It was very good, but not great (how blase we become ) when compared to some of the formidable shows of the past, and there was not a headline act to really grab the attention. Really missed the Spitfire tail-chase , and no Mitchells? Or Skyraiders ? Nice demo by the Storch though, and the Cubs were fun, and the smoke system on the Sea Fury was stunning!

Back next year ? Of course !

Ah.. please don’t shoot the messenger – That was a quote, and in most cases your guess is as good, or better, than mine.

However a little delving turns up this

It was merely that anybody in a responsible position in air traffic could possibly be so petty seemed to me worthy of attention. It appears somebody had landed and was directed to park elsewhere.

Moggy

Oh, The Humanity !

OK, sticking my neck out a little.

Recent threads have re-ignited the old debate about originality, what is a replica, what a dataplate means etc.

Maybe we need a vocabulary, so as to avoid misrepresentation / misunderstanding? As a starter for ten, how about the following list – posted as a ‘request for comment’ only 🙂

Cat 1 – Completely Original – Spit P9306
Cat 2 – Maintained Original – Spit AB910
Cat 3 – Maintained Modified – Mustang ‘Precious Metal’
Cat 4 – Re-built Modified – Bearcat ‘Rare Bear’
Cat 5 – Retrofitted authentic – Spit AR213
Cat 6 – Re-creation with some original parts, single source – Spit P9374
Cat 7 – Re-creation with some original parts, multiple source – FW190 ‘Wk.nr 400616’
Cat 8 – Replica, no original parts – Stormbirds ‘262’s

Notice I have not mentioned dataplates – these having no bearing on the originality or otherwise of the aircraft they are attached to.

Thoughts?

A clinical and neat approach in some ways, but bound, I feel, to inflame more contention than it ever solves.

The CAA do not feel the need to establish such credentials, so I do am not convinced we need to pursue it either. Anyone who has a reason to examine provenance , such as a potential owner can soon find out what is being offered for sale, buyer beware as usual.

I have come to feel that the money expended is of no consequence, in the grand scheme of things.

An odd sentiment perhaps, but we live in times of a growing disconnect between endeavour and reward, and rational evaluation seems a forgotten science.

Our central bank conjures billions out of nowhere ( prints money ) and we unfailingly reward those in high office a fortune for failure. Money can always be found if it is politically expedient, so why worry about a piffling £800 K for this recovery, or indeed the millions spent on the Vulcan.

At least these are projects which engage many enthusiasts and historians even if a professional footballer would count it as mere small change.

Ahem, this was 10 years ago, ( hence 60 years !)

see here

http://www.whatgas.com/petrol-prices/unleaded-prices.html

Must have found some more engines, then ?

Putting aside various question marks, the Vulcan team have achieved much, much more than many people predicted was possible.

Yes. I expect it will grow on me .It is not startling different to the previous green colour scheme.

It is still a lovely aeroplane, and anyone who spends a ton of cash to keep these flying for us deserves a big ‘thank you !’