Russia decided on getting a buffer zone of states – having acquired that, there was no need to advance further.

Regards,

Perhaps in Europe…
But let’s not forget their efforts (and success) in exporting their ideology to other parts of the world.
That caused problems for the next 50 years….to risk understatement.

In other words, they did not just peacefully sit back and do nothing once they had their “buffer zone”.

I think we can consider the blockade of Berlin as a heavy handed “land grab”.:D

I thought that the problem was that Russia (the Soviet Union) was spending nearly 50% of GDP on defence up until the 1980s when the NATO average was 12%.

That and its population finally realized they were getting hosed.
limited basic freedoms, low quality of life (compared to the west), no consumer goods…the question is why it didn’t “succumb” sooner.

Sorry, but I’ve read enough. It’s just going to be a constant round of appeal, ultimatum, funding drive, ultimatum, action plan, ultimatum, ad infinitum.

It’s been that way for the last 3 years.
“Give us money or it will be bought by an (evil) rich American”.

Mind you, they’ve never said which rich American would want it or who could afford to fly and maintain it. It would be a very short list. I’m not sure how it could pay for itself since the Vulcan is largely known to North American audiences as the plane in Thunderball…
If it couldn’t pay its way in the UK where airshow venues are reasonably close, it would never pay its way here…not to mention the lack of trained engineers, the cost of importing pilots, etc.

I agree and have said similar things here by saying that it’s one thing to afford something, it’s something very different to operate and maintain them.
(First learned the lesson years ago reading Flying magazine…they were discussing used general aviation aircraft prices and warned first-time buyers of the temptation to overreach. For the price of a simple fixed-gear plane, you could buy an older, used retractable-gear plane. And if you went a few years older, you could afford a twin, and if you went even older, you could afford a large twin. But when it came time for insurance, fuel and maintence, an expensive plane, even if bought cheaply, would still be an explensive plane to fix and fly.

But instead of heaping all the fault on the TVOC, perhaps some should go to the lottery people for failing to see this operational funding shortfall when they provided the funds to restore the Vulcan?

Perhaps they should have questioned anyones ability to raise the kind of money necessary to fly a plane as large and complex as the Vulcan.
(There’s probably a reason why the large and fairly well-funded CAF-organization in the US doesn’t fly anything larger than the B-29…and has trouble funding that).

If the Vulcan returns to a static role, the Lottery will have effectively wasted the money they invested in the aircraft (with the exception of the pleasure the people who saw it recived during the planes airshow career).
Perhaps they should have thrown cold water on the notion of a private bomber a long time ago.

I wish TVOC and its supporters the best. I recall seeing impressive Vulcan air displays in the past. I’d like to see it continue, but there has got to be a lot of money coming in to make that happen and obviously, asking supports for more money all the time, isn’t working.

The Sidney Cotton aircraft had been listed for sale in Trade-A-Plane for quite some time, thought not recently.

I believe it was owned and based in San Angelo, Texas.

Or you could get one from the Aussies and ask them fly it over…they got a great deal on some surplus FB-111s (F-111G, IIRC).

Part of the HLF application should have been an Options Appraisal / Risk Assessment of what might happen if the funding were not in place.

Exactly my point. As I wrote earlier, HLF didn’t seem to do due diligence or perhaps they simply bought into the funding hopes offered by the Vulcan supporters.
Maybe it’s not their job to ask the “what happens next” question and they simply give out money to organizations and not concern itself with the long term viability of schemes. If that’s the case, that’s odd…but not a topic for this site.

As I understand things the HLF grant was to return the aircraft to the air and did not necessarily cover ongoing operating costs.

But why would the HLF fund an aircraft for restoration to fly if there are no firm plans for funds to operate and maintain it?
Even by the low standards we set for government bureaucrats, that’s daft.

Again, I wish the Vulcan team luck.

I haven’t received my February issue yet.

Anyone else in the US have their’s or is it time to email Key?