I believe the plan is for taxi runs only, any thought of flight status is totally out of the question, the support infrastructure of workshop skills/test facilities/knowledge/spares/material that existed has gone, not only within BAE/BA/Airbus/Rolls/Air France but at all the many sub contractors. That and getting French and UK authorities to allow it make it even more unlikely.
I know its a pity but flying one should be filed in the pipe dream drawer.

Richard

The image of the fuselage on the low-loader is in the Ian Allan ‘Stirling At War ‘ book. The caption says “On occasions, to suit production requirements, Stirling fuselage sections were shipped from stranraer on the UK mainland to Larne in Northern Ireland for completion at Belfast. One of the first loads lost its DF loop, radio aerial and mid upper turret under the stone arches that span the Larne-Carrickfergus-Belfastroad at Magheramorne. Thereafter these components were sent over packed safely inside the fuselage. Even so, MAP low loaders often had to be dragged under the arches with tyres deflated to allow safe passage. Note the Monica aerial beneath the rear turret of this Austin built Mk 111 LK593, en route to Marson Green in 1944”.
The image is credited to the Rover Group.

Richard

I am not sure if this is the same thing but a canopy for a Tiger Moth its for sale/donation on AFORS. See
http://www.afors.com/index.php?page=adview&adid=15494&imid=0

Richard

Tha Royal Canadian Airforce used two Lancasters 10’s for the carrying and launching of Ryan Firebee pilotless drones, KB848 and KB851 were the ones converted to 10-DC spec. Perhaps the UK government had a similar scheme in mind.
I cannot see the point in trying to use anything as big as a Lancaster as a drone, especially when a lot of smaller stuff was around in quantity.

Richard

I am looking into the air disaster involving ‘Vickers Viking’ The investigation pointed to pilot error following an engine failure. I have found information regarding this aircraft, that indicates out of the 167 manufactured 57 of these aircrafts were involved in incidents. My thinking is this is a very high ratio and perhaps more is known about the reliability of this aircraft than was available in 1957. Can anyone shed any light on this incident (1st May 1957) or on the make of aircraft itself. Does anyone have any information regarding the survivor of the crash 2nd Lt Ernest Taylor RE? Thanks Elaine

Elaine
I dont think the Vickers Viking, which was a decendant of the wartime Wellington bomber, had an accident record that was much different than other similar aircraft of the period.
Aircraft at that time had much lower levels of reserve engine power and therefore a engine failure was far more significant, the ability to maintain height was not always possible especially if the aircraft was heavily loaded as this one would have been.
I see that the pilot was blamed which I think sounds very unfair as the suspected engine failure only happened two minutes into the flight, so they would have only climbed to a 1000 feet or so before it happened. To fly a circuit and get back on the ground again, in the dark, would have been nearly impossible.
What was considered acceptable in regards risk on those days would not be allowed now.

Richard

Havnt we been here before!
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=98254

Richard

The stacks of fuel cans in fact look like the food oil cans in use at that time.

I think these were the type of fuel cans used through out the Empire right up until the ‘jerrycan’ became the can of choice.

I think the photo is original but with some very clumsy edit work.

Richard