robert McAlpine:

Who owned Flying Scotsman?
Built in 1923 for the London and North Eastern Railway, Flying Scotsman was by 1963 irrelevant to a modernising British Railways. The engine was sold to businessman Alan Pegler and then flew the flag for a rapidly disappearing age of steam before going to America to promote British exports.

In 1973 William McAlpine (later Sir William McAlpine) bought the engine and it returned to run tours in Britain, as well going on a tour of Australia in 1988-89.

In 1993 McAlpine combined forces with pop impresario Pete Waterman, who reportedly once said: ‘Any locomotive which has sufficient charisma that you can sell pieces of coal off the tender at two quid a time, has got to have something going for it.’ In 1996 the locomotive was sold to millionaire Tony Marchington, who by 1999 had returned it to main-line running.

In 2001 the engine was turned over to a public company, however their proposed ‘Flying Scotsman World’ never happened and by 2004 the engine was again for sale. This time a public appeal to purchase Flying Scotsman for the National Collection was successful and the aged star was ‘saved for the nation’.

And from the National Railway Museum's website:

Flying Scotsman was still famous, and was bought by railway preservationist Alan Pegler. He restored her to 1930s condition, and famously took it on a tour of the United States, for which it was fitted with a bell, headlamp and cowcatcher.

Financial issues meant that Pegler had to sell the engine to British businessman William McAlpine. Flying Scotsman came home and was repaired, and in 1988-9 it toured Australia, where at one point it recorded the longest ever non-stop run by a steam locomotive, travelling 422 miles.

By 1995, it was part-owned by record producer Pete Waterman, and was once more being overhauled. It was sold again to businessman Tony Marchington in 1996. Tony continued to run it on mainline railtours – but due to the high cost, it was back on sale a few years later.

WH904
5th Sep 2013, 17:33
It's quite interesting to read the surprisingly pejorative terms being expressed by the protagonists of non-authentic aircraft finishes. I think I've spotted an interesting trait here :)

Shaggy Sheep Driver
5th Sep 2013, 18:25
It's quite interesting to read the surprisingly pejorative terms being expressed by the protagonists of non-authentic aircraft finishes. I think I've spotted an interesting trait here

Really? Are there any protagonists of non-authentic paint finishes on here? I haven't seen any. I've seen some, including me, who'll point out why some owners have such schemes on their aeroplanes, but that's not the same thing at all.

And no-one has used any 'pejorative terms' as far as I can see. Perhaps it's time they did as patience has its limits?

jumpseater
5th Sep 2013, 18:29
He started to get death threats demaning he repaint it back. As a result - he sold it.

Pete's not short of an opinion or two.(which makes him very entertaining company), so I find it surprising the death threats he received and were the reason for selling the locomotive, (apparently :hmm: ), didn't come up in the discussions around his kitchen table he has with a group of like minded mates on many a Sunday.

He (L&NWR) bought 50% of flying Scotsman Enterprises, an organisation at the time which ran all the BR steam specials. The engine was part of that 'package'.

You don't have to look far to find similar levels of 'muppetry' amongst the aviation enthusiast community either, its probably a 'bloke' thing.:rolleyes:

WH904
5th Sep 2013, 18:34
And no-one has used any 'pejorative terms' as far as I can see. Perhaps it's time they did as patience has its limits?

Then perhaps you might invest a little more time in actually reading, instead of making fatuous comments? Patience? from whom? Have you actually looked what you've written? ;)

ShyTorque
5th Sep 2013, 18:37
These allegedly pejorative terms..... Probably just dimwitted Joe Public again.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
5th Sep 2013, 18:54
These allegedly pejorative terms..... Probably just dimwitted Joe Public again.

Nope. Just spotted one:

instead of making fatuous comments

That allows me one:

WH904, I am sorry that you are too stupid to understand well argued points. Bye.

