Vulcan - Sunday 21st Mail
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vulcan - Sunday 21st Mail
An article stated that work will cease on the intended 'flying Vulcan' within the next few weeks as the organisers are now in excess of £4 millions short of funding and even with it work is so far behind it may not fly for 2 a further 2 years.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A pity, but if that figure is correct one has to wonder where that money would go if they could get it. Just walk around a Vulcan, as I did 2 weeks ago at Carlisle, and try to work out how it can cost £4m! It's mind-boggling.
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
and try to work out how it can cost £4m! It's mind-boggling.
In its heyday, fully supported with new spares and test equipment a simple Before Flight Inspection took around 35 manhours. Plus several tons of Avtur, gallons and gallons of lubricating oil and hydraulic fluid, hundreds of litres of oxygen and nitrogen, starter cartridges etc. After it flew, the same ten man groundcrew might typically take another 35 manhours or so to do the After Flight Inspection and clearing the snags in the Form 700 would bring in more troops and raise that to about 120 manhours. Altogether thats about triple the effort needed for a full 'A' check on a B767. At today's rates, even with a lot of the work done by volunteers, that'd be a few thousand quids worth. Just for one turn around.
For a Minor* a Vulcan would keep a whole third of the MEAS establishment busy for two weeks. Plus the Mod Squad.
Today we're looking at a task far bigger even than a Major - re-assembling an aged heap, full of corrosion and using mostly custom made parts. There's obsolete safety equipment to be made safe and serviceable. There's thousands of one-off O ring seals to change - they're shelf lifed you see, so like the tyres (18 of them at a time) they need to be custom made to order. The seals for our Boeings are still in production but they cost anything from US$1 to US$20 each. And you can't use old MOD stock 'cos its all life-ex.
I'm actually rather surprised its as cheap as four million, but then I guess the estimators are still wearing their rose tinted spectacles and optimists hats. What snarls me up is that they've dismantled a nice piece of history and will quite likely leave it in such a mess it can never be seen intact again. Another old beauty destroyed for nothing. I sincerely hope I'm wrong...
Last edited by Blacksheep; 23rd May 2006 at 09:39.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,075
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should you wish to see one close up, this weekend is the Southend Air Show at the beach but there is also two open days at Southend Airport where G-VULC is on display and should be starting up I believe and doing a taxi. I am told the Vulc burns a litre a second?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blacksheep,
Are you certain about your figures?
I flew the mighty tin triangle from Scampton for many years, and I have never heard of such time scales for AF's and BF's on the Vulcan. I have seen the aircraft AF'd and BF'd in much less time than you state and get airborne again within a short space of time (and NOT on a turnround servicing)
As for starter cartridges? what are you talking about? None of the Vulcans I ever flew had cartridges. Compressed air bottles yes, cartridges NO!
Methinks some of your 'gen is abit suspect old boy!
The Winco
Are you certain about your figures?
I flew the mighty tin triangle from Scampton for many years, and I have never heard of such time scales for AF's and BF's on the Vulcan. I have seen the aircraft AF'd and BF'd in much less time than you state and get airborne again within a short space of time (and NOT on a turnround servicing)
As for starter cartridges? what are you talking about? None of the Vulcans I ever flew had cartridges. Compressed air bottles yes, cartridges NO!
Methinks some of your 'gen is abit suspect old boy!
The Winco
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: East Sussex
Age: 68
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst it will be truly wonderful to see a Vulcan flying, getting it to an airworthy condition is one thing, keeping it like that is another. Sorry to put the dampers on this. What makes it even worse is that a considerable amount of money has been spent so far on the Vulcan and just up the road at Cosford a number of 'one off' airliners have been chopped up through lack of funding to conserve them.
Temps
Temps
The Cosford scandal is a direct result of the total lack of interest shown by ba towards its heritage.
Whereas Lufthansa keeps a Ju52/3m airworthy for commercial passenger flying, and has a Me 108 and Saab Safir in its historic collection:
There is nothing difficult about the restoration of 558 to flying status - the standard of work is 'better than new'. But there is a need for funding still!
Whereas Lufthansa keeps a Ju52/3m airworthy for commercial passenger flying, and has a Me 108 and Saab Safir in its historic collection:
There is nothing difficult about the restoration of 558 to flying status - the standard of work is 'better than new'. But there is a need for funding still!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No. The Cosford scandal is a direct result of the RAFM expelling the BA Collection at a time when BA is grappling with a large pension fund deficit and exceptionally high fuel costs and has no spare cash.
The "flying" Vulcan is absorbing a disproportionate share of aviation heritage spending at a time when many other large British aircraft are under the same threat as the BA unfortunates.
The "flying" Vulcan is absorbing a disproportionate share of aviation heritage spending at a time when many other large British aircraft are under the same threat as the BA unfortunates.
RAFM had to act because ba had failed to maintain the aircraft and showed no interest in their future. The aircraft were deteriorating to an extent that could no longer be ignored.
In ba it's all 'The Shareholder' - they couldn't give a stuff about anything else. Yes, they're having to cope with their own unrealistic pension scheme - but they're not alone in facing aviation fuel costs.
Any high status ba might once have enjoyed went out of the window with their 'Dirty Tricks' era - I'm proud to say that I have never flown with them since.
In ba it's all 'The Shareholder' - they couldn't give a stuff about anything else. Yes, they're having to cope with their own unrealistic pension scheme - but they're not alone in facing aviation fuel costs.
Any high status ba might once have enjoyed went out of the window with their 'Dirty Tricks' era - I'm proud to say that I have never flown with them since.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South Staffordshire, UK
Age: 42
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If anyone is interested.....
They finished chopping up the 707 and carting off the bits on Tuesday. Yesterday they started started stripping the insides of the VC10 - so I guess that's next.
Then it will be the turn of the BAe 1-11 and the Trident.
I'm not a spotter (honest!) but it is sad to see
But I can't help think about how much is the maintenance costs for these 4 aircraft? A wash now and again? I don't know.
Then there's the cost of having them broken down and transported away? Could that money not have been invested in a long term future for these a/c?
Then it will be the turn of the BAe 1-11 and the Trident.
I'm not a spotter (honest!) but it is sad to see
But I can't help think about how much is the maintenance costs for these 4 aircraft? A wash now and again? I don't know.Then there's the cost of having them broken down and transported away? Could that money not have been invested in a long term future for these a/c?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having had a very long external nosey about the BA Collection just before the JCBs arrived, let's be clear. To the public they were clean and tidy enough for display. Any problems were structural and NOT immediate as otherwise they could not be allowed on public display. A period of grace for a considered disposal would not have been impossible. Incidentally, the Trident looked immaculate.
A paint job wouldn't have gone amiss on the VC10 and 707 but they were not falling to bits, let's be clear.
A paint job wouldn't have gone amiss on the VC10 and 707 but they were not falling to bits, let's be clear.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Back in Geordie Land
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FJJP
Oh yes, youre absolutely right. I thought the way Black Sheep was going on about it tho' that he new of some 'new' way to start the 'donks!
BTW, do you agree with his figures for AF's and BF's - I don't remember them taking that long?
The Winco
Oh yes, youre absolutely right. I thought the way Black Sheep was going on about it tho' that he new of some 'new' way to start the 'donks!
BTW, do you agree with his figures for AF's and BF's - I don't remember them taking that long?
The Winco
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BEagle
In ba it's all 'The Shareholder' - they couldn't give a stuff about anything else. Yes, they're having to cope with their own unrealistic pension scheme - but they're not alone in facing aviation fuel costs.
If BA doesn't get a grip on its spending and begin paying dividends again very soon it will simply get taken over by Lufthansa or another European airline the way KLM was taken over by Air France. How will that help British aviation, or what's left of it?
If you think that can't happen you may well wake up after the Bank Holiday to discover nearly all the major British airports are Spanish-owned.
As to the Vulcan, I would prefer to see the few remaining large British aircraft, both military and civil, put permanently under cover than see just one aircraft, however attractive, consuming vast amounts of fuel/money in the air.
Albert Driver:
You really are a very naive soul. Do you really think that the RAFM is to be blamed for the fact that BA are completely disinclined to support their own heritage?
BA claims to be the most profitable airline in the world and recently declared record profits for their shareholders.
If I am to follow your logic then the RAFM should throw out the contents of Hendon and Cosford to protect the shortfall in the BA pension fund and to help fund their higher than expected fuel bill. This would allow you to move a B707, a VC-10, a BAC 1-11 and a Trident into the space made available by throwing the nation's military heritage on the scrap dump.
Whilst you might think that this a reasonable solution to the BA shareholders' problems I think the rest of us would consider you to be out to lunch.
This whole escapade is entirely due to BA showing absolutely no interests in its own heritage. The RAFM is entirely blameless and has to look to its own funding .
You really are a very naive soul. Do you really think that the RAFM is to be blamed for the fact that BA are completely disinclined to support their own heritage?
BA claims to be the most profitable airline in the world and recently declared record profits for their shareholders.
