Vimy to be grounded to Brooklands

Just been up to Duxford today and seen the Vimy in Hangar 2. Spoke with a member of staff who said the museum will house it up to the end of September as after this Hangar space will be taken up by Sally B and the Catalina for their winter maintenance. As to what happens then is anyones guess?:confused:

It will go to Brooklands:D

Phill
www.outflankeduk.com

As I suggested previously, rather than relying on a fallible memory, the owner operated links provided are a good place to start, for quick, brief and essentially accurate data on the Vimy in question.

I formally interviewed Peter and Laing at Farnborough prior to their departure in 1994, and have had recent discussions with a current Vimy pilot regarding the current situation. I have recently reviewed my notes, and consulted the National Geographic companion book ‘The Greatest Flight’ and the 1994 press releases on the Smiths’ flight and the plans and achievement on the recreation. This was part of much more extensive research and fact checking for the Database feature on the Vickers Vimy type in the current issue of Aeroplane magazine. No ‘hearsay’.

Quite possibly, but that remains a hypothetical point. While I’d be the last to take anything from Laing’s achievements, he was not the designer or the builder of the Vimy replica. However it is certain without Peter’s financial effort and inspired dedication (along with Laing’s) there wouldn’t have been the recreation made, enabling these three recreated, historic flights.

I suspect some of the confusion comes from the lose way people refer to someone as the ‘builder’ of something, when they mean something more specific. Laing was certainly test-pilot and project manager. It was a team effort. Laing Kidby, as far as I’m aware, has no current connection with the Vimy replica.

Regards.

PS: Thanks Mark, I provided two links with that (and more) data for those who wish to check the information in my previous post.

First hand information is a lot better than that read in books or on web sites, so here is some more to reinforce the recent Australian connection to the Vimy

Earlier today I had an email from Lang and I he tells me that:

“I flew it at Farnborough last year as there were no Vimy pilots available in UK (only one was checked out and he was not available. there is a second one checked now after my visit). It went OK for the first few shows during the week but you can look up You Tube “Vimy Farnborough” and see some excitement I had on the second public day.

I flew it a bit at Oxford for a film crew doing an Alcock and Brown movie a few weeks after Farnborough.”

cheers

Just been up to Duxford today and seen the Vimy in Hangar 2. Spoke with a member of staff who said the museum will house it up to the end of September as after this Hangar space will be taken up by Sally B and the Catalina for their winter maintenance. As to what happens then is anyones guess?:confused:

– how does it fly in the UK at the moment, but won’t be able to when at Brooklands?

It is flying in the UK at the moment on a 28 day exemption rule. It is an ICAO thing which allows foreigin aircraft with limited airworthieness (for example the US experimental category) to fly in any country for up to 28 days without having to fulfill local airworthiness requirements. Normally the 28 days are taken to be consecutive days (so one month from date of entry). However, I understand that the UK CAA has agreed to look at it as FLYING days for this aircraft, ie. the aircraft can FLY for 28 days over a period of years. So, the aircraft will, as the situation looks now, only fly these 28 days and no more. How much of these 28 days have been used up, I do not know, or if some other plans are afoot to keep it flying afterwards. The most logical course of action would be to get it onto UK Permit to Fly, but as has been pointed out, it might be problematic and will cost tons of money.

The aircraft can not fly at Brooklands because there is no runway there to operate it from.

Pagen; I’d suggest the Vimy’s importance is really in the three record flights, as its military record was brief and it was more its descendants that broke new ground, and it missed the Great War. I commend the current Aeroplane feature to your attention for more detail – but I would, as I wrote it. 😉
Regards,

Always a good read!

I’m fairly aware of its history, and certainly not taking anything away from the many couragous record flights, or that it missed combat service (as many important UK types did) but I do think it is a hugely significant large aircraft type to the UK.

I won’t pretend to understand the CofA process though – how does it fly in the UK at the moment, but won’t be able to when at Brooklands?

I think many are missing the point here, knowbody wants to ground her, but she is on an experimental american permit and therefore canot continue to fly in the UK. If she went back to the USA she can still fly, she however now belongs to Brooklands and unless she can go onto a UK Permit or CofA she canot fly. I would imagine that the biggest stumbling block for getting her past the UK authorities are the engines?? although these have been proven reasonably well one would think:rolleyes: I for one would like to see her continue to fly, but i guess the costs involved may be prohibertive:(

JDK – The fact that the Scheider Trophy was won in perpetuity is irrelevant – the fact still remains that you are recreating an event that has already happened.

Not at all. One could take the piston-engine seaplane record tomorrow, from the Mc-72, perfectly legitimately, and it would be a perfectly legitimate world record. We don’t have an aircraft to do that with, though.

Therefore you have modern safety equipment -GPS -support aircraft – modern materials . You are following footsteps that have already been troden. There is a far higher chance of surviving at ditching now and having a P-3 Orion overhead in short time now than there ever was in the 1920’s

It is, however, as valid, perhaps more so that showing off an aircraft in front of a crowd. It is also a real risk, albeit a different one – I think you continue to over-rate the advances of support and under-rate the risk – I guess we’ll just differ on that. I think the recent Atlantic flight was a significant achievement; I recall you didn’t.

The flyers of the Vimy replica were calling (modern) attention to the trailblazers; I hope you think they should at least be credited with that.

-simply put the heros are the men and women who trailblazed the routes we take for granted.

Agreed; no one here would underestimate the achievements of the crews, as I said before. That doesn’t mean the modern recreation should just be dismissed. In that case we would just need a big history book and no preserved aircraft.

The diversity of aviation preservation is as important as the fact of it. It would be nice if the CAA were more open to that concept too. Safety and reasonable rules are sensible; however I’m regularly told the UK’s vintage aviation is being crippled, and this (plus the FW190s etc.) are evidence of it. Sadly Britain’s loss.

Cheers,

ah once again wikipedia has failed me, sorry david.

I certainly agree with you, realistically she should be flying 🙂

there are two replicas that survive but no originals.

As mentioned previously, there’s the original that flew over the Atlantic in the Science Museum, and an original in Australia too

Nashio – The Vimy at South Kensigton is original as is the one in Australia. The replica in the RAF museum is very faithful to the original – the flyer at Duxford less so. I think as a museum exhibit the Duxford machine is of limited importance – flying is probably the place for it.

In my opinion, its a shame to ground her, who cares if she’s a replica? I certainly dont (insert witty and sarcastic remark about dataplate spitfires) many people wouldnt have seen something like this fly, or even in a museum? there are two replicas that survive but no originals.

No there is not “provedance” but the same could be said for the one in Hendon. If she flies, younger people would be able to see a working flying example (albeit modern) of an aircraft from almost a hundred years ago!

IMHO thats priceless…

JDK – The fact that the Scheider Trophy was won in perpetuity is irrelevant – the fact still remains that you are recreating an event that has already happened. Therefore you have modern safety equipment -GPS -support aircraft – modern materials . You are following footsteps that have already been troden. There is a far higher chance of surviving at ditching now and having a P-3 Orion overhead in short time now than there ever was in the 1920’s -simply put the heros are the men and women who trailblazed the routes we take for granted.

Any one want to argue?

Why? All the facts I stated are correct, unlike the preceding vague wonderings. Nice to have Lang’s confirmation of what’s in the sources.

I can’t see much point in arguing entirely subjective rankings of relative importance; the Schneider Trophy was won in perpetuity, the prize is over. Anyone who wants to recreate a flight, especially in a biplane over large bodies of water or tough landscape as the crews of the original five record attempt Vimys and the modern replica get a tip of the hat from me, and I don’t presume to ‘rank’ their risks or achievements beyond ‘first’ or ‘last’ – it does remind people of the giant’s shoulders we are all privileged to stand on. You are just as dead if things don’t work now, as then.

Lang or the Australian nation have no say in the fate of the Vimy currently.

If it were to be grounded in the UK but able to fly in Australia (or the US) then there’s a case to be made, but as ever it would be up to the fund-raisers and those prepared to graft to make it happen. That pre-supposes that it is viable to keep operating it, which I would hope was the case. The fact that the Southern Cross replica was and remains currently out of action does not indicate this kind of project is viable in Australia. However HARS show what can be done with large multis.

Pagen; I’d suggest the Vimy’s importance is really in the three record flights, as its military record was brief and it was more its descendants that broke new ground, and it missed the Great War. I commend the current Aeroplane feature to your attention for more detail – but I would, as I wrote it. 😉

Regards,

David

To me, the significance is that an Aussie and a Yank had the ability to get such a project off the ground, built the replica and complete the flight. That was a huge undertaking in its own right, what else has happened since is just incidental to that original project.

cheers

It’s difficult to gauge the level of significance of the aircraft as it’s not in context with it’s time. It’s a bit like me building an aircraft to take the Scheider Trophy away from the Supermarine S.6 – I am about seventy plus years too late for it to be significant. The aircraft are as much a part of their time and I don’t think that the Vimy is massively significant because it’s recreating events not forging them.

All

Here is an email I just received from Lang Kidby:

“Ross,

The aircraft was built in several workshops in Australia (engines and metal fuselage) the main construction was in our own shop in California. Peter McMillan, my American partner provided the initial funding and I ran the project. Bill Whitney ran the original 1918 Vickers plans through his CAD design computers to make sure it met stress specifications and changed a few things to use modern materials, fit radios etc, designed the engine mounts to fit the Chevrolet 454 truck engines – same horsepower as original Rolls Royce.

Lang “

Any one want to argue?

This discussion raises an important point, at least to my way of thinking. When does the “significance” of an aeroplane get established.

For instance, with my Tiger Moth, is it when it was owned by the RAAF (1941-1946) when it was used to train many pilots for WW2 or is it when I put it on the civil register in 1982 and its history of participating in numerous air shows and some significant aviation events like the re-enactment flight of the first mail run for QANTAS from Charlieville to Cloncurry in 1992 or when I flew it in the Great Paper Chase from Cairns to Brisbane in 1984, both involved very long formation flights with other Tiger Moths.

Is the “Southern Cross” aeroplane significant because of the first air crossing of the Pacific Ocean by Smithy or for later achievements flown in it.

Is the Vimy significant because it did the re-enactment flight from England to Australia flown by Lang, Peter, et al.

In my opinion with this particular aeroplane it was when it completed the mission for which the project was formulated, the England to Australia flight. The activities subsequent to that came about because the aeroplane was in existence and it would have been a shame to ground it. While they are significant achievements in their own right, they are not the “Most Significant”

cheers

Never mind all the record flights and reanactments etc, the Vickers Vimy was an outstanding British aircraft of its day, I for one realy hopes that it stays in the UK, Brooklands being the best place for it being the once home of Vickers.

JDK/Mark

Should have known better than to challenge your info sources (dangerous), however it was worthwhile in than it has bought to the surface many facts about the Vimy that would have otherwise unpresented.

I don’t think anything that has been presented in this discussion contradicts what I have been saying. In particular, the Australian origins of much of this project have been amplified, Bill Whitney is another Brisbane, Queensland boy and is quite well known in aviation circles for his designs was involved, I thought that but wasn’t sure.

As I have been saying the replica was built specifically for the England/Australia re-enactment flight and you have reinforced that claim. I wanted to make it known that the genesis of this particular lies with an Australian and a USA citizen.

I think that contemporaneous discussions with Lang (a friend) may have given me an understanding of some of the background than is apparent in published books. By this I mean some of the day-to-day problems they encountered during the project and the actual flight, little things that add a bit of colour to the story but things that wouldn’t have necessarily have been published.

Enough for now my Australian claim – for recognition with the Vimy replica has been well established.

I think Mark made a good point in that the true value lies with it being kept flying. Otherwise its just a replica and not all that true a replica if its construction techniques are considered.

cheers

Nashio966 you missed out a contact telephone number there mark

There’s no need to ring ahead that its coming, the Post Office will let me know if I have a big package to pick up!

smiles

Mark Pilkington

you missed out a contact telephone number there mark :diablo: