Canopener AlI have heard that Black Mike Group have won the tender for it.. But now have the daunting task of dismantling a frame to move that is not designed to be pulled apart with one can imagine limited equipment, people, resources, time and money. As others have said who know anything about Phantom disposals, that it is sold under ITAR conditions, blasting down a runway maybe more that a logistical difficulty, more a legal one.
Canopener AlI don’t disagree in many ways, but when the MoD is tasked by Whitehall to get the best return they can on sale of surplus items, it’s money that talks.
For government, preservation equates to the service museums, plus the IWM. Posterity is served.
The dealers do get some preferential treatment I understand, as they will clear the airframes off base with a minimum of fuss, with no requirement for assistance, and they leave the site as they found it. Not saying that others wouldn’t do the same, but even I have left oil on a pan where it shouldn’t be when rescuing an aircraft for display.
You have firmly hit the nail on the head Bruce and there is competition between the bidders. However getting frames is all well and good, but when they have been stripped to spares recovery like the Jags were, try getting the bits and pieces required to get them running from the aviation spares companies. AVspares website will list them. The days of 5K airframes is well over until a load of Tornadoes get disposed off.. But who wants a Tonka? I would like to hear from people wanting to run a phantom down a runway. A bit hard without some Spey 202s. Not exactly a type of engine likely to get off a shelf after 22 years.
Canopener AlThe words Steffi Graf do spring to mind! He is having a Giraffe… :highly_amused:
Canopener AlI wonder what the chances are of the BBMF flying their/our Lancaster to Canada ?
Zero I would imagine.
You would be correct.. Cannot take paying passengers to pay for it. 😉
Canopener AlIf Graham doesn’t mind, I’ll add a little more on the progression of the project. We managed to get some fluid into Number 2 hydraulic system after finding out that two airbrake telescopic struts had been partially dismantled for some reason and having to rob spare items to restore. It didn’t help that one pipe was missing from the spine (fitted by another member of the team) so a leak became apparent, wasting the odd quart of oil. Once we blanked that up (flaps and slats circuits are not relevant at this time), we filled Number two up to the reservoir full level. Tried the EHP in the hope that the back end would show signs of movement ( hand pump did start pressurising) but so much air in the system to move anything (EHP did start sounding like its old self again thought). The door uplocks on Number one system still refuse to open, even though hand pump pressure is good. Again pipes need bleeding. Massive bleed of the both hyd systems is required next..
Canopener AlExcuse my ignorance but what the connection to SAC K Kornick, and why is his name on the aircraft?
It is common practice to put a name of a pilot against a set aircraft, usually with the Sqn coding letters A for Boss going downwards …Some Sqns would also put the Sqn lineys names under the pilot like in the case of 6 Sqn in the 80s. That’s why Kerry’s name is on there.
Canopener AlXX741 is progressing well on phase two of the project. The hydraulic systems have been the major focus of restoration during this winter with Harry and I helping out. Multiple pipelines and components have been refitted in the correct positions. Several major components still need sourcing, Spoiler PFCUs, Roll Dampers, Slat and Flap motor/brake (Control) units, some of the pipes for the later (+ the 8 fuselage to wing pipes) and rear door jacks for the main gear doors. However we have managed to source pressure blanking solutions for the open lines and as from Sunday number one system was filled with Fluid 41 (Civvy OM15) and was pressure tested by the hand pump with minimal leaks. Number two is awaiting a delivery of some more fluid, the charging of the PMV and main/brake accumulators with nitrogen, pressure testing first by the hand pump and ensuring that the rams and surfaces of all jacks driven surfaces are clear to move. With that the functional EHP can be used to demonstrate the rear control surfaces, the air brakes and with the bleeding of the brake lines for the emergency/parking circuits, a functional brake system.
Hopefully this will be complete before the aircraft is towed out for the season.
Of even greater interest is the embryonic possibility that 104s may be able to be sourced. However that is way in the future if it happens.
One thing we have found out is that the spine was not fitted with the centre Teleflex cables when it was finally installed by the team, not obvious. Finding such will be difficult.
Canopener AlSome people on here reckon it has a C of A.. Sure it has been discussed and the CAA is happy with it being here after validation etc.
Canopener AlCanopener – I think that is a cheap and wholly inappropriate suggestion!
You are right.. I was totally wrong to link the two and so have deleted what I have said. Of course CWHM maintain their flying aircraft correctly. However I have done some digging on the Transport Canada website on C GVRA and its operated as on a flight permit as I was sure it was going to be. CARs were always going to be similar to BCARs due to IACO agreements. It cannot operate over here without permit exemption by the UK CAA and all the requirements that entails.
