I first muted this idea on the ‘Airworthy Viscount’ thread, but thinking about it I wondered if it deserved a wider airing.
Too often it strikes me that people give the reason for this aircraft or that aircraft not being saved or being grounded, as it would be too expensive to do otherwise, and it seems that we spend a lot of the time waiting for the Stephen Greys of this world to pull out their cheque books (appologies to all those of you involved in worthy projects). Well railway preservation works in an entirely different way, although I will concede that it too has it big fish like Pete Waterman and David Shepherd.
I’ve long been involved with a large mainline steam locomotive and believe me the engineering costs aren’t that far short to those in aviation, although there are no problems with design authorities.
The way it works is this; the locomotive is owned by a company, each of us involved buy shares in the company and so are part owners. (£10 per month for 3 years for each share, or about the price of a pint a week). This means that 500 members over a 10 year period would net £600,000, and yes our group does come very close to these sorts of figures, as do to a substantial number of other groups. Volunteer labour, sponsorship, and in some cases the lottery further expand the resource available.
Such a scheme is even being used to construct a brand new A2 Pacific locomotive, called Tornado – named after the aircraft, which is nearing completion.
This I think demonstrates what a lot of ‘small fish’ can do when they work together and I can see no real reason such a model could not be adapted for aircraft preservation. Although that said if the aircraft was to be a flyer I would have thought that a light transport/airliner would be more attractive as those involved should then get opportunities to fly in her. Note the fact that the people involved would be part owners should get around CAA restrictions on who can fly in the aircraft.
So what sort of project could you see this technique being used to achieve? Some favourites of mine would be.
1. Airworthy Viscount.
2. Keeping the Jersey DH Heron up where it belongs.
3. Construction of a new build Airspeed Ferry or similar to plug a major gap in aircraft preservation (ie. British inter-war airliners).
But in truth the sky could be the limit (if you’ll pardon the pun). So lets have your thoughts on the above.
By: Mark V - 4th January 2006 at 16:34
just imagine the insurance required for a ‘vintage’ aircraft carrying passengers, i think the cost would be prohibitive.
Not cheap – it would mean the aircraft having to earn its keep – for example: Classic Wings fleet at Duxford (this being a commercial operation, not a group owned aircraft).
By: Shorty01 - 4th January 2006 at 16:10
Wasn’t there an attempt at this with a JU52 in Kent 20 odd years ago ?
Also, what happened to the Dakota club that used to advertise in the magazines along these lines in 1999? I had a look at their c47 at the Redhill aerojumble that year.
By: galdri - 4th January 2006 at 15:08
The idea is a really good one, but I can see one problem, and that would be the UK Air Navigation Order. Somewhere in that weighty tome there is a paragraph that states that the maximum number of members in a syndicate, sharing the operational cost of an aircraft is 20. More than 20 members in a syndicate is considered Public Air Transport, so for that you would need an Air Operators Certificate, and along with that does come a lot of BS.
For a static restoration, your idea is great, but sadly does not work on a flying aircraft.
By: hunterxf382 - 4th January 2006 at 15:07
Megalith
However, all that said, if you can generate the interest in a particluar airframe, there is no reason why not. Now, how many forum members want to part own a Hawker Hunter?
Cheers
Dees
Hmmmmm, let me pause and think about that one for a second………..
OK, yep I can see the appeal…. 😀 😀
By: dees01 - 4th January 2006 at 14:32
Megalith
Which mainline engine? Not Duke of Gloucester, is it?
It certainly sounds like an interesting idea. I’ve worked on both Mid Hants and East Lanc Railways at various times, so have an idea of the costs and problems involved with restoring steam engines, and wonder whether the part ownership principle could be made to work for aircraft. As already stated though, there are a number of problems particular to the aviaiton industry that may preclude it:-
1) As you have correctly stated, design authority is likely to be a problem
2) Need for AOC license to carry fair paying passengers (may not be required for ‘part-owners’ though)
3) Tooling – I would say that aircraft requires significantly more tooling than steam locos. By that I mean that each aircraft will need specialist tools, even down to locks, blanks, etc, whereas the special tolling for a steam loco can be transferred between type, eg cylinder borers
4) Specialist parts – there is far greater scope for a bit of DIY in steam engine restoration than in aircraft restoration. Eg, if your Barry scrapyard wreck is missing a cylinder drain valve, it would be relatively straightforward to get a replacement turned up. Replacing a sequencing valve on an undercarriage leg on an Argosy may be slightly more problematic.
5) Insurance – becoming more and more prohibitive all the time
6) Appeal – I think that steam locos possibly have more appeal than aircraft. For example, I’m sure it would be easier to get the public interested in restoring Mallard to mainline status than getting the Britannia at Kemble airworthy
However, all that said, if you can generate the interest in a particluar airframe, there is no reason why not. Now, how many forum members want to part own a Hawker Hunter?
Cheers
Dees
By: Moggy C - 4th January 2006 at 14:23
Wessex Boy, I agree £17,500 is way too much for the average enthusiast
To be fair, this is group ownership of the aircraft for pilots – not a restoration group.
Moggy
By: bloodnok - 4th January 2006 at 14:06
just imagine the insurance required for a ‘vintage’ aircraft carrying passengers, i think the cost would be prohibitive.
By: Mark V - 4th January 2006 at 14:04
The difference is locomotives tow carriages and all 500 of the members of the group can expect a few trips behind ‘their’ loco each year to justify the share/membership fee that they will be expected to pay each month (for ten years!).
This does not work for aircraft unless you are talking about a 747.
By: megalith - 4th January 2006 at 14:00
Wessex Boy, I agree £17,500 is way too much for the average enthusiast – I was thinking of shares in th £250-£500 bracket, with easy terms so we can all ‘throw our money away.’ Say £250 cash at start up and there after £300 cash or £10 a month for three years (ie £360).
Also I forgot to add that once such a scheme was proven, then no doubt other groups would spring up and perhaps we’d end up with the skies over airshows busier than Heathrow with, Viscounts, Pembrokes, Varsities (and the odd B25)
By: TEXANTOMCAT - 4th January 2006 at 13:49
Think the project would need to be ‘sexy’ and rare, pref with passenger carrying ability to give the shareholders a ‘return’
For those who fancy it Bedsheet Bomber – your very own B-25 for c.£10,000.
Not for the faint hearted though :eek !
By: wessex boy - 4th January 2006 at 13:19
The nearest that I have seen in the UK is the shares offered in Duxford’s Catalina, although at £17,500 a piece it is a little rich for most.
The MATs Connie team sold annual club membership for about £50, and for that you got a certificate, badge, etc and quarterly newsletter, but there was obviously a cost involved with running that.
If a group was launched on the above kind of footing, and it was a type that I was interested in, then I would be interested in participating.
I agree that a small transport would be most appropriate to benefit the shareholders, as well as the ideas above, a Vickers Viking/Varsity, Dove, Pembroke, York, Bristol Freighter? (Members could borrow it for moving house/tip runs, etc 🙂 )
Sign In
January 4, 2006 at 12:59 pm