warbirdUKOriginally posted by Ant Harrington
[B
Btw,what’s that thing with the downturned wingtips under the nose of the Vulcan?? [/B]
It’s a MkVI German Von shed, early types were of wood construction but this may be a one off as it has wooden spars with a metal skin, this is also rare as the skin has a convolution built into it very much the same way as the JU52 but with the grooves running the other way. Early flight trials found the grooves were producing an instability at around 200 knots so the panels were turned which cured the problem. This was then copied by the afore mentioned JU52 and the rest, as they say, is history! I am surprised that this exhibit is stored outside.;) 😉
Cheers
warbirdUKOriginally posted by Dez
David Burke, i know what you mean but i’d imagine its difficult to prioritise. with the AAM project having taken up most of there resource during the 90’s. I just wonder what commercial pressures IWM Duxford are under??
Nice to see that the AAM has taken priority over our national relics!
I would have thought it was easy to prioritise, we are in the UK not USA (however Blair & Bush may think!)
Warbird UK, Would straightening the prop make a great deal of difference given its current condition? (How easy is it to straigten a prop???)
Yes, I think it would, It would show someone cared!!
perhaps its easier to wait until theyve got there hands on it.Who?? i havent asked anyone at Duxford but id imagine if the airframe has no future then i doubt they would just let it sit and rot? maybe???
So by what you say, it has no future because it IS rotting!As for still collecting airframes, id imagine that some of IWM’s aquisitions come out of the blue and IWM don’t proactivly look for some types. Personally, I don’t see people dumping airframes over the fence without some sort of notification
again i don’t know the answer just trying to look at the scenario from IWM’s point of view.
If that IS their point of view then someone should be asking questions!
My understanding is that care and maint of aircraft is mainly carried out by DAS volunteers with a small team of full time engineers?
I suppose Robbo’s thoughts on this one hit the mark, Join the DAS! (Granted thats easier said than done!)
That’s OK if you live near DX. Surely you can’t just rely on volunteer labour to do all the workAll in all i agree that the Shackelton scenario is frustrating, however im not sure that IWM are to blame????
warbirdUKOriginally posted by Dez
I doubt that the IWM have deliberatly left this Shackelton to rot! I can’t imagine the conversation along the lines of “What shall we do withthe Shackelton?” , “Ah, Let it rot we don’t care!”:confused:Well who else controls the care of the airframes on display?? Look at the facts, the prop damage happened in 1987, 16 years ago & still the prop has not been straightened!
Look how much duxford has changed over the last few years, think of all the airframes that have recieved attention! I agree the Shack is in a sorry state and this sort of thing shouldn’t happen but we don’t have an ‘IWM Utopia’ Duxford like any other Museum has a resource and more so these days has to be run in a commercially sound way. I bet that Duxford would love another conservation hanger and a team of skilled people to go in it, but this just aint gonna happen. In the meantime lets just hope the Shack makes it 🙁
.So why do they still collect airframes for display??
Is there no charge to view the collection at Duxford ? I’ve only been there either with an aircraft at an airshow or on business.
warbirdUKDuxford Shackleton
Sad to see, & this is at one of the major aviation museums in the UK so what hope have we for lesser museums maintaining exhibits? It’s all very well grabbing all these airframes but if you can’t maintain them in an acceptable condition what is the point?
I also see what look like ‘Green rivets’ (magnesium) in the Shackleton so does this mean it has even less time with us than expected?
A sad sight to see, but even sadder to see is that the IWM appears to be an uncaring custodian of our historic aircraft.
I suppose the original owner gains brownie points from the preservation community & it’s less messy to donate a surplus airframe to a museum than to allow the scrap man to wield his axe while it’s left on site.
I also feel it’s quite insulting to the folk who cared for & maintained these aircraft while in service, When ever I saw these Shackletons at an air display they were always clean & tidy not how they are portrayed now looking little better than an item in a scrap yard.
warbirdUKMy wish for 2004 is for us all to be more tolerant of other types rather than just the aircraft we personally are interested in.
Cheers to you all & a Happy New Year!
warbirdUKRe: Re: Re: Re: Next years Warbird operators
Originally posted by Mike J
Firstly, I would be very surprised if it were true that third-party liability insurance is not mandatory in the UK
The only time I have ever heard of Insurance checks on aircraft was when we were due to fly at Air displays, we had to supply a copy of our 3rd party liability insurance cover prior to the booking. There is currently no check on private aircraft that I know of for proof of insurance cover while flying in the normal way. Some operators run without hull insurance which reduces premiums somewhat but when you look at the replacement cost of say a Spitfire at £1.25 Million then look at the 3rd party claims for a crash into the crowd at an airshow which could run to Millions of £££’s then you see that the insurance companies have a difficult task working out what their risk is going to be.
