Vulcan XH558 - not good news?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Petherrrr,
my brains hath bin well and trooly picklieied!
Grobeth, woger, I give in.........
Damieneth.....me wondereth if the reason for no cash from HLF is that at the moment the bird still belongeth to the great and mighty Sir David of walton?? If it so beith, then why doeth he keep making the threatening remarkeds about the old girl??
Me doeth not pwetent to understanduth.
Me needuth to go for night-nights!!
Loveth to all
The Swinginginginging MOnkeeeeeey
'Caruthers, reming me to sack thee in the morning!'
Shaggy, thou knowest that its more than my sad life is worth. But find the pilots and ask them - I'm sure they will tell you (not)
my brains hath bin well and trooly picklieied!
Grobeth, woger, I give in.........
Damieneth.....me wondereth if the reason for no cash from HLF is that at the moment the bird still belongeth to the great and mighty Sir David of walton?? If it so beith, then why doeth he keep making the threatening remarkeds about the old girl??
Me doeth not pwetent to understanduth.
Me needuth to go for night-nights!!
Loveth to all
The Swinginginginging MOnkeeeeeey
'Caruthers, reming me to sack thee in the morning!'
Shaggy, thou knowest that its more than my sad life is worth. But find the pilots and ask them - I'm sure they will tell you (not)
If the HLF will not fund the Vulcan is there anything wrong with getting the Lanc NX 611 airworthy again??
Now that would be something to see TWO Lancs flying together.
I do not know but beside fianance is there anything that could prevent this A/C (Lanc) from being airworthy again???
Now that would be something to see TWO Lancs flying together.
I do not know but beside fianance is there anything that could prevent this A/C (Lanc) from being airworthy again???
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Burton
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi
Can I just say that XH558 will fly well I think it will their is only the cash stopping it and it wont be kicked out of any hangers as the people who own brunty own 558.
Also the rubbish about engine parts is not something that BAE and or RR are worried about so it seems like yet another rumor.
And just for the record XL426 and Xm655 both could fly and would take off and fly around quite happily if they ever got the chance.
No real hope of NX611 getting back in the air but it would be nice.
Can I just say that XH558 will fly well I think it will their is only the cash stopping it and it wont be kicked out of any hangers as the people who own brunty own 558.
Also the rubbish about engine parts is not something that BAE and or RR are worried about so it seems like yet another rumor.
And just for the record XL426 and Xm655 both could fly and would take off and fly around quite happily if they ever got the chance.
No real hope of NX611 getting back in the air but it would be nice.
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Rolls Royce" Olympus?
Rubbish about engine parts andrewman? "not something BAE and RR are bothered about"?
Rolls Royce never wanted anything to do with the engines in the Vulcan. When Bristol Siddeley folded up and the assets went to Rolls Royce, Derby only reluctantly supported the engine because the aircraft were still front line "national defence" aircraft and they were obliged to by the government. Likewise the BAE attitude towards the Avro [via Hawker Siddeley] Vulcan. It was mainly logistics that stopped the RAF continuing to fly them. Look at the VC10s for example. At the rate they are flown they would be good for at least another twenty years, but spare parts and other maintenance costs - especially for the ancient Conway engines - are causing the RAF to think hard about replacing them.
From the demise of Bristol Siddeley until at least the late seventies Rolls turned their noses up at Olympus engines and overhauls were contracted out to companies such as "The Standard Motor Company" (now also out of business) I don't know what happened after I left the RAF but I don't suppose Rolls Royce are any more enthusiastic about the Vulcan's version of the engines than they were when the V Force was operational.
The Concorde's Rolls Royce/Snecma "Olympus" engines are a completely different beast, a further development of Bristol Siddeley's massively updated version of their original design intended for the TSR2.
