BomberboyUnfortunately I’ll be in Florida then.
Not back until the 9th so i’ll have to pass
Bomberboy
BomberboyDid ‘Hawg wild’ fly to Duxford from the States?
Indeed it did!
1980 or 81 I believe.
Bomberboy
BomberboyI think the success of the Vulcan project is in part due to the general public support for the project, and the public profile has only be raised by the appeals that went out when the project was near crisis. Therefore, if you want your project to succeed, you need to have a number of points where you are near the death of the project. In order to focus minds, you need to have a tight deadline or a desparate need for cash. Its amazing what an imminent go/no-go decision can achieve!
Andy
Indeed FF, this is a very good point and may be exactly the reason it has suceeded.
Nashio966, my point was not really aimed at just operating costs, it was aiming at about observing principles of how those that have gone before and have already been through certain processes (painful learning curves) which in turn are able to help others later and so save lots of potential grief & time.
Also that there has been no real comparison to the B-17, until now, but with the big difference being one has been lovingly nurtured and displayed for 33 years by a volunteer weekend crew (unpaid) with always having to find funds somehow and the other having been lovingly restored with £6m (some of it public money) and a commercial company (paid workers) carrying out that task.
The result was to try and say that you cannot operate something like a B-17 for 33 years without equally massive public support both in terms of money, effort and sheer determination.
The Vulcan has flown once, which in itself is a fantastic thing, but just because it has does not mean it’s the only thing that can acheive greatness.
Longevity takes far more effort and I notice some of the previous posts already point out their wish that having got there and ‘had the big day’ the interest does not slide, not just for the Vulcan but for the whole of the aviation preservation movement.
As I said before I cannot wait to see her and hope that this might give somebody somewhere the much needed boost to really pursue the next Evolutionary challenge of say……………A Lightning!!!
Bomberboy
BomberboyCongratulations to all involved in reaching this unique magnificent achievement!
It’s so nice to be able to say that another 4 engined ‘heavy’ is back in the air where we all want it.
As with lots of other comments that have been posted, I sincerely hope this has a blossoming positive effect on the whole of the aircraft preservation movement.
This is a significant achievement, but it has only come about with an equally significant amount of funding which has allowed many people to work on this aircraft in a fully professional and commercial capacity, not voluntary, and so we must also take stock of all the other organisations that do not have the finances for this ‘commercial’ capacity and put it into perspective.
The reason I say this is Bruce made the following comment “I am frankly amazed at the level of support the aircraft has. I dont think any other aircraft could have done it – not the Lancaster, not a Spitfire – nothing.”
I think that this in an unfair comment because sometimes longevity takes much more more effort and resources than a sprint.
My obvious angle here is B-17 Sally B.
This venerable old girl has just completed her 33rd display season, where she is operated by a relatively small dedicated team, but without financial figures anywhere near that consumed by this wonderful Vulcan and that therefore leaves the question, will the Vulcan still be flying in 33years time? I doubt it, but in order to achieve this she has had to have an equally significant amount of support if not greater in order to achieve what she has.
I know from fact that the VTTSC has looked at many aspects of how Sally B has been operated and been able to continue it’s operation, taken them in, digested them and then applied various aspects themselves.
This I was told directly by the Dr, when I asked him a question about the Vulcans future operations, regulations and restrictions and he immediately referred me to the fact that there was a B-17 at Duxford and that they watch what happens with her and then follow up themselves.
That said I can’t wait to see the Vulcan in the air again and to ‘feel’ the noise!!!!
The last time I say this baby fly was at Cranfield I think, in 1993 and never thought I see one in the air again……just goes to show what can be done!
Bomberboy
BomberboyHe’res an excellent link for precisely the kind of good cause we are all talking abount here!
http://www.fly2help.org
Bomberboy
BomberboyIt seems most of Duxford is currently migrating (presumeably) to Goodwood. I have had at least 6 warbirds pass over this afternoon, out of which I think I’ve identified 2 Spits, a Hurricane and a Mustang and heard but not seen the other 2……
You seem to forget that Lydd is also on!
Bomberboy
BomberboyI like her looks as well, is it just me or does the large windows on the brigde make it look smaller than it actually is?
Considering she has a displacement between 7 and 7.5 k/tons she is not a little ship.
All the other destroyers that the RN have at the moment are appx 3 to 3.5 k/tons.
IMHO I think she looks the doggies danglies!
Bomberboy
BomberboyWell, fantastic though it would be to see Glacier Girl this year (or ever in all honesty), I can’t help but get tantalisingly excited about the thought of postponing the flight for a year….
…and sending her back in 2008 as a ‘Little Friend’ to Liberty Belle…
Legends 2008: Yanks Over Here.
3 B-17 Flying Forts
escorted by 6 P-51 Mustangs, a P-38, P-39, P-40, P-47.
How about it?! 😮
Well there’s been 5 forts flying together before now, but three would still be fantastic.
What a fantastic effort to get at least oe of the planes here.
Bomberboy
BomberboyOMG, where’s a picture of the Skoda that it straddled, leapfrogged and sliced up, down both sides before it came to rest on the Talbot?
😀 :diablo: 😀 :diablo:
Bomberboy
BomberboyI have a little list, but i’m not sure if it’s complete – I’m not really interested in keeping any form of flying log!!!!!!!
Catalina VP-BPS 3 x water landings (before it wore this reg)
Catalina G-PBYA
JU 52 (CASA) not sure, but flown by Peter Hoare (early to md 80s)
DC-3 (One of AA’s)
DC-3 PH-DDA at the opening of Schipols new tower c1991
Auster J1 Autocrat G-AGTO
DH Dragon Rapide (one of Classic wings’s)
B-17 Sally B
B-17 Pink Lady
B-17 F-BEEA
B-17 N17W
B-17 N3703G
Super 180 (Cessna I think, owned by Maurice Hammond)
DH Tiger Moth G-AIRK?
DH Tiger Moth (one of the Cambridge flying club)
Bomberboy
Bomberboy..page 375
It would suggest that it was only carrying a crew of 9. I know many Groups operated with Toggliers, rather than Bombardiers (they bombed on the mark of the lead Bombardier), but not sure which position they would have given up, or asked to perform that role (?).
This in the right direction.
A Togglier was a mix of a Bombardier/Navigator all rolled into one, but not necessarily as masterful in the relevant crafts as the singularly focused skills.
There was also the practice to only carry one waist gunner per-see, with the second waist gunners position being filled by the then largely unoccupied (over the enemy territory at least) Radio Operator.
I notice you intimate to have some link with the 398th perhaps (station 131 in your sign off), well as they were a late group to partake in hostile action, I believe they would have operated these methods more so than perhaps the well established groups.
Bomberboy
BomberboyJust for the record the collection was started by David Cotton.
Apoligies to Benyboy it was Bomberboy
Ahh yes, that was the name that I couldn’t quite place!
Thanks for that!
I first came accross this gentleman in 1990 I believe and remember well the comments he made about how this collection was to both ‘grow’ & ‘prosper’!
I take it he has not been involved for ‘quite some time’ then?
With what I read here, I make no critisism about those who save airframes, but if they have no real further interest and there are others that would be keen to acquire some if not all of them, then surely that has to be in the interest of the airframe(s) concerned before they dissappear before our very eyes?
If not by rot, then by the sheer wanton destruction at the hands of vandals or souvenir hunters who do steal items from anywhere regardless.
The more something looks derelict and uncared for, then the more it will attract the wrong kind of ‘visitor’!
I cannot see how anyone can make an honest argument to keeping these airframes in this kind of situation, just because of sentimentality.
I like the term keyboard jockeys and agree with Roy (AKA WV838) that there are many.
Fortunately I am happy to report that I am not one of them!!!
Bomberboy
BomberboyStuart Holder is one of the nicest people you can ever meet & one of pioneers of the preservation scene.
What he & his father have achieved at Long Marston over the years (with little help),
I seem to recall in the distant past a chap called David……..and I think his surname began with a B had something to do with this lot………
simply cannot compare to those with nothing better to do than cruise forums all day.
Spot on!!!!!!
If more people took your initiative Rebecca, and get ‘stuck in’ at their local museum, then long standing collections like Long Marston would be much more healthier. People that post without any concept of the true facts, really annoy me.
I agree!!!
Everyone seems to be of the opinion that ‘they’ can do whatever they see fit with ‘their’ airframes. Wrong !!! What Long Marston needs is help, not forum jockeys condeming the place to death.
But i digress, this has been debated before, and no doubt it will again in the future.
Not sure with what you are saying here, but at the end of the day, if the owner of an airframe, or car or whatever it may be wants to do nothing with it then that is his/her right.
we may not like it, I know I don’t but that is a fact none the less.
You also have to consider, as I’m sure some have not, but it may have been the possibility that in some cases, new owners may have saved an airframe from already being scrapped a long time ago even though they may appear to be in trouble now,but at least they are there.
Bomberboy
Bomberboywow, what a memory, sounds like you were there, or very nearby.
Hey B-17 Man, good to hear from you.
Could be!
Carpetbagger has pulled an old thread and so has thrown a little more light on this!!!
It never ceases to amaze me that someone has the time and the nounce to go through pertinent old threads, that others of us forget had been composed in the first place and are able to pick out the info?? amazing!!!!!
I wouldn’t have the time let alone the inclination.
I don’t get on here much unfortunately but I hear Dee-Bak is good this time of year?
I cannot believe it’s been 18 years since.
Bomberboy
BomberboyClose,
but actually the crash was on the afternoon of Tuesday 25th July 1989.
Bomberboy
Sign In
