Richard Branson? Well at least he’s said something on the subject at last. If TVOC have any gumption they’ll pressure him to do more. Even if he can’t/won’t sponsor the aircraft he has the ability to make one hell of a PR splash out of giving TVOC one donation if he wanted to.
.

I would invite Branson to paint the tail and wing undersurface with BIG red “V” and brand it the “Virgin Vulcan” for the entire 2009 flying season, if he funds the outgoings, the PR return to him would be direct, and lasting, equal to any magazine or tv advertisements, but the basic issue with sponsorship of it in camouflage is that any acknowledgements of sponsorships will go in one ear and out the other during an Airshow commentary and have little lasting commercial value outside the actual day of viewing.

Corporate logos on F1 cars, are seen instantly by the spectators, but also by a wider and re-occuring audience on tv and video broadcasts, TV News coverage, still photos in Newspapers, magazines etc, the same is true of the Red Bull fleet, if they were all in period camouflage who would really recall the Red Bull sponsorship?

I understand “policy” precluded corporate colourschemes, but if faced with being grounded, or flying in corporate colours or with large very visable signage I would go with the second option?

The America saga has been raised before. I discussed it at length on here and Pprune weeks back and people scoffed at the idea even though it’s entirely plausible (indeed David Walton nearly sold 558 to Nasa years ago). It’s only being “kept for the nation” until it’s “not kept for the nation” – simple as that. If nobody will finance it here then surely it’s worth getting the aircraft out of the UK to at least try elsewhere, rather than let her rot under CAA restrictions here in the UK. But my view is that TVOC have no intention of even considering the idea. Once their wages income stops coming in we won’t see them for dust I suspect.

As to someone in the USA buying it? unlikely that anyone would buy it to fly it, of little relevance = of little commercial value on the airshow circuit, it would require a rich Texan with fond memories of the home country.

The option of TVOC flying it to the USA just consumes the remaining funds quicker, reduces the likelihood of significant ongoing UK funding, and strands it in USA without a funding/maintenance or volunteer resource, it would simply die quicker, it wouldnt be on ice for a revived flight program in 5 years time.

Then there’s the option of TVOC flying it to the US funded by someone else, well perhaps if its fate in the UK is to become an outdoor display, either static or ground running, simply duplicating the existing examples, then the option of the UK government/TVOC gifting it to the Smithonian or NMUSAF and delivering it by air with their assistance might be an option?

– but would they really want it?, it would take up an acre of undercover floor space badly needed for their own heritage exhibits, and theres a static available already there for complete or cockpit preservation down the track.

– and will TVOC and or the UK Government really accept the egg on face of a 6+ Million pound public investment being effectively undertaken for visitors to a US Museum, surely thats rubbing more salt into the wound?

– will the UK Government and/or Heritage Lottery step in or respond to the petition? I personally cant see the Heritage Lottery or the UK Government touching this with a barge pole, they will point to the economic crisis and the need to invest in banks and jobs, not an unviable aircraft project, that will need $600k next year, and the year after, etc etc etc.

Unfortunately as the TVOC funds run out, their staff will depart, Marshall’s engineering efforts will cease, the airworthiness permits will expire, the life inspections of XM603 will become irrelevent and the steep hill facing anyone who wants to re-fly the aircraft will be far more daunting to fund and achieve sponsorship than the current funding shortfall?

:(:( :(:( :(:( :(:( :(:( :(:( :(:(

I always try to support other peoples projects and efforts, and there is a team of volunteers and enthusiasts who have put their heart and soul into this project and largely achieved their target of getting it back into the air, but the project’s business management who developed the amibitous business plan, and who failed to acquire any major sponsors last year even prior to the financial melt down have some answers to give the UK public and the Heritage Lottery in my mind.

It was an expensive, ambitious and in my mind unviable project, there are many people who have seen a vulcan fly, and $6M pounds to let a new generation see one fly will be a very expensive investment if it only lasts one season, but the project only ever planned 10 years operation, after that people would need to rely on photos’ films and static or ground running examples, the same situation that has existed for the last 15 years.

The original business plan intended @$600k+ UK pound operating costs per annum, ie what seemed obvious as ambitious annual sponsorship, without any corporate colourscheme or signage on offer.

Unfortunately failure of this project is a double wammy, the “loss” of $6M+ UK Pounds to UK aviation heritage that could have been far better spent putting a few roof’s over the other static examples, or into other more viable airworthy, static or museum projects, but the other issue is this failure may make corporate sponsors, and the Government more wary of future aviation heritage projects across the board (and not only in the UK!).

I have seen a Vulcan fly, one swooped low directly over my house, while I was laying on the roof of my garage as a kid in the late 1960’s, while watching the aircraft from a very long distance at a Laverton Airshow, it was impressive then, and I am sure it would be impressive now, and its been fortunate for those who have seen the aircraft fly over this last year to have been able to do so, either for the first time, or otherwise.

However, and unfortunately, I think the flying days of any Vulcan are now coming to close.

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Hopefully this a/c can be retained where it is, or can be ferried to an appropriate permanent home under cover,and perform ground runs etc.

Hopefully TVOC are implementing a continguency plan for the “retirement” and long term future of the aircraft, as would have been required at the end of its flying career in anycase?

Regards

Mark Pilkington

There have been seven snake bite cases reported already this Xmas…because of the drought they’re venturing further into local parks and playgrounds looking for food and water…bloody things kill ’em all on sight i say

They probably say the same thing about you steve, smiles,

I lived on a 5 acre property, and dispatched each one I found to ensure safety of my family and young children, I had 3 boys running around my back yard when my wife stepped over one holding one son saying “look at the lizard” – oh that lizard doesnt have legs” – obviously my sons were very lucky not to have stepped on it and been bitten.

But I do not try and kill those I see on open roads, or in the bush, all of those I have encountered at home were tiger snakes of @ 1′ to 3′ in length, the largest I have seen was a Brown snake crossing a road in the You Yangs, it exceeded the width of the single car bitumen strip, probably 7′ to 8′ in length, but it was in its own environment and I was the visitor.

These animals dont seek us out to kill us, they simply live their lives as nature has intended, and we need to be wary when entering their domain, rather than obliterating them each time we find them.

I am not surprised a Great White, Bronze Whaler or other large shark doesnt take a bite out of a swimmer or diver to see if they’re edible, my goldfish spend all day chewing on fishtank gravel in the hope it is food.

regards

Mark Pilkington

.
my mistake,

even the atar jet engine hadn’t been fast enough to capture the current world landspeed record, but does hold the Australian land speed record.

My main point was that merlin engines are long since out of world land speed contention.

I think the “roadrunner” design name threw me off track, but I do now realise “top speed” was talking about an aircraft speed record, not a land speed record?

However I assume that would need to be a “prop”-speed record, and excluding turbo prop engines too?

for what is now irrelevent interest >

AUSSIE INVADER 2 (1989 – 1997)
– Current holder of the Australian Land
Speed Record set at Lake Gairdner SA
at 802 km/hr
– 18,000 lbs thrust
– 36,000 horsepower
– Max speed 608 mph

AUSSIE INVADER 3 (1997 – 2006)
– Latest challnger for the Australian Land Speed Record at Lake Gairdner, South Australia
– ATAR jet engine from RAAF Mirage fighter plane
– 18,000 lbs thrust
– 36,000 horsepower
– Maximum speed 641 mph

Regards

Mark Pilkington

German WW2 Aircraft External Compartment Cover RARE

Item number: 370155019521

This is a German World War II era Aircraft External Compartment Cover. Oval shaped aluminium alloy. About 21x14cm. Has large four prong locking mechanism on reverse.

Front has locking screw marked “Zu” and “Auf”. All paint now removed. From an unknown aircraft. In good condition

Certainly looks “aircraft” although the 4 way knife blade locking arrangement looks rather elaborate? perhaps inspired by bulkhead doors in naval ships?

putting the two together is it possible this is from a Dornier 24 Flying Boat?

it has “surfaced” in Bendigo, @ 1 hours drive from Lake Boga the RAAF’s wartime No.1 FBRD?

regards

Mark Pilkington

I can now see why the Australian argument is so strong, I didn’t realise until now that both the Walrus and Seagull V were both bought about and developed for an Australian Air Force requirement.

Yes its an interesting story, with Dickie Williams identifying the need for a seagull III replacement, and specifying it (perhaps without formal authority) to Supermarines who did the design for his approval.

One unfortunate problem was the design was too high for the on board hangar of the Seaplane tender HMAS Albatross when sitting on their own gear, and resulted in the need for wheeled cradles.

It was a very successful design for its time, and proved its worth in WW2 for cruiser spotting, and ASR.

I understand there is a fundamental difference between the Seagull V and Walrus relating to the retractable wheel well in the wing (not existing on the Seagull V?) (and I understand the wings on the RAAF Museum Walrus may be in fact Seagull V?)

Hopefully JDK the resident “steampidgeon” expert can confirm or correct?

so yes we want A2-4 back please,

smiles

Mark Pilkington

Mark V,

thanks for the clarification on the rear fuse surviving, and being used, I wasnt aware of that fact. despite the new wings I would agree the largely original fuselage constitutes 50% of the airframe as a traceable identity and authentic Walrus, and would therefore consider its a restored original rather than a composite.

I think the issue arises from the lack of an agreed/accepted and implemented set of terms to describe the various “states” of condition/intactness/authenticity?

Robert Mikesh’s book “Restoring Museum Aircraft”, written by a former Smithonian Curator provides the best guidance at this point in time, however it is primarily aimed at defining static display examples

Original – in original as-built or as used conifiguration and remains unaltered from the time it ended operational service

(The proverbial “roll it in”, chock it, and place the ropes, display signs and lighting around it).

There would be a number of intact “original” warbirds surviving today that largely meet this condition other than perhaps their current engine?

Restored Original – An artifact composed of at least 50% original components and the remainder returned to accurate early condition with the same materials, components and accessories.

(This would seem to equate to a “composite” using NOS parts or new construction under 50% of the structure, but having at least 50% of original structure to provide provenance / identity.

Replica – A “reproduction” built by the builder of the original artifact in part or total having substationally same type of structure / enginer -(a difficult and rare situationto be buitl by the original manufacturer I would have thought, however he then uses the example of a museum building a Gee Bee replica with technical supervision by a former Granville Brothers engineer,)

So perhaps not really requiring to be built by the original manufacturer, but perhaps built to the exact design/construction/engine type etc using manfacturers drawings / specifications/ designs – what we would more likely call a reproduction as in the Me 262, FW190, Oscars and F3F’s –

(This use is also contrary to the aviation use of replica to describe an new build aircraft achieving externally accurate looks, but using substationally modern construction methods and engines – ie the steel tube WW1 replicas using radial engines are commonly known as replicas).

Reproduction – A reasonable facsimile in appearance and construction with substationally same type of engine etc – and in particular “building of aircraft with the use of salvaged parts as pattern for new material which would exceed 50% from that of the original, “This would be a Reproduction with some original parts”. ( The last comment equating to our “data plate” aircraft being reproductions with some (if any) original parts, as against an original restoration with “some reproduction or new parts”.

Reconstruction – “Recreation” of cultural property or a part thereof, based on factual evidence, but on little or no original material in order to promote understanding – (would seem to be the correct label for new metal with an original data plate? bolted on)?

I personally think his definitions should be adjusted?

(And in fact I would swap the two reproduction/reconstruction labels over as in the art world “Reproduction implies no link to the original producer or artist at all, ie a copy,where as reconstruct implies something has been previously constructed, hence you might “reconstruct” an original identity with more than 50% of new material, and less than 10% of the original identifyable airframe, versus you can “reproduce” new examples ie accurately “reproduce” the type, but not reliant or linked to any original identities?.

I would also dispense with the special form of “Reproduction” by the original maker termed as a “Replica” (how often can/does that occur?) and relegate that term to the already accepted use for WW1 replicas etc. ie externally accurate full size new constructions to different design/materials/constructino methods etc

My revised definitions would be:

Original – in original as-built or as used conifiguration and remains largely unaltered from the time it ended operational service, other than refurbishment, and replacement of consumerbles such as tyres, brakes, engines and props,
(retains its traceable provenance, @100% authenticity and accuracy)

Restored Original – An artifact composed of at least 50% original components and those components being the cockpit/centre fuselage and or data plate of the identity, and the remainder returned to accurate early condition with the same materials, components and accessories, sourced from NOS stock or donor airframes, excluding allowance of replacement of consumerbles such as tyres, brakes, engines and props.
(retains its traceable provenance but @50%+ authenticity, but is accurate)

Composite Original – An artifact composed of less than 50% but more than 10% of original “identity” components and those components being the centre fuselage and data plate, and the remainder returned to accurate early condition with the same materials, components and accessoriies with original manufactured parts from NOS or donor airframes to achieve at least 50% original manufactured parts, excluding allowance of replacement of consumerbles such as tyres, brakes, engines and props.
(retains its traceable provenance, @25% authenticity, retains accuracy)

Reconstruction Aircraft build to original design/specification with more than 50% of new construction parts but based on at least 10% of an original identifyable airframe inclusive of the data plate. (Ie. reconstructed a wreck from virtually nothing using largely new materials)
(retains its traceable provenance, no authenticity, but has accuracy)

Reproduction Aircraft built to original design/specification with less than 10% original parts – (ie a New Construction/ New builds) (ie Produced a new example of the type to exact design but all new materials, no reliance or claim of linkage to an original identity)
no provenance to an identifyable airframe, no authenticity, but has accuracy)
In some ways a very accurate replica!

Replica – A Flying external facsimile but with new materials, design and construction methods,
(no provenance to an identity, no authenticity, no accuracy of design/construct, external accuracy)

Scale Replica A reduced size Flying external facsimile but with new materials, design and construction methods, dimensional and design compromises.
(no provenance to an identity, no authenticity, no accuracy of design/construct, reduced external accuracy)

Full Scale Mockup – A non Flying external facsimile of an aircraft using non airworthy design/construction methods.
(no provenance to an identity, no authenticity, no accuracy of design/construct – external accuracy possible)

The descriptive terms could be futher defined as:

provenance – the source of the aircraft’s original/historical identity and how well the identity is traced from original production and operational use is well documented and transparent.

Authenticity – How much of the aircraft is the original airframe built and operated as that identity.

Accurate – How much of the aircraft is accurate to the original manufacturer/operational users design/material/construction methods or specifications.

IE a Reproduction can be accurate, but is not authentic or have provenance to an original identity.

a Reconstruction may have provenance to an identity but not be authentic, despite being accurate.

An original would have all 3.

Regards

Mark Pilkington

.
Are runnible engines and spares available, I understood Point Cook had to work with a fairly poor engine example to make it presentable for static?

I also understand the wings on the Walrus at Point Cook came from spares (or spars?) held by Camden, and significant rib etc re-construction by Ron Gretton and Geoff Matthews, I suspect any wings for the Solent example (if non-existant) will need spars built from scratch, and access to one or more complete engines?

A far better deal would be for the RAF Museum to buy it, build a static set of wings, fit a static engine, retain it in the UK preserved for posterity, and then gift the original RAAF Seagull V back to Australia as being surplus to their collection? (yes wishful thinking lol)

Regards

Mark Pilkington