**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
Rolls Royce never wanted anything to do with the engines in the Vulcan. When Bristol Siddeley folded up and the assets went to Rolls Royce, Derby only reluctantly supported the engine because the aircraft were still front line "national defence" aircraft and they were obliged to by the government. Likewise the BAE attitude towards the Avro [via Hawker Siddeley] Vulcan. It was mainly logistics that stopped the RAF continuing to fly them. Look at the VC10s for example. At the rate they are flown they would be good for at least another twenty years, but spare parts and other maintenance costs - especially for the ancient Conway engines - are causing the RAF to think hard about replacing them.
From the demise of Bristol Siddeley until at least the late seventies Rolls turned their noses up at Olympus engines and overhauls were contracted out to companies such as "The Standard Motor Company" (now also out of business) I don't know what happened after I left the RAF but I don't suppose Rolls Royce are any more enthusiastic about the Vulcan's version of the engines than they were when the V Force was operational.
The Concorde's Rolls Royce/Snecma "Olympus" engines are a completely different beast, a further development of Bristol Siddeley's massively updated version of their original design intended for the TSR2.
**************************
Through difficulties to the cinema
Last edited by Blacksheep; 8th Oct 2003 at 10:19.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Right, I thionk I pressed the right button.
When I watched XH 655 taxiing at Wellesbourne in June, a seemingly well-informed Vulcan groupie told me that the 558 presentation to the lottery had been criticised and they (the Bruntingthorpe crowd) were told to go away and do it properly, which sounded encouraging. One of the “erks”, also very knowledgeable, told me the same story. Has something changed now that I missed perhaps ?
He also confirmed that 655 would never fly as the “seals”, I suppose O rings etc, were timed out a while ago. So that’s that.
Of course the burning question of whether or not these old tubs should fly any more won’t go away. I can’t quite make my own mind up, but an awful lot of good people have lost their lives flying these ancient machines, such a waste and easily avoidable.
oTd
When I watched XH 655 taxiing at Wellesbourne in June, a seemingly well-informed Vulcan groupie told me that the 558 presentation to the lottery had been criticised and they (the Bruntingthorpe crowd) were told to go away and do it properly, which sounded encouraging. One of the “erks”, also very knowledgeable, told me the same story. Has something changed now that I missed perhaps ?
He also confirmed that 655 would never fly as the “seals”, I suppose O rings etc, were timed out a while ago. So that’s that.
Of course the burning question of whether or not these old tubs should fly any more won’t go away. I can’t quite make my own mind up, but an awful lot of good people have lost their lives flying these ancient machines, such a waste and easily avoidable.
oTd
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spoke to a good friend last week, who confirmed that the hot rumour at the moment is that 558 WILL be cut up if this latest bid for cash is not forthcoming.
It will be a tragedy without doubt, not only the loss of a great bird, but more so for all the millions of people who have given there 'hard-earned' cash so readily to the project.
DamienB, if you (as you keep implying in your posts) are so close to the VOC, David Walton, Dr Pleming et al, why don't you suggest to one of them to 'come clean' with us? I genuingly admire your defence of the project, and I have little doubt that your heart is in the right place, but even you must now concede that the time has come for us to be told the truth?
What is going on?
We want to know in simple terms (ex Vulcan aircrew remember, so keep it very simple please!) the following:
How much do they need?
How much do they have?
How much is from the public?
How much is from sponsors?
What will happen if it does fly?
What will happen if it does not fly?
Andrewman...
'And just for the record XL426 and Xm655 both could fly and would take off and fly around quite happily if they ever got the chance'
I'm sorry old boy, but you are most incorrect.
Yes they probably could get airborne (at a push) but to fly around 'quite happily' - No way. Utter Tosh matey! they would fold up and drop to bits on the first turn and bank.
So, come on all you Vulcan Operating Co' people, give 'the people' what they want - some straight answers......
Kind regards
The Swinging Monkey
It will be a tragedy without doubt, not only the loss of a great bird, but more so for all the millions of people who have given there 'hard-earned' cash so readily to the project.
DamienB, if you (as you keep implying in your posts) are so close to the VOC, David Walton, Dr Pleming et al, why don't you suggest to one of them to 'come clean' with us? I genuingly admire your defence of the project, and I have little doubt that your heart is in the right place, but even you must now concede that the time has come for us to be told the truth?
What is going on?
We want to know in simple terms (ex Vulcan aircrew remember, so keep it very simple please!) the following:
How much do they need?
How much do they have?
How much is from the public?
How much is from sponsors?
What will happen if it does fly?
What will happen if it does not fly?
Andrewman...
'And just for the record XL426 and Xm655 both could fly and would take off and fly around quite happily if they ever got the chance'
I'm sorry old boy, but you are most incorrect.
Yes they probably could get airborne (at a push) but to fly around 'quite happily' - No way. Utter Tosh matey! they would fold up and drop to bits on the first turn and bank.
So, come on all you Vulcan Operating Co' people, give 'the people' what they want - some straight answers......
Kind regards
The Swinging Monkey
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northants, UK
Posts: 667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monkey you're a broken record. Anyone who has contributed to the project receives mailshots giving the info you ask for (not on the mailing list? There's a shock). Your confirmation that a rumour is 'hot' is utterly meaningless - it's still a rumour, i.e. complete crap. VOC have a phone number, why don't you use it? You clearly want the project to fail hence why you're more interested in spreading rumours than actually talking to the people involved. And this really is the last I ever say on the subject. Feel free to come back with your usual nonsense responses.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Burton
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Monkey
Re XL426 and XM655
Well you are wrong on this one both Vulcan's have to carry enough fuel on board to divert to another runway and if they would as you say "fold up and drop to bits" then they would not be allowed to taxi.
You do seem to have it in for VOC and all other Vulcan's I think Vrt and 655maps would take offense to your comments on their Vulcan's and your weird rumors about 558 are just going to put people off sending in cash and set the project back even more so think before you make another over the top outburst that has no truth to it.
Re XL426 and XM655
Well you are wrong on this one both Vulcan's have to carry enough fuel on board to divert to another runway and if they would as you say "fold up and drop to bits" then they would not be allowed to taxi.
You do seem to have it in for VOC and all other Vulcan's I think Vrt and 655maps would take offense to your comments on their Vulcan's and your weird rumors about 558 are just going to put people off sending in cash and set the project back even more so think before you make another over the top outburst that has no truth to it.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Down the field!
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andrew,
While I don’t agree with everything Mr Monkey says on the subject of 558, I’m sorry to say but he’s right about 426 & 655… If you knew anything about operating military ‘heavies', then you’d know there is a GREAT difference between taxing an aircraft, and actually allowing one to fly, or indeed, it even been capable of flight. Why, if 426 & 655 are in such good condition, and capable of flight, are they restricted to life as nothing more than taxing airframes?
People might take offence at rumours about 558’s future, and the thoughts that she might meet the fate of so many other Vulcan’s, but the fact is that next to no information is coming out of Bruntingthorpe. And, while some of you may say contact TVOC…. I’ve contacted TVOC and Dr Plemming on so many occasions. NO ONE has ever got back to me… Is there little wonder that people are getting p!ssed off with the whole project?
While I don’t agree with everything Mr Monkey says on the subject of 558, I’m sorry to say but he’s right about 426 & 655… If you knew anything about operating military ‘heavies', then you’d know there is a GREAT difference between taxing an aircraft, and actually allowing one to fly, or indeed, it even been capable of flight. Why, if 426 & 655 are in such good condition, and capable of flight, are they restricted to life as nothing more than taxing airframes?
People might take offence at rumours about 558’s future, and the thoughts that she might meet the fate of so many other Vulcan’s, but the fact is that next to no information is coming out of Bruntingthorpe. And, while some of you may say contact TVOC…. I’ve contacted TVOC and Dr Plemming on so many occasions. NO ONE has ever got back to me… Is there little wonder that people are getting p!ssed off with the whole project?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andrew,
I'm sorry to inform you Sir, that your comments are utter nonesence. As Grob points out, if you knew the slightest thing about operating large aircraft, then you would know what I'm talking about. The mere fact that an aircraft can taxy under its own steam most certainly does not make it airworthy. And as for your comments about 'div fuel - whats your point? Sure we ALL carry enough fuel for diversion, be it weather or a black runway. But the fuel is of little value to you when the wing has dropped off I would suggest! And as Grob points out, why, if these aircraft are able to 'fly about quite happily' are they NOT doing so? The facts are simple - they ARE NOT capable, thats why.
Damien & Peter, I know you think I am a broken record, but despite my continuing requests to you Damien and to the VOC, Dr Pleming and Dave Walton, why is it that no one can ever get a straight answer out of any of you? Yes I do see the mailing list, but whats in it? adverts for expensive merchandise for 'the fund' There is NO mention about the bird being cut up, so if its NOT true, then why dosen't anyone in authourity come onto this forum and say so?
You are all very quick to slag me off, and that is you right, but why don't you post some FACTS about the bird? Better still, get any of the VOC to log on to Prune, and give us all the facts. That way, at least we will get it straight from the horses mouth, and we may (hic) be able to dispel the rumours that abound.
I'm willing to bet you tho' that in a week, a month whatever, there will be no 'official' word about the fate of 558 - good or bad! and the plees for more money will be made. If this latest rumour is not yet another ploy to tug at the heart strings of those Vulcan fanatics, then say so. However, your lack of factual denial only fuels the scepticism of those of us who are not quite so gullable.
Kind regards
The Swinging Monkey
I'm sorry to inform you Sir, that your comments are utter nonesence. As Grob points out, if you knew the slightest thing about operating large aircraft, then you would know what I'm talking about. The mere fact that an aircraft can taxy under its own steam most certainly does not make it airworthy. And as for your comments about 'div fuel - whats your point? Sure we ALL carry enough fuel for diversion, be it weather or a black runway. But the fuel is of little value to you when the wing has dropped off I would suggest! And as Grob points out, why, if these aircraft are able to 'fly about quite happily' are they NOT doing so? The facts are simple - they ARE NOT capable, thats why.
Damien & Peter, I know you think I am a broken record, but despite my continuing requests to you Damien and to the VOC, Dr Pleming and Dave Walton, why is it that no one can ever get a straight answer out of any of you? Yes I do see the mailing list, but whats in it? adverts for expensive merchandise for 'the fund' There is NO mention about the bird being cut up, so if its NOT true, then why dosen't anyone in authourity come onto this forum and say so?
You are all very quick to slag me off, and that is you right, but why don't you post some FACTS about the bird? Better still, get any of the VOC to log on to Prune, and give us all the facts. That way, at least we will get it straight from the horses mouth, and we may (hic) be able to dispel the rumours that abound.
I'm willing to bet you tho' that in a week, a month whatever, there will be no 'official' word about the fate of 558 - good or bad! and the plees for more money will be made. If this latest rumour is not yet another ploy to tug at the heart strings of those Vulcan fanatics, then say so. However, your lack of factual denial only fuels the scepticism of those of us who are not quite so gullable.
Kind regards
The Swinging Monkey
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Slough
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Swinging Monkey.
I am sorry that you thought my reply was slagging you off, it was by no way intended to be that.
We just differ in our opinions and both have the right to say what we feel on the matter, I have never made a post personel even if I disagree with that person.
You would like the Vulcan to stay on the ground and I would like it to fly again
I do think that they are trying their best to raise the funds to get it back in the air again but if this cannot be done then I don't think it will be scrapped but kept and will still be able to be used for fast taxi runs.
It just doesn't make any sense to me that after all the years and effort put into trying to get it back in the air again that they would even thing about scapping the Vulcan.
Peter
I am sorry that you thought my reply was slagging you off, it was by no way intended to be that.
We just differ in our opinions and both have the right to say what we feel on the matter, I have never made a post personel even if I disagree with that person.
You would like the Vulcan to stay on the ground and I would like it to fly again
I do think that they are trying their best to raise the funds to get it back in the air again but if this cannot be done then I don't think it will be scrapped but kept and will still be able to be used for fast taxi runs.
It just doesn't make any sense to me that after all the years and effort put into trying to get it back in the air again that they would even thing about scapping the Vulcan.
Peter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peter,
I think we broadly agree on this matter.
It's not that I don't want to see her fly again - far from it. It is the ONLY aircraft that can actually STOP an airshow, and by that I mean that everything stops, and everyone watches her fly.
But I do have very serious reservations about her getting airborne again tho' She is old, and despite hours of love and care from a great bunch of enthusiasts, the project has, for many years, lacked the expertise needed to keep an aircraft of this complexity in airworthy condition. That is NOT a dig at the Bruntingthorpe chaps at all, it is merely a fact. You must ask yourself, why, after nearly 10 years, are we still trying? Surely, if it was feasible, then it would have been much more feasible 10 years ago?
My other major concern is that there will be plenty of ex-Vulcan pilots out there, who would leap at the chance of getting the bird airborne again, and that is another danger (maybe my biggest fear) I have seen the size of the hole made by Vulcans when they crash, during my time on the jet - they're 'kin big - believe me! The last thing I want to see is another one at a major (or minor) airshow. It is for that very (safe) reason, that I believe the old lady should be left in one piece firmly on the ground, for my grand children and lots of others to see, still in one piece!
I am sure they are doing their best as you say, but it concerns me that, despite countless rumours, no one from the VOC et al, will come forward and tell us. Why is that do you think? Do you think they have something to hide? I have to say that if it was me, then I would be on this forum, in thwe press, on the TV - aeverywhere, telling 'the people' that the rumours are not true. This lack of comment does little but fuel the debate on will she....wont she? The VOC MUST clarify the situation, if only for there own benifit. People will not continue to give if they think the project is doomed already, will they?
Kind regards
The Swinging Monkey
I think we broadly agree on this matter.
It's not that I don't want to see her fly again - far from it. It is the ONLY aircraft that can actually STOP an airshow, and by that I mean that everything stops, and everyone watches her fly.
But I do have very serious reservations about her getting airborne again tho' She is old, and despite hours of love and care from a great bunch of enthusiasts, the project has, for many years, lacked the expertise needed to keep an aircraft of this complexity in airworthy condition. That is NOT a dig at the Bruntingthorpe chaps at all, it is merely a fact. You must ask yourself, why, after nearly 10 years, are we still trying? Surely, if it was feasible, then it would have been much more feasible 10 years ago?
My other major concern is that there will be plenty of ex-Vulcan pilots out there, who would leap at the chance of getting the bird airborne again, and that is another danger (maybe my biggest fear) I have seen the size of the hole made by Vulcans when they crash, during my time on the jet - they're 'kin big - believe me! The last thing I want to see is another one at a major (or minor) airshow. It is for that very (safe) reason, that I believe the old lady should be left in one piece firmly on the ground, for my grand children and lots of others to see, still in one piece!
I am sure they are doing their best as you say, but it concerns me that, despite countless rumours, no one from the VOC et al, will come forward and tell us. Why is that do you think? Do you think they have something to hide? I have to say that if it was me, then I would be on this forum, in thwe press, on the TV - aeverywhere, telling 'the people' that the rumours are not true. This lack of comment does little but fuel the debate on will she....wont she? The VOC MUST clarify the situation, if only for there own benifit. People will not continue to give if they think the project is doomed already, will they?
Kind regards
The Swinging Monkey
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last I heard about the Vulcan was that it had been stripped down into sections for overhaul and checking, this I was led to believe had used most of the current funds. The new funds (eg Lottery) that is so urgently required are to put it back together again and then have some operating fund.
