Spare Engines for the Vulcan
Discussion
There are a few different types of Olympus engines, and the type XH558 uses are different to the engines the Southport Vulcan currently has. The team that own XH558 own all the airworthy engines that XH558 needs, without modifying the plane and creating a huge amount of paperwork in the slim chance the CAA would allow the modifications.
Following the fatigue life extension mods to the wing leading edges, the XH558 operators now say they have more airframe life than engine life, hence they are going to change the way it was flown (i.e. fly it faster and keep the throttles further open) to reduce engine cycles from now on.
I vaguely recall that the trust that looks after the Southend Vulcan had already donated XL426's airworthy engines to XH558 some time ago - when they abandoned plans to restore XL426 to flying status and limited their scope to keeping her in running/taxiable condition.
I think they received serviceable, but not airworthy, engines from XH558 in exchange - these may be the spare engines they refer to.
I think they received serviceable, but not airworthy, engines from XH558 in exchange - these may be the spare engines they refer to.
ecsrobin said:
CrutyRammers said:
No. I think someone damaged one engine by leaving a packet of dessicant inside it when it was started.
That would be it, I remembered someone leaving something that then damaged the engine. hammo19 said:
I think that incident actually damaged two engines....as far as I am aware XH558 does have some new crated engines but I think time expired. Although they have not been used they have a shelf/expiry date but I thought the trust was trying to get the manufacturers to extend their date.....I may be wrong.
How many years will they keep saying "next year is our last year" I've been very vocal in how I don't agree with how the Vulcan is run and how the displays have progressively got more boring. However this year was a pleasure to see the aircraft thrown around a bit more and a bit more noise. ecsrobin said:
hammo19 said:
I think that incident actually damaged two engines....as far as I am aware XH558 does have some new crated engines but I think time expired. Although they have not been used they have a shelf/expiry date but I thought the trust was trying to get the manufacturers to extend their date.....I may be wrong.
How many years will they keep saying "next year is our last year" I've been very vocal in how I don't agree with how the Vulcan is run and how the displays have progressively got more boring. However this year was a pleasure to see the aircraft thrown around a bit more and a bit more noise. hammo19 said:
ecsrobin said:
hammo19 said:
I think that incident actually damaged two engines....as far as I am aware XH558 does have some new crated engines but I think time expired. Although they have not been used they have a shelf/expiry date but I thought the trust was trying to get the manufacturers to extend their date.....I may be wrong.
How many years will they keep saying "next year is our last year" I've been very vocal in how I don't agree with how the Vulcan is run and how the displays have progressively got more boring. However this year was a pleasure to see the aircraft thrown around a bit more and a bit more noise. 
You're never going to '558 fly anything resembling an old in-RAF service display.
It's currently down to engine cycles with the existing engines which were zero houred by Rolls Royce, throttle up throttle down = 1 cycle, once these are used up the engine is end of life, the current life cycle from zero hour is 1200.
The incident which wrecked two engines was a very stupid mistake
http://www.vulcantothesky.org/news/354/82/Engine-D...
I also hear on the grape vine that Bruntingthorpe who still own XH558 and are still owed money for it don't want it back for fast taxiing...this could also be a complete myth that's circulating on the Avgeek grapevine, anyone else heard the same?
A little more about the engine life etc on their page, interestingly they say they have 6 although don't give much detail about life cycles
http://www.vulcantothesky.org/news/591/82/Update-o...
The incident which wrecked two engines was a very stupid mistake
http://www.vulcantothesky.org/news/354/82/Engine-D...
I also hear on the grape vine that Bruntingthorpe who still own XH558 and are still owed money for it don't want it back for fast taxiing...this could also be a complete myth that's circulating on the Avgeek grapevine, anyone else heard the same?
A little more about the engine life etc on their page, interestingly they say they have 6 although don't give much detail about life cycles
http://www.vulcantothesky.org/news/591/82/Update-o...
slartibartfast said:
I also hear on the grape vine that Bruntingthorpe who still own XH558 and are still owed money for it don't want it back for fast taxiing...this could also be a complete myth that's circulating on the Avgeek grapevine, anyone else heard the same?
XH558 is owned by the Vulcan To The Sky Trust, so maybe what you've heard is wrong and it's a complete myth?slartibartfast said:
I also hear on the grape vine that Bruntingthorpe who still own XH558 and are still owed money for it don't want it back for fast taxiing...this could also be a complete myth that's circulating on the Avgeek grapevine, anyone else heard the same?
The Waltons certainly do not still own '558 - there would have been no lottry funding if they had.They are not owned money for the a/c itself, but I seem to recall issues regarding money owing for the rent of the hanger at Brunty for when '558 was rebuilt there.
I don't think it's a case of them not wanting it back at Brunty after it's flying days are finally over, it's more a case of that the HLF funding proviso's don't allow for it.
I think it should go to Elvington - by far the best place for it.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff