Bruntingthorpe
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,873
Received 2,823 Likes
on
1,203 Posts
Disgusted
says it all.
says it all.
While we can't save/keep everything, we should have preserved one battleship, and that really should have been KGV, with it's WW2 service, and given it wasn't scrapped until 1957, that's perhaps far more of a travesty.
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Bruntingthorpe, Leics, UK
Age: 56
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No confirmed status update yet.
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Bruntingthorpe, Leics, UK
Age: 56
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Bruntingthorpe, Leics, UK
Age: 56
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly there’s no real viable alternative, other than the owner putting his hand in his pocket and getting several hundred thousand pounds out. Money he could never recoup from either taxiing it or as a museum piece, on an asset sadly worth only a fraction of that.
And this owner is responsible for ‘808 being at Cosford, ‘148 being at Newquay and to an extent ‘150 at Dunsfold. In addition he’s also mainly responsible for the preservation of several forward fuselages/flightdecks (‘104, ‘109, ‘108, ‘106, ‘149).
And this owner is responsible for ‘808 being at Cosford, ‘148 being at Newquay and to an extent ‘150 at Dunsfold. In addition he’s also mainly responsible for the preservation of several forward fuselages/flightdecks (‘104, ‘109, ‘108, ‘106, ‘149).
Last edited by ZD241_VC10; 26th Dec 2020 at 14:15.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,873
Received 2,823 Likes
on
1,203 Posts
Shame about 108, was it was offered complete I believe, but would have overhung the boundary of the aero park so got “shortened” it’s a crying shame that room cannot be made for these, when you think of the 10 the footprint 8n the site is negligible as you can park under the wings.
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Bruntingthorpe, Leics, UK
Age: 56
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shame about 108, was it was offered complete I believe, but would have overhung the boundary of the aero park so got “shortened” it’s a crying shame that room cannot be made for these, when you think of the 10 the footprint 8n the site is negligible as you can park under the wings.
(not that I think in all reality that's ever likely to see air under its wings again)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Hoofddorp The Netherlands
Age: 70
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF Museum Disposals:
- Auster Antarctic WE600 Relevance
- Avro 707C WZ744 Significance
- Bristol Sycamore XJ918 Duplication
- DH Devon C.2 VP952 Significance/Interpretative potential
- DH Moth G-AAMX Relevance
- Fairchild Cornell II 15252 Relevance/Completeness
- Focke-Wulf Fw 190F-8/U1 WkNr.584219 Significance/Duplication
- Gloster Meteor F.4 EE549 Significance On loan to Tangmere Military Aviation Museum
- Gloster Meteor T.7(mod) WA634 Duplication
- Gloster Meteor F.8 Prone Pilot WK935 Duplication
- Hafner Rotachute III P-5 Relevance On loan to Army Flying Museum
- Hang-glider (civil) Relevance
- Hawker P.1052 VX272 Significance On loan to Fleet Air Arm Museum
- Hawker P.1127 XP831 Significance On loan to the Science Museum
- Hawker Hunter F,1 WT619 Relevance
- Hawker Hunter Mk.3 WB188 Significance On loan to Tangmere Military Aviation Museum
- Lockheed SP-2H Neptune 204 Relevance/Environment
- NA B-25J Mitchell 44-29366 Relevance
- NA P-51D Mustang 44-73415 Duplication/Completeness
- Panavia Tornado XX946 Relevance
- SA Jetstream T.1 XX496 Relevance/Environment
- Slingsby Sedbergh TX.1 VX275 Relevance
- Sopwith Tabloid replica 168 Originality/Significance
- Supermarine 517 VV106 Significance On loan to Fleet Air Arm Museum
- Vickers Vimy replica F8614 Originality/Significance
- Westalnd Dragnfly HR.1 VX595 Relevance/Significance
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Ref the list. I would add that it is only "consideration". You will note that many on there are already on loan to other museums. Don't jump to conclusions.
'Slingsby Sedbergh TX1 VX 275 - relevance'.
Particularly relevant to me considering I Cat 5d it in 1967!! Only reason it wasn't written off was because it was a presentation aircraft.
(Flew it several times after it was re-built by Slingsbys the last time being at White Waltham in '79).
Particularly relevant to me considering I Cat 5d it in 1967!! Only reason it wasn't written off was because it was a presentation aircraft.
(Flew it several times after it was re-built by Slingsbys the last time being at White Waltham in '79).
Last edited by chevvron; 30th Dec 2020 at 10:26.
The problem was that the Aeropark is too close to the runway. The tail of the VC10 would have created an obstacle that would interfere with the obstacle limitation surfaces around the runway.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,873
Received 2,823 Likes
on
1,203 Posts
Couldn’t they lower it?