Airclues
5th Sep 2013, 19:41
As I say, he only ever part-owned it with Sir Robert McAlpine:

To be pedantic, that should be Sir William McAlpine (as you correctly state in the text).

cuefaye
5th Sep 2013, 19:47
And this forum was once regarded as a pleasant place.

wub
5th Sep 2013, 20:57
I've just wasted ten minutes of my life trying to establish if the Vulcan might be serviceable for Leuchars (the only chance I'd ever get to see her) and I find myself reading arguments about railway engines. Sort yourselves out ! :ugh:

WH904
5th Sep 2013, 21:01
I agree wub, it's quite funny how "thread creep" takes hold. As you can see, a discussion leads to an argument, which is fine. Then people get childish (well, some do) and despite the posts carrying on, nobody actually says anything. Seems to be a common problem with forum discussions. Anyway take heart, I suspect XH558 will be back next year;)

Shaggy Sheep Driver
5th Sep 2013, 21:09
Wub, don't fret.

The sidestep into railway land was introduced by a poster (not me) as a relevant parallel comparison to certain beardy individuals who don't contibute to running a heritage railway (or contribute to operating a heritage aeroplane) but who think it's fine to castigate those who do dig very deeply into their pockets so to do, but fail to follow beardy ideals in colour schemes, Thomas faces etc.

If said beardys put their money where their mouths are and got stuck in and operated or financed a railway / aeroplane, their views might have some relevance.

Back to XH 558.

WH904
5th Sep 2013, 21:43
This guy is funny. Maybe he should have his own web site :)

hurn
6th Sep 2013, 17:28
If I can just steer the conversation away from planes, trains and paintschemes for a minute, a bit more news has emerged about the fuel leak in today's newsletter.

Earlier this week, with further investigation, we traced the fuel leak seen on Sunday to No.5 Tank Starboard, not as indicated by the leak as being from No.7 Tank - the leaking fuel was tracking back in the aircraft’s structure and emerging under No.7 Tank.

We are currently getting ready to inspect No. 5 Tank fully, having drained and vented it, to assess the size of the problem. The tank will then be removed and sent to FPT Industries for further investigation and possible repair or remanufacture.

We don’t have a date for when the aircraft will be likely to be serviceable but we will update you just as soon as the engineers and OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) feedback the information.
I'm doubtful that they'll make Southport and Dublin next weekend, I just suppose it depends how quickly they can get the bag fixed, returned and tested, but it'll be a close run thing that's for sure.

The rest of the newsletter goes on to state the current deficit in funding of £180,000 that needs to be made up by October 31st and on top of that a further £171,000 needs to be pledged by that time also to give them confidence to go ahead with the wing modifications.

That's a very tall order, even if they are able to fulfil the last remaining displays. I'm thinking Bruntinghthorpe or Elvington might have a shiny new Vulcan in their Christmas windsock at this rate. :eek:

WH904
6th Sep 2013, 22:21
You can never be too sure with the Vulcan people. They're very guarded about their true status, so I wouldn't be surprised if, at the last minute, they announce that they have enough money to scrape by. I'm not even sure what to think about the remaining display slots. On the one hand, it might be preferable to end the season now and strive to start afresh next year but on the other hand, maybe they think there's some value in being seen back in the air again before the winter. We'll just have to wait and see.

As far as one can determine, I assume the long-term plan is still to keep the Vulcan at Finningley when the flying does stop. I haven't seen any indication that any other museum or airfield has any interest in taking XH558 and I think the HLF has some impact in establishing the "educational facility" as promised. Personally I've never been a fan of the idea that XH558 will stay at Finningley though. Much as I have great affection for Finningley (I've spent so much time there), I can't see how the Vulcan would sustain enough interest if it is just sat in a hangar. The costs of maintaining a facility to display just one aircraft must be outweighed by the (small) numbers of people who would go to look. Their plans to acquire other aircraft have gone quiet (I never imagined they would get anything else to be honest) so I just can't see how Finningley would be a secure long-term home, given that it would surely not be accommodated there for free.

Duxford already have a Vulcan, and based on their track record, they'd doubtless dispose of one of the pair eventually, if they took XH558. Cosford have one (and they're no better when it comes to dumping aircraft they take a dislike to), so it does leave places like Elvington and Bruntingthorpe. It would be a tragedy if XH558 was left to rust outside, but I can't quite see where else it could go. I suppose that the latter venues could at least enable the aircraft to move under its own power, so maybe that's better than nothing.

I suppose the best outcome (not that I imagine it would happen) would be if the airport terminal at Doncaster could be revised to allow XH558 to go on display inside their facility. What a great exhibit that would be, reminding visitors of Finningley's illustrious past. I fear however, that XH558's long-term future will be rather less spectacular than that, though :(

srobarts
11th Sep 2013, 15:35
There is an update on the fuel leak on their site. Apparently there are several leaks and they have decided to commission a new tank. The lead time is 16 weeks. So no further flying this season.
http://www.vulcantothesky.org/news/502/82/IMPORTANT-NEWS.html

sisemen
11th Sep 2013, 15:47
Typical.. Just my luck - In the UK for 5 weeks and my one and only chance to catch 558 in the air. Grr!!

WH904
11th Sep 2013, 16:25
That's bad timing! I suppose good news is that they're going to fit the tank, which suggests they must be pretty confident of flying again next year, so it's not all bad news.

hurn
11th Sep 2013, 17:02
I really don't think they should be spending money on a new tank until they actually are confident of flying next year, and for me that would mean having at least the funding in place for the wing mod and enough for the winter servicing.

Really can't see the point in throwing money away like that in their current situation.

WH904
11th Sep 2013, 18:48
Well, it is perhaps like I said in a previous post. Maybe their finances are rather better than they often imply. I can't imagine they'd bother fitting a new tank unless they were pretty confident that they can fly again next year. I suspect there's a lot of brinkmanship in their funding pleas.

hurn
11th Sep 2013, 19:55
Or maybe they just want to make sure it's airworthy for the one-off ferry flight to an.other airfield for retirement. :E

m.Berger
11th Sep 2013, 20:51
Retirement? I would cheerfully see it scrapped. Whoopee! Remind the public how fifty years ago we had the capability to blow up the whole of Russia and kill everybody on the planet. Glory, Heroism, Sacrifice, (cue silly bint warbling opera to hide noise of old piston engined warplane.)
We built so many good civilian aircraft which weren't used to kill people. Almost any of them would be cheaper to keep flying, more reliable, more durable and more representative of our aviation heritage than this scandalously over hyped object.:yuk:

WH904
11th Sep 2013, 21:22
But in saying that you're completely misunderstanding the whole point of the Vulcan and the V-Force. Yes, it was designed as a weapon of mass destruction but that was necessary in order to provide a credible (and visible) deterrent. Make no mistake, the Soviet Union was prepared to use nuclear weapons against the West (there are many post-unification sources that will illustrate this quite openly) and the only credible way of ensuring that nothing like that would happen, was to have the ability to strike back with decisive force.

Yes, the V-Force was small when compared to SAC but it was far closer to Moscow, could react more swiftly and would have (had it been needed) been at the very forefront of a retaliatory attack on the Soviet Union. The Soviets knew this, and so there is no doubt that the Vulcan was worth every penny that was spent on it, at a time when the country was financially crippled. By any standards the Vulcan was money well spent because we're all still here to talk about it half a decade later.

Civilian aircraft might well be just as interesting in terms of design and appeal, but the Vulcan was much more than that. Yes, it was big and noisy and awe-inspiring to look at, but more importantly it was capable of doing the job that it was designed for, and it did it with huge success. We know this because we weren't all killed a long time ago.

WH904
11th Sep 2013, 21:27
Hurn, I did think the same thing but I can't see any point in spending money on a new fuel tank if there was any real intention to make just one last flight. I'm sure it would have been possible to have made a short-term fix if that had been the plan.

I can only assume that they have already taken the decision to work towards flying again next year, whether they have funds for the wing modifications or not. Maybe they have more money than they're letting-on about, or maybe they're just optimistic. Or perhaps there are enough flyable hours to squeeze another display season out of the aircraft even without doing the modifications? It's not as if the aircraft did all that many shows this year!

Chris Scott
11th Sep 2013, 21:30
m.Berger,

Not quite sure whom you mean by "we", but I've flown many hours on at least two of the passenger jets you may have in mind. Excellent as they were in terms of safety and handling qualities, they were less profitable and successful than their American counterparts (unless you are including the A320).

The Vulcan had capabilities unmatched by its foreign rivals, as did the Victor I believe. Pre-Polaris, they may have saved us from becoming a client-state of the Soviet Union. No doubt you will disagree.

m.Berger
12th Sep 2013, 02:05
WHO94: But we were prepared to use nuclear weapons against Russia. Of course they were prepared to do the same. There is nothing noble about reverence for WDMs. Indeed, many would find it perverse.

BEagle
12th Sep 2013, 06:37
It was the national will that the UK had (and still has) a nuclear deterrent.

The V-force held this responsibility for many years during the dark times of the Cold War. The Vulcan's nuclear role did NOT end with Polaris; crews were trained to deliver the WE177 against Warsaw Pact targets right up until the early 1980s when the task was handed over to more modern aircraft.

'Ban the Bomb' folk can have their say, which wouldn't have been the case had the deterrent faild, but equally so can those who agreed with the national policy.

I hope that 558 will be repaired; I was surprised to read the VTS statement that the No. 5 tank was required for CG control purposes as this is actually effected by '1-to-7' tank transfer. It would be feasible to blank off the starboard No. 5 tank, but that would require the aircraft to be flown with the fuel tank transfer sequence timers in 'MAN', increasing crew workload. Also, it is both VTS and CAA policy that the aircraft must be maintained in a fully serviceable condition.

spekesoftly
12th Sep 2013, 08:10
I was surprised to read the VTS statement that the No. 5 tank was required for CG control purposes ..........Please can you help with a link to that statement? I can't find it on their website.

WH904
12th Sep 2013, 12:12
But we were prepared to use nuclear weapons against Russia.

Surely this is just common sense? There would have been little point in creating atomic/thermonuclear weapons at huge expense, and creating the V-Force to carry them, if there had been no overt will to use them. That was the very foundation of the deterrent policy. The very fact that the UK was able and willing to use them ensured that we didn't have to. The alternative doesn't bear thinking about.

It reminds me of another thread on this forum about the BBMF (and some notion of acquiring a Mosquito if you please, but I digress...), where there is so much affection for the BBMF and respect for the actions of those involved in the BofB and in Bomber Command, but almost to the point of dismissal of anything else. Mention the Vulcan and it is regarded as somehow less important in our history. This is quite absurd as if one takes a realistic look at the darker days of the Cold War, it's clear that the Vulcan could arguably be described as the most significant warplane the RAF has ever had. Yes, many others contributed to numerous victories but the Vulcan (by its very nature) saved us from utter destruction.

Okay, one can argue that we will never know for sure, but if one takes a realistic look at that era, and if one weighs all the factors such as SAC's posture and location, Soviet intentions, events that actually did happen, etc., then who could confidently say that if we hadn't had Vulcan, we would still be here? I think anyone who could make that claim would be optimistic at best, and naive at worst! :)

(and I accept that one also has to pay due respect to the Valiant, Victor and Thor to some degree!)

Blacksheep
12th Sep 2013, 12:31
Yes, many others contributed to numerous victories but the Vulcan (by its very nature) saved us from utter destruction.The Cold War was one of those rare occasions where everybody wins.

So many of today's under-fifties fail to realise that the 'swinging sixties' swung because we all really believed we were on the eve of destruction. That the MAD theory proved correct is something for which everybody allive today should be grateful. We who served on the front line of the cold war get scant regard today and that is good and as it should be. We didn't do anything useful - apart from keeping the peace.

As a former mender of Vulcans I think it is long past time for 558 to be gracefully retired to a suitable museum, repainted in proper Cold War livery and with a de-activated Yellow Sun slung in the bomb bay.

WH904
12th Sep 2013, 12:43
repainted in proper Cold War livery and with a de-activated Yellow Sun slung in the bomb bay.

Hendon almost managed that with its Vulcan and a Yellow Sun in the general proximity (isn't it at Cosford now?) but the Vulcan's paint scheme is still very 1980s. On the other hand, at least it's an "authentic" paint scheme that it arrived in, rather than being a slightly dodgy repaint.

It is a shame though that despite there being a fair few Vulcans still languishing in museums, not one has managed to acquire a decent Cold War paint scheme, be it white or white/camouflage. I mean, how can a Vulcan not look odd without a black radome?! :)

BEagle
12th Sep 2013, 13:10
Please can you help with a link to that statement? I can't find it on their website.

It was in Tuesday's newsletter, not yet available in the on-line archive.

I mean, how can a Vulcan not look odd without a black radome?!

None of the Vulcans I flew had old-fashioned black radomes.

spekesoftly
12th Sep 2013, 13:46
It was in Tuesday's newsletter, not yet available in the on-line archive.Thank you, I'll look for it later.

srobarts
12th Sep 2013, 16:11
This is the link to the newsletter that talks about the tank needed for trimming.
Vulcan to the Sky Newsletter (http://mxm.mxmfb.com/rsps/wlnk/c/1216/r/23332/e/526)

spekesoftly
12th Sep 2013, 17:10
Thanks for the link :ok:

Bill Macgillivray
12th Sep 2013, 20:56
Beagle, you are younger than I thought! Black radomes good!!:ok::ok::ok:

Wander00
13th Sep 2013, 07:57
Funny what one remembers -late 60s I was in RAFH Ely having my tonsils out. there was a wg cdr there for some other treatment, ISTR he said he had "designed" the Vulcan upper surface camouflage, based loosely on his initials. He may have been shooting a line of course.

WH904
13th Sep 2013, 08:17
I've never been entirely convinced about that story either! An article about it was written in the newsletter produced by the Southend Vulcan people. I could see a vague relationship to the guy's initials, but really? Seems a bit unlikely. I thought the point of disruptive camouflage was to cross access doors and other interchangeable parts with a uniform colour, etc., not just go where it looks nice?! :)

srobarts
13th Sep 2013, 16:25
Interesting line in the latest newsletter: "We have no indication of costing on a new tank as yet". I am not sure given the finances I would have ordered a new tank and committed the supporters to paying for it without knowing the cost.
The online version of the newsletter is here: Newsbytes (http://mxm.mxmfb.com/rsps/wlnk/c/1216/r/23332/e/528)

hurn
13th Sep 2013, 16:52
I had similar reservations back in post #62 about ordering the new tank. The only thing it will ensure is it's airworthy for one last flight should the necessary funding not be forthcoming.

Hope it doesn't come to that, but I haven't seen it fly for over a year anyway so for me it's already a bit of a distant memory. :(

WH904
13th Sep 2013, 23:47
Like I said before, I wouldn't invest too much faith in the money figures that they keep giving us. It may well be that the position is rather better than they imply. I can't imagine they'd bother replacing the tank unless they were pretty sure they had a good chance of flying another season at least. As BEagle said, it's not as if the aircraft couldn't be flown at least once without fitting a new tank, so I get the impression that they're working on the assumption that they can get at least one more display season :)

I'm just glad I opted to capture the last landing on my phone purely on a whim. I didn't know it was going to be the last one - at least for now I hope!