Warbird Information Exchange

Did I see anyone mention MOD 'funding'.......

Cash funding is NOT the same as vital logistical and engineering support which what I believe is being talked about here...

Ryan,
So no offer of help from Uncle Sam's military machine then, as a tribute to those boys from 60 years ago......

They must be spending $300,000 a minute over you know where at the moment. And a cheap and worthwhile PR investment in Europe for them as well at the moment......

Worthwhile I can't imagine that any amount of PR would have any effect whatsoever over what the Europeans think of the US. I mean come on, with all the money and lives the US spent protecting Europe from themselves in the past century, the US receives hardly any credit in a political sense (assuming you think the correct side won). france and germany don't have exactly an enviable record on world peace in the past century, yet suddenly they are the self-proclaimed experts.

And regarding $300,000 a minute, I suggest that all militaries are cutting out these types of expenditures, current wars notwithstanding. And why should the US spend $300,000 as a tribute to our boys by flying over London and dropping posies on the queen's car park? Wouldn't that money be better spent flying to US airshows to remind Americans of our own sacrifices in the name of freedom from tyranny?

There, I've done it. I've broken my own rule about discussing politics on the WIX. Now look what you have gone and done. I'll crawl back into my hole now. Sorry...

Did I see anyone mention MOD 'funding'.......

Cash funding is NOT the same as vital logistical and engineering support which what I believe is being talked about here...

Does anyone know how the trip would be funded then? If the MOD provide support then presumably that will either be funded by the MOD as I thought or by the mystery benefactor? I still take the point of view that the risks of the trip are too great (eg Pelican 16) and any funding could be spent on something more worthwhile in historic aviation. But thanks for alerting me to the fact that GB is celebrating VE Day in July. Anyone know the reason for this?

Because our lovey dovey realise sod all about history and tradition Government have decided that rather than have two days of celebration and rememberance we will have one in betwixed VE and VJ day.

Some of us will ignore this and celebrate both independently.

It is nothing short of a National Disgrace

Celebrating VE day and VJ day on some combined random day is utterly ridiculous. They could at least have chosen VJ day as it marked the end of WW2. Presumably the rest of the world will be commemorating on the proper days.

That's like saying if I can't drive my Morgan across the NA continent then I can't drive it around the block. If it's alright with you... I'll still pull it out of the garage for a trip around town but I'll pass on the cross country odyssey.

I think a trip of this nature would put far too many stressful hours on an airframe for nothing more than a photo op.

Regards, Goshikisen.

Why get out of bed in the morning? You might get hit by a bus.

Really, if we all felt as you do then no warbird would ever fly.

Steve

The comparison is not with crossing the road and getting hit by a bus, it's with swimming the Channel or crossing the Sahara. I can accept that ageing Lancs can fly at airshows or flypasts but I question whether they should fly the North Atlantic (twice).

Hi 137 Sqn,

As I posted on the FP Board:

"4 engines
Lightly loaded
Escorted
Hops / reasonable legs
Well prepared

Perfectly possible, no major effect on airframe, quite a lot of hours used on engines.

If a Grumman Albatross can do it, the ex-Strathallan Lanc did it, in a lot worse shape. The Dutch DC-2 did it... NX611 (Just Jane today, G-ASXX then) flew from Australia to England in civillian hands. The book 'The Last Lanc' by Patrick Kilvington is well worth reading. G for George flew to Australia in RAAF hands for a reverse job to the CWH example. And a Halifax (Waltzing Matilda) flew to Aus with a load of passangers in the late fourties. Let's not cotton wool our treasures."

Referring to 'aging Lancs' is the sort of remarks we put up with from the newspapers. It's in better form for long distance flight than any wartime Lanc was, with an accident rate (causede by engine / airframe failure) of not a lot... It's been rebuilt, it carries a huge amount less weight than the type ever did to war, the engine(s) out performance is perfectly reasonable. Sure it'll put time on the airframe, but you know what? I think the CWH would do their sums, calculate the risk and be a lot less gung ho than us - so let's try and accept the owners might just know what they are doing.

We are entitled to our opinions, and the CWH are entitled to do what they legally like with their Lanc. I'm just amazed that a long flight is rtregarded as a high risk. It's a low risk, highly expensive task. That's all.

Cheers!

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

I suggest that hours of cruising over the North Atlantic are not near as hard on the engine as a bunch of low-level flypasts at an airshow are, and probably not near as dangerous.

One thing to consider that I have not heard anyone mention is the "risk" as identified by insurers. I know that one of the most expensive elements of warbird operation today is the insurance needed for basic operations... more if you ask to fly passengers. Could the CWH have limitations placed on it by the insurers of the hull itself?

In the end, it all comes down to money though... and no matter how noble the mission or how incredible it would be, if the organization providing the aircraft lacks the funding to do it and the organization sponsoring the effort lacks the same... well, you see where it is going. No more risky than just about anything we do in warbirds these days (heck, Collings Foundation did a pretty spectacular tour of Alaska in 2000 and 2001 that had some significant risks too) but it all comes down to "how are we going to pay for it".

Ryan Keough