Warbird Information Exchange

My Apologies Rob I was forgetting my history.

But just for a minute assume that the Lanc was built in England. Can you see my point? (you dont have to agree with it, merely understand what I am getting at)

In any case if it happens then great, I'll be there. If not then fine I'll just have to jump on a plane to go see her. No problem either way.

Oh and if there was a reciprocal arrangement. Then if the BBMF are happy then so am I.

The only reason we have not seen the Lanc at Geneseo is money. If someone could raise the money the CWH wants, we would see the Lanc at Geneseo. Mike, Kevin and Paul at Yankee Air Force have proved that. The appearance fee for the Lanc is extreme and most shows can't afford it.

Eric

_________________
The air resounds from the Rolls-Royce roar!
To an enemy the warning is dire: here only eagles soar,
and the last thing he'll see is a mirrored Spitfire!

As has been pointed out it’s a money thing.

I would assume, for example, for the Lanc to fly to a US show, CWH would have to make a guesstimate fee based on covering logistic cost should a major component fail and cause the aircraft to be grounded en-route or at location. If the CWH are working on very tight budgetary controls, then it understandable they are restricting displays to close to home, unless organisers are prepared to cough up the required large fee to cover possible crippling costs.

However, this trip to the UK, clearly is invited at the behest of the MOD/RAF, so it’s fair to say that most if not all logistical engineering support will be underwritten/provided by the RAF and possibly Canadian Armed Forces, which then makes this a very sensible undertaking.

Scott, re. the B-24, presumably, if the USAF/USAFE put their hands up to providing similar logistical/engineering support in the same way for the trip, the chances of the B-24 making it over would be greatly increased.

Says I, salivating at the prospect of the chance of seeing a formation of 2 x Lanc, 1 x B-17 and 1 x B24 flyover of Buckingham Palace....

Hey! C'mon chaps!

"Thanks for moving the mountain, but I wanted it here, not there."

If you want something, lobby, pay, put in effort. If you don't get it and someone else does, please don't gripe!

First off the CWH deserve support for restoring and flying their Lanc; a superb achievement. I really can't believe we can just overlook that. We can't overlook that it burns gas and parts - which have to be paid for. You offer a great (money) deal, I'm sure the CWH will listen. You tell them what they should do, rather than what they can do, please tell us all here why they should listen?

If a UK trip is on, great. A lightly loaded four engined bomber taking hops across the Atlantic isn't a great risk. I'd take a jump seat (I would anyway, but you know... )

Sure, it was built in Canada, and commemorates RCAF and RAF Canadian airmen - I'd like to think it commemorates the Commonwealth contribution. Just think of the positive effect on the general public the comment that "That there 'old plane' flew all the way across the Atlantic to be here today, and it's a loan from our Canadian cousins." - stunning, and a coup for the credability of the WHOLE warbird movement...

Sure, it would be nice to have a Canadian tour and another visit to Geneseo. See how this idea goes, and see what can be done next. We build on each other's achievements. Don't try and drag the others down because you haven't got what you want.

And I would like to declare I'm non-partisan here - I'm not going to see either Lanc in 2005; whichever side of the pond they may be, but I did get off my backside and go see the CWH wonder at home base, as well as 3 other Canadian Lancasters, two Australian and a French, as well as the four in the UK. Mahomet - mountain. You do the math(s).

Cheers,

_________________
James K

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

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

I live in England and so might get to see this purported two-lanc formation but I am still not convinced of the merits of it. The single Lanc with two fighters is a very powerful tribute. Lancs would rarely have been seen in two-ship formations anyway (I associate that with fighters). Should the RCAF Lanc not be in Canadian skies on VE Day? And what happens if it can't come back from England for some reason? It could be stuck here forever without necessarily funding to keep it flying in England let alone go back to it's rightful home. Knowing the UK it might even end up rotting as an outdoor static exhibit (such things have happened to aircraft in this country) I say let it tour NA and do a flypast for the RCAF veterans on VE Day. And you can't compare swapping a Lanc with swapping a BBMF spit (there's plenty of Spits about).

(pedant mode ON)

Technically speaking, it WILL be in Canada for VE Day; that's in May, the project is for July.

(pedant mode OFF)

Personally I think it would be an extremely evocative sight, and certainly one which will spawn various "Do you remember this formation?" photo threads on FlyPast in ten years time. If they ever get it fixed. The board, that is, not the Lancaster... oh you know what I mean...

I don’t think you’ve grasped what’s been mentioned in earlier posts.

The visit of the CWH Lanc, if CWH say yes, is going to have the support of the RAF/BBMF and possibly Canada Armed Forces logistic help as well, which is the only reason this trip can be even considered a viable proposition, and why this really may be a now or never opportunity, so your doom and gloom scenario’s including ‘left to rot in the UK’ are a trifle OTT.

The other reason, people are overlooking is that the CAA regs about single engined aircraft over flying London have to be considered, so the BBMF Lanc with a Spit and Hurricane on the wing isn’t a likely scenario.

