I doubt what eventually is produced at Yeovilton will be much more than a full scale model with Barra bits incorporated. The BBP approach was a fantastic and innovative way to do things, and I don’t think has been emulated anywhere else?

I’d be half inclined to find/build another Barracuda.

bear in mind there’s no guarantee the frame is original to the dome though. It looks as if it was designed in order to allow the dome to hinge inward, or be removed.

Its just ridiculous. Everything about the MOD stinks; from top to the bottom at the moment. Their methods and way of business borders on criminal and I’m sorry to hear the Barracuda project has been subject to it.

Their loss is Bluebird’s gain.

Rich

Quoted for relevance…

We must remember that HLF aren’t in the business of funding a flying restoration project so whatever may be chosen must be near flyable – or at least not requiring eye-watering sums to get back in the air. Rich W and the Shackleton Group perhaps need to draw up what would, by definition, be a very short list of what could be got flying relatively easily and cheaply and use this as a tool to focus funding in their direction.

The much repeated quote about HLF is not strictly true. I know its origin, but it seems things have changed enough to allow support for a restoration to flight if it forms part of a project rather than just the whole of what you intend to do.

Kind regards,

Rich

To be fair the Vulcan is only in the public conciousness due to very well done PR efforts, and publicity in the media. When it retired in 1993, it was mainly the enthusiasts that were upset in much the same way as we’ve lamented the loss of Harrier, Jaguar, Nimrod in recent years. The Vulcan project struggled hard and nearly ended in 2006 when it seemed they had run out of money.

We don’t expect to get the same level of public support as the Vulcan did/does, as we don’t think it can be repeated. The Shack isn’t loud enough, or as futuristic looking to grab people’s attention; and it would probably (still) get misidentified as a Lancaster… WL790 in the USA was misdentified that many times at one point they gave up and changed their callsign to “Lancaster”!!

Our plan is from the outset not to rely on public support. Its an unsustainable model in the long term for continuous operation of a single aircraft of a single type. We do have a steady number of supporters who donate to the project because they want to; but this is bolstered by income that is growing steadily from careful use of our archive material and continuing to make the best of the resources we have. We approached the HLF some time back regarding funding, and I spoke with them yesterday regarding our application and when it is being submitted – they’re still quite happy with things, and the indication given from our project enquiry was that we do have a project which they would fund.

As for how long we can maintain people’s interest once the aircraft is flying – well, thats a crystal ball question. We’ll have to see when it happens. If the rules change regarding passenger flights in historic aircraft that will make possibilities for our aircraft even better, but its a big “if”!

Kind regards,

Rich W

Unit Equipment Table

“The Unit Equipment Table (UET) lists a unit’s entitlement to equipment and is unique to that unit.”

Its an abbreviation that is still current within the MOD, this is the description given in JSP886 (Defence Logistics Support Chain Manual.)