Several updates have been added to the museum website today, including: a new Album of early Vulcan photographs taken at Farnborough.
Those and the Victor and Valiant (inc B.2) prototypes pictures are fantastic and unusual, very nice to see.
The NF.14 is looking fantastic, great detail with stencils etc, are there any pictures inside the cockpit?
Oh sorry, I thought it was a serious and in depth thesis on the V Bombers role within the Fleet Air Arm!
My point (serious as it may seem) is that this looks like a simple zapping, rather than use of a Vulcan by the Royal Navy – as per the title.
I agree that the thread was amusing, and absorbing.:)
Hmm very tenous, it looks zapped in dayglo tape and with sqn sticker to me, unless there are records that show this aircraft on 809 sqn charge.
The maintenance serial is an RAF one, Royal Navy instructional serials start with A.
Interesting all the same.
…but without a picture to make it easy:D
Now that Dave has suggested a V bomber it does sound familiar, but I can’t find out more.
Did the FAA hire in a large transport at all?
Wasnt there a C82 at North Weald that the owners tryed to find a home for but without luck.
It was a C-119, sadly yes it was scrapped, though I believe the cockpit survives at Redhill.
It is a bit hard to point fingers really, don’t forget that we have valuable one offs displayed outside, such as the Boulton Paul 111.
Interesting to hear some news from Honduras though.
Hmm, any other clues, I’m guessing this was a one off that wore RN titles, rather than a full service FAA aircraft?
Just cross referencing some specs, I’m surprised how close the AUW of a Buccaneer is to that of a normal Lancaster!
Shackleton WG557 did briefly wear ‘Royal Navy’ lettering while with the Naval Test sqn of the RAE, also there were the six Lancasters breifly on charge of 780 Sqn FAA – if you have pictures of those in RN markings, well….:)
For carrierborne types, for all up weight and dimensions I would think Buccaneer, with Phantom close behind in weight, though the Sea Vixen and Gannet outspan both.
Raising the speed limit is dangerous, that is fact. It isn’t just to do with the car & driver travelling at or above that speed, but all the other factors such as other drivers habits, unplanned for events on the road, weather conditions etc.
The problems is that you will have idiots doing 90+ that are not careful or attentive drivers, these are the ones that injure or kill others.
A point being missed here is that this is a revenue earner, the most economical speed for most cars is 55-60mph, yes some TDs are still efficient at 70mph, but certainly not as much so. Our Fiesta TD is cheapest at 58mph, still reasonable at 70 mph, but sharply declines above that speed. The same goes for the other 100+ cars that I’ve had (1,200-6,300cc, petrol or diesel), but with the overall fuel consumption being different
In short higher legal MPHs equates to lower MPGs, equals more fuel and tax.
Raising the speed limit is dangerous, that is fact. It isn’t just to do with the car & driver travelling at or above that speed, but all the other factors such as other drivers habits, unplanned for events on the road, weather conditions etc.
The problems is that you will have idiots doing 90+ that are not careful or attentive drivers, these are the ones that injure or kill others.
A point being missed here is that this is a revenue earner, the most economical speed for most cars is 55-60mph, yes some TDs are still efficient at 70mph, but certainly not as much so. Our Fiesta TD is cheapest at 58mph, still reasonable at 70 mph, but sharply declines above that speed. The same goes for the other 100+ cars that I’ve had (1,200-6,300cc, petrol or diesel), but with the overall fuel consumption being different
In short higher legal MPHs equates to lower MPGs, equals more fuel and tax.
Incredible stuff, can you imagine that at an airshow, ‘…and running in from the left is the Ju88, as used by the Luftwaffe untill only four months ago…’!
There are some rare American types on the ground aswel, including the Convair B-32 Dominator, and an early C-82.
IIRC only if you do your admission as a Gift Aided donation, that’s a condition of the scheme.
Yes, but that doesn’t make any difference to the ticket buying public, you just simply tick a box and hang on to your receipt – or am I forgetting something?
Interesting point about the cafes aswel, Newark is very nice and you are looked after well.
FAAMs Swordfish cafe is benchmark for me, decent fresh cooked meals or cold food, and all at a decent price, Cosfords’ is frankly terrible.
JDK mentions toilets, yes this is vital to get right, and it seems that most museums that I have been to do get this right.
Keeping the partner happy, I try and visit museums without the dead weight of an uninterested (nay positively anti sometimes!) partner, but sometimes that is unavoidable.
When we visited the Malta Aviation Museum she was made to feel that her visit was special and the volunteers made a point of explaining things to her and even getting her seated in the G-91, she had a lovely positive visit as a result, that equates to two very happy visitors!
Personally I feel that the Milestones of Flight box can be ticked by having a Meteor, ie any Meteor, such as the F.8 that is (was?) at Hendon.
DG202 just fits so well at Cosford and the prototype/development aircraft theme.
Don’t forget the Ki100 came from Cosford anyway.
On another note, and possibly quite naively of me, I’m surprised at how some of these rare airframes are moved about, ratchet strapped to an uncovered trailer just seems too exposed. Hey ho.
I thought the main reason the Gloster F.9/40 was at Cosford was because it fitted in with the whole prototype jets and cold-war aviation theme, sad that it has gone to Hendon.
Just a thought, as the D.H.110 was the first British aircraft to feature the ‘all flying’ tailplane (Apr ’54), I wonder how much this F-86 visit (Apr ’52) and the aircrafts features influenced DHs’ decision?
Just coincidence or were those chaps showing a very keen interest in the Sabres taking notes?