Canopener AlIt will be interesting to see. Had a look at the CWHM website for flights in Canada. Yes its join the club first and upgrade so you are not a paying passenger. Not against them doing it over here, but if the organisation had an AOC for the aircraft (that seems not to be the case with some research, please correct me if I am wrong), that business model would not be needed. Others have pointed out the regulations and terminology of what the CAA use. Good luck to them in bringing it over and operating it and hope the CAA feel they are as professional as they seem.
Canopener AlI have a serious question.. I assume you are operating in Canada under a Restricted Certificate of Airworthiness seeing the aircraft is not a type certified, ex military airframe. I assume That your maintenance as you arrive in the UK is a CAA requirment to be issued a permit to fly exemption to fly in UK airspace. Are The CAA aware of your intentions to take what seems to be fare paying passengers? Have they allowed it? Their publications are clear on such matters. Just an observation seeing XH558 and other PfT aircraft in this country cannot advertise to take fare paying passengers due to the rules.
For those that are asking, revenue service (fare paying passengers, pleasure flights, aerial work etc) in aircraft with maximum take off mass of 5750 Kg (that I think has reduced to half that figure with EASA regulation changes) requires to be performed by an operator with an air operators certificate, a type certified aircraft and all the other requirements such as PART M / PART 145. PfT aircraft do not fulfil these requirements so are not allowed to be used for revenue service bar aircraft below the 2375 Kg limit. They can be paid to display (as the Vulcan is) but not take remuneration for passengers. That is national law. If you say” Join my club for this and get invited to fly laters”, that’s not selling a ticket. “3500 to sit there” sounds like.
Canopener AlApparently you could do the same on the MK9 I read somewhere, I bet you didn’t realise that as I neither did I while on Jags….
I thought it was only in RAFG that the main gun sear pin wasn’t fitted post flight, I’m surprised that practice now happens in the UK. It always amazed me as it’s not exactly a major issue to fit it, though sadly it wouldn’t have stopped this accident.
Looking at the seat pictures, the handle housing wants extending upwards to prevent the pin being fitted when the handle is partially withdrawn position and the handle extended down to prevent the pin going in below it
I did know about the pin being able to be fitted in the incorrect position, it was said every 6 months. Only fitted a pin twice, taxi back from flights in the back seat. Maint cards were the last cards to be closed before the BFs were signed and almost the first cards to be raised cease fly at Colt. The handle was an issue in design and regardless of anybody else, was the responsibility of the Pilot signing the jet back in to be pinned properly. If it was Sean, unfortunately his error started the snowball that set off the avalanche that had been set up by design errors and non communication..
Canopener AlSeat fired because handle is believed to have be partially pulled and somehow was extended further to fire the seat. It is believe that the pilot, AMM and armourers missed the seat pan firing handle pin not being fitted correcting, making the seat safe for parking or maintenance (the pilot would have fitted it after his last sortie and would be the only person to move it). The parachute failed to deploy due to incorrect information being supplied for RAF seat documentation by MB for a design flaw that MB knew about 22 years before and MB never informed the MoD on the matter. Did the coroner make a decision on status of death? Never heard one. MoD report will tell everything not known (was the pin still in the handle, etc?)
Feel sorry for the family, they do have a point to take up with MB if they are into the blame culture. Was he blameless? if he fitted that pin back into the handle on the previous sortie……
Canopener AlClassic from a mate. “I’m more likely to see Lord Lucan, riding Shergar, having found the Loch Ness monster, that see a Lightning fly again in the UK..”
Unless the LPG drivers do a Victor impression.
Canopener AlExactly what are ‘younger members on board employing fresh Ideas’ going to do in terms of the airworthiness of the Lightning ? I work with people from an age spread of sixty to forty eight with decades of experince on Lightnings – the more I speak to them -the more I think the CAA adopted the right approach all those years ago.
Absolutely David, they are not flying club machines, but high performance thoroughbreds with a nasty kick if treated wrong in the air or the ground, and sometimes even if treated well. In this country, ex military aircraft have a permit to fly, a C of A is for a type approved aircraft with a CAA or group like EASA. Like the AOC, that must be organisations that have type approved aircraft and all the PART 66 / 145 / M structures. They can charge for revenue service. The Vulcan is not allowed to take passengers that pay.
Sign In
