vulcans under cover 2008…..

The difficult balancing act to make is how long you actually keep an airframe as a billboard. Essentially preservation should be about doing that – house her and your doing that but you loose the billboard appeal . However are the public savvy enough to either appreciate the benefits of keeping a Vulcan inside or does the draw of outside display outweigh that. Certainly if she has helped in the long term preservation of other aircraft it has been to the good – however even as a billboard she needs some kind of maintainace
and keeping in some kind of presentable order – that costs with an aircraft of the size of a Vulcan .
As for other machines – preserving in numbers was seen in the 1960’s as a means of ensuring that we didn’t end up in the same position of having no representative types such as the Whitley and Hampden . It has in a number of cases had a negative effect – resources have been spread on types which are duplicated to a large degree such as the Mystere while pertinent home grown types have suffered.

Just launched a new thread to deal with this sort of thing… leave this thread for the Vulcan fanatics…. (and roof enthusiasts….)

It’s all relative – there is a Concorde under cover at Duxford and one at Yeovilton. How many of an incredibly limited production machine do you actually need to preserve? Would resources allocated to putting more undercover be better placed in getting unique types under cover such as the Beverley? The arguement for local museums catering for the needs of their area is fine – however realistically how many local museums can actually afford the input required to house these machines and secondly the financial input from members of the public visiting museums can be incredibly small at some times of year.
By all means preserve what we can but be realistic and avoid needless duplication .

Plus G-BOAA at East Fortune, under cover and open to the public or are we just talking about England? Unfortunately the Vulcan XM597 is outside.

The difficult balancing act to make is how long you actually keep an airframe as a billboard. Essentially preservation should be about doing that – house her and your doing that but you loose the billboard appeal . However are the public savvy enough to either appreciate the benefits of keeping a Vulcan inside or does the draw of outside display outweigh that. Certainly if she has helped in the long term preservation of other aircraft it has been to the good – however even as a billboard she needs some kind of maintainace
and keeping in some kind of presentable order – that costs with an aircraft of the size of a Vulcan .
As for other machines – preserving in numbers was seen in the 1960’s as a means of ensuring that we didn’t end up in the same position of having no representative types such as the Whitley and Hampden . It has in a number of cases had a negative effect – resources have been spread on types which are duplicated to a large degree such as the Mystere while pertinent home grown types have suffered.

I suppose this goes back to a very basic argument – how do we fund this ?

Yes resources might be better spent getting an example of every production aircraft in the UK housed undercover in a central location – but it isn’t going to happen. A lot of the smaller museums do quite well thank you because they have a local population that are prepared to view their exhibits precisely because they are local. The money that brings in allows smaller museums to show exhibits on peoples doorsteps. Unfortunately we have to look at the realities – that money would be lost if centralised in one big museum. It’s a commercial world out there and the preservation sector has to operate in that environment to survive. I would argue that if one Vulcan was saved and acted as a billboard to get people in to a museum that was then able to preserve say – the last British production aircraft to hold the world air speed record, the only F-86D in the country, one of only 2 F-84’s in the country and still fulfil its remit of educating people about flight – then that certainly wasn’t a waste.

yes its nice to say “the money would be better spent on this…..” unfortunately the money wouldn’t be spent on that so it really is pointless speculating.

It’s all relative – there is a Concorde under cover at Duxford and one at Yeovilton. How many of an incredibly limited production machine do you actually need to preserve? Would resources allocated to putting more undercover be better placed in getting unique types under cover such as the Beverley? The arguement for local museums catering for the needs of their area is fine – however realistically how many local museums can actually afford the input required to house these machines and secondly the financial input from members of the public visiting museums can be incredibly small at some times of year.
By all means preserve what we can but be realistic and avoid needless duplication .

How many WW2 aircraft are people regularly saying this about? And this is despite many times more of each aircraft being produced due to high wartime attrition rates!

My point exactly. When the phrase “I wish they’d not scrapped ….. ” is said, it is too late.

Keeping with the thread, I believe that as many Vulcans / aircraft of all types should be kept under cover, as can possibly be. I am a great advocate of flying aircraft too, especially since (as been said often on here) there is great repetition in the types of aircraft preserved. If there was only half a dozen spitfires saved from the axeman 40 years ago, would we now be having mass formations at Flying Legends?… I think not. Today, one Vulcan in the sky, tomorrow …? My vote would be a for victor….

Incidently, there is only one Victor under cover on a permanent basis… not good.

Lets get at least a couple of concordes under a roof too…..

Hmm… I think some of my comments about ‘culling ‘ have been mentioned here. The North East Vulcan (NEAM) may end up under cover along with the Canberra……. can’t say more, cos no one tells me anything! Lets just say, that NEAM is expanding and the plans include a new, big hangar with a Vulcan in it. Never scrap an aircraft unless it has to be.

Imagine 50 yeras from now when privately owned aircraft of any complexity can be flown……. someone, somewhere will say, “Damn, I wish they kept a few Vulcans – the only ones left will be static forever…”

How many WW2 aircraft are people regularly saying this about? And this is despite many times more of each aircraft being produced due to high wartime attrition rates!

I know its a ways off yet, but by next summer will there be more vulcans with a roof over their head’s?
Right now i can think of 5 vulcans that are under cover, XL318 at hendon,
XH558 at brunty, XM598 at Cosford, and XM606 with the 8th Air force museum and XJ824 at duxford.
Will 2008 see this list grow with Newark and Carlisle examples getting a roof over them?

But the one that really, really deserves a roof over it’s head more than any of the others is ‘607……:mad:

Surely it is better to appreciate these aircraft whilst we have them than to say scrap em because we can’t look after them forever?? As I said at the top of this post – what are we preserving aircraft for??

I can’t argue with that but there is a distinction here between those aircraft being preserved (the indoor ones are the best examples of that) and those which are merely displayed.

If there is enthusiasm and money for new buildings to preserve more Vulcans long term, then I would hope the Vulcans are a catalyst which means other aircraft follow them under cover – such as the Shackleton and Hastings at Newark. The same benefits may come from the desire to get some of the outdoor Concordes under cover.

There are some Vulcans which are displayed not preserved and won’t last long term. But there are other aircraft types needing preserving as well. Who would want to be the one to choose?

However it also highlights the hard facts about handing over ownership of large aircraft types to often under funded local museums that have grown organically out of the efforts often of just a handful of enthusiasts who are then expected to keep these treasured airframes in prime condition in detrimental open air storage for many years.

While I have always been a supporter of the many small air museums in the UK, I find myself with the idea that more often than not the aspirations of these groups far out stretches there ability too make provision for the future preservation of such aircraft as the Vulcan other than cosmetic repaints when money can be found and the ever present Blackpool farce waiting in the wings lends weight too the proposal that some form of vetting process should be installed to ensure that the financial and technical resources are and will continue to be available for the future welfare of these historic airframes,

Well I would have to completely disagree with you there and to back to my original question – why are we preserving aircraft?

For example the Vulcan at NEAM has been there for nearly 25 years (I think!) – what is its purpose? NEAM is an educational charity the purpose of which is to educate people about aviation and the Vulcan has been instrumental in doing that for all of that time. It has also provided a draw for people in the North East of England. To be honest I really don’t think that just because we live on a small island your average member of the public is going to get up one day and say “Do you know I fancy driving 3 and a half hours to have a day out at an aircraft museum”

If NEAM hadn’t saved that particular Vulcan it would have been scrapped and all those people who have visited NEAM in the last 25 years would not have had the opportunity to see a Vulcan, sit in it and learn about its history. For me that is a pretty good achievement for a volunteer organisation – and who knows what the knock on effect of that might have been? How many people are more air minded because of it?? How many people have learnt more about our history because of it? How many more people have been inspired to take part in aviation activities? I would hazard a guess that a fair few have been who wouldn’t have had the committee sat around and said “Nah it’ll only last 30 years so we don’t want it”

Surely it is better to appreciate these aircraft whilst we have them than to say scrap em because we can’t look after them forever?? As I said at the top of this post – what are we preserving aircraft for??

Don’t think Newark has yet applied for funding but they seem to be looking in to it.

This is what it says on their website – www.newarkairmuseum.org

“Co-operative Building Project Being Investigated
The trustees of the Newark Air Museum [NAM] and the Lincolnshire’s Lancaster Association [LLA] have agreed to cooperate on a project to investigate the possibility of constructing a third aircraft display hall at the museum’s site in eastern Nottinghamshire close to the Lincolnshire border.

The aim of the new Avro Project is to provide under cover accommodation for the Avro Shackleton MR.3 Phase 3 WR977 and Avro Vulcan B.2 XM594 aircraft that are owned by the LLA and that are currently displayed at NAM. Hopefully the building will also provide sufficient space for a third large aircraft like the Handley Page Hastings T.5 TG517 to be displayed under cover.

Work is currently underway to prepare a Project Planning Grant [PPG] application to the Heritage Lottery Fund [HLF], which will evaluate various aspects of the proposed project. This will include: Audience Development; Sustainability; Building Design; and evaluation of the potential aircraft movement routes into any new building.

