Wonder if they could save money by abandoning the full display and just doing take-offs, landings, rollers, etc. Everyone seems to whine and moan about how tame and distant the display is now (compared to Joe L'Estrange's RAF displays no doubt!), but that's hardly the Vulcan people's fault (guess the blame for most of that lays at the CAA's door). So why waste money on the bits that people don't even like?

Just as odd is their claim that the money they get for displays doesn't cover all the costs (or so I read). If so, then why don't they charge more? I sincerely hope that (for example) they didn't make a loss on the long journey to Goodwood, where the petrol heads couldn't even be bothered to show XH558 on their TV coverage, and chose to show cars while the display was in progress. If that's how much they care about 558, why did they bother displaying there? Let's hope they made a fat profit, but I'm guessing they didn't.

Now I see they have to fly at Farnborough to be "validated" - but does Farnborough pay for this unnecessary flight? Let me guess...

Last week they wasted two hours flying round Sywell with the Blades (what is this obsession they have with the Blades?). Supposedly to fulfil a competition they arranged. Did all that fuel cover the revenue from the competition?

Like so many people, I get the impression that an awful lot of money that is donated to the Vulcan, simply gets p**ed against the proverbial wall.

I would imagine the operational budget for landing gear and engine maintenance is predicated on the assumption of one takeoff and one landing per display, nice though a Vulcan T&G would be to watch.

Every aircraft that displays at Farnborough requires a validation flight - those have been taking place all this week.

Yes, the main costs will be incurred on any display, but the additional fuel (and fatigue) that is spent on a display seems pointless when almost everyone complains that the display is too tame. If nobody likes it then why do it?

Yes, everyone has to fly a validation flight at Farnborough but that's not my point. If Farnborough expect a validation flight then they're effectively asking for a full display for free? If they expect money (and fatigue) to be used, then they should pay for it. If not, then it's a simple case of saying you can't have what you're not prepared to pay for.

There seems to be a lot of flexibility in what the Vulcan people are prepared to accept and decline, depending on who they favour - or otherwise. Okay, they're entitled to do whatever they like... but one has to remember that they're making all these decisions with other people's money.

WH904 wrote: Nonsense. The purpose of the validation flight is to assure the display committee that the aircraft's display is safe or to require changes to be made.

Do you contribute to keeping '558 flying? If not, I suggest you STFU and accept that those who do contribute are happy to do so and for VTTS to use their budget to the benefit of the majority.

If the F-35B doesn't come to RIAT, perhaps there could be space for '558 to display?

I'll never forget the week before my passing out parade at Swinderby during 1976, their parade had been in a hangar due to inclement weather so rather than do a quickie fly-by they had a Vulcan do a full display including, I was told they called it "stall diving" where it comes down vertically whilst turning like a corkscrew, I knew nothing about aircraft at the time so I could only question "What the **** is that?" to be informed it was an Avro Vulcan.

Ever since I've had a soft spot for the old girl but what is this obsession that some have with it? ... Yes, for it's era, it's a beautiful piece of kit, but did it ever save UK from speaking German or indeed Russian, did it destroy any dams, did it actually hit it's target during the few weeks of it's career when it was engaged in "warfare"?

I mean "yes" it's a beautiful piece of kit but it ain't a Spitfire, it ain't a Hurricane, it ain't a Lancaster, it ain't a Swordfish, all of which had significantly more distinguished careers than the Vulcan ever did and use a lot less fuel between the lot of them than the Vulcan uses!

How much does one of these New Zealand built Mosquito's cost? ... I know what I'd spend my money on :)

BEagle, I don't understand your logic here. By definition, Farnborough ARE expecting a display for free unless they pay for it, aren't they? They can call it what they like but in terms of cost/fatigue, that's what they're getting. It's ridiculous. Pay for the display and the validation display, or get neither, surely?

Phileas, I'm not sure I'd agree with your sentiments. Yes, the Spit, Hurricane, Swordfish and Lancaster are of course iconic aircraft but the Vulcan is no less significant. You can't say that the Vulcan's career was any less distinguished. One could argue that the Vulcan was more significant, in that the other aircraft fought against the threat of Nazi rule. The Vulcan, by comparison, protected us from oblivion.

Roly Falk at Farnborough:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPuTgcrA2Zs

WH904,

The Cold War was not a war, it was a game of "Cat and mouse" that continues to this day.

Only a few years ago UK had the formation of 8 "bear's" (64 very noisy propellers in close formation) attempting to penetrating it's airspace, reading recently the Russian's are teasing the American's with similar stunts, where is the force of V Bombers to protect UK now?

If one side launches a nuke then the other side launches a nuke in response, one side isn't going to launch because they know what will be coming in the other direction!

