Vulcan - the end is near - got a spare $1m GBP buddy?

JDK · **Posted:** Sun Feb 15, 2009 7:51 pm

richkolasa wrote:

Go Vulcan fund!

It has gone, that's the problem.

Tony · **Posted:** Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:10 am

richkolasa wrote:

Tony wrote:

Reduit im Luft CH wrote:

Now that's more like it, the art of the possible, here here.

We can blow billions on 'banks' and the bottomless Olympics project, and apart from a few grumbles and shrugs of the shoulders, it gets accepted.

Keeping the Vulcan flying is expensive, but possible and well within the means of a developed nation.

There is but one flying Vulcan, there will, asteroids apart, be countless future Olympics.

Surprised that genuine aviation buffs can be so defeatist. Every savable one-off , should be preserved.

In Canada, the only 'complete' Handley Page Hampden has recently collapsed, due to weight of snow, as an outdoors exhibit !!

Can you explain why it is so important to keep a Vulcan flying?

.

No, why should anyone explain anything to you? Who made you arbiter of everything expensive on earth? Why are single baseball players paid more money in one year than it would cost to operate a wonderful piece of aviation history for many years? Oh, wait...in this economy...blah blah blah.

Go Vulcan fund!

Which still doesn't answer the question... Why?

If they want my or anyone else's money in these lean times, then some strong justification is needed.

Putting it on blocks and keeping it live is a sound decision. Attempting to keep it flying when airshow attendance is plummeting in this country seems odd.

Or is this a new warbird operating model where we bin airshow appearances and rely on public subscription instead?

Firebird · **Posted:** Thu Feb 19, 2009 11:24 am

Tony wrote:

Putting it on blocks and keeping it live is a sound decision. Attempting to keep it flying when airshow attendance is plummeting in this country seems odd.

Except that if I remember correctly they were claiming they needed £50k per month just to keep it on the ground and live with the reqd anti-det runs and admin stuff, as otherwise you are back to square one with stripping the thing apart and re-lifing parts etc to get the paperwork back in order and all the cost associated with that again.

IMHO I don't think it'll fly again.....maybe just once more if they decide that's it and a decision is made about where it ends up requiring a final delivery flight?

Reduit im Luft CH · **Posted:** Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:43 pm

All the well reasoned arguments about cost, have merit. However,

the reason the BBMF flies expensive vintage aircraft, is that it inspires the recruits of the future. The recruitment/PR profile benefits outweigh the current costs.

The Vulcan would be a money drain, if it didn't result in engineers passing on their knowledge to other enthusiasts, AND apprentices.

The danger, especially in a depression, with hi-tech indutries, is that once departed, they don't come back.

It's the engineering support base thats important. Keep that and the personnel/knowledge, and it can be applied to other projects ,later.

loose it, and any future large jet project's start-up costs will be even more daunting.

There's plenty of money around, it's just being thrown at banks, allowed to set their own interbank lending rates, with OUR money. Now that really IS Laissez Faire gone mad.

Firebird · **Posted:** Thu Feb 19, 2009 7:43 pm

Reduit im Luft CH wrote:

the reason the BBMF flies expensive vintage aircraft, is that it inspires the recruits of the future.

No it doesn't.
The sole reason for the BBMF is a flying memorial to the RAF crews that made the ultimate sacrifice in the past, during WW2.

The PR tool as well as recruitment tool of the RAF for the future is the Reds, not the BBMF.

Warbird Information Exchange

Vulcan - the end is near - got a spare $1m GBP buddy?

Who is online