As trumper rightly says, the public isn’t really influenced by participant lists. As long as the Red Arrows are mentioned, they’re happy. The Vulcan factor was slightly different in that the media took some interest and made it into a story. The result was that it became a “must see” event and people inevitably went along because of the “bandwagon” effect that society now adopts. If the media had whipped their audiences into a frenzy over the Blades, or a glider, then the same result would have been achieved. I’m pretty sure that more than half of the Vulcan’s audience didn’t really have a clue what a Vulcan was. Thing is, the media isn’t going to make a fuss over anything else. The two Lancasters were a one-off event, and when the fuss over the Vulcan’s last display season ends, then it’s hard to see what else might capture the public’s interest in the future.

As for the Shackleton, much as I’m thrilled by the prospect of seeing one fly again, I think we can be sure that the public will not give a toss about it, other than those who think it’s a Lancaster perhaps. The media are unlikely to take much interest in it, therefore the public won’t be persuaded into thinking it’s a must-see aeroplane. I’m pretty sure that every aircraft enthusiast will be delighted to see a Shack airborne, but we’d be fooling ourselves to imagine that Joe Public would pay much attention. I think that in the case of restored/preserved aircraft, one can’t place too much importance on what the public might or might not think. Ultimately, Joe Public wants the Red Arrows and a fairground… everything else is a bonus.

Does it really matter if the Vulcan is the ‘iconic’ draw that people seem to be clutching on to ?

Probably not – as Rich said previously regarding the Shackleton, nobody is under any illusion that any other aircraft would create the same amount of fuss. But that kind of support isn’t really needed for any other machine. It’s just the sheer cost of the Vulcan that requires an awful lot of public interest. That’s not to say that any other aircraft can be operated “on the cheap” but the Vulcan is undoubtedly a one-off. Think this is where we go back to the theme of the thread – I don’t think there is any other aeroplane that could somehow take-over the “Vulcan effect”.

Personally, I’ll be delighted if the AEW Gannet takes to the air again and if the T5 visits from the US I’ll be overjoyed! Likewise, if the Sea Vixen enjoys a more active life I’ll be happy, and if CAF’s Canberra begins flying again, that’s good news. It will be very sad to be without the Vulcan (not least because I live close-enough to Finningley to see it fly most of the time) but I guess XH558’s departure from the scene is inevitable. No doubt the WWII fans will be indifferent to such developments and they’ll be hoping that “Just Jane” progresses, and that a Mosquito can be returned to British skies. It’s all a question of personal taste. I suppose the mighty Shackleton almost appeals to both camps, in that it’s a very significant post-war machine, but still a direct descendant of the Lancaster. I’m not sure whether WWII purists would place too much importance in that point though… I don’t see much love extended to the Varsity by Wellington enthusiasts!

Mike J – if you have nothing to say about the thread subject, perhaps you could refrain from saying anything? Anyway, back to the thread…

Jeep – I wouldn’t say that air shows are as good as they can get – far from it. They’re already way past their best. The quantity/quality of air shows peaked in the 1990s. Nothing we can do about that – it’s simply a symptom of the end of the Cold War and the passage of time, which has resulted in a drastic reduction in the variety and numbers of aircraft out there. Likewise the cost of restoring and operating warbirds continues to rise, not least because of the litigious nature of our society. We were very lucky that the Vulcan managed to return to flight status but the chances of anything else doing likewise must be zero. The perceived complexity (at least from the CAA’s viewpoint) means that the Vulcan was an exception. Would the same support from the CAA and industry be forthcoming for a VC10, Nimrod, Lightning, Phantom, Jaguar, Harrier? Nope. CAF couldn’t even obtain permission to ferry their Nimrod from Coventry to St.Mawgan, even though the aircraft was maintained in flyable condition. It is tragic, but as you say Jeep, we are indeed in a situation where aircraft that are beyond the complexity of the a950s are probably doomed to stay grounded – at least in the UK.

Your opinion, I’m afraid counts for very little.

correct to look at the Lightning as a death trap

If that’s going to be the nature of this discussion, it’s clearly going nowhere.