Looking back over the last few years there are more display aircraft coming on line with more pilots flying them, as we have seen some pilots can have relatively low hours on type or may not be as current as they should be, or have fuel upload constraints put on them by an owner/operator, all these items can have a bearing on risk, the more incidents we have with these aircraft the larger the risk database becomes & the higher the insurance premium becomes, I know for some of you the idea of a pilot screwing up is one you can’t believe but for once, face the facts, over the last 5 years there have been very few Aircraft accidents put down to mechanical defects & it is very difficult to evaluate the human factor for risk assessment. Unfortunately, these human facts only come to light after an accident, there seems to be little official policing of these points with it being left very much for people ‘to do the right thing’ in an almost ‘Gentleman’s’ agreement manner.
For the PPL’s out there, here is a question, How many times have you been asked after landing to produce your C of A, PPL, Radio licence or certificate of insurance?
I would be interested to know how many!
warbirdUKRe: Re: Next years Warbird operators
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Janie
warbirdUK: Please would you be good enough to clarify what this means exactly. From what I read above, your definition of “cease operation” is “no longer display them at public airshows”.
Does the definition also include simply owning and flying them for personal fun?
A, not as far as I know
Does it include practicing for Display Authorisations?
A, not as far as I know There are plenty of warbird owners who just like to enjoy their aircraft themselves and do not depend upon public displays. Would you know if their activities would be affected as severely by insurance increases?
A,It is not, as far as I know, a requirement to have insurance in force on private aircraft
If this is display-related then all the other types of aircraft seen at shows will be affected too surely? [/QUOTE
Yes, I would think that is so
warbirdUKOriginally posted by airshowsorguk
The main trouble is that airshow fees have been stationary if not falling while the insurance increase has continued. Airshow orgainsers only have a certain limit to the budget for aircraft at the show. The have to cover everything else on the ground too which has meant that money avialible for the aircraft participation has fallen.
So, does that not support what I have posted?
If the insurance premium for the aircraft rises then the fee for the aircraft to attend a show will increase therefore pricing the aircraft out of the market.
Who then makes up the difference?
May I also add that the level of 3rd party risk insurance is what the Airshow organisers demand of aircraft flying in the display, as I understand it, If you were to fly into the airfield on the Friday before the weekend, go static Sat & Sun then fly out on the Monday 3rd party risk insurance is not a requirement.
I believe Shuttleworth did not fly at RIAT due to the cost of the insurance
warbirdUKHi Ant,
It’s not rocket science to look back at the last few years & to see the losses that the insurance companies have had to pay out on, There has been a steady increase in the number of air shows over the years with that has come an increase in the number of pilots & aircraft available to show organisers, with this has also come an increase in risk to the insurance companies, thank God there has not been a major incident involving the paying public but by the law of averages this risk is increasing.
An additional change seems to be that in the past operators have been able to buy block hours insurance, so, if they wanted to fly say 50 hours per year they paid for a 50 hour block of insurance, now, as I understand it, they will have to pay an annual premium just as we do for our cars! I understand that it could be possible for a Warbird that is not flown that often to be costing £5,000 per hour just for the insurance! so to fly to say Duxford for a show, display & return to base could cost in excess of £10,000. How many Airshows can afford those sorts of fees?
I’m not sure, but I’m fairly sure that operators will not be able to buy the aviation equivalent to a Motor traders policy which covers any car the trader is driving so, looking at an operator like the Fighter Collection who operate quite a few aircraft of differing performances they will, I expect, have to insure each airframe on it’s own leading to a colossal insurance premium. Mr Grey, as nice a chap as he is, Is not going to work every hour he can just so he can display his fleet of Warbirds to us without them at least returning their running costs & neither is any other Warbird operator. So. The bottom line is look out for a reduction in Warbirds displaying in the UK this coming season.
warbirdUKRobert Rudhall
Very sad news,
My sincerest condolences to his family.
warbirdUKOriginally posted by Andrew-O
What did you expect ?It’s daytime TV – only for the mindless
What exactly is that supposed to mean?? :confused:
warbirdUKWell Done!!
Now move one row forwards in the P51 😀
Cheers
WB
warbirdUKGreat pictures! Why none of our PR Mk19??:D
warbirdUKThey wouldn’t dare!! Would they??
warbirdUKYes, there were problems mechanically with the engine & that caused the engine to fail, that is common knowledge, but a quitting engine near an airfield is not generally a life threatening situation to an experienced pilot like Martin, What killed him was a French c**k up of immense magnitude, telling the participants at the briefing that, If you have a problem land on runway XYZ, then allowing public to get onto runway XYZ so that when an emergency happened there was no where for the aircraft to land, that is what caused his death. Not the engine problem!
Having attended two French Air Shows in the past as a ground support unit, I have to say they have been the least professional airside of all the air shows I have been to in Europe (and I’ve been to a few over the years!)
Sign In
