Are airframes currently stored as 3 dimensional 1:1 representations of some specific point in time capable of returning to flight, in short yes most if not all can but would anyone want to expend that amount of time, effort and money in doing so, doubtful.

What is I am certain going to become a classic article of best practice can be seen currently with the return to flight of XH558 while at the other end of the scale in recent history is Concorde, but before considering this one should examine the timeline that is invoked once an airframes withdrawal from service is announced, as it is that timeline that will at some point in the future determine the viability of turning what is essentially a static exhibit back into a working airframe capable of licensed flight.

Once the decision to withdraw has been made a large number of things happen that have on the surface nothing to do directly with the airframe, the support infrastructure that provisioned that particular airframe with everything required from parts through maintenance staff too aircrew begins the process of being dismantled, contracts are cancelled supplies begin too dwindle and training stops, mostly this is planned well in advance so that at the date of withdrawal little if anything is left for disposal except the airframe which in essence is essentially scrap though may still be currently in top condition and working as designed.

With the Vulcan fleet a similar timeline ran it’s course leaving in the final days only XH558 in flying condition though as has since been discovered barely, very few spares and very few staff certified to operate and maintain the aircraft, the fact that it is back in the air today however is based on decisions made long before that by people that had the foresight to consider that one day a Vulcan might once again be allowed to fly in UK skies, as such what spares were available were placed in storage, the airframe itself was protected and maintained and plans were made to obtain the required permissions and finance to allow all of this too culminate in a once more flyable airframe.

Concorde however was not blessed in this manner and it’s demise was always planned to be as permanent as the current owners could possibly make it, spares were sold for scrap, or auctioned off, and the airframes were vandalised in a manner that would ensure they were never financially capable of flight again, though not in so far as to effect the overall long term exhibiting of them as possible advertising for the company or the final host venues.

Most withdrawn airframes fall somewhere between these two extremes and only in the case of simple construction types is there much hope of resurrection, complex airframes either military or civil have little hope unless the decision too do so is taken and incorporated in the original withdrawal planning process to ensure that spares and materials are available for future owners too purchase or obtain sufficient to accomplish a return to flight, so if you fancy flying a retired Raptor or 737 get planning today.

Recall reading up on a few theorys that were floating around at the time over this one, ranged from little Green men to large Red ones, but in the end the simplest explanation usually fits the facts, collision being the most likley cause of the loss of these two airframes, as to how one of them may have got as far from the predicted point of the crash site is not really a mystery either

The distance between the ‘considered’ point of the crash and the locating of the Griffon in the trawler net has a lot of information regarding were the aircraft remains may curretly be located, aircraft do not often sink directly to the bottom and may drift with currents for a good time before settling, also the engine may have become detached in the original collision and fallen into the sea while the aircfaft flew on for some distance before crashing as too the trawlers part in all of this, it is not uncommon for trawl nets depending on type, to be drawn a number of miles before recovery, so the Griffon may have been in the net for some time.

Question I would have asked is were the trawl was set, and the direction it was hauled, this would have given a good indication of the general area the wreckage of the airframe the griffon was originally fitted too may lay.

In the end it’s one of those that will never really have a definative answer that will fill the timeline gaps.

Lots of VTOC Forum members also making a similar whimsical noise right now David, seems the board has made a choice not to inform them of exactly what is happening on the financial front after indicating that announcements might be made at certain times leaving the group to wonder and speculate, and you know how that story goes, anyway currently the forum is not accessible so my guess is it’s either crashed yet again or it has been taken down until things cool off as some of the posters are getting more than a little frustrated by the way they have treated having contributed both with support and money over the years with speculation that the members have been sidelined to a large extent and their views ignored, aside from that they have indeed issued another request for financial support too the tune of 100K this time though not been specific as to what this money is for.

As to information, when ever I have spoken too the office directly they have always been helpful and concise in the information they distribute so I have taken to calling them when ever I need to know something, the forum is not the best place for getting the true picture.

After years of doing it without a second thought assembly and disassembly have always been treated as two processes aimed at achieving a goal, you apply the same process in reverse to take the shaft caps out of the motor as you do too put them in, this way you avoid any chance of distortion or stress in either the caps or the studs, I have seen more than few broken in my time, mostly while trying too slacken cap stub nuts off in prepration for seperation, they are a pig too drill out and re-tap for new ones as they almost invariably break 2 mm below surface, it,s time consuming and bad practice on the part of the engineer to try and get around this process by using short cuts however using a dial gauge is a little extreme, a simple torque plate is all thats required and any engineer worth his salt could knock one up in a few minutes marked off in degrees to assist in disassembly.

Nashio, discussion at length was given too the idea of dismantling and transporting 607 some months ago on the TVOC website, and the general consensus of opinion including my own is that this idea would never get off the ground without a significant impetus to do it and only then if the authorities could be persuaded too allow such a large piece of machinery to roam the countries road system too whatever location was chosen for her, however since this discussion took place there has been the usual rumor mill in action underlain by indication that a large corporation ‘Might’ have taken an interest in her now that a structured organization with some credibility has taken her on charge.

It must have been noted by all that after the panic of the original announcement that she was too be scrapped had died away, no one seems keen to take an axe to her currently or even too move her too a better site for dismantling, my best guess is watch that space and the TVOC website for information on her future.

As for the 1-11, lets hope that means can be found to move her once more before the site managers start getting tetchy about her being there, they do seem determined too extract every last penny in revenue from the site, no matter what damage they do too others in the process.

Nice nostalgic thought that 724 should spend her remaining days at what is left of Binbrook as a reminder too future interested parties of the former stations heyday, but in reality both will fade away if left too the foibles of this line of thinking and the only sure way of ensuring the long term future of the airframe is too move it to a more secure location and provide it with covered storage and better facilities to maintain it.

Fiasco is an understatement on the cancellation of the AEW3 project, while on the face of it the Nimrod was prime candidate for a new AEW system, industry was already very nervous of such a venture, and rightly so, to take what was effectively a 1940’s designed airframe, pack into it all the required equipment and still have room for rolling update programs which are an evil you cannot escape from, hang on too this aging airframe a completely untried, even at that time undersigned radar system and do so at a cost that the nation could afford too justify is the one thing the then Labour government seemed to have avoided somehow considering.

To add to the countries AEW woes, said government then seemed to go down with a dose of collective amnesia as they forgot everything that should have been learned and tried the whole thing over again with the MRA4 project, another farce foisted on the UK voters by a government that sadly seems more content in avoiding the issue at any expense than addressing the real problems one of which is that this country no longer requires such a capability, we have no air force to speak of that could make use of such an incredibly expensive piece of kit, what little we do have is mostly controlled by NATO systems using US equipment, something the UK should have purchased at the time the first ideas of converting the Nimrod fleet were floated.

How the MRA4 farce pans out in total we have yet too see but I do not doubt it will cost the tax payer in excess of a billion pounds to fail yet again leaving one wondering how that money could have been better spent keeping the UK Air Force in better shape than it currently is.