Discussion
andburg said:
Kitchski said:
ecsrobin said:
Kitchski said:
I'm just saying that 558 is - for the reasons I outlined - the most significant Vulcan in existance.
You’re looking at this with your heart or your empty wallet but 558 is not the most significant Vulcan in existence and soon won’t exist in its current form. Sit around any museum based Vulcan for a while and listen to passers by. You'll hear many folk pointing at it saying thats the one they saw fly.
Joe Public - and the average Vulcan supporter is not a spotter. They don't know tail number and don't care. XH558 has quietly faded back into the ranks now it doesn't fly, so is not now as significant as it was a few years ago.
Joe Public - and the average Vulcan supporter is not a spotter. They don't know tail number and don't care. XH558 has quietly faded back into the ranks now it doesn't fly, so is not now as significant as it was a few years ago.
marksx said:
Tail numbers and history are totally irrelevant to most people, and even casual aviation enthusiasts.
There's one Lancaster flying in the country but I don't know it's number, or where, when or even if it saw action. But given chance I'd go see it fly for the machine that it is.
But… if there were two on the ground together, and one had taken part in the raid on the dams, you just know…There's one Lancaster flying in the country but I don't know it's number, or where, when or even if it saw action. But given chance I'd go see it fly for the machine that it is.
Tony1963 said:
marksx said:
Tail numbers and history are totally irrelevant to most people, and even casual aviation enthusiasts.
There's one Lancaster flying in the country but I don't know it's number, or where, when or even if it saw action. But given chance I'd go see it fly for the machine that it is.
But… if there were two on the ground together, and one had taken part in the raid on the dams, you just know…There's one Lancaster flying in the country but I don't know it's number, or where, when or even if it saw action. But given chance I'd go see it fly for the machine that it is.
The last 3 left of the special Upkeep modified Dams Raid Lancaster's were not actually scrapped until the end of July 1947, with no thought of preservation, and these 3 aircraft were also 3 of the Mohne attack aircraft as well, and not only that, the 3 were Mick Martin's P-Popsie ED909, third a/c to attack the Mohne, David Maltby's J-Johnnie, ED906 that actually dropped the bomb that breached the Mohne Dam......and the 3rd one, none other than Guy Gibson's G-George, ED932 that lead the raid.
What museum today wouldn't want any or those 3 on display.....
marksx said:
Tail numbers and history are totally irrelevant to most people, and even casual aviation enthusiasts.
There's one Lancaster flying in the country but I don't know it's number, or where, when or even if it saw action. But given chance I'd go see it fly for the machine that it is.
Me too, & I worked in aviation for almost 40 years: PA474 didn't see active service, it was built too late, perhaps why it survived. I've never considered it a second rate aircraft because of that, it represents those that were lost in action, & commemorates those who died - & it's just great to see it up there.There's one Lancaster flying in the country but I don't know it's number, or where, when or even if it saw action. But given chance I'd go see it fly for the machine that it is.
For the Vulcan, I'm in the "significant for what it is, rather than what it did in service" camp. I saw many Vulcans when I was a kid, always awestruck, but I couldn't tell you what each aircraft did or didn't do. XH558 is significant because it was the last flying example. To many, that has more resonance than those that saw action, purely because it's the one they went to see. I'd like to see it find a safe home, although I doubt that'll be the outcome sadly.
Seight_Returns said:
Kitchski said:
So you're saying if you pulled every Tom, Dick & Harry in off the street and asked them if, firstly, they were familiar with the Vulcan as an aircraft, and secondly if they could name one, or recount the tail number from one, that XH558 wouldn't be the most common answer?
But if you then spoke to said Tom, Dick or Harriet for a further few minutes about the history of the 19 remaining Vulcans - which one do you think s/he would then conclude was the most historically significant - the one that made the (then) longest bombing raid in history - or the one that they remember making a lot of people on the beach at Bournemouth look up and point ?Edited by Seight_Returns on Friday 19th August 15:47
Tony1963 said:
But… if there were two on the ground together, and one had taken part in the raid on the dams, you just know…
And the other had been crowded funded back to flight by the general public, away from the MOD; had been heavily featured by various forms of media and had been followed around the airshow circuit for a good few years in the last decade, while the dam raid one hadn't flown for 30 years...?MarkwG said:
For the Vulcan, I'm in the "significant for what it is, rather than what it did in service" camp. I saw many Vulcans when I was a kid, always awestruck, but I couldn't tell you what each aircraft did or didn't do. XH558 is significant because it was the last flying example. To many, that has more resonance than those that saw action, purely because it's the one they went to see. I'd like to see it find a safe home, although I doubt that'll be the outcome sadly.
My point exactly. For me, I'm the most interested in 607 (even though 597 and, I believe, 598 both completed future B/B runs to Port Stanley as well, though I imagine without the fuel drama...except the one that snapped its probe off and had to go to Rio), but 558 is the most signifcant to most people (which by default means it's the most significant) and has done more to raise awareness of the model. I wouldn't mind betting some of the museum pieces have been spruced a little more than they would have otherwise been if Vulcan-mania never happened in 2008.
aeropilot said:
magpie215 said:
RacingPete said:
I would have to look up which Vulcan I was in, but spent a lot of time in one at either 1984 or 1986 air show there.
86 would have been 558 as the display aircraft.Might have been another in the static park for visitors to chamber around.
'84 would be possible, as the stop-gap tanker conversion Vulcan's were not finally withdrawn from service until March 31st 1984, and the handful left were handed over to the Waddo Station Flight and gradually flown off to museums etc in the next few months, so there would have been a servicable Vulcan in the static in '84 which would have been the last time.
It might have even been 607, which had only stopped flying a year earlier.
marksx said:
Tail numbers and history are totally irrelevant to most people, and even casual aviation enthusiasts.
There's one Lancaster flying in the country but I don't know it's number, or where, when or even if it saw action. But given chance I'd go see it fly for the machine that it is.
Just realised PA474 is one of only two tail numbers I know (the other is XR219) which I think qualifies me as a ‘casual enthusiast’ There's one Lancaster flying in the country but I don't know it's number, or where, when or even if it saw action. But given chance I'd go see it fly for the machine that it is.
Yertis said:
marksx said:
Tail numbers and history are totally irrelevant to most people, and even casual aviation enthusiasts.
There's one Lancaster flying in the country but I don't know it's number, or where, when or even if it saw action. But given chance I'd go see it fly for the machine that it is.
Just realised PA474 is one of only two tail numbers I know (the other is XR219) which I think qualifies me as a ‘casual enthusiast’ There's one Lancaster flying in the country but I don't know it's number, or where, when or even if it saw action. But given chance I'd go see it fly for the machine that it is.
I think the Vulcan was pretty much one of the very few, if not only one to have the serial number on the tail, due to the shape of the aircraft.
aeropilot said:
Funny how people are talking about 'tail numbers' in respect to UK military aircraft when in pretty much all cases, the UK military serial numbers are never on the tail, but are on the fuselages, as opposed to US and other nations that do place them on the tails.
I think the Vulcan was pretty much one of the very few, if not only one to have the serial number on the tail, due to the shape of the aircraft.
I thought exactly when I wrote that post - but when in Rome etc, and it’s easier than ‘just forward of tailplane number’.I think the Vulcan was pretty much one of the very few, if not only one to have the serial number on the tail, due to the shape of the aircraft.
But I will never, ever, refer to a broken down aircraft as having ‘gone tech’.
aeropilot said:
Yertis said:
marksx said:
Tail numbers and history are totally irrelevant to most people, and even casual aviation enthusiasts.
There's one Lancaster flying in the country but I don't know it's number, or where, when or even if it saw action. But given chance I'd go see it fly for the machine that it is.
Just realised PA474 is one of only two tail numbers I know (the other is XR219) which I think qualifies me as a ‘casual enthusiast’ There's one Lancaster flying in the country but I don't know it's number, or where, when or even if it saw action. But given chance I'd go see it fly for the machine that it is.
I think the Vulcan was pretty much one of the very few, if not only one to have the serial number on the tail, due to the shape of the aircraft.
So ‘tail number” is correct if the number is on the fuselage or fin (like the Vulcan) - it’s just a generic term for a number at the rear of an aircraft?
Yertis said:
But I will never, ever, refer to a broken down aircraft as having ‘gone tech’.
Why not? 
Regarding tail number, “tail number” seems a generic phrase for a/c serial number or Aircraft Registration most civil aircraft have different serial numbers (from the manufacturer) and reg (from the national authority they’re registered in)
Aviation is full of old phrases from previous eras that are still used like “advancing the throttle” when it’s actually a thrust lever etc
I’ve been reading this topic and it’s interesting that there are two aircraft with similar circumstances and predicaments. They are both ex-RAF aircraft, have the capability to taxi under their own steam but are ‘grounded’ and are being evicted from their current locations so are looking to move next year. XH558 has its challenges which are well discussed here although the underlying tone seems to be that there are plenty other Vulcans in UK, including one’s with taxi capability, so just let the scrappies get their mitts on it. Over in Coventry, another Avro aircraft, in the shape of Shackleton WR963, is now facing a move as the airfield is going to be built on. They have already identified Elvington as it’s new home and Yorkshire Air Museum are ready to accept it into their collection. Similar to the Vulcan, there are other examples of Shackleton aircraft in UK, although I think WR963 is the only one capable of taxying. Unlike the reaction to XH558’s current plight, the overall reaction to WR963’s move to Yorkshire is very positive.
I can only think the different responses is mainly down to the way VTTS has managed the Vulcan, especially since it’s grounding and the apparent squandering of money. By contrast, The Shackleton Aviation Group is run by a group of volunteers and their income appears to come from engine-run events, merchandise, donations and Friends of WR963 membership. Nobody has filled their pockets, just a dedicated team wanting to keep the memory of the Shackleton alive. Admittedly, they had plans to return her to flight but I think that’s a very distant (impossible) dream.
My point? I don’t think there is any issue with XH558 as an airframe, it would be great if it could be kept as a runner and would still be a crowd pleaser. What has to change is it’s ownership and future management. It may already be too late but I hope something can be done to keep her from the scrap merchant’s yard.
I have no allegiance to the Shackleton or it’s volunteers and members. I just find it an interesting comparison at this time.
I can only think the different responses is mainly down to the way VTTS has managed the Vulcan, especially since it’s grounding and the apparent squandering of money. By contrast, The Shackleton Aviation Group is run by a group of volunteers and their income appears to come from engine-run events, merchandise, donations and Friends of WR963 membership. Nobody has filled their pockets, just a dedicated team wanting to keep the memory of the Shackleton alive. Admittedly, they had plans to return her to flight but I think that’s a very distant (impossible) dream.
My point? I don’t think there is any issue with XH558 as an airframe, it would be great if it could be kept as a runner and would still be a crowd pleaser. What has to change is it’s ownership and future management. It may already be too late but I hope something can be done to keep her from the scrap merchant’s yard.
I have no allegiance to the Shackleton or it’s volunteers and members. I just find it an interesting comparison at this time.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff