it’s simply a great old aircraft that a select minority if the population want to see again. The few are stamping their feet because the many, frankly, just aren’t that interested.

Sadly, I think Lancman has hit the nail squarely on the head – although many non-enthusiasts would probably say ‘yes they would like to see a Vulcan again’ if asked “Would you like to see a Vulcan airborne again?”, I suspect few of the 60 Million UK population would say ‘yes’ if they were asked “Would you be prepared to travel to an airshow and by an admission ticket, and/or make a donation, in order to see a Vulcan in the air?”.

Being happy to see something unique that someone else has funded is one thing, actually putting you hand in your own pocket to do so is something entirely different – unless, of course, you have a real interest in whatever it is.

And, quote from XN293 – “I think there are plenty of opportunities for prospective sponsors of the Vulcan but it won’t be easy and it will require some creative minds who aren’t afraid to take a few risks.”.

I cannot fault the logic, but, given the current global credit crunch//slowdown, how many PR/Marketing teams will be unafraid to take a risk on something as esoteric as a 1950’s cold war bomber when spending their companies hard won cash – very few I suspect?

Anyway, this is my third “two-penneth” on the subject, so I’ll leave the thread free for others…

They’ll get a lot more return on the investment with a TV advert. I think the difference here is between philanthropy and sponsorship. Sponsors want a return for their money. The Vulcan is going to display in RAF colours but when there are acts such as Team Guinot which are flying billboards and presumably cost less, then philanthropy becomes more important. A lot of the heritage of this country (not just aviation) does depend on philanthropic donations, but it takes a lot of skill to keep such support in place.

Indeed Pondskater, and JDK above – and that is probably what TVOC overlooked.

Sponsorship of the magnitude expected was/is probably unlikely, due to all the factors mentioned on this thread – limited exposure (i.e. number of bums on seats that will actually see 558 in the air), limited social cross-section audience (i.e. whose bums they are), compare that to the wider exposure other PR options for same cash outlay might gain a sponsor.

Apart from major oil companies and airlines, and possibly a couple of well known tyre/brake pad manufacturers or relatively unfamiliar (to Joe Public) engineering copmanies, who else is there who might benefit from having their name mentioned on the airshow PA-system, or in all the “specialist mags” when she appears. The firm who built her doesn’t really exist anymore – except as a dim memory within BAe, so what would they gain? The only user of the type (RAF) doesn’t offer sponsorship. So who else is left with any real link to her?

Unfortunately, is is also sad but true, that once they have left the airshow and are on the way home, few non-enthusiast punters would remember which corporation had helped put 558 in front of them unless it was already a household name. So what would the hoped-for sponsors gain, apart from a dent in their PR budget?

However, if she were allowed to become a 111foot flying billboard, carrying a corporate logo/colours, then perhaps sponsors would be more forthcoming – just think how many people would see that logo everytime they looked at their home video or photos. Unfortunately that would then contravene the Cold-war education aspect of the project’s HLF award – and risk a whole generation growing up thinking the cold war deterrent was sponsored by an airline, or a fast-food, soft-drink, soap powder, or aftershave (delete as applicable) company!

Philanthropy is fine, but I am not sure how many philanthropists will donate the equivalent of £50K per month to this project, unless they are british, and aviation fantatics too. There is only one face I can think of that might fit that bill, has anyone approached the “bearded one” from a philanthropic standpoint rather than from a corporate sponsorship standpoint? Though I suspect his interest in aviation matters probably stems more from the publicity it generates, rather than from a deep seated love of aviation.

All congratulations to the guys and girls who got her back into the air, I sincerely hope their efforts were not in vain, but I fear the reality is that this was at best a barely viable prospect, and at worst could turn into a PR nightmare for HLF and historic aviation. I salute their achievement as engineers, they have achived what many thought imposssble already, but I fear it may prove to have been a triumph of enthusiasm over common (business) sense.

– I am also concerned that when (if?) she is to be retired to Duxford (or similar) as “one of the best preserved examples” of a cold war bomber, so much of her cold-war related systems have been stripped out to ease the technical side of getting her airborne that she is now little more than an external shell -a well preserved shell perhaps, but in no way representative of a working Vulcan bomber, capable of delivering a weapons load. Nasty as that aspect of a Vulcan was, surely that was her only raison d’etre – without that what does 558 really do to educate future generations that the current Cosford or Duxford examples do not?

I really do hope that funds are found to get her to the shows for a couple of years, but deep,deep, down I cannot honestly say I expect to see her – as the old adage goes “Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst”.

Paul F

A far cry from today’s bargain flights that occasionally look like a third world inter-city bus.:D

Look, sound and all too often smell like one too.

Only thing missing is the massed humanity trying to hang on to the outside!!!!

Paul F

Of course, in those days air travel was still for the relatively “well off” few, the days of airtravel for the great unwashed masses had not yet dawned, or even been dreamt of, and so a degree of “expected” luxury/comfort was probably “built in” to the space per head.

Nowadays it’s all about cramming as many heads into each aluminium tube as possible so as to maximise heads per flight, and thus try and convince the paying public that being cramped is good for their wallet (if not for their circulatory systems!).

Note the absence of over-head stowage bins in the interior shot in the earlier post – I wonder where the hand luggage was going to be stowed? Presumably the helpful and courteous cabin crew carefully took it form you as you were welcomed aboard, and then carefully stowed it in convenient locker somewhere – no need to damage your back/shoulder muscles whilst trying to wrestle your maximum-weight/maximum-size hand luggage into an already full overhead locker, and then having to use a crowbar to remove it again at the end of the flight, whilst deperately hoping that none of the contents have been broken by whomever threw/forced their heavy duty free or laptop bag in on top if it.

Just think of this thread next time you are trying to “enjoy” a flight in the back end of a modern airliner 🙁 .

Paul F

Hi Pete,

Why not report them to the local HSE office – I’m sure they will rap a few knuckles (or not – as the mood takes them).

Down here at Gatwick it’s still windy, bit no where near as bad as it was on Monday…

Paul F

A few months back there was a thread discussing the safety implications of a very low pass during a display of (IIRC) a Portuguese Airbus (TAP?).

A number of inexperienced posters praised the piloting skills on display, others among us expressed concern as to the risks taken. A number of misguided posters suggested that the display was safe due to the airbus having a FBW system which they believed would avoid all risk of the aircraft coming into contact with the ground by limiting bank angles etc. I, for one, tried to explain that no FBW is fully “idiot proof”, as it cannot possibly guarentee that no ground contact will happen – especially in cases where wind gusts are sudden and/or extreme.

I believe this recent incident with the LH airbus proves my/our point – the FBW may well have helped avoid a more serious accident as a result of the groundstrike, (by ensuring the aircraft operated at its limits of perfomance during the “recovery and fly away” phase immediately after impact) but it could not prevent the wingtip hitting the runway as a results of an uncontrollable external influence (i.e. wind gust).

I rest my case that FBW CANNOT ever be considered as totally “foolproof”.

Paul F