The Vulcan Lives !!!

Glen · **Posted:** Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:42 pm

Sorry Guy's I was not trying to muddy up the waters with my posting but just stating that I was told that NO Vulcans would be operational ever again. that's all I am excited that info was premature and that Hopefuly we will see a Vulcan fly again !

Mike · **Joined:** Tue May 04, 2004 8:54 am **Posts:** 3333

I don't think you were told that 'no Vulcan would ever fly again' if you go back and read your earlier posts on the subject, Glen.

Basically, if you throw enough money at anything, you can make it fly. This Vulcan is up to $10m and counting. And they have no money to operate once it does eventually fly. You'll probably see it make a few test flights, then get parked up until a 'major sponsor' comes forward - they need about $2.5m per year to operate it at a handful of airshows. In about 6 or 7 years of fundraising, no major corporate sponsor has come forward yet. "Come sponsor our nuclear bomber with a huge carbon footprint" doesn't have major corporations queuing 10 deep to part with money in this day and age.

Their business plan seems to be based solely on blind faith, along with threats to scrap it if funding isn't forthcoming.

Mossie · **Posted:** Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:56 am

New NOTAM......

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FIR: EGTT
Code: RTCA
Traffic: VFR IFR
Purpose: PIB entry Operationally significant for flights
Scope: Nav Warning
Lower limit (FL): 000
Upper limit (FL): 030
Centre and radius (nm): 5229N00108W003
Parent ICAO: EGTT
Start date/time: 15/10/2007 09:00 UTC
End date/time: 02/11/2007 16:00 UTC
Activity period: MON-FRI 0900-1600

Lower height limit: 000
Upper height limit: 030

RESTRICTED AREA(TEMPORARY) FOR VULCAN TEST FLYING AT BRUNTINGTHORPE.
RESTRICTION OF FLYING REGULATIONS MADE UNDER ARTICLE 96 OF THE AIR
NAVIGATION ORDER 2005 (MIL ACFT SHOULD COMPLY WITH JSP552 201.135.9).
NO ACFT IS TO FLY WI AREA BOUNDED BY CIRCLE RAD 3NM CENTRED AT 522913N
0010750W EXCEPT ACFT FLYING WITH PERMISSION OF OPERATOR OF
BRUNTINGTHORPE AERODROME OR IN THE SERVICE OF THE LEICESTERSHIRE POLICE.

That basically tells you there is a no fly Zone in place covering flying up to a height of 3000 Ft and a radius of Bruntingthorpe of 3 nautical Miles from the 15th Oct to the 2nd Nov

Glen · **Posted:** Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:56 pm

Thanks Mike for clearing that up I have sleep since then ! :oops:

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:43 pm

tulsaboy wrote:

I think that there are several B-47 airframes that would make excellent candidates for a complete and dedicated restoration to flight, given immense amounts of money and time. The example at Castle comes immediately to mind, as the last flyer. That being said, I think that the limiting factor is obviously the NMUSAF's determination that one will not fly. I seriously doubt that if a group came with major funding already in place, technical support in place, and a reasonable plan of action, that the NMUSAF would release one of the static airframes to that group for restoration to flight.

Additionally, NMUSAF is doing a nice job of quietly eliminating candidates in conjunction with Worldwide Aircraft Recovery of Nebraska. While they have done a great job of moving many historic and significant aircraft (most notably the entire SAC collection) they have performed an "engineered splice" (their term for cutting the wing in two) so that they can easily move B-47s on standard highways. The example on display at Wright-Patterson, while externally a beautiful example, has suffered this fate. While it was never going to be flown again anyway, it is a real shame that such an aircraft should have its back broken. See the pics below for the "splice." I think that such a move justifies RickH's characterization of the NMUSAF example as "stuffed." I would love to see a B-47 in the air, and would pay my $20 to an airshow to see it. Unfortunately, I think that it is never to be.

Not to further muddy up the waters, but how is a splice like that on a static aircraft any different than say a wingspar A.D. on a flying warbird. In both examples a non original structure is being used in part of an aircraft that will not be seen.

tulsaboy · **Posted:** Tue Oct 16, 2007 11:06 pm

I think for static purposes, it's just fine. I was just pointing out that as you cut the spar of more and more B-47s, you quietly reduce the number of potential airframes to put in the air. While I'll quickly grant that doing so is an incredibly remote possibility, it is a possibility nonetheless.

kevin

RickH · **Posted:** Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:23 am

Mustangdriver,let me say first hand the NMUSAF is a fantastic museum. One of my favorite places is the NMNA. I would like very much for our flying aircraft to be ambassadors at various airshows for either museum. I believe that some of their advertising budget would be better used to support that effort. Not only do they win by reaching a targeted interested audience but the money would help support another aircraft. Kind of fits their historical preservation mandate, dontcha think ?

Having said that their slash and burn policy stinks ! When they found out that the CF was intersted in a flying F-105 they were calling museums all over the country to ask about cutting spars ! You know how that whole deal ended. It is not an isolated incident, you do know why the Memphis Belle fuel tanks are pulled , right, SO THAT NO ONE WOULD EVER BE TEMPTED TO FLY HER, for any reason, ... ever !

Thankfully the British MoD is different, because of their policies we will see a Vulcan return to the skies. It is owned by a non governmental entity. Good luck to them !

TAdan · **Posted:** Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:44 am

RickH...

Quote:

you do know why the Memphis Belle fuel tanks are pulled , right, SO THAT NO ONE WOULD EVER BE TEMPTED TO FLY HER, for any reason, ... ever!

I figured they pulled them because it would be tough to restore the wings with them in place...

The fact that the museums policy is not to fly them makes it clear enough the Belle wont fly... I seriously doubt that a rogue staff member would roll her out onto the run way and try to fly away :lol:

Thats why I think it is great that Tallichet's Belle is flying around.

Yes I agree it is a shame that the B-47 spars were cut and 105's were "demilled". I think its fine on a static example, but IMO if a group like the CF wanted to operate a 105 (or a B-47) I think it would have been great.

I commend the Vulcan group for their huge effort and the british govt for allowing it to fly.

RickH · **Posted:** Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:04 am

Let me rephrase my statement, TAdan, the team at Millington was instructed that the tanks would not be reinstalled after the internal wing restoration was completed. The previous reason was stated.

B17news · **Posted:** Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:05 am

Hm...where do I apply for position of "rogue staff member"

retroaviation · **Posted:** Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:09 am

RickH wrote:

...When they found out that the CF was intersted in a flying F-105 they were calling museums all over the country to ask about cutting spars !

Sorry Mustangdriver, but Rick is right. The NMUSAF called us out of the blue recently when Rick and his gang were working on that project and wanted us to immediately go out to our F-105 to insure that the spars had been demilled and that the CF couldn't get ahold of it. Pretty dang sorry if you ask me. But you didn't, so I digress...........

Gary

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:14 am

Rick the fuel tanks are indeed going back in the Belle. The goal of the museum is to bring the aircraft as close to complete as possible. The B-47 was not the General's doing. He was and still is very upset about what took place with certain things on the B-47. None of these are able to be seen from the outside of the aircraft, or even the cockpit if you were ever to get in it. The NMUSAF policy is pretty straight forward. You can have any aircraft you want from the boneyard. And I mean any. All you have to do is ask for it. But you are not going to fly it. I am sorry for hijacking the thread. It is great to see the Vulcan.

Mossie · **Posted:** Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:22 pm

LOOKS LIKE TOMORROW IS THE BIG DAY....

And the weather looks good :union:

AndyG · **Joined:** Thu May 06, 2004 4:39 pm **Posts:** 93

Mike wrote:

I don't think you were told that 'no Vulcan would ever fly again' if you go back and read your earlier posts on the subject, Glen.

Basically, if you throw enough money at anything, you can make it fly. This Vulcan is up to $10m and counting. And they have no money to operate once it does eventually fly. You'll probably see it make a few test flights, then get parked up until a 'major sponsor' comes forward - they need about $2.5m per year to operate it at a handful of airshows. In about 6 or 7 years of fundraising, no major corporate sponsor has come forward yet. "Come sponsor our nuclear bomber with a huge carbon footprint" doesn't have major corporations queuing 10 deep to part with money in this day and age.

Their business plan seems to be based solely on blind faith, along with threats to scrap it if funding isn't forthcoming.

Hi mike,
fascinating insight into the project, thanks very much for the 'informed' update.

How long have you been part of the XH558 management team?

wendovertom · **Posted:** Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:41 pm

well this is awesome! Congrats to these guys even if it flys only 1 time it is AWESOME!!

Too bad the powers that be can't see thier way clear to allow this to happen in the US. I mean really - what is wrong with CF flying a F-105? they have an excellent track record - why not a F-102/106??

oh well.

Tom P.

Warbird Information Exchange

The Vulcan Lives !!!

Who is online