A dehumidifier and a oil filled radiator should keep the moisture at bay……my next wife (if that ever happens) will have a pre-nup!
£70! peanuts!! The Hunter is most desirable, better if you get a piece of ally and I draw round one of mine!
Yep….delighted, sent my donation in two weeks ago….I treat her as if she is a cousin, so she gets a £20 xmas pressie from her (young) uncle Tony!!!!
If we all gave £20 just imagine where she would be? Go on y’all you know itmakes sense
http://www.sallyb.org.uk/index.php?_a=viewDoc&docId=7
This is a perennial argument…..as an aero engineer I always want compromise….do we get it? Not always.
The point is,if you want to fly an aircraft it will suffer wear and tear and will require parts replacement. Often people cite cases of aircraft that have flown (more or less) continuously since they were born:- P7350, MH434, PZ865, RR299….the 3 survivors have surprisingly little of the original as produced airframe in them….and rightly so….take a Hurricane, by the time she has been flying for, say 40 years she will have had 3 or 4 Merlin changes, 30 sets of tyres, numerous fluid changes, numerous instrument changes, woodwork replacement….the list is endless, so the original parts probably comprise basic tubular structure, wing internals….and that is the best you can hope for ( an accident would replace even more)…..but hey, does it matter? Not one iota if you want to feel, smell and see that aircraft in the air. Sorry to bore you, but my project is made up of non airworthy parts…..85% original wartime manufacture….these parts would have otherwise been thrown away…..maybe not as exciting as a flyer but it shows that you can have ‘originals’ in museums. Even so, it was not deemed worthy to go in the Hurricane Salute whereas a data plate did…….!
I think that people sometimes get annoyed when an aircraft is deemed ‘original’ when it has been rebuilt from a plate….I cannot get het up about it personally as I know what it takes to keep an aircraft flying……losing originality is the price you pay for that ‘priceless’ spectacle of a flying warbid….
If you want to preserve originality you would have to ground them all…..what a wanton waste and shame that would be
Expensive business aviation is. Someone once said (with a bit of tongue in cheek) operating a Vulcan would require the GDP of a small country…..one thing is for sure you cannot operate a Vulcan on a shoestring or small budget. Flight safety is paramount, aircraft are living, breathing objects that can so easily rack up costs. The no-shows were sad but hey that is aviation and with just one complex asset that is what you get. I’d rather they left her on the ground than fly her with an unacceptable defect, and being the professionals they are, they would not have done that anyaway.
I applaud Bubble’s efforts in raising money. I wish a big sponsor would come forward, even if it meant painting it blue/silver with Red Bull or similar…even MacD’s as a big flying billboard.
The Vulcan evokes many emotions and heart tugs for many of us…..just like the Millenium Dome (as was), the cost could create Educational packages and finance many good static restorations in many museums (the millenium dome money could have put a decent leisure centre in every major town). I was like a little kid at Farnborough when I saw her and the excitement of ‘normal’ people and kids was ‘priceless’.
Put simply, the Vulcan needs big cashflow to keep it flying…..I cannot imagine where it could come from, sadly. It cannot fly on enthusiasts dreams alone, no matter how much we want it too.
It was enjoyable, but trying to cover all the history and constituent parts of the RAF was a bridge too far…..
what about:-
Training command and the huge logistics of that? And the debt we owe them
Air Sea Rescue and all the other branches (police, surgeons)
The biggest ommission in my eyes was the complete lack of Helicopter coverage….they may not be glamourous but are the most important air assets in Iraq, and Afghanistan…
please clear your inbox!
see PM
snip.
Tony, is this really “willy waving”, is this a defence of a dead mans reputation, or is it merely an attempt to stop internet revisionist theorys from propagating to the point where the truth is lost?
Ross, sorry for the thread hijack; I’ll be off now.
I did not like the fact that RJ Mitchell was deemed by some to have nicked another’s ideas which is NOT the case. As you well know I am a great admirer of the great man, to claim or hint he stole the idea from a German designer whose designs went a long way to propping up an evil regime is a bit poor IMHO. Credit where credit is due is laudible, however, George Cayley or Otto Lillienthal probably deserve more credit than Mister Heinkel! 🙂
see PM
Started to read this thread and got bored…..so forgive me if someone else has already said this…
Anyone who has studied aerodynamics knows that for the most efficient and even lift distribution (and downwash) you need an elliptical wing!!
In aeroengineering (particularly the 20s-40s), there is/was no such thing as nicking someone else’s ideas…(unless you get an aircraft, dismantle it and replicate every part and call it your own!)….the aircraft we have today were all designed building on the ‘bricks’ laid down over at least 140 years….so willy waving about the great Man and his great aircraft vs any other designer is as pointless and totally irrelevant as fitting wheels to a fish!
That said, nice work original poster!
Spitfire crowbar is in 3 sections Ross! The spike, the jemmy and the tube, Hunters are solid steel
happy birthday old fruity……! you’re catching up!
excellent news and long overdue
might have some spare at the BDAC….get in contact via their website