XH558 Possible to return to the air ?

MONEY!!! 😉

One looks like a workhorse heavy bomber and the other looks like a spacecraft, yet one is still in current use over half a century later and the other is relegated to the museums.

SLEP..

Out of interest, what kind of maintenance has been done to XH558 since retirement? Has she been started or taxied?

Certainly been out of the hangar at least once for an engine run, and according to the latest newsletter, the engineering team will be carrying out a minor service over the next few weeks: to quote from said newsletter –

“Although no longer permitted to be flown, we will be keeping her in the best possible condition.
One of the first jobs will be to disarm the cockpit canopy gun and crew ejector seats, as these serve no useful function on a ground-running aircraft, but present a significant safety hazard. The new service regime will focus on XH558’s structure, systems and engines, ensuring that they remain safe and don’t deteriorate”

One looks like a workhorse heavy bomber and the other looks like a spacecraft, yet one is still in current use over half a century later and the other is relegated to the museums.

Do keep up.

I certainly wasn’t comparing the B52 with 558…

Silly me…..when you said…

They are both military machines, with similar longevity – one in use, one not in use.

…I assumed you were comparing the B-52 and XH558. :rolleyes:

Out of interest, what kind of maintenance has been done to XH558 since retirement? Has she been started or taxied?

CD

Simple really. The question mark indicates that I was asking the question.

See your #11 first sentence.

Do keep up.

You’ve lost me completely I’m afraid!

CD

My comment wasn’t directed at you. I certainly wasn’t comparing the B52 with 558. The question mark used, indicated the nature of my comment.

For the ‘smart boys’. They are both military machines, with similar longevity – one in use, one not in use. Besides, I used a question mark.

OK, as one of the ‘smart boys’ let me explain my response.

There is nothing, nothing, that will prevent the Vulcan from returning to flight…..if you had enough money!

The original statement that ‘if this was the United States’ the Vulcan would be in preparation for the next (display) season does not bear close inspection because there are no equivalent aircraft flying in the United States.

What about the B-52 bomber? Well none are flying in civilian hands. And the sixty or so in service with the US Air Force are, no doubt, maintained there at vast expense and with the complete backing of the manufacturers of the airframe, engines and all the sub-systems. They are, I think, destined to remain in service until 2050! And yet no B-52 is operated privately in the United States despite how vastly less complicated it would be to have, for example, engines overhauled.

If forty Vulcans remained in service with the RAF and these were destined to remain in service until 2035 there would surely be absolutely no problem in getting a complete set of engines overhauled for XH558. Similarly the continuing fatigue of the airframe would be far less of a problem if it was part of a larger fleet and the problems, and remedies, were known. Costs of the various overhauls would also be reduced as the manufacturers would be set-up to maintain the RAF fleet.

So, in comparing the B-52 and Vulcan you are not comparing like-for-like…

…not a ‘smart’ answer; just an answer to the question of the B-52 (with a question mark)! 🙂

Hi All,
Calm down Calm Down now!…:D

Sorry to all who are getting very hot under the collar about this post but nobody has addressed my query if anyone can actually forward anymore information on the subject apparently being discussed with the HHA. I would love to see her back in the air but have accepted she has retired, it’s just coming across this article and nobody on the forum mentioning the said aticle it would be appreciated for some additional info and how serious these alleged discussions are ?

I apologise to all if this thread is causing a bit of grief between some forumites as that was not my intention, just sheer curiosity of the article details and as I am sure the forum has among it’s members those who may have incite or could investigate on my and other interested forumites behalf……:eagerness:

Geoff.

For the ‘smart boys’. They are both military machines, with similar longevity – one in use, one not in use. Besides, I used a question mark. This is what it looks like – ?

I have some bad news Moggy, Frank’s gone…….

On another note weren’t the JP engines re-lifed by RR just by inspection; their initial lifetime being too conservative? (much like the Merlin)

One day a shuttle will fly again to mark the centenary of re-useable spacecraft

Euhm, yeah, but, no, but, yeah, but, no

Doesn’t matter what people think – they’re entitled to their own opinion on here just like everyone else.

Personally I’m happy it flew and displayed safely for as long as it did, and now I’m equally happy that it’s safe and sound on the ground (albeit in the wrong place!)

Rob

Well that’s certainly moved the debate forward!!:D Mind you your first sentence is very revealing in the circumstances!!:highly_amused:

Agreed: I for one was not doubting the first effort to put 558 back in the air – but I had the benefit of understanding why it could be done at that time.

Move forward a decade or two and I now have those decades of added aerospace industry experience to help me understand why it can’t be done this time.

But I suspect I’m wasting my time trying to explain, though I did attempt it in the last few posts, along with a few others.

Sadly there are still those around who think it’s only money that stopped ‘558 flying…

:stupid:

Well that’s certainly moved the debate forward!!:D Mind you your first sentence is very revealing in the circumstances!!:highly_amused:

Well maybe but instead of posting a load of wishful thinking why don’t you rebut the rationally argued objections from us “Thomases” here? And then you would deserve a better hearing. How about half a dozen bullet points for your plan to put her back in the air, knocking down the main objections already made here.

Horses for courses old chap. I sell cars and houses. I leave the finer points to those who enjoy it, but it shouldn’t stop me putting my point forward should it? As for rational, how many people thought it rational that the Vulcan would fly again when it was first grounded? I bet those self same doubters spouted on then about the CAA and CofA s and out of hours this and that? as I say Never say Never!

Wouldn’t a return result in some red faces among the VTTS team? There was rather a lot made of the “farewell tour” and last flight…!

That has never stopped Frank Sinatra and numerous other ageing pop stars 😀

Moggy

Never say never. And I can certainly say the way XH558 is being currently maintained is keeping the door open to future flight.