If she is living on borrowed time with her engines then how are they going to justify the expense of the life extension if they lose another engine and she is grounded anyway??

This is a very important point. Is there no info on how many engines they have? I had understood when the two engines were lost that there were no more and wondered how they could continue flying as any fault arising away from base would in effect maroon the aircraft. I had therefore somewhat assumed that another engine was available as they continue to fly. I do think this information should be in the public domain because of its large public funding and people should be aware of the risks involved.

Ah many thanks.

Are not two factors at play here, the legal and emotional position. I understand that the laws relating to salvage only apply to tidal waters and therefore do not apply in this case. I do not think it is disputed now that ownership was originally with the family and that ownership now lies elsewhere in which case a clear understanding of the terms of the transfer for a consideration should have been understood by both parties at that time. With the terms of the transfer understood substantial money and time has been spent restoring K7 with the clear intention to make a run on Coniston Water. There are also the sponsors to consider.

Has not the moral position been fully considered with the family consulted and an agreement reached. Whilst no doubt everybody fully sympathises with the emotions in play here and how these can change with time especially as any “event” draws near these factors should have been taken into account at the time of the agreement. I believe that Miss. Campbell is a power boat racer and an astute business woman and therefore should clearly understand the implications of the original agreement and the complications of changing course now. This would tend to indicate, as has been said by others, that there is more to this than the emotional situation which has been brought into play.

As things stand now what amounts to “contractual” agreements should be completed with the intended run on Coniston Water.

Personally, I feel that another run is a very fitting and memorable tribute to one of Britain’s great heroes and should take place on the basis that the agreement of the relatives had been previously obtained. If the family had wanted to have the final say they should not have allowed ownership to have passed out of their control together with the financial implications that went with that.
It is unlikely that the media is going to see anything other than the emotional side of this and it is very necessary that the other side of the case be put wherever and whenever possible.

I fear that there may well be worse to come.

For what it is worth in what is now a public relations exercise I voted YES.

View 1:30 to 1:40 low level upside down.

Interestingly enough, Bager, despite the latest two threads only being started 5 days apart the later thread did seem to attract new comments, possibly because it has been viewed more.

This thread drew my attention to this interesting storey which would not have been the case if the original poster had found the previous threads and not posted. Who knows how long it would have been before I browsed to the previous threads.

This thread entitled “B-17 “All American” (414th Squadron, 97BG)” has at the time of writing 220 views and the later thread “WW2 – B 17 survival story – unclassified” 870 views. So it would seem it is all in the name to attract attention.
I am pleased that this was brought to my attention, although it could be argued that adding to the previous posts would have had the same results by bringing it to the top of the pile.

Of course, the search engine does not exactly encourage people to look for previous posts either as you rightly pointed out!!!!

I still fail to understand what this is doing in Historic – shouldn’t it be in MM?:confused:

Does a 33 year old plane not count as historic?
Or perhaps the notion we can afford the Red Arrows is historic.

But don’t get me wrong I am strongly in the keep camp.