XT597 for sale
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Quiet spot
Age: 74
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Significant aircraft
As stated there was a time when UK Phantoms had to be scrapped after use by the RAF, I'm no expert but presumably this was a DoD contractual clause so Phantom parts etc did not migrate to other user airforces.
I wrote to my local MP in Trafford many years ago in order to support the transfer of an RAF Leeming F4 Phantom to the YAM at Elvington and was informed XV499 was being held for future donation.
So I guess market prices will determine future ownership of ex military aircraft although occasionally historically significant aircraft should at least be considered for national conservation/display e.g. Vulcan XM607 ?
I wrote to my local MP in Trafford many years ago in order to support the transfer of an RAF Leeming F4 Phantom to the YAM at Elvington and was informed XV499 was being held for future donation.
So I guess market prices will determine future ownership of ex military aircraft although occasionally historically significant aircraft should at least be considered for national conservation/display e.g. Vulcan XM607 ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bruntingthorpe would have been great - hence my communications with the people who have the Tornado there. But somewhere inside would have been better. Obviously, the ideal place would have been next to the Javelin that it replaced, at Duxford. Just as good would have been the collection of test aircraft at Cosford. As it is, I doubt if anyone will take it, not if it really is going for 75K. Hence my worry that it will be left to rot. By the time Everett get realistic and reduce the asking price to a figure that any museum might seriously consider, it will doubtless be a rust bucket. It's just awful.
Preon, I agree with you entirely about XM607. How such an historic machine isn't under cover is beyond me.
Preon, I agree with you entirely about XM607. How such an historic machine isn't under cover is beyond me.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: 180INS500
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WH904: Personally, my "blame" goes entirely on QinetiQ and MoD. As ever, they have reduced a very significant artefact to just its scrap metal value. Yes, they do have a responsibility to the taxpayer to recover as much money as possible, but one would hope that they would also have an understanding of history and heritage, and would therefore handle the disposal of its assets in a more intelligent and thoughtful way. Clearly that isn't happening - as usual.
SS
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,048
Received 2,920 Likes
on
1,249 Posts
The exclusion from bidding I think is because they have preferred bidders, hence the museum wasn't allowed to, one of the reason they have a preffered bidders list is they know that they will have removed the items by the given date, something that may not happen with private individuals.
I would love to know the mark up on these.
I would love to know the mark up on these.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On that basis, then it's only the MoD that can be "blamed" although the issue of QinetiQ's attitude towards the Aviation Collection is another saga in itself.
It's very sad that the people who have the power over such disposals only understand the cost of everything but the value of nothing.
It's very sad that the people who have the power over such disposals only understand the cost of everything but the value of nothing.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,048
Received 2,920 Likes
on
1,249 Posts
This goes into it quite well
More on the subject
MOD Disposal Of Aircraft
This isn't a direct answer to your question, but an experience of mine,
About four years ago I got involved in purchasing an airframe from DSA (Disposals Services Authority who dispose of equipment for the MoD) they were also involved with the mass selling off of equipment on the same site and were visiting in relation to that, which meant I got to meet them and ask some questions to some high up staff (who were very nice) within the agency - this wasn't long after the mass disposal of Jaguars.
From the conversation, it soon became apparent that the idea of all airframes/equipment beaing available for anyone to bid on is a false one, they are entitled to discharge items directly to their preferred bidders, and indeed was the preferred route.
This can mean that an airframe may go to a preferred contractor, rather than sell for less money to say a museum, or for more money to a private individual. When pushed on rare items that may still be in the system and up for disposal, it was actually quoted to me that if a Merlin engine was sold, it could as likely go for scrap than be sold to an individual.
The given reason behind this is simplicity, one scenerio is that an aircraft is actually just part of a larger lot of other equipment, the one preferred bidder is trusted to put in a price for the lot, and turn up on site and remove the whole lot.
The same is true for single airframes, the DSA knows the preffered bidder will come on to a station with the minimum of fuss, remove the airframe and go, where as unknown Joe Bloggs (who might have bid more) may come on to site with a Mondeo and a trailer, seeking local assisstance with disassembly and removal, and possibly leaving a mess behind.
So in simple terms, some airframes may never become publicaly available through DSA (or Edisposals), but be offered directly to the preferred contractor.
The item may never get a chance to be offered to a museum, or indeed the highest bidder.
How the choice to dipose of directly, or by open tender is made is unclear to me.
This was four years ago, things might be different now, but from my observations things are the same.
About four years ago I got involved in purchasing an airframe from DSA (Disposals Services Authority who dispose of equipment for the MoD) they were also involved with the mass selling off of equipment on the same site and were visiting in relation to that, which meant I got to meet them and ask some questions to some high up staff (who were very nice) within the agency - this wasn't long after the mass disposal of Jaguars.
From the conversation, it soon became apparent that the idea of all airframes/equipment beaing available for anyone to bid on is a false one, they are entitled to discharge items directly to their preferred bidders, and indeed was the preferred route.
This can mean that an airframe may go to a preferred contractor, rather than sell for less money to say a museum, or for more money to a private individual. When pushed on rare items that may still be in the system and up for disposal, it was actually quoted to me that if a Merlin engine was sold, it could as likely go for scrap than be sold to an individual.