If I am to follow your logic then the RAFM should throw out the contents of Hendon and Cosford to protect the shortfall in the BA pension fund and to help fund their higher than expected fuel bill. This would allow you to move a B707, a VC-10, a BAC 1-11 and a Trident into the space made available by throwing the nation's military heritage on the scrap dump.
Whilst you might think that this a reasonable solution to the BA shareholders' problems I think the rest of us would consider you to be out to lunch.
This whole escapade is entirely due to BA showing absolutely no interests in its own heritage. The RAFM is entirely blameless and has to look to its own funding .
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JW411
Albert Driver:
You really are a very naive soul. Do you really think that the RAFM is to be blamed for the fact that BA are completely disinclined to support their own heritage?
BA claims to be the most profitable airline in the world and recently declared record profits for their shareholders.
If I am to follow your logic then the RAFM should throw out the contents of Hendon and Cosford to protect the shortfall in the BA pension fund and to help fund their higher than expected fuel bill. This would allow you to move a B707, a VC-10, a BAC 1-11 and a Trident into the space made available by throwing the nation's military heritage on the scrap dump.
Whilst you might think that this a reasonable solution to the BA shareholders' problems I think the rest of us would consider you to be out to lunch.
This whole escapade is entirely due to BA showing absolutely no interests in its own heritage. The RAFM is entirely blameless and has to look to its own funding .
You really are a very naive soul. Do you really think that the RAFM is to be blamed for the fact that BA are completely disinclined to support their own heritage?
BA claims to be the most profitable airline in the world and recently declared record profits for their shareholders.
If I am to follow your logic then the RAFM should throw out the contents of Hendon and Cosford to protect the shortfall in the BA pension fund and to help fund their higher than expected fuel bill. This would allow you to move a B707, a VC-10, a BAC 1-11 and a Trident into the space made available by throwing the nation's military heritage on the scrap dump.
Whilst you might think that this a reasonable solution to the BA shareholders' problems I think the rest of us would consider you to be out to lunch.
This whole escapade is entirely due to BA showing absolutely no interests in its own heritage. The RAFM is entirely blameless and has to look to its own funding .
Am I missing something here? BA is an airline operating in a highly competive commercial marketplace. The purpose of the airline is to carry passengers and show a profit - nothing else. What is the incentive to BA and its shareholders to support ex-fleet aeroplanes in museums? Where is the payback? It would be unprofessional of BA to spend its shareholders money on preserving old aeroplanes without the expectation of such a payback.
In the absence of state or lottery funds, those who would like to see old aeroplanes preserved must pay for it themselves, or rely on others who will pay, or who have worked out a method of funding such preservations.
How else do you think it might happen?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Windsor, UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
National Museum
Surely the root cause of the vandalism at Cosford and the on going Vulcan crisis is the lack of a national aviation museum and preservation strategy which should focus first and foremost on preserving and housing aviation artefacts from the United Kingdom in the way the the Musée de l'Air focuses primarily on the preservation of French aviation history.
For example the American Air Musem at Duxford is a very commendable institution, but such initiatives should not take place until our aviation heritage is properly preserved. Even if the AAM is funded privately there still remains the question of focus and available technical expertise. Likewise the apparently arbitary acquision by the Science Museum of two Lockheed types some years ago with no obvious significance to our avation history. Both these and many other activities would be properly scrutinised and directed were there a national body with the appropriate remit.
It is not BA's or the RAF's primary job to preserve our avation history - it is the Government's through a body similar to the National Trust
For example the American Air Musem at Duxford is a very commendable institution, but such initiatives should not take place until our aviation heritage is properly preserved. Even if the AAM is funded privately there still remains the question of focus and available technical expertise. Likewise the apparently arbitary acquision by the Science Museum of two Lockheed types some years ago with no obvious significance to our avation history. Both these and many other activities would be properly scrutinised and directed were there a national body with the appropriate remit.
It is not BA's or the RAF's primary job to preserve our avation history - it is the Government's through a body similar to the National Trust
Originally Posted by Shaggy Sheep Driver
Am I missing something here? BA is an airline operating in a highly competive commercial marketplace. The purpose of the airline is to carry passengers and show a profit - nothing else. What is the incentive to BA and its shareholders to support ex-fleet aeroplanes in museums? Where is the payback? It would be unprofessional of BA to spend its shareholders money on preserving old aeroplanes without the expectation of such a payback.
How else do you think it might happen?
How else do you think it might happen?
No payback, no spenders - period. The blinkered face of pure capitalism - nothing matters but money. What a set of ****esters.
Not a BA executive by any chance are you?
