Vulcan bomber set for the skies
Vulcan bomber set for the skies
Author
Discussion

Mon Ami Mate

Original Poster:

6,589 posts

297 months

Tuesday 10th May 2005
quotequote all
Vulcan bomber set for the skies

The Vulcan was retired from service in 1993
An East Midlands project to get a Vulcan bomber flying again has taken another step forward.
The Vulcan to the Sky Trust has signed a contract with Marshall Aerospace to get the plane airworthy.

The campaign has taken four years to raise money for the work, with £2.5m coming from the Heritage Lottery Fund.

It is now hoped the plane, which last flew from RAF Waddington near Lincoln more than a decade ago, could be back in the air in around a year.

Managers say engineers will start work immediately on what they say is the largest aeronautical restoration project of its kind.

Other industry leaders, like BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce, are also involved in the work, which is being carried out at a hangar in Bruntingthorpe, Leicestershire.

Vulcans were long-range bombers designed during the Cold War and were retired from service in 1993.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/4532071.stm

targarama

14,780 posts

312 months

Tuesday 10th May 2005
quotequote all
I think Vulcans are ace. As a kid growing up in Lincolnshire/Humberside we used to go an see these at airshows near Lincoln (so many airfields around there, I forget which one).

iandbeech

2,709 posts

287 months

Tuesday 10th May 2005
quotequote all
So they must have raised the last bit of money then - absolutely brilliant news

Here are a couple of small videos of XH558 I took in the early 90`s

Right click link and "save target as" to download!

www.foxesmeadow.com/Vulcan1.wmv (7mb)

www.foxesmeadow.com/Vulcan2.wmv (5mb)

Both converted from old VHS.

Mukes

29 posts

258 months

Tuesday 10th May 2005
quotequote all
Great Videos Ian - thanks.

Eric Mc

125,607 posts

294 months

Tuesday 10th May 2005
quotequote all
If the B-17 Sally B finds itself unflyable due to increased insurance costs, what implication does this have for the Vulcan?

miniman

30,019 posts

291 months

Tuesday 10th May 2005
quotequote all
Fabulous videos. I remember seeing it as a child - can't wait to see it in the air again.

Hardcore2000

788 posts

300 months

Tuesday 10th May 2005
quotequote all
amazing videos,i dont think any other aircraft has such bizzare menouvarabilty.

Extra 300 Driver

5,282 posts

275 months

Tuesday 10th May 2005
quotequote all
This really is old news now. The Aircraft has been in pieces for a very long time, well over 3 years. The Lotto ‘ring fenced’ an amount of money but TVOC, The Vulcan Operating Company, was also required to raise a large amount themselves. I gave a large, well to me, amount of money to this cause being assured that it would be used on the restoration of the aircraft, so I am a 558 supporter.

TVOC have always had a contract with Marshalls, at least that is what they told us at the interview. As I type this the undercarriage, for the aircraft, is sitting not a million miles from me awaiting final inspection, but they have found serious problems with the nose leg.

I went for an interview with the team years ago for a job restoring the aircraft, as I have experience on the Vulcan. I never did hear anything from them, even though a mate and me were the most current Vulcan Engineers in the country at the time, having worked on 558, 426 and 655.

I wish TVOC all the best and I really hope that the aircraft gets in the air, but as it has been reported on other forums its easy to look at this with rose tinted glasses.

beanbag

7,346 posts

270 months

Tuesday 10th May 2005
quotequote all
Let's hope that one day they'll be able to do the same for Concorde too....

Eric Mc

125,607 posts

294 months

Tuesday 10th May 2005
quotequote all
beanbag - not a snowball's chance in you know where.

Extra 300 Driver

5,282 posts

275 months

Tuesday 10th May 2005
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
beanbag - not a snowball's chance in you know where.


I agree, you're more likely to see pigs fly out of my arse than see Concorde fly.

Eric Mc

125,607 posts

294 months

Tuesday 10th May 2005
quotequote all
More crudely put....but correct

beanbag

7,346 posts

270 months

Tuesday 10th May 2005
quotequote all
Wishful thinking! We're all allowed to dream at times!



She was a beautiful plane though.....just wish I got the chance to fly on her. If I had the £8k for a ticket on the last few flights, I would have happily paid for it.

Extra 300 Driver

5,282 posts

275 months

Tuesday 10th May 2005
quotequote all
Me to mate, me to.

t1grm

4,657 posts

313 months

Tuesday 10th May 2005
quotequote all
Extra 300 Driver said:

Eric Mc said:
beanbag - not a snowball's chance in you know where.



I agree, you're more likely to see pigs fly out of my arse than see Concorde fly.


What about shipping one to a third world country and restoring and flying it there? OK the logistics and cost of getting the parts and labour out there would be colossal and no fu**er would ever get to see it but if you didn’t leave that country’s airspace with it would you be breaking any aviation laws – hypothetically? Say you were Bill Gates and didn’t mind throwing a billion or two at it could it be legally done?

Eric Mc

125,607 posts

294 months

Tuesday 10th May 2005
quotequote all
Concorde was not just amy old aeroplane. She was highly specialised with highly specialised set of people looking after her at British Airways, Air France BAe and Aerosptiale/Airbus Industrie. There are no other people on earth with the knowledge or expertise to keep her flying.

In addition, there is no spares back up AT ALL. All the above companies have flatly refused to supply or provide components to keep even one in the air.

Finally, the recent introduction of stringent insurance rules will have killed any chance of keeping one airworthy stone dead.

beanbag

7,346 posts

270 months

Tuesday 10th May 2005
quotequote all
Apparantly the Russians are working hard to get their Tupelov (is that how you spell it?), "Concordeski" air-worthy again.

Would be an interesting prospect but I don't think I'd trust Aeroflot to take me supersonic, let alone down the runway!

Extra 300 Driver

5,282 posts

275 months

Tuesday 10th May 2005
quotequote all
beanbag said:
Apparantly the Russians are working hard to get their Tupelov (is that how you spell it?), "Concordeski" air-worthy again.

Would be an interesting prospect but I don't think I'd trust Aeroflot to take me supersonic, let alone down the runway!


The Tu-144 was flown in the 90's by NASA. The re-engined the aircraft using B1B engines.

Eric Mc

125,607 posts

294 months

Tuesday 10th May 2005
quotequote all
Were they not engines from the Tu-60 Blackjack bomber?

The Russian supersonic airliner was the Tupolev Tu-144.
It first flew on the last day of 1968 - beating Concorde into the air by three months. However, progress after that was slow and the plane was almost completely redesigned from scratch. One of the new style Tu-144s crashed at the 1973 Paris Air Show and it is rumoured that another crashed on a scheduled Aeroflot flight in 1978 - after which they were withdrawn from service. Various Tu-144 airframes lie around the former Soviet Union and one is on display alongside a Concorde (allowing an interesting comparison) in Germany.

One airframe was returned to flight status around 1999 for suoersonic testing in conjunction with NASA.

FourWheelDrift

92,251 posts

313 months

Tuesday 10th May 2005
quotequote all
The Russians also still have one of the 8 very large KM Ekranoplan's (Caspian Sea Monsters) in very large pieces in a very large hanger that they are still trying to flog to a buyer. It's 30m longer than the new Airbus A380.

Now that would be something, Dover to Calais in 5 mins. Excellent