D.stark,
your comments are a bit shameful suggesting that the lanc is no different than you pic taken last year.

Misunderstood me – not suggesting they stopped work on her – suggesting it was in no condition to be moved out in a few hours.

Something seemed ‘off’ about them early this month when I tried to rent a meeting room and have a group tour for our volunteer organization and despite many calls I could not get a price for our event and given one date by one person only to be told by another that the date given was booked for a children’s birthday party of 10!! I had to give up on them last week – I had a funny feeling about them… Guess my inner voice is strong!

I have no idea how they got so behind on the rent – $100K is no small amount and it strikes me as either fund raising went completely belly up or I would be checking out where the revenue was going…

I would love to know how they can move their items in so short of time and WHERE these items are going? The Arrow alone is mammoth – it’s a full 1:1 aluminum mock up that would require a huge amount of work, time and money just to get the thing loaded onto lowboys for a road move – not to mention the city permits for wide loads.

The Lanc is in pieces – with wings off, turrets off with just the center section in several pieces. Engines are off and on skids. Little has changed since this photo was taken last year:

The landlord is a federally contracted group hired to run what is a National Park. As far as I am aware, no other group is under any threat to leave for what someone has darkly suggested is for a sports stadium. As far as I know the proposed Pan Am development was in another area. This group is located next to other renters including an indoor go kart facility that I visit and none of these groups are under any pressure to leave.

It strikes me as poor management and a simple case of pay your rent or leave. It’s quite possible that the reasons for the partial rent payment cheques being returned is that the landlord could see that there was little likely hood of full back rent (and know way more about their revenue flow then the media) and that the $22K was an attempt to delay the inevitable. The landlord has to minimize their losses. Accepting $22k and watching as the debt piles up higher and higher until they declare bankruptcy for twice the current debt would be poor property management practices.

I’m surprised they were even given a day or to to move the small items. One assumes the landlord will now take over control of the assets until full payment is made as there is no way these items can be moved in hours.

This one is going to court as some of the items were ‘loaned’ and some were gifted with certain conditions. We also don’t know if there are other outstanding debt such as loans.

What a sad end.

The B-70 was originally intended to use zip fuels. When that fell apart they went for the low-tech solution, which in the form of GE’s J93 didn’t turn out to be all that bad of an idea. Plus, JP7 was only burned inside of the J58.

JP7 was used in the Blackbirds because of it’s flash point – heat from friction was a major issue while flying at sustained speeds such as mach 3 There are several references to the use of JP7 as being able to run in the J93’s ‘without problems’. The ONLY reason JP7 was run in the Blackbird’s J58’s was because this fuel was used as a heat soak/heat transfer system and as hydraulic fluid. This fuel was designed to the Skunk works specs and not NA’s. You ‘assume’ that because it was the only widely known use (in J58’s) for this fuel – that it couldn’t be used elsewhere if the purpose could be justified by either funding or wide industry support.

The use of HEF fuels is a non-starter as far as this discussion: HEF fuels are high-energy fuels and toxic as all get out. These fuels would not have solved the problem of the airframe being heat limited due to the nature of it’s skin material and the Hexcel corp. – like wafer design. In fact the use of HEF fuel in the USAF was long ruled out BEFORE both the A-12/SR-71 and XB-70’s flew.

The fact that GE makes mention that it ‘could’ be burnt (only for afterburner use) in their engine is a misnomer. It wasn’t actually tried out in a real world J93 engine and was never certified for use – it was only theorized that it could be used. Later versions of Kerosene based fuels were developed that eliminated the ‘idea’ of using HEF fuels by burning much cleaner and obtaining slightly more then 90% of the thrust of these highly toxic and expensive dead-end fuels.