The given reason behind this is simplicity, one scenerio is that an aircraft is actually just part of a larger lot of other equipment, the one preferred bidder is trusted to put in a price for the lot, and turn up on site and remove the whole lot.
The same is true for single airframes, the DSA knows the preffered bidder will come on to a station with the minimum of fuss, remove the airframe and go, where as unknown Joe Bloggs (who might have bid more) may come on to site with a Mondeo and a trailer, seeking local assisstance with disassembly and removal, and possibly leaving a mess behind.
So in simple terms, some airframes may never become publicaly available through DSA (or Edisposals), but be offered directly to the preferred contractor.
The item may never get a chance to be offered to a museum, or indeed the highest bidder.
How the choice to dipose of directly, or by open tender is made is unclear to me.
This was four years ago, things might be different now, but from my observations things are the same.
MOD Disposal Of Aircraft
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's interesting stuff. I think a lot of us assumed that the MoD's main priority (or at least stated priority) was to recover as much value from each disposal as possible. On the basis of the previous post, I guess that is still the main aim, but it does seem as if there is far too much opportunity to make decisions on the basis of convenience rather than good sense.
But if that is indeed the case, it's a shame that hard-headed cost recovery decisions can't be modified to take into account history and heritage. In short, it's rather comical (or sad - delete as appropriate) that a straightforward disposal process can be modified when it suits. But only when it suits the MoD, not the taxpayer. At least that's how I read things.
But if that is indeed the case, it's a shame that hard-headed cost recovery decisions can't be modified to take into account history and heritage. In short, it's rather comical (or sad - delete as appropriate) that a straightforward disposal process can be modified when it suits. But only when it suits the MoD, not the taxpayer. At least that's how I read things.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: N51 09".94 W001 45".51
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmmm somebody seems to have a real axe to grind with QinetiQ ! I personally thought the BDAC were doing a great job but it was basically an old boys hobby club housed in tax payers accommodation as no visitors were allowed in. They are much better off where they are now, and once again I think you will find that was more to do with the MOD than anyone else , that accommodation is now being put to use by its owners.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that when Dick Everett sold the RAF back ONE Jag, he charged them roughly what he'd paid for the whole lot.
Thus he ended up with about forty of the things, for nothing.
Stand to be corrected, but I've met the chap and been shown around his garden.
A very decent, aviation minded gentleman, IMHO.
He'll likely sell the F-4 in question to a good home, and in nice condition. Surely a much better outcome than scrapping at Boscombe?
Thus he ended up with about forty of the things, for nothing.
Stand to be corrected, but I've met the chap and been shown around his garden.
A very decent, aviation minded gentleman, IMHO.
He'll likely sell the F-4 in question to a good home, and in nice condition. Surely a much better outcome than scrapping at Boscombe?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, it would be far preferable to being scrapped at Boscombe, but only if that is what happens. If the asking price really is 75K I can't imagine that any aviation museum or collection is going to be in a position to buy it. Therefore it seems more likely that it will either go to some awful commercial enterprise (where it will either be painted in some crazy paint scheme or used as a plaything, etc.), or it will be left unsold until the asking price goes down and the aircraft has deteriorated.
We can certainly hope that it finds a good home but I just can't imagine where that would be. RAFM? Obviously not. FAAM? Obviously not. Bruntingthorpe? Seems not, if even the Tornado guys don't want it. So where else? We're talking about smaller museums with no serious purchasing power.
It's not good, and as I said at the start, it seems like a very sad outcome for an airframe that deserves far better treatment. Doesn't look as if anyone is interested so I guess the best we can do is hope that something good comes out of this sorry tale.
We can certainly hope that it finds a good home but I just can't imagine where that would be. RAFM? Obviously not. FAAM? Obviously not. Bruntingthorpe? Seems not, if even the Tornado guys don't want it. So where else? We're talking about smaller museums with no serious purchasing power.
It's not good, and as I said at the start, it seems like a very sad outcome for an airframe that deserves far better treatment. Doesn't look as if anyone is interested so I guess the best we can do is hope that something good comes out of this sorry tale.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
904.
Untwist yer knickers!
Everett Aero will restore the thing, then they'll flog it.
They'll flog it so someone who'll buy it, and that party will look after it.
Endex.
Untwist yer knickers!
Everett Aero will restore the thing, then they'll flog it.
They'll flog it so someone who'll buy it, and that party will look after it.
Endex.
They'll flog it so someone who'll buy it, and that party will look after it.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
904.
Ok, someone who, I hope, looks after it.
Downside is the thing mind be sold abroad. I was surprised to find two of Everetts old aircraft, a Scout and a Jetstream, in the museum at ....... (Forget it's name) west of Frankfurt.
So you might really have to pay to see it!
Ok, someone who, I hope, looks after it.
Downside is the thing mind be sold abroad. I was surprised to find two of Everetts old aircraft, a Scout and a Jetstream, in the museum at ....... (Forget it's name) west of Frankfurt.
So you might really have to pay to see it!
