I thought that there cannot be too many people with your name! Many thanks for demystifying and uncloaking the world of luthiery for the rest of us! 😮
‘We turn the lights off to make photography better’
Really, you can’t invent stuff this good
Are you the same chap that writes books on guitar building?
The photography claim doesn’t make sense. Perhaps, in some bizarre way, it encourages visitors through the doors if they have been previously subjected to dark, incomplete photographs and they want to fill the blanks.
I suppose it is a trade off. Without Kermit’s intervention we might have ‘the case of the Lancaster scrapped in the late ’80s’ on our collective consciences, and it is good that the thing is in clean, dry storage somewhere. Yet, I do wonder is how many airframes Kermit can actually restore, and a Lancaster is a massive undertaking. Building a Frankenstein of the smashed Strathallan machine and KB994, which is something of a rough barn find if my memory is correct, seems like a lot of work. Being a (Canadian) British machine, you do wonder if it is down Kermit’s pecking order anyway…
Posted on here. I see that bastion of fine journalism, Unilad, is misreporting that this cache of sunken gems is somehow a new discovery.
I wonder what they think.
‘Stop putting words in our mouths’, or ‘stop volunteering us for Vulcan babysitting’ perhaps? 😀
The “Academy” is a romantic project that may well prove to be something far less exciting than it sounds. It’s easy to create these proposals but it’s far less easy to establish their viability. But even if this “Academy” does get built, the concept of having XH558 as its centrepiece is laughable. What has a 1960-vintage strategic bomber got to do with 2015 aerospace engineering? Absolutely nothing of course. You have to get past all the hype that is spewed-out by VTTS and seriously ask why an engineering a technology facility would have any interest in a relic from the 1950s/1960s. Any serious establishment is far more likely to suggest that space should be allocated to things that are of use, not museum pieces. I suspect that this whole project has very little to do with the future of the Vulcan and much more to do with the personal interests of some people within VTTS who are looking at their own futures.
On top of that, VH558 isn’t a truly historic airframe either as it has modern equipment on board. The way I see it, working on it would teach you neither a full set of conservation skills or a full set of modern aerospace engineering skills. In the CGI mockups of the Academy, XH558 lurks in the corner like an odd mascot, alongside an Airbus creation of some sort. I’m not sure what qualifications you would gain from working on it, or if VTTS members are qualified to work with kids. Does XH558 become a playground for high school kids to learn about lead dress or to merrily over-torque screws? All of this is of course conjecture on my part.
I have a feeling of deja vu. Didn’t we have this thread before? The performance at RIAT looked amazing compared to the usual ‘noisy glider’ routine, and it gave me an impression of what the Vulcan was capable of back in the day. Hopefully they do something equally spirited at Prestwick.
Lockheed Orion P3 heading in to Edinburgh airport ahead of East Fortune tomorrow. Hopefully some other interesting aircraft come past this afternoon!
Edit: I missed the Blenheim sneaking in.
Boom boom! I first heard about this pair on the forum 28 Days Later, where some Urbexer managed to sneak onto, and take shots of, one of the DC4s.
Pricier than Prestwick, though it looks like it has better quality facilities. :highly_amused:
Are there not two DC4s there?
Its not just wartime aircraft. Its often to be found that parts that fit one aircraft won’t fit another due to the variations in shape and where fixings are (or rather where they should be!).
Such as when it came round to fitting the new wings to the Nimrod MRA4s? :highly_amused:
I remember these things landing and taking off on Tiree. Surprised to see they are now ‘historic’. Time marches on!
I saw this incident covered by ‘War History Online’ on my Facebook feed today. One comment suggested that the pilot “should have shut his engine off after he cleared the end of runway, so as to not damage the engine from prop strike”.
This sounds like fanciful nonsense to me, and I’m always wary of armchair pilots online at the best of times. Is there any credence in these words?
To quote the Greatest Newspaper on Earth;
“The pilot was unharmed after the incident and – apart from a broken propeller – the plane appeared largely undamaged”.
Presumably the CAA won’t take such an optimistic view, and the engine will need to be stripped right down? We’ve also not seen the underside of the aircraft. :apologetic:
Stop dragging this thread off topic, John.
Here you go, get back to running General Discussion as your personal blog/pensioners lunch club/gossip network/UKIP recruitment centre. Leave this section of the forum to those who can actually formulate a decent argument once in a while.
http://forum.keypublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?8-General-Discussion