As far as the ‘white paint’. That was a tongue in cheek reference to the issue of AV/1 having the issue of the paint stripping off as it heat cycled over several flights. As you don’t like to buy reference material researched by people over several years – I’ll fill you in on a detail you won’t find on the web: AV/2 suffered the same fate as AV/1 although the paint material, application technique and substrata preparation did go a long way towards ‘alleviating’ but NOT eliminating this problem. I’d give you a hint as to what the permanent solution was, but I’d much rather see YOU spend your own hard-earned dollars then me donating it free. 🙂

If you have these many ‘issues’ with this information (and hopefully I haven’t misquoted the authors too badly) TAKE IT UP WITH THEM! Fill us in on how you make out with them…

Max speed (cruising) ever attained during testing – 2025MPH on April 12, 1966 by White/Cotton, spending 20mins at Mach 3 from a 1.49H flight. Max short term ‘spike’ speed = 3.06M

Maximum speed was fuel limited which gave a speed of slightly over 3.0 for 2.5 hours (appox 2,400 miles at 72K AGL). Flight article AV/2 never ran more then 30 or so minutes at mach 3 basically because there was no need to by the manufacturer as the contract only stated 30 mins. Flight article AV/3 (never finished) was to be the Air Force test article that would have expanded the flights out to design limits.

It’s interesting that someone mentioned the B58. The only chase plane that could cover most of the mach 1+ flight testing was the B58.

As far as the T4 Sotka (AKA Su100) The book Valkyrie – North American Mach Three Super Bomber. by Dennis Jenkins/Tony Landis states about this aircraft – and I quote (page 118)

“The T-4 design was arguably even more advanced then the B-70. For instance, while the American aircraft used fairly conventional flight control systems, the Sukhoi featured a quad-redundant electrohydraulic fly by wire system with full three-axis stability augmentation and auto throttle capability. A mechanical backup system was included.”

They further quote a range of 3,700 miles carrying a payload of two large air to surface missiles. I assume these were solid fuel stand off nuke/conventional type units to attack American surface/sea targets

Both designs had several other development dead ends such as the T-4 being used as a air to air platform for shooting down SR-71’s and B-70’s. Likewise the B-70 had several plans that never left the drawing board for versions such as launching X-15’s into space (replacing the NB-52’s) from a mach 3 speed and also as a competitor to the attack fighter version to the A-12 and of course as a SST for up to 76 passengers for 3,600N miles at 486K lbs take-off weight! (That would put a dent in the old runway!)

Cannot be anyone from the TVOC with that attitude.

What “attitude”? Sounds like he hit a nerve to me…;)

if so than he or she is a discrace to the whole system .

It’s spelled *disgrace* and he isn’t.

posting anonimously should not be from any of the TVOC team .

I thought the Allies fought a few wars, (and continue too do so) to stop examples of tyranny such as telling people they have no right to their own opinions?

He is posting his own view of things that may be different to the PR speak that such organizations are mandated to use. Who are you to tell him what he can and cannot post and how he must do so? The fact that he wishes not to embarrass his employers with his politically “not on message” posting *I* get as do most others. Of course there are always the exceptions who don’t… His style of comunication like it or not, doesn’t negate what information he is passing on.

I personally don’t see what he has posted that has got your knickers in a such a twist. If people don’t like being told they are *fixating* on their “hobby” of Vulcan watching then tough.

It’s only a plane. A great plane? Yes, I believe it is. But at the end of the day perhaps one has to re-evaluate what are the important things in life and spend more time away from the PC and smell a few roses…

Bullshooter is just another anonimously [Anonymous?:confused: ] poster and offers nothing for the cause of the project,

He sounds very knowledgeable so unless proven wrong, I’ll take it on face value that he works on this aircraft.

should change is username to bulls..er.

ignore the posts

Works both ways sir…

As an aside: I note that YOU don’t use your real name in posting either. Should we hold YOUR feet to the same fire and high standards?

Tragic. Exactly five months after the crash that killed the founder of the company, another plane crash has killed three more of the senior management. Tragic.:(

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080329.PLANE29/TPStory/National

The tragic part about this is that the pilot of this aircraft that was one of three killed in this latest crash is the FATHER of the child that survived the earlier crash with her grandfather. Flying in northern areas at this time of year in light aircraft where the weather can quickly change from clear and sunny to snow and icing conditions in minutes is not for the faint hearted. I hope this is the last
heartache to befall this family and this company.