If the CWH Lanc doesn’t make the trip, it will be a flypast by PA474 on it’s own, or maybe with the BBMF Dak, unless an arrangement with Sally-B operators can be made for a Lanc, B-17 joint flyover.
CAA has given special dispensation for a Spit flypast over London recently, but IIRC, provided it followed the line of the River Thames. Presumably thus giving a safe ditching zone in event of a problem.

Hence I suspect one of the reasons why the approach to CWH and possibly Collings Foundation for the B-24. Also, as JDK mentioned, The BBMF Lanc would be representing all RAF crews, the CWH Lanc would be a fitting representation for all Canadian and other Commonwealth aircrew, and the B-24 and or B-17 a tribute to all USAAF aircrew. What price to see a poppy drop from all 3 or even 4 heavies over the centre of London.

The swapping of the Lanc and the BBMF Spit is relevant as this was a reference to the BBMF taking the Mk.V (in Eagle Sqn. Markings) over to Nellis AFB for the 50th Anniversary of the USAF as a tribute to the USA pilots that volunteered to fly with the RAF, taking the Lanc over for that event would not have been that relevant.

IIRC there was always an exemption for BBMF Fighters and the Red Arrows. I know the latter still stands not sure about the former. The routes chosen for the single engined aircraft are based upon them being the safest available in the event of an engine failure, however being over London that doesnt say much!!

As far as I'm aware the exemption for the BBMF partially stands, in that special dispensation has been given for solo Spitfire runs at low level following the route of the Thames for reasons previously stated.
I believe that the fighter are no longer allowed to fly over London other than this option.
Maybe when or if the Flypast forum is up we can get Fluffy to clarify

Folks,

First of all, I am personally glad to see the great number of UK enthusiasts on here with the recent FP outage and the coverage this subject is creating... thanks all and I hope you continue to stay once FP is back up.

In response to the earlier inquiry about the B-24 Liberator and the tour to the UK, I spoke with Mr. Collings this afternoon and we would like to pass on the following:

Our estimates placed a cost of $300,000+ for the transit flights over and back. This covers fuel, needed modifications, and direct operation costs only. Once in UK we have to consider the increased cost of operation due to higher fuel prices per gallon for AVGAS in the UK in addition to the potentially higher cost of parts, equipment, and gift shop supplies shipping if anything were needing replacement.

Our fundraising effort in the UK would be primarily based on gate admission (walkthrough tours on the plane), PX gift shop sales, and appearance fees at the various airshows such as Flying Legends and any other shows around the July/August timeframe. We have explored the possibility of offering flight experiences for donation as we do here in the United States on the Wings of Freedom Tour, but we have found that this is not possible due to the requirements of the civil aviation authorities in the UK. Flight experiences account for nearly 2/3 of our annual fundraising effort on the B-24. We are indeed looking for direct sponsorships from individuals and corporations that would be interested in contributing to this effort where they could fly entire groups of employees or VIPs aboard the B-24 while taking advantage of a very unique and high visibility marketing program as supporters of the B-24 tour in the UK.

As you can imagine, this is not an endeavor that can be done at a moments notice, so time is of the essence for us. We are working on Summer schedules for the B-17 & B-24 now and are beginning to make commitments to US shows and city visits. In addition there is a need to install long-range fuel tanks in the B-24 and some updated avionics that would be difficult to do “on the road” after winter maintenance is completed in March.

We would love to bring the B-24 to the UK in 2005. Obviously the celebration of the 60th is one reason, but also as we have noted, the B-24 is being repainted as the “Witchcraft”, an 8th AF B-24 serving with the 467th at Rackheath—an olive drab bird that would be right at home over the skies of England. We also can see a certain “homecoming” with the aircraft as the B-24 left the UK in 1984 in crates and would return with air under her wings... this would be a special opportunity as well.

If anyone would like to consider helping, I encourage you to email myself or Bob Collings through my email address at rkeough@collingsfoundation.org. If you prefer telephone, call 978-562-9182 (UK dial: (001) 978 562 9182). Any sponsorship leads can be directed in the same manner.

Thanks for your time,
Ryan Keough
Collings Foundation

PS: The B-24 entered the paint shop yesterday in Lake City, FL at TIMCO... this is the last picture of her in silver.


See the story in the Lake City Reporter at: http://www.lakecityreporter.com/articles/2005/02/01/news/top_story/news01.txt

I still stand by earlier misgivings about this project. On the subject of MOD funding, if you look back to threads where this trip was first discussed, then the funding was allegedly coming from a mysterious millionaire benefactor who was going to supply engines as well as cash. The benefactor is no longer mentioned in these threads. On the subject of the Lanc being stranded in the UK, I propose that this is a possibility: what if the airframe is damaged and judged not to be able to make the return trip. Who funds shipping it back (probably never to fly again)? The MOD? And if it's not shipped back, who owns it? If the MOD have the funding for this trip, I would rather see it put towards keeping other historic aircraft flying in this country, maybe adding a new type to the BBMF. I recently saw a documentary about Pelican 16 - the SAAF Shack that crashed on the way to GB and presumably still lies in the Sahara. Is a Shack not a more reliable long distance plane than a Lanc?

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