There are blokes (almost always blokes) fascinated by mechanical devices. For some: buses, locos, ancient agricultural kit; we here: aero bits. Harmless. Very likely to die with our generation: if a Reception Class teacher spots a boy showing interest in lumps and data, uncomfortable with social interaction, then he is a source of additional school funds, since he is Special Needs, autistic. So the boy will be mentored into conformity.

A very interesting point. It goes without saying that a fairly substantial element of the aviation enthusiast community falls somewhere on the autism spectrum. Case in point, those museums that have ‘exhibits’ of excavated crash remains. The average joe isn’t going to care that much for tangled aluminium. History shows that these museums tend to run the gauntlet of bankruptcy because they don’t actually present a conventionally interesting collection to the public. The Kent Battle of Britain museum springs to mind as an ‘autistic’ museum due to the piles of wreckage, minimal interpretation and idiosyncratic nature of the owners. I wager a fair number of forum users start rubbing their trousers at the prospect of piles of wreckage, but you cannot really hope to build a sustainable business model off the back of it.

As for the notion of these autistic children being ‘mentored into conformity’, their quality of life is probably far higher now than they could have expected fifty years ago.

Only an enthusiast would know what a Shackleton was.I love them and would go and see one fly but your average family is not going to be swayed by seeing it’s name on a list of participants.

Likewise, any family comprising members too young to remember the Cold War would probably not care about the Vulcan either. When I was a kiddo I was only aware of Vulcan bombers because of the example at East Fortune. Even then, it didn’t cross my mind to find out if one was still flying or not.

Again, you would have to evaluate VTTS’s role in promoting the Vulcan. As argued elsewhere in this thread, it was a bomber that did a whole lot of nothing in the ’60s and belatedly punched a single hole in the runway at Port Stanley in the ’80s. Not exactly the same sort of track record as the Lancaster by any means. The Shackleton may fall into the same category, a deterrent aircraft that saw a lot of active duty doing fairly little. However it is a large aircraft capable of making a lot of noise and, like the Vulcan, it has a fairly unique tone in the form of that interesting mid-range growl. A few low passes and I’m sure you could enthrall a generation of spectators.

Your post explains the number of modded P-51s on the US circuit, as well as some of the more spirited attempts to turn A-26s (and even the occasional Vampire) into leisure aircraft. Many thanks for filling me in.

On another forum, apparantly the Lancaster that is at Scampton is S-Sugar! Doesnt the idiot notice that half of her is a different colour?

How thoughtful of you to gently educate the poster otherwise. This is the sort of healthy attitude that will encourage the general public the empty its collective pockets everytime a rotting airframe needs urgent work. :stupid:

Isn’t bitching about one forum on another one a slightly cheap shot? Does such an attitude prevent historic airframes from getting cut up? Are you all this socially inept?

I felt that VTTS over-sold the type- it’s importance, it’s spectacle- to almost embarrassing degrees. Sad to say, I’ll not miss it when it is retired again- as I never felt that I truly had it back. I’m certainly not anti-VTTS, anti-Vulcan, a hater, or anything else that people get called for daring to be negative about it- I’m just being honest. (And yes, I’ve had my hand in my pocket for them nonetheless)

I was surprised that VTTS were begging for money at the Prestwick show, even going so far as to provide a mobile number you could text a donation to. Nothing inherently wrong with this but the notion was floated by the commentators that should enough dough be raised, the Vulcan will be able to stay in the air. Given that I’ve heard that they need money to both carry out work on the wings and somehow get some Olympus engines working, surely this is an impossible feat?

I’ve never heard of that title: “Any dictionary published in the last thirty years”. Who is the publisher ? I think you invented that.

The correct definition of syntax: “The way in which words are arranged to form phrases and sentences to convey precise meaning”.

There you have it, simple. No connection with computer programming other than in the minds of the semi illiterates who try to blind us with (computer) science.

I find it somewhat ironic that you, a user of an internet forum, decry the discipline of computer science as being the work of ‘semi illiterates’ yet happily note that excessive quoting causes problems for the website ‘in ways that I do not know’. I can only assume you lack the intellectual curiousity to actually find out why.

The funny thing here is that your post isn’t even offensive at this stage. You’ve asserted, wrongly, that the word ‘syntax’ has a single definition. This is blatantly incorrect. You’ve also suggested that computer programmers are ‘semi illiterate’ (is that the same as semi literate, and where do the two overlap?), yet I wager you couldn’t produce any scripting in Java, C++, Python or even produce basic SQL queries. Ironically, your ability to do anything on a computer is only possible thanks to the same semi ilitterates you seem to take issue with. You are probably already foaming at the mouth at my use of the word ‘scripting’ in the previous sentence.

No doubt your beloved Nigel will be removing all computers from the school and workplace and replacing them with slide rules and the abacus in a bid to restore ‘proper values’ or something.

That would be an issue. I thought there was at least one ground-running Vulcan though, such as the one at Coventry?