BBMF Lancaster planned maintenance 2015

Maybe, if we ask them nicely, the Canadians won’t mind if we hang on to their Lanc for a year or so while ours is out of action …

:eagerness:

We could always hold it to ransom against return of the Typhoon……………..

Maybe, if we ask them nicely, the Canadians won’t mind if we hang on to their Lanc for a year or so while ours is out of action …

:eagerness:

I was thinking more simple economics. restore Lancasters in one place, rather than two. As I said it was only a thought.

Sure David,
shove KB889 in there and get her flying ! 🙂

JUST a thought, but if this a hangar especially built for a rebuild of a Lancaster, would it not make sense for it to be used for a rebuild of a second Lancaster immediately afterwards……………

Why, it’s in a perfectly good hangar and the people who are looking after “Just Jane” probably have more experience than the team who will do PA474.

I wonder if PA474 will get a complete repaint and change of marking’s at that time?

JUST a thought, but if this a hangar especially built for a rebuild of a Lancaster, would it not make sense for it to be used for a rebuild of a second Lancaster immediately afterwards……………

Planned down time for inspection and repair signals a responsible attitude and long term survival of this memorial Lancaster. It will take as long as it takes. Meanwhile the next potentially airworthy UK based Lancaster is making steady progress.After 45 years of following the UK aircraft preservation scene I cannot recall a better time regarding airworthy projects,great work all round and superb engineering support .

Can we revert to discussing historic aviation please?

Oops, sorry, didn’t see your post while composing mine!

I agree that we need realistic, accurate cradle-to-grave costs for our current, and future, power.

How much does the gas cost per year in the new power-station in Wales? How much will it cost in five years, ten years, twenty years, as supplies (almost certainly) dwindle and global demand (almost certainly) rises?

The cost of wind-turbines may increase but the wind is always going to be free and inexhaustible.

Yes, of course – we got drawn aside because of all that hangar talk!!:)

Can we revert to discussing historic aviation please?

Moggy
Moderator

Yes, in theory, but at what cost? And the really important factor is that despite paying for 100% capacity you still have to subsidise the 70% you miss with conventional power stations. At present we have I think 10,000 diesel powered engines(dirty) to support the turbine downtime but we will need fossil fuel for security in the next 3/5 years. To put it in perspective Ed Davey (who??) announced £12 billion of renewable projects which will generate 2.2GW – the same as the new gas power station just opened in Wales at a cost of £1 billion. It’s sheer stupidity. In order to meet our EU committed targets we have to spend another £40 billion in the next 5/6 years.

I think the average figure accepted for turbines is that they generate something under 30% of their rated capacity.

So you need more turbines, which will cost more, to generate the rated capacity?

If my car only did 30% of the miles-per-gallon quoted by the manufacturer…

..but the fuel was free, clean and inexhaustible…..I’m not sure I’d be too upset!

I like it!!:applause:

Surely the title of the thread should be
“Lancaster to be out of the air for a short period of time to allow her to remain airworthy for alot longer period of time 🙂 “

Exactly right, but as long as the “actual” turbine and solar figures are used as opposed to the “potential” figures, then you will calculate an accurate ROI. I think the average figure accepted for turbines is that they generate something under 30% of their rated capacity.

It’s not just about the subsidies though – the current requirements for increased insulation and energy saving measures make perfect sense as they help to reduce energy wastage and thereby reduce operating costs.

As for renewable technology you just have to use common sense by applying realistic ROI calculations – a subject that I’m currently engrossed in for this project!

I am sure TO is right about the level of grant support for compliance with all these measures – but without them and a reduced grant but with reduced building costs perhaps the differential might be quite small. We will never know.

Indeed so and it was familiar reading seeming like an article lifted from somewhere else a few months ago. Energy subsidies are inevitable it would seem but if subsidies help in the production of efficient energy where the consumer benefits that is laudable, but where subsidies are used to support inefficient energy production in the cause of political targets that is quite another matter.

This amused me. “I’m out in California at the moment and the solar panels here seem to be working pretty well. When drive across Germany, the wind farms seem to be doing pretty well… Why is it that this renewable energy business only fails in the UK?” That assumption that because solar panels and turbines have been seen they are bound to be “working pretty well”. The UK energy department’s own figures will provide the figures for capacity actually achieved as opposed to capacity potential if the wind blows all the time and sun shines all the time. Two quite different things.

I would imagine that the hangar project (c/w visitor facilities for viewing etc.) would be eligible for greater grant support by incorporating industry standard measures for energy conservation and the like – sounds like good business sense to me.

I also suspect that the addition of the viewing facilities might also assist the project in finding greater grant support.

As for subsidies, this item on ‘fossil fuel subsidies’ makes interesting reading http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27142377