Look at what the Harrier/Sea Harrier did for UK back in 1982 regardless of what a technology breakthrough a VTOL jet aircraft was, a first of it's kind, there's no "singing and dancing" to try to get a Harrier on to the civilian register that would guzzle a lot less fuel than a Vulcan guzzles.

where is the force of V Bombers to protect UK now?
Good question :)

no "singing and dancing" to try to get a Harrier on to the civilian register
I guess that's not through lack of interest - more the knowledge that the CAA wouldn't allow it :(

Even more impressive when you fly 12,600 miles and a total of 16 hours and drop them on unsuspecting Argentinians :ok:

So what did we do, shoot them down ?

Joking aside, the Russians have been sending Tu-95s to probe UK (and other nations') air defences for the best part of 50 years, one of the objects of the missions being to see how quickly we can get a couple of fighters up to escort them.

That's not quite the same as "attempting to penetrate" UK airspace, though of course we'll never known until the day the RAF doesn't intercept them in time. :O But even then, I would still expect them to turn round at the airspace boundary as they invariably do.

Incidentally, I remember organising a lecture around 1970 by two Leuchars Lightning pilots, who said that the Russian tail gunners went out of their way to be friendly, waving and indicating that they would like the RAF pilots to raise their bone dome visors - the object being to photograph the pilots so that over time they could build up a picture of the RAF's frontline aircrew strength.

I could think of far easier ways to achieve that than flying Bears to the UK on the off chance of taking a photo.

Anyway, I think one of the pilots said on here they held up Page 3 pictures :O

And the pilots weren't so friendly, I think it was Courtney who said while he was underneath the bear trying to read the numbers the pilot gradually descended trying to achieve a CFIT :rolleyes:

I don't recall saying that was the purpose of the missions. :ugh:

A lot of people on here complaining about how "tame" the Vulcan display is compared with years gone by. However the vast majority of people attending airshows today would never have seen an old-style Vulcan display - so the comparison is irrelevant.

Also, would be a bit difficult to do take-offs and touch and gos at the many seaside airshows these days!:ok:

They stopped doing that particular part of the job (for the most part) when the Navy took over the deterrent role at the end of the 1960's.

True, it would be difficult to do much at a seaside show. It just seems so pointless to waste fuel and fatigue on a full display that nobody seems to appreciate. A close fly-by and a noisy climb is probably all that is necessary - and on that basis I'm guessing they could probably tweak an extra year or so out of the engines. It's silly to imagine that the Vulcan could be thrown around like Joe used to do back in the 70s and 80s so I can't help thinking the full display is simply a waste now. A lot of short flying appearances surely ought to be better than fewer full displays that nobody even appreciates?

The arguments above have been raging off and on for years. Neither side will convince the other to change their point of view. The one thing that is certain is that within a very short time XH558 will land for the very last time, never to fly again.

Why not just enjoy it whilst you can?

Why not start a campaign to pressure the CAA into letting some of our historic jets fly again? There were Buccaneers and Lightnings flying in South Africa recently, and even a Sea Harrier in the States, yet nothing in the country that developed, produced and then flew them for real for decades.

That is something of which I feel sad and ashamed, although no doubt the jobsworths and Elfansafey people feel a deep satisfaction as they spend their inflation proof pensions........

(Must go now, the nurse just called me to take my medication:O:sad::eek:)

So precisely what use would a Vulcan have been had "we" wanted to shoot them down? :)

Phileas, I think you're misunderstanding the concept of deterrence. Bears testing the edges of our air defence zone are nothing to do with Mutually Assured Destruction. These constant incursions are a separate issue that have always taken place, and probably always will. The V-Force was at the core of our defence, ensuring that the Soviets would not seriously contemplate a first strike. The fact that it never happened illustrates that the V-Force worked. It's that simple. Of course we've moved on now to ICBMs etc., but my point was that the Vulcan was arguably more significant than any of the WWII aircraft that are always portrayed as "icons" etc.

bobward, I agree with you. Ultimately, the thing to do is enjoy XH558 while you can. My point was just that we could probably enjoy the Vulcan a little longer if fatigue/engine life wasn't wasted on full displays that (on the basis of comments) most people don't even appreciate.

I also agree that it would be nice if we could campaign to get the CAA to change its attitude towards jets. I've pushed that idea before but nobody seems to have the enthusiasm to do anything about it. The answer I always get is that the CAA have their rules and that's that. Nobody ever suggests that the CAA should change their rules - it's as if they dictate from on high and we are obliged to roll over and accept it!

WH904,

Believe it or not I served in the 1970's "Cold War" RAF.

I heard all the stories of how the Russians would shadow a Vulcan and then send "us" the pics of them photographing a Vulcan undetected only for "us" to respond with a Vulcan shadowing and photographing their aircraft whilst undetected and "us" sending them the pics.

As I said previously it was all a game of cat and mouse.

The nearest I got to seeing a Russian during my service was during a taceval when a Shackleton calling itself "Trotsky whatever" requested asylum and we needed to rugby tackle some of our fellow servicemen as they attempted to "leg it" across Lyneham airfield whilst wearing Russian headgear. :)

And my point was that it is only a few older enthusiasts that, apparently, don't appreciate the full display. Many more people who have not seen an old-time display DO appreciate it.