Unfortunately Ben I don’t think the Vulcan is your problem, think Lancaster.
….Asking on aviation forums is no indication of support in the real world, be nice if it was.

One area where the Vulcan is a good comparison is spending, find out what the projected costs were, and what the spending has actually been.
Vulcan project a success, well yes it flys, but I think it is a bit like someone saying they are financially savvy when they lurch from overdraft to overdraft.

I hope somehow you can get the financial backing needed, if so is there acredited engineering support in place, example is Air Atlantic or other supporting it?

Good point well made – a forum voting against a historic flying would be like turkeys voting for Xmas! It’s the general public you have to convince, and I’m not so sure it will happen… but I hope I am proved wrong…. Spitfireman’s subsequent post shows a brilliant solution IMHO!

Kind Regards,
Scotty

Are you sure?

realistically now 790 is with Pima, 963 is the last chance.

There’s still the two Paphos examples. Yes, they might need more work, but have been stored in a kinder climate. But that’s just a guess, as I’m no expert, but it is hotter and drier there….

cheers for your support matey, you can come for a ride when we get her flying again 😉

Would that actually happen? Or would it be under the same guidelines the Vulcan flies under i.e. No Passengers???

Yes, I would love to see a Shack fly again, I’ve had my go in one while still in service, and they flew over my house regularly, but without being a naysayer, as I believe it is possible, I think the odds are stacked against it just for the crewing aspect – look at the SAAF Museum example…

But I’ll wait and see what happens 🙂

Best Regards,
Scotty

Just pondering…

Regarding the “wonky” focus, me wonders if it’s a case of battle weary camera that’s been smacked a few to many times knocking the lens out of line or distorting the body creating an un-intentional tilt-shift effect. That would explain the very narrow field of focus.

just thought – must more viable explanation is a pin hole camera… no lens, just a hole in a box…. would give similar focus qualities.

I agree David, but isn’t the most relevant part of this aircraft’s history the state it now unfortunately finds itself in?

Playing devil’s advocate, I don’t see an F.2A Lightning cockpit being much different from any other single seater Lightning, so I am struggling to see the point of restoring this one from it’s current state, when it might be easier to restore a Saudi Lightning cockpit, and change the stickers on the side! :diablo:

I think it would be more relevant leaving as-is…

Why would it cost 5K to get it out of there?? A crane at the most for a day would be 1K and a lorry/low loader would be £800 -bearing it mind it’s cut inboard of the wheels and there doesn’t appear to be much holding it together it doesn’t seem that difficult a job!

I would advocate that if someone especuially wanted a F.2A it’s restorable even if an ex Saudi cockpit was used for spare parts.

Anything is restorable given the time, talent and money – just seems that this is too far gone. Why take parts off of from other more restorable projects, or to devote hard to come by parts to this? I am sure there are better Lightning projects than this…

I also agree with the sentiment that if she is to be preserved, that she’s preserved as is, but even that is not really going to happen. With such a long exposure to the elements and the way she’s been reassembled, it’s only a matter of time before she gives way to the rust worm. Is anybody going to store this inside or devote time and money away from other projects to keep a lump of scrap metal that was once a Lightning?

I’m not wanting to seem that I am disrespecting other people’s more knowledgeble opinions, but I think not…. Having seen it up close, I think she’s too far gone, and would require too much resources if a restoration was attempted… I’m very happy to be proved wrong though! 😉

Kind regards,
Scotty

Wow, i see what you guys mean by chopped open to get at parts.. Still I am not convinced the pipes are a writeoff though..

Don’t think I’d want anything off this scrapheap on a runner, just a liability…

Think it is a real photo, but possibly staged. Without meaning to be ghoulish, there is too much damage to the airframe and not enough to the body, although I may be wrong…

The focusing seems to be correct for a camera of the time, the depth of field seems to be a little limited. Lighting also seems correct, given the reflection of light from the sand, and a high lighting point given the shadow of the wing (mid-day?)

Not that I’m a photo interpreter, but just my tuppence worth!;)

Scotty