Mike, I think we’re covering old ground here, but if you don’t agree with my comments, you’re obviously entitled to say so. However, it achieves nothing to resort to sarcasm. You should understand that I’m perfectly aware of the CAA’s role, and if you (or anybody else) is trying to suggest that I’m some ill-informed fool, then you’d be mistaken. What I have said about the CAA is true. Tony Blackman (who was one of the people involved) specifically said so. Okay, as Bruce has rightly pointed out, the CAA isn’t in the business of simply preventing things from happening (quite the contrary in some cases), but in the case of the Lightning they were indeed firmly set against the idea from the very outset. That is what I said, and it is indisputably true. It would be far too easy to imagine that the CAA is somehow beyond reproach.

CAA will not allow the Lighting to be flown here because they simply don’t like the idea. Simple as that. Yes, they will issue all manner of plausible (but specious) reasons why, but the basic fact of the matter is that they don’t want it to happen. We know this because one of the people who made the decision said that this is precisely what happened, so it’s not gossip or opinion (and certainly not my personal view), it’s just the way it is. The SA incident had nothing to do with it – the CAA’s position had been fixed a long time before that. As for the notion that (if it was even possible) a Phantom would have to be imported, this isn’t (or wasn’t) the case. The Duxford FGR.Mk.2 was to have been flown by Mark Hannah – it even went into their promotional brochure as an aircraft that would be available for air show bookings. But it never got any further than that. Unlike countries such as the US and South Africa, our CAA officials simply regard these machines as potentially dangerous. It’s nonsense of course. They are no more dangerous than any other aircraft if they are operated and maintained properly. But we live in a country that is obsessed by safety issues. litigation and bureaucracy. We’ve reached a stage where CAF are struggling to even get permission to fly a DC-3… I think that illustrates how ridiculous things have got. Meanwhile, the F-104, F-100, F-86, A-4, F-4, Draken and others continued to fly in the US, and how many accidents have there been? Virtually none.

I’m really looking forward to the Norwegian TF-104G flying again, hopefully in 2015. But will it ever reach the UK? The Swedish Draken and Viggen (both afterburning death traps by CAA standards) have appeared in the UK, so who knows, maybe, just maybe…

Some of the above comments illustrate how people’s views are all very different. To dismiss the Shackleton as a mere “four engine prop” that “flew over the water” is one person’s rather pejorative opinion. To someone else (myself included) a Lancaster is simply a four-engined aircraft that flew over the water and land. I’d much rather see a flying Shackleton than a Lancaster any day. But it’s true that the wider public probably doesn’t have much interest in a Shackleton. It’s fair to say that the wider public has a diminishing interest in the Lancaster too. It is of interest only to those who are old enough to relate it to WWII. It means nothing to anyone under the age of maybe thirty or so. Yes, the two Lancasters attracted huge crowds this year but (as I’ve said before) a lot of that was because of the “bandwagon” mentality that has infected the British public over recent years. Most people wanted to see the two Lancasters because the media had told them it was a unique event. We can be pretty sure that if the Canadian Lancaster was here permanently, the “Lancaster effect” wouldn’t have survived beyond a year or so.

Same applies to the Vulcan. The fuss will gradually dwindle and it will only revive as the aircraft reaches its final retirement. Sadly, the vast majority of show-goers really don’t care much. They want to see the Red Arrows and a few noisy jets. The rest is just gravy. This is partly why the unique Meteor F.Mk.8 went to Australia – there wasn’t enough air show interest to keep the aircraft viable in the UK. Evidently, show organisers would rather pay for the Blades than have a single seat Meteor. Tragic, but inevitable, given the nature of the average spectator.

I guess the only way that warbird operators can progress is to simply pursue their passion and hope that enough show organisers will have the wisdom or taste to provide the bookings so that they get the money to survive. But when we have show audiences that are primarily interested in noise and thrills, we enthusiasts have to simply be grateful for what we can get!

Meteor and Vampire would be nice to see

This is already possible, courtesy of CAF. Their Canberra B.Mk.6 should be flying again fairly soon too 🙂

Has anyone actually seen a copy of the Jaguar magazine? There seems to be a distinct shortage of copies in WH Smiths! 🙂