Just a point about the income from airshows that it might attend, which and how many shows could afford it? If the airshow operators spend their entire 3rd party budget for private aircraft on the Vulcan then you may be passing a problem of funding to other operators of private aircraft who do rely on money from airshow to offset their costs. If they then drop out of the airshow scene you will end up with large gaps in the national airshow scene.
A gentleman I know is just happy if he can cover the insurance costs per year for his aircraft - how much insurance and libility is a PRIVATE Vulcan going to cost? Would anyone Insure it?
Personally I wouldn't even like to pick up the fuel bill for it, anybody guess at what the fuel burn would be to go say Bruntingthorpe to Waddington, do 2 displays and return with safety margins? Whats the latest price on Jet fuel?
I to would love to see a Vulcan fly but not at any cost.
Just a point about the income from airshows that it might attend, which and how many shows could afford it? If the airshow operators spend their entire 3rd party budget for private aircraft on the Vulcan then you may be passing a problem of funding to other operators of private aircraft who do rely on money from airshow to offset their costs. If they then drop out of the airshow scene you will end up with large gaps in the national airshow scene.
A gentleman I know is just happy if he can cover the insurance costs per year for his aircraft - how much insurance and libility is a PRIVATE Vulcan going to cost? Would anyone Insure it?
Personally I wouldn't even like to pick up the fuel bill for it, anybody guess at what the fuel burn would be to go say Bruntingthorpe to Waddington, do 2 displays and return with safety margins? Whats the latest price on Jet fuel?
I to would love to see a Vulcan fly but not at any cost.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I acn only guess that it must be at least 10 years or more since the Vulcans were grounded, there can only be a finite number of pilots and even they must all be the wrong side of 50+. When where and how would these guys get there simulator / familiarisation/ recency as required by CAA / JAR even if one of the a/c was by some miracle to become airworthy.
Face it unlike the USA where indeed aviators do make their dreams come true and keep many types of a/c flying in the UK we have neither the time / places or official commitment. I site Concorde as the most recent example and today there a five that are airworthy this time next year there will be none.
Twenty years down the line what is the betting that some good natured soul will say lets get a Concorde airworthy. Dream on it will not happen for the Vulcan the Concorde and numerous other types.
Face it unlike the USA where indeed aviators do make their dreams come true and keep many types of a/c flying in the UK we have neither the time / places or official commitment. I site Concorde as the most recent example and today there a five that are airworthy this time next year there will be none.
Twenty years down the line what is the betting that some good natured soul will say lets get a Concorde airworthy. Dream on it will not happen for the Vulcan the Concorde and numerous other types.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with the reservations many have in the supply of crew members to display the ac. But remember, it is not just the pilot who is vital to the safe operation of the ac: the AEO is just as important. Indeed, it could be argued that he is more vital - the ac lives on it's electrical system; it is capable of fully automatic safe operation with a multitude of safety locks and well thought out procedures and setups. However, as with any old, complex aircraft odd faults occur from time to time that have never occured before, and it is for the AEO to think through, discuss the implications and make the system safe. It happened increasingly as the ac aged. The OCU had a simple but brilliant AEO emergencies trainer and AEOs used to spend many hours sorting out peculiar staff-induced faults. It also happened with other ac systems, especially the hot air distribution around the airframe.
Pilot currency is not such a problem. DT is an exceptional pilot and QFI, and the ac is not difficult to fly through the display sequence, safe if the speed/height gates are meticulously observed and the correct techniques used in airframe and engine handling. It would not take much to train an experienced heavy jet pilot to fly the ac and to carry out a display. Besides, the CAA have been involved in the project from an early stage - they are likely to be on-side.
Finances, I believe, will be the killer. Unless a sponsor with a very large piggy bank can be found, who will heavily subsidise the operation, I believe the charges that have to be made to display organisers would put the ac out of their reach. At the sort of weights that it would be operating a fuel burn of 1000-1200 gals per hour would be expected, with a display burning a further 300-400 gals. That's a lot of money, and then there are all the other costs on top of that. I couldn't even begin to figure the cost per hour of this venture, although I suspect that DW, as a businessman, has worked it all out in his business plan.
