Rick's sparked a train of thought:
RickH wrote:
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 ?
The risk vs preservation equation for such national level collections (I'm talking major national collections of any kind, globally) usually errs on the side of caution. The museums aren't demonstrators or educators first - preservation is their
primary mandate, and the others come after
provided the preservation need is satisfactorily addressed.
RickH wrote:
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 !
The RAF (part of the MOD, of course) is celebrating 50 years of operating the Battle of Britain Memorial flight this year; currently a Lancaster, two Hurricanes, five Spitfires (I lose count) and two Chipmunks. (Not only does the far more 'affluent' larger and more in need of friends USAF not do anything equivalent , it's celebrating a mere 60 years since it was 'born'!) The RAF's BBMF a far more important achievement in terms of duration, historical significance and heritage than a single cold-war bomber - much as the Vulcan's history and impression are notable. (The BBMF is a similar sized unit with a more diverse engineering training and flying challange than the Red Arrows. A USAF equivalent would, ergo, be 'the size' of the Thunderbirds.
The RAF Museum, a civil entity has a strict 'no-fly' policy, just like the NMUSAF. The Fleet Air Arm Museum has also a 'no fly' policy, but the Royal Navy Historic Flight operate historic Naval aircraft. The NMUSNA doesn't fly anything, and there's no historic flight.
In Australia, the RAAF Museum operates five historic aircraft, four aircraft duplicated in the collection and a replica. The RAAF Museum is a RAAF unit.
In New Zealand, the RNZAF operates a Harvard as it's heritage flight, while the RNZAFM has had at least one historic and unique aircraft (the Avro 626) flown by the Heritage Flight.
Each is a different, successful model. It is interesting that the US is the poorest in terms of any official, permanent state-owned heritage flight (yes, flying civilian owned aircraft with current military is neat, but it's a cost-offset option). No criticism, just an interesting comparison.
In official organisations, it's better to have been operating historic aircraft and have the wowsers try and stop you, than to be trying to start operating them now. That's where the RNHF and BBMF are sucessful.
AndyG, I share Mike's concern over TVOC et al's lack of good clear management and at this stage, the Dickensian 'something will turn up' attitude won't do. Each of Mike' points
still lacks a proper answer from the Vulcan team. I hope something does, and getting to here is a phenomenal achievement, but plans have to go beyond launch.
Here's a reminder from the 80s.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Apparently you are back , glad to hear you are home safe.
Got to see one fly here at EFD years ago. What a machine ! 