Prior to commencement of the current evaluation project the Charity Commission reviewed the Articles of Association for both charities, and gave its approval for a cooperative project of the type being proposed. Further details of the PPG application will be released when they become available. [9am – 02.04.07]”

At least they have experience with a HLF funded building that has Varsity etc inside.

Hmm… I think some of my comments about ‘culling ‘ have been mentioned here. The North East Vulcan (NEAM) may end up under cover along with the Canberra……. can’t say more, cos no one tells me anything! Lets just say, that NEAM is expanding and the plans include a new, big hangar with a Vulcan in it. Never scrap an aircraft unless it has to be.

Imagine 50 yeras from now when privately owned aircraft of any complexity can be flown……. someone, somewhere will say, “Damn, I wish they kept a few Vulcans – the only ones left will be static forever…”

Four under cover in a fairly small area (as I recall, the UK is slightly larger than Idaho) seems like alot.

Off the top of my head I can only recall 4 or 5 B-52s under cover..and that includes one each in the UK and Australia.

When you the greater number of B-52s built (744), having 4 Vulcans under cover in the UK is no mean feat.

Interesting concept indeed and as has been noted one that often crops up as time passes especially when this or that airframe comes under the sights of the scrap men.

However it also highlights the hard facts about handing over ownership of large aircraft types to often under funded local museums that have grown organically out of the efforts often of just a handful of enthusiasts who are then expected to keep these treasured airframes in prime condition in detrimental open air storage for many years.

Would be great if all such could be flown into hangar sized exhibition halls for future display, but the costs of this are prohibitive, the difficulties with planning authorities well publicised and the organisational problems often not addressed, sadly not confined to UK shores either as those stored in the States fair little better.

While I have always been a supporter of the many small air museums in the UK, I find myself with the idea that more often than not the aspirations of these groups far out stretches there ability too make provision for the future preservation of such aircraft as the Vulcan other than cosmetic repaints when money can be found and the ever present Blackpool farce waiting in the wings lends weight too the proposal that some form of vetting process should be installed to ensure that the financial and technical resources are and will continue to be available for the future welfare of these historic airframes, if not then sadly they should be disposed of as quickly as practical with only spares salvage in mind for airframes that can be maintained in as near to stock condition as possible.

No one needs to see another Blackpool or for that matter the current 603 saga happen again, sadly a good number appear to be slowly approaching this end.

Don’t put more under cover. Sell a few for scrap and the money earned could go to 558. Or any of hundreds of other worthy causes. Five is more than sufficient.

This is an interesting concept and one that crops up more than often when talking about Vulcans. Why is 5 enough? Why are we preserving aircraft?

Having been involved with NEAM I know that the Vulcan there has been a massive draw (in fact more than 1 contributor here has referred to it as a signpost for the museum!!) But if it was not there, why should people in the North East have to travel great distances to learn about that period in history? Or to put it another way – why do we care so little about our heritage that we feel we should deny people the opportunity to see it at first hand?

I readily admit that I’m playing devils advocate here as there are always emotive issues about what should be saved etc due to costs and various other considerations. But I was always felt that a local museum was there for the benefit of everyone not just enthusiasts who would travel just to see a particular aircraft.

With the best will in the word if 558 ever gets off the ground you are still going to have a limited number of people who’ll see it. To turn the argument around – how many more people would have learnt about the Cold War had the HLF allocated money to putting Vulcans under cover on a regional basis?

It would be nice to see Carlisle’s collection of warbirds, including Vulcan XJ823, going under cover. The new owners of the airport are sympathetic to the museum, and XJ823 will need to be moved from her present position if proposed developments go ahead, but there are no firm plans in place yet for an exhibition hall/hangar, so maybe 2008 is an optimistic target.

none of them should be scrapped, if they belong to museums who in hells name has the right to say that a museums aircraft should be scrapped in order to maintain other museums examples, that are more “worthy” of the parts, just because theirs isn’t as good, i think that people should ba llowed to look after the aircraft at long marston! (should being the keyword) As fas as im concerned I would love to see 558 fly but not at the expense of losing another vulcan, one has already been scrapped recently with woodford’s one soon to follow. who would have thought 40 years ago that there would only be one, complete example of a valiant left in one piece with only two whole cockpit sections and a half section, no one the only reason this one is left is that it dropped our first nuclear weapon. These aircraft should all be preserved by rights, however it all takes time and money. i think someone has already said that “Culling” an airframe would be a good idea? thats a horrible thought 🙁

Don’t put more under cover. Sell a few for scrap and the money earned could go to 558. Or any of hundreds of other worthy causes. Five is more than sufficient.

Regards,

kev35

I here Newark has applied for a new Hangar for the Vulcan and Shack