I would love to see the old girl in her rightful medium - airborne - and although I have a number of reservations as to the viability of the scheme, I would urge everybody to stay positive towards getting her airborne.
There are no problems here - only solutions...
Pilot currency is not such a problem. DT is an exceptional pilot and QFI, and the ac is not difficult to fly through the display sequence, safe if the speed/height gates are meticulously observed and the correct techniques used in airframe and engine handling. It would not take much to train an experienced heavy jet pilot to fly the ac and to carry out a display. Besides, the CAA have been involved in the project from an early stage - they are likely to be on-side.
Finances, I believe, will be the killer. Unless a sponsor with a very large piggy bank can be found, who will heavily subsidise the operation, I believe the charges that have to be made to display organisers would put the ac out of their reach. At the sort of weights that it would be operating a fuel burn of 1000-1200 gals per hour would be expected, with a display burning a further 300-400 gals. That's a lot of money, and then there are all the other costs on top of that. I couldn't even begin to figure the cost per hour of this venture, although I suspect that DW, as a businessman, has worked it all out in his business plan.
I would love to see the old girl in her rightful medium - airborne - and although I have a number of reservations as to the viability of the scheme, I would urge everybody to stay positive towards getting her airborne.
There are no problems here - only solutions...
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FJJP
I concur wholeheartedly with your comments, and endorse pretty much all that you say.
DT is, without doubt, the top man for the job, but as you rightly say, the AEO is equally as important (especially when the lights go out!)
As HZ123 and Chipmunk say (and I also agree) it would be great to see her back in the air, but the cost is prohibitive. If Mig15's maths are correct, the cost would literally be 'thru' the roof' - and therefeore, the fuel erquation alone makes it a non-starter.
Like Mig, I believe the way forward is for her to be put back together again, and returned to taxi status. As he says, just the sound of the old girl at 'max chaff' will suffice for those who have flown her and/or seen her at airshows. The rest will just have to close their eyes and dream!!!
Kind regards
The Swinging Monkey
'Caruthers, is it time for my afternoon Grouse yet?'
I concur wholeheartedly with your comments, and endorse pretty much all that you say.
DT is, without doubt, the top man for the job, but as you rightly say, the AEO is equally as important (especially when the lights go out!)
As HZ123 and Chipmunk say (and I also agree) it would be great to see her back in the air, but the cost is prohibitive. If Mig15's maths are correct, the cost would literally be 'thru' the roof' - and therefeore, the fuel erquation alone makes it a non-starter.
Like Mig, I believe the way forward is for her to be put back together again, and returned to taxi status. As he says, just the sound of the old girl at 'max chaff' will suffice for those who have flown her and/or seen her at airshows. The rest will just have to close their eyes and dream!!!
Kind regards
The Swinging Monkey
'Caruthers, is it time for my afternoon Grouse yet?'
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Edge of the fens
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting debate, this.
The original assertion that XH558 will be reduced to produce if TVOC fail to secure an HLF grant is indeed worrying. But the most worrying thing for me is that this eventuallity could not have been unforeseen, which means TVOC made a gross error of judgement in commencing the project before funding had been secured. And if, conversely, TVOC had NOT seen this coming, then that points to an incredible level of naivety.
Hmm. Gross error of judgement vs naivety. Not exactly the qualities you to see displayed by an organisation which aspires to return a Vulcan to the sky.
I'd dearly love to see a Vulcan fly again, and would love my son to be able to see it for the first time ever. That's why I, like many others, put my hand in my pocket. Do I want that money back? Of course not. I'm realistic enough to know that it's been spent. Whether it was spent wisely is another matter entirely.
Sadly, I feel the very best we can hope for is that XH558 somehow is returned to taxiable status. But I'd say that's unlikely. A taxiable, revenue earning aeroplane has been reduced to a pile of parts in a hangar, with no firm assurances, plans or finances to restore the status quo. At best, it's highly irresponsible. At worst, it's akin to organised vandalism.
The original assertion that XH558 will be reduced to produce if TVOC fail to secure an HLF grant is indeed worrying. But the most worrying thing for me is that this eventuallity could not have been unforeseen, which means TVOC made a gross error of judgement in commencing the project before funding had been secured. And if, conversely, TVOC had NOT seen this coming, then that points to an incredible level of naivety.
Hmm. Gross error of judgement vs naivety. Not exactly the qualities you to see displayed by an organisation which aspires to return a Vulcan to the sky.
I'd dearly love to see a Vulcan fly again, and would love my son to be able to see it for the first time ever. That's why I, like many others, put my hand in my pocket. Do I want that money back? Of course not. I'm realistic enough to know that it's been spent. Whether it was spent wisely is another matter entirely.
Sadly, I feel the very best we can hope for is that XH558 somehow is returned to taxiable status. But I'd say that's unlikely. A taxiable, revenue earning aeroplane has been reduced to a pile of parts in a hangar, with no firm assurances, plans or finances to restore the status quo. At best, it's highly irresponsible. At worst, it's akin to organised vandalism.
I first saw a Vulcan flying when I was a kid growing up in the Welsh valleys which were a playground for the type then. I would love to see a Vulcan flying again but don't think I ever will for all the reasons stated above. As I understand it (from half remembered articles in the aviation press) the MoD beancounters deliberately picked XH558 cos she had relatively high fatigue times and therefore a finite time on the dispaly circuit in the hands of the RAF. Now these high fatigue times mean she has a very limited life on the display circuit even assuming that huge wads of cash are available to a) put her back together, b) retrain a few crews and work up a display routine, c) subsidise the first display season to get the airshow folks used to the awesome hire cost. I'd pay an extra fiver to go to an airshow that had the Vulcan flying but only once or twice a season.
How long is her display life going to be? I vaguely recall 8 years on a fairly limited training / display routine. As much as would like to see her fly again, I can't see people throwing the kind of money required into the intakes of those gloriously loud Olympii to end up with an asset worth peanuts at the end of it all. I wasn't surprised at the lack of interest from the LHF for all the above reasons...........
Edited to endorse BeauMan's comments on organised vandalism.
C'mon chaps, would you strip down a car if you didn't have the cash or general wherewithall to put it back together?? Or would you keep pottering around until you had saved your pennies. Or at least guaranteed that the CAA would allow it to fly at the nd of it all rather than just being "onside".
How long is her display life going to be? I vaguely recall 8 years on a fairly limited training / display routine. As much as would like to see her fly again, I can't see people throwing the kind of money required into the intakes of those gloriously loud Olympii to end up with an asset worth peanuts at the end of it all. I wasn't surprised at the lack of interest from the LHF for all the above reasons...........
Edited to endorse BeauMan's comments on organised vandalism.
C'mon chaps, would you strip down a car if you didn't have the cash or general wherewithall to put it back together?? Or would you keep pottering around until you had saved your pennies. Or at least guaranteed that the CAA would allow it to fly at the nd of it all rather than just being "onside".
Having spent the best part of 8 years servicing this venerable beast, nothing would give me greater pleasure (aeronatutical wise!!) to see one fly again.
However, the Vulc was designed as a high level stand off bomber and when it became a low level (very low in some cases) bomber the fatigue index of the aircraft went off the scale.
I would imagine that even if you could obtain permission to fly in principle, the practicalities of it happening would be almost impossible.
God, I hope I'm wrong but..........................
However, the Vulc was designed as a high level stand off bomber and when it became a low level (very low in some cases) bomber the fatigue index of the aircraft went off the scale.
I would imagine that even if you could obtain permission to fly in principle, the practicalities of it happening would be almost impossible.
God, I hope I'm wrong but..........................