Do you think the owner would entertain a swap with a Vulcan nose section… 😉

Oops, sorry America

XN923, To respond to your off topic and unnessary bit of “Yank bashing”, might I suggest you might want to check your history. From what I can tell, the B-52 was only used in one war (Vietnam) that the RAF was not also involved in.
The others were the Persian Gulf, Kosovo…etc.

I’m too much of a gentleman to point out the Vulcan was used in the Falklands…a bloody and costly war many view as being of dubious merit…and other postwar RAF bombers were used in attempts to hang onto Imperial colonies. Hardly politically correct actions by today’s standards. 😀

Back on topic…I haven’t seen answers to these questions:
How many events do the Vulcan group plan on supporting a year?
In the opinion of forum members, is that number realistic?
What will their estimated fee be per event? Again, air show fans and experts…is that realistic?
And how many years do they see the AC fliyng?

My apologies, I did not wish to indulge in Yank bashing – I can see how my remark would be ragarded as over the line and I withdraw it forthwith. I merely wished to point out that comparing the service records of the two aircraft was not comparing like with like and I regret bringing politics into it.

Back on topic. I don’t think that 558 would ever do more than a few airshows per year but I’m surprised at the attitude that it would be too expensive period. I would have thought Vulcan To The Skies would have a good idea of the ‘pull’ of the aircraft before undertaking such a complex, difficult and expensive scheme as returning her to airworthy condition. There are a good many expensive aircraft that airshow organisers are prepared to pay for – will the Vulcan be so much more costly?

This is an emotive one for me. Seeing 558 in her natural element on one occasion was the single highlight of my airshow-going. It stood head and shoulders above any other display I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen some good ones. I would pay double what I’d pay for any other airshow to see it again. I hope she does put in some appearances, and word of mouth helps people to realise what they might be missing.

I suppose it’s up to the people who want to see the Vulcan in the air (and I really don’t care where it is geographically) to lobby the airshow organisers.

Well if anyone’s in a position to do a feasibility study and comes to the conclusion that there is something worth saving (I seem to recall there was talk of extracting the flight deck if the whole nose was too far gone) I would be happy to transfer the money that I had put up for the Shackleton nose before Camlobe generously stepped in.

Southend, for nostalgia purposes, then onto Biggin Hill for a low level aerobatic display.

We can dream

It may be very limited indeed – my local model store tells me that the delivery date will be February the 29th.

Think about it…..

Seriously, I’m told the initial run will be limited to 10,000 but it has already proved so popular I can’t see them doing another run, and another…

When they do get delivered though I suspect eBay will be flooded with the things. Lots of people have ordered ten or more and I can’t see that some won’t be used to make a quick buck.

(I have three on order and intend to build all of them.)

lovely sight though – I await the appearance of it’s colour scheme with interest. – did BPF get these later mark Seafires or were they restricted to post war use?

thanks

Bit late for BPF – early ones carried either the standard temperate sea scheme in a high gloss or possibly dark sea grey over sky with low demarcation (opinions differ as many photos are unclear). Later many went all-silver, particularly the fighter-recon versions which substituted the rear fuselage fuel tank with an oblique camera.

Good question about planes flying upside down, and symetrical airfoils have always puzzled me.
I guess it is that any object moving through air generates lift. Otherwise how do so many free flight models with flat wings fly.

It’s basically angle of incidence – i.e. the angle any surface presents to the airflow. Lots of aircraft have a noticably ‘tail down’ attitude when flying upside down – this is so the air can bounce downwards off the flying surfaces, roughly speaking, forcing the aircraft upwards. If you look at those free flight models, the leading edge of the wing will be higher than the trailing edge so as it goes forward through the air, the angle is trying to push it up as well. It’s inefficient but most of these models have such a surfeit of power and are so light it doesn’t matter.

In fact, many high performance jets barely have any traditional aerofoil any more, and the curve of the underside of the wing is almost as great as that on the upper side. They fly by forcing air off the underside.

A further factor is engine power – a high powered engine can keep an object in the air even when it technically doesn’t have enough lift from the lifting bodies to overcome its weight. It may be myth, but I have heard from people who ought to know (i.e. USAF engineers) that the C5 Galaxy cannot fly on lift alone but relies on the downward thust of its engines to stay airborne. I’d have thought this would also have played a part in the F15 incident (the fact that landing speed was 100kts faster than normal suggests a higher engine power than usual for landing).

Not the real thing but there’s a feature in this month’s Scale Aircraft Modeller which shows the separate structures involved to quite good effect. If you like I’ll scan and send to you.