I don’t think it ever rolled off the top of a loop did it?

Yes, many times 🙂

The work on the wings was completed and I don’t think there’s ever been any plan to “get some Olympus engines working.” As far as I know, they are simply using the engines that they already have, rotating them through the aircraft to even-out use. I think the money they are now seeking is to support the aircraft through the 2015 air show season. So in that respect the Prestwick commentators were correct in that sufficient money will indeed allow XH558 to keep flying. Obviously the real issue is what happens after 2015. We’re told that it will be engine life that determines the precise end of the flying programme, so unless more engines are miraculously found, there doesn’t seem to be any way to progress beyond 2015 unless perhaps fewer hours are flown during the year so that the aircraft can resume flying in 2016.

I do wonder though, if there has been any attempt to explore the issue with Rolls-Royce? Surely, the engine life figures are stipulated by Rolls-Royce, so if they could examine the engines thoroughly, maybe they could relax the limitations on the engines somehow?

It’s probably worth bearing in mind that the readers of this thread are (it would appear) disposed towards WWI-era subjects. It’s important to remember that the wider public doesn’t share the same attitude. I would agree that the Shackleton probably wouldn’t interest the public very much (I already said so) but I’m sure the Shackleton people at Coventry know this only too well. One assumes that they’re striving to restore the aircraft for the benefit of those of us who do recognise the significance of the machine. Having said that, I’m sure that most show spectators would be pretty impressed once they’ve seen and heard a Shackleton perform!

Like everyone else, I’d be delighted to see “Just Jane” fly again but the wider public doesn’t really care. The BBMF’s Lancaster is more than enough to entertain air show crowds. Okay, there was a lot of fuss this year with two Lancasters in the air, but this was very much a one-off novelty that would soon become routine if we had two flying examples in the UK. The issue of getting joyrides is obviously of no interest to anyone apart from the few people who might be hoping to buy one! Likewise, although it would be nice to see a Mosquito back in the UK, it’s of no more interest than any other aircraft. I suspect that in terms of air show crowds, the majority would be far more impressed by a Shackleton than a Mosquito. Back in the days when BAe’s Mosquito was doing the shows, most people seemed to be completely disinterested in it. Historical significance aside, it doesn’t have much of a presence, and certainly not enough of a presence to impress the public.

Ultimately, air show crowds want spectacle and excitement. Enthusiasts want to see rare and classic aircraft. WWII fans want to see WWI aeroplanes. Those who are busy restoring aircraft to flying status are probably wise to simply get on with the job, and pay no attention to what anyone might say. It’s impossible to please everyone. But in relation to the theme of this thread, I think it’s safe to assume that there will be no direct follow-on from the Vulcan. XH558 was a unique example. As I said before, I think the Shackleton people do at least have an opportunity to promote the Shackleton as a direct Avro forerunner, but even this tenuous link is just about as much as anyone could hope for. In all other respects, when XH558 stops flying, the wider public will doubtless take their hands out of their pockets and simply turn their attention to other things.

I guess everyone has a different view but it’s not really up to me to decide what is attractive and what isn’t! It’s a Jaguar and it’s a perfectly-positioned, top quality photograph. As I said before, one can only blame the RAF if one doesn’t happen to like “Desert Sand” camouflage! I have to admit I think it would have looked far more impressive in Dark Green/Dark Sea Grey!

Vulcans that have been placed undercover seem so far to be outlasting the outdoor variety

Er… yes, obviously!

I have no obligation to explain anything to you. If you are seriously interested, rather than simply trying to cause another argument, then do some research for yourself 🙂

Regards its current situation . Unless Finningley (Robin Hood) suddenly becomes massively successful -her chances of being a taxying exhibit there look incredibly thin!

I don’t think there’s any suggestion that XH558 would taxy if it remains at Finningley after the flying programme ends. I’ve certainly not seen any mention of the possibility and I would think that it’s very unlikely to happen. How would anyone be afforded access to the airfield to see it in any case? All of the comments concerning post-flight plans seem to suggest that it will remain in the hangar as a static exhibit. All very nice but the plan doesn’t explain how the hangarage will be paid for, especially when the visitor numbers dwindle to almost zero – as they surely will. How many people are going to make repeated visits to see one motionless Vulcan in a hangar? They’d be far more likely to go to Newark, Cosford, East Midlands, etc. I think the Vulcan people are proposing to keep-on accommodating tours and educational visits but I think anyone with a realistic attitude can see how this will not be sustainable long term. It seems inevitable that if XH558 stays at Finningley it will soon become a forgotten relic, and one that cannot be accommodated at Finningley for free. So if it doesn’t go somewhere else before it stops flying, it’s long term future must be very doubtful, even if the Vulcan people never admit it (I assume they’re virtually obliged not to, in view of the HLF arrangements).

I agree that keeping the aircraft somewhere else outdoors isn’t a great idea and I also agree that there shouldn’t be an obsession with keeping the aircraft in running condition. But on the other hand, it is an airworthy machine and it’s only one of three Vulcans that is capable of taxying, therefore it would be silly not to enable it to keep on running. Likewise, it would be crazy to keep XH558 at Finningley simply to ensure that she remains under cover. There’s no point in doing that if it means that it will simply hasten the aircraft’s destruction. Surely it’s better to let the aircraft survive for as long as possible outdoors, rather than enjoying a short existence indoors followed by scrapping?