.
Two pictures of G-APRR on airliners.net when it masquaraded as a HE-111 smiles

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Let-Aero-Ae-45/1161713/M/

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Let-Aero-Ae-45/1161712/M/

regards

Matk Pilkington

.
I have always enjoyed the music used for the BoB film and the “Mosquito Squadron, and they make good sound overs at airshows, but the “Snoopy and Red Baron” song has really worn out its welcome for me.

smiles

Mark Pilkington

.
Perhaps it is time to put the Falklands War, Vulcan to USA and personal disputes aside?

and focus on XH558, the topic of this thread, & the remaining time left on the “Vulcan to the Sky Trust” count down and pledge tally.

http://www.vulcantothesky.org/

XH558 Will Be Grounded
In
05 Days, 04:17:58 Pledged £477,893

Vulcan ’09 Pledge Campaign
<– TIME IS RUNNING OUT
If the clock reaches zero before the pledged amount exceeds £1,000,000 then XH558 will be grounded forever.

Vulcan XH558 will be grounded forever, unless further funding of £1million is identified by early March. This funding will allow the project to pay its monthly expenses, clear debt and provide a stable financial footing for the future.

But why is your Vulcan so important?
In a word – EDUCATION!

In line with our motto “Honouring the Past, Inspiring the Future”, we returned XH558 to display status for two educational reasons:

To teach Britain’s youth about the pivotal role that Britain played in the Western World’s defence at a time of political uncertainty and instability

To inspire our children and grandchildren to choose a career in Britain�s design, engineering and scientific industries

Vulcan XH558 is not privately owned, but operated as a National Heritage Asset. She belongs to every man, woman and child in Britain and is an iconic and emotive example of Britain’s pivotal position in World technology and foreign affairs.

‘The Vulcan Effect’ is a unique and powerful tool – without your immediate help it will be gone forever.

The Vulcan ’09 Pledge Campaign will raise those funds so please sign up now (via the Pledge button) and play your part in securing the future of the world’s only flying Vulcan. Your pledge will only be called upon when we are confident of reaching the target.

Please help us weather this economic Perfect Storm; we are working on a new business model aimed at avoiding this situation arising again next year.

Please remember that even a relatively small monthly pledge is a significant help – supporters have already pledged in excess of £410,000, with a significant proportion coming from the intensive efforts of members of the Vulcan to the Sky Club.

Thanks to all who are intent on keeping XH558 flying and thrilling through 2009
To Make A Pledge Click Here

Robert Pleming
24th February 2009

Message from the Chief Executive, VTST,
2nd February 2009 > Today, the amount of money raised through our “Vulcan ’09 Pledge Campaign” stands at over £244,000, pledged by more than 2200 people, making the average pledge worth over £100.

So at the beginning of the month 2200 people had pledged 244k pounds, at the end of the month the tally is 478k pounds? Kev made the right point, why are’nt the 30,000 Trust members getting behind this?

If the 30,000 members could each pledge an extra 20 UK pounds the problem would be solved? – seems a real possibility they could get over the line for this year if the members wanted it?

Interesting statements of:

This funding will allow the project to pay its monthly expenses, clear debt and provide a stable financial footing for the future.

and

we are working on a new business model aimed at avoiding this situation arising again next year.

Perhaps there is hope that the 60,000 UK pound per month operating costs can be reduced?, or that increased and regular monthly subscriptions from all 30,000 members will make operations sustainable?

ie if the project only needs 60,000 UK pounds month to operate, then it only needs a 2.00 UK pounds a monthly subscription?, or 24.00 UK pounds per annum, from those 30,000 members, to meet the annual costs?

regards

Mark Pilkington

.
WD827 at the Australian National Aviation Museum at Moorabbin

http://www.aarg.com.au/Default.htm

and some views seen via the museum 3-D virtual tour.

http://www.aarg.com.au/ipix_images/VirtualTour4.htm

http://www.aarg.com.au/ipix_images/VirtualTour8.htm

regards

Mark Pilkington

I think we’ve had discussions about this style of spade grip before, it’s from a Harvard IV.

Yes you could be right –

Harvard IV

Harvard II and IIB

However it is surprising that the casting numbers are still so low, given the Harvard IV was considered a quasi T6J and therefore from a design and contract point of view had the risk of inheriting a later and updated casting from the Harvard II NA-66, or Harvard III NA-88 rather than utilising a casting design from the earlier NA-16 period?

I am not sure what the Harvard I used, (other than the quote below) but I guess it would have been ordered and fitted out to match the early RAF fighters such as the Hurricane, so 682al’s comment below makes sence.

Perhaps from the thread you refer to

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=23077

25th March 2004, 15:44
682al
Rank 5 Registered User Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: in the shed
Posts: 747

Harvard grips are sometimes touted as Hurricane. I think they may use the same basic casting, or a very similar one, but because the Harvard version does not require a brake lever, the pneumatic pipes are held in place at the rear (or should that be front?) by a stainless steel plate which is secured to the grip by two bolts of different size. The bolts screw into the same holes that would be occupied by the brake lever and parking catch pivots on the Hurricane grip, so it’s easy enough to remove them and insert the lever and catch. Hey presto, you’ve got a Hurricane grip!

A proper grip for the Harvard I and II should be stamped AH2242, a proper Hurricane, AH2040.

For the record, AH2040 also “fits” the Battle, Fulmar, Lysander I and II, Skua, Swordfish and Whirlwind!

This is all as per A.P.1086 but I wouldn’t mind betting that there were various swaps made during the course of production and service. I’m sure I’ve seen a AH2040 fitted to the top of a Harvard column and looking pretty genuine.
__________________
Who’s the bloke in your avatar?

Regards

Mark Pilkington

Chox

I’m glad you recognise there isnt a great deal of interest in the Vulcan in the USA, at least here we have some common ground.

The problem is finding the funding, not maintaining the airframe, and the USA does not offer improved fundraising, simply because of a larger population, if focused on population size alone you would be flying to India or China instead.

But your point regarding statistics is misleading, yes there is perhaps 5 times the population of the UK in the USA, but that is only of value if the level of donations per head can achieve 20% or more of that being already achieved in the UK.

Lack of relevence, and competition for support would lead common sense to suggest the funding would be far less than that already being achieved in the UK, regardless of increased population – in reality the US General Public would have no great interest in it at all, whereas the UK General Public may have some patriotic interest in it.

Flying it to the USA, just because its “bigger” is not a risk worth taking without some hard evidence that there will be more funding available there than is currently being achieved, and previously achieved in the UK.

You can gauge the level of support for the Vulcan accurately through focus groups, market surveys, approaches to likely sponsors etc , you dont need to fly it there to “find out”?

There are already many “home grown” aviation heritage “good causes” needing support in the USA, far more in fact than are rattling the tin in the UK in competition to the Vulcan.

Not that this is an exhaustive survey but it doesnt suggest massive support in the enthusiast population that would translate to funding?

http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=28109&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

And why would US corporations wish to sponsor a foreign military aircraft in its foreign military colour scheme, whats the marketing proposition that works for them but not for Virgin Airlines or others in the UK?

Yes it could be flown to the USA for inhibiting and dry storage, but that would only be of benefit if it was going to be mothballed for a medium term say 5 years, if it was only going to be “grounded” for 1-2 years it could be maintained in the open and on the ground just as well in the UK.

Equally it could be maintained near indefinately for future return to airworthiness in the UK if placed undercover and its spares, engineering and aircrew support could be retained?

Undercover storage in the UK would not expose the airframe to deterioration due to dust, extreme temperatures etc that would still do damage to rubber seals etc. The longer the exposure to the elements, and the time expiry of parts, the less likely it would be to ever be flown again, regardless of location.

Undercover storage/display and ground running in the UK would not preclude its return to the air if funding is found, therefore this would seem to be safer and more practical alternative than flying off to the USA for an uncertain future?

However I am glad we both agree there’s no rich Texan waiting in the wings.

Yes perhaps David Walton did nearly sell the aircraft to NASA years ago,

but “nearly” isnt “did”, and “years ago” isnt “now”

– “today” what? research does NASA need it for, and that the Vulcan is the “only”, “best suited” or most “cost effective” way to undertake it.

A phone call to NASA to find out is far cheaper than flying it out to the USA “just in case” NASA might be interested?

I think the issue is quite simple, those who wish to see the Vulcan remain flying need to subscribe regular donations to TVOC now ,and encourage as many friends, family and neighbours to do so as well, along with writing letters encouraging HLF and Government to support the project, and hope the weight of public support causes them to do so?

I dont hold much hope of HLF getting involved, but I do agree with you that there is no harm in trying.

If TVOC cant raise the funds, and cant deliver its original business plan it needs to come to terms with that situation.

“558” was always going to be retired from the air sometime, TVOC should be implementing that plan (even with a return to air pathway) parallel to calling for rescue packages.

I would agree the “Fly to the USA” debate has been done to death.

(“quote free” to avoid the editorial knives of moggy!, but twice as long to reply and debate the earlier post)
regards

Mark Pilkington

additional US funding would be exceeded by the reduction on local UK funding, make it a nett loss strategy
Says who? How do you know what funding might be available unless you go and look?

Hmmm 56,885 pounds raised recently in pledges in the UK, how much raised in the USA – NIL, you comment defies the evidence, and common sense?

Regards

Mark Pilkington

If you read what I said, I merely pointed-out that spending millions of pounds to get an aircraft (ie 558) into taxy condition is no achievement at all – and it isn’t! It would be a monumental waste of money.

Chox,

I would agree, your main points have been to put forward suggestions for 558’s continued operation in the air, and many share your concern that it would seem a massive waste of money if it only suceeds in flying for 12 months.

I am also sure you haven’t intended to argue against static or ground running exhibits, just that you dont prefer that outcome for 558 given its ability to fly, but perhaps the usage of terms such as “rotting away” could have been better phrased?

Anyway, no hard feelings – here’s one of my happy snaps to remind us of better days…

I would agree, I enjoy a good debate, and am happy to change my views and opinions when shown logic and evidence to do so. I hope you end up being correct, and that there is alternatives that do keep the Vulcan flying.

regards

Mark Pilkington