My collegue spent a few years on that aeroplane, and had a structural survey done by TVOC. As far as he is aware, none of the rectification work on the spars has been done (access through panels in the u/c bay).

In all fairness, the work you have done to Bluebird is nothing short of miraculous, but multiply those 4 years by ten for something the size of a Vulcan. Personally I would not consider running an engine the size and complexity of an Olympus without the full compliment of flight deck data – something which would require new or refurbished gauges AND new wires run from all of the essential engine systems. The engines themselves would need to be thoroughly inspected, although I agree that it would be a matter of careful procedures to run the engine, I feel it would be beyond the means of the small band of volunteers and hindered by the exposed location of the aircraft. The tennis court that the aircraft is sat on is not capable of supporting the weight of the aircraft without the steel reinforcement plates, so moving it anywhere would be difficult, as well as the fact that when it was moved from the airfield the nose leg drag brace cracked. What would it do after 30 years in the elements?…

Apparently, during the 1980’s, Nissan complained about running the AAPP, let alone an engine.

Nothing is impossible, but having spoken to members of the management on this subject, there are far more pressing matters to deal with. I’m sure the local engineer, Sven, would agree.

Get a hangar, THEN worry about engines.

Kindest regards, Stig

As a footnote to this discussion, I have been sent the following:

An ode of English Plural

We’ll begin with a box, and the plural is boxes,
But the plural of ox becomes oxen, not oxes.
One fowl is a goose, but two are called geese,
Yet the plural of moose should never be meese.
You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice,
Yet the plural of house is houses, not hice.

If the plural of man is always called men,
Why shouldn’t the plural of pan be called pen?
If I speak of my foot and show you my feet,
And I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet?
If one is a tooth and a whole set are teeth,
Why shouldn’t the plural of booth be called beeth?

Then one may be that, and three would be those,
Yet hat in the plural would never be hose,
And the plural of cat is cats, not cose.
We speak of a brother and also of brethren,
But though we say mother, we never say methren.
Then the masculine pronouns are he, his and him,
But imagine the feminine: she, shis and shim!

Let’s face it – English is a crazy language.
There is no egg in eggplant nor ham in hamburger;
neither apple nor pine in pineapple.
English muffins weren’t invented in England .
We take English for granted, but if we explore its paradoxes,
we find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square,
and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.

And why is it that writers write but fingers don’t fing,
grocers don’t groce and hammers don’t ham?
Doesn’t it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend.
If you have a bunch of odds and ends and
get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it?

If teachers taught, why didn’t preachers praught?
If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?
Sometimes I think all the folks who grew up speaking English
should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane.

In what other language do people recite at a play and play at a recital?
We ship by truck but send cargo by ship…
We have noses that run and feet that smell.
We park in a driveway and drive in a parkway.
And how can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same,
while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites?

You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language
in which your house can burn up as it burns down,
in which you fill in a form by filling it out, and
in which an alarm goes off by going on.

And in closing, if Father is Pop, how come Mother’s not Mop?

Given that the word is originally French, and the English language adopted the complete word, as spelt “Sabre”, its only right that the Americans should spell it properly. Let them color/colour in using their fiber/fibre tip pens in the center/centre………..

According to our former 319 team leader, the titanium shields between each engine are the only major parts missing. The fuel system is intact on the engine, BUT the fuel tanks themselves are incapable of holding or pumping fuel. The AAPP used to be run (in the 1980’s) and used a 5 gallon drum as a fuel tank. This information is years out of date by the way, and 2nd hand….

As far as inspections go, good on you. You should be able to re-wire the nav and anti-coll lights without too much problem, but remember to isolate the PFCUs… the contactors and the majority of the main electrical system are floating around on someone’s Victor apparently.

I’m not dissing you or your efforts, just very wary about old engines…..

Silly question…..

Why are you even looking at running an engine? There are too many missing components to even consider it, plus you’d have to tow her away from the communications mast behind. She’d break apart with the vibrations IF you even manged to get an engine turning. Just thought I’d mention it…. what with being a sootie and all….

Not a clever idea IMHO….

This is an old video… Chester just didn’t put the date on – its a couple of years ago. Its now based in Yorkshire and attended the GNFI earlier this year.

Could that system not be something that Mr. Campbell developed? It would be reletively straight forward to use sperical fire bottles, charged with nitrogen instead of suppressant to provide an onboard start system. Two bottles would give you two starts.

Do you have a picture of the bottles? Perhaps someone may be able to identify the type of system from the bottle…..

Dart Herald – another fine example of a piston design converted (and subsequently manufatured) with Turboprop power…