Vulcan to fly March 2007

[sabredriver]

Thats the rumour i hear

[Robbie Stuart]

From http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/04 ... ect_saved/




Vulcan bomber project reaches for the sky
Millionaire's donation saves restoration trust
By Lester Haines → More by this authorPublished Monday 4th September 2006 08:20 GMTFind your perfect job - click here from thousands of tech vacancies Next year's planned fly past over London to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Falklands war now looks likely to feature a Vulcan bomber after a multi-millionaire intervened with his cheque book to save a restoration project dedicated to getting an example airborne, The Daily Telegraph reports.

Sir Jack Hayward - owner of Wolverhampton Wanderers football club - stumped up a cool £500,000 for the Vulcan To The Sky trust just as the £6m, seven-year project faced crash-and-burn.

To celebrate the timely cash injection from the property developer known as "Union Jack", model XH558 was rolled out of its hanger at Bruntingthorpe, near Leicester, last week.

Former Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Knight, chairman of the Vulcan To The Sky trust and a former Vulcan pilot, said: "We can now look forward to getting this magnificent aeroplane back into the air at last."

Design work on the Avro Vulcan began in 1947, with the first full-scale prototype taking to the air in 1952. The RAF received its first example in 1956, and took delivery of the last of 134 aircraft in 1965.

Powered by four Bristol-Siddeley Olympus 301 turbojets, and boasting a range of 2,000 nautical miles at a cruise speed of 540 knots, the Vulcan carried a crew of five for its primary role as a nuclear weapon delivery platform.

The Vulcan's most famous payload, however, was strictly conventional when, between 30 April and 12 June 1982, the RAF carried out the "Black Buck" missions against Port Stanley airfield and Argentinian installations on the Falklands. The raids are remembered less for their effectiveness (the 21 1000lb bombs dropped during the 30 April strike against Port Stanley airfield caused little damage) than for the 8,000 mile round-trip from Ascension Island required to carry them out.

The Vulcan was due for retirement after the Falklands war, but six aircraft continued in service as air-to-air refuelling tankers until 1984. Of its demise, Sir Jack Hayward lamented: "It should never have been allowed to stop flying. It's a lovely aircraft that will give a real thrill to the British public." ®
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cool!
Robbie

[B-29 Super Fort]

That is a very ambitious project to say the least. With over 6 million in British Pounds spent so far (over $11 million US) this story relates well to the discussion about why you don't see older jet bombers flying, apart of the gov't regs etc. Takes major $$$

Last edited by B-29 Super Fort on Fri Oct 06, 2006 10:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

[Lynn Allen]

Would be a great dream, but to see a B-36 fly again, Oh Yeah....

Lynn

[wwiiavfan]

The Vulcan is really a neat looking aircraft. A fellow at the Manitowoc airshow a few years back flew an R/C model. Don't recall the scale, but the wingspan was maybe 5 feet. Very cool!

[Mike]

That is a very ambitious project to say the least. With over 6 million in British Pounds spent so far (over $11 million US) this story relates well to the discussion about why you don't see older jet bombers flying, apart of the gov't regs etc. Takes major $$$

A further £1m - £1.2m (say $2m) per year will be required to operate it. There is no funding in place for this at present, other than the hope that benefactors / sponsors will come forward once it is in the air. Airshow fees will contribute only a small portion of the operating costs (it will attend perhaps half a dozen major airshows each year.) Only a last-gasp donation of £500k by a single benefactor has ensured that the project was not wound up at the end of August.

They say that the operating life is expected to be some 10-15 years after the rebuild is completed, so some $20-30m will have to raised in that time frame.

And people wonder why more jet bombers aren't flying at airshows!

[Boghopper]

Hi their

I only live 45mins from the Vulcan, i'm pretty sure that the teams only going to operate the machine for 3 to 4 seasons, then it's being retired to Duxford.

Martyn

[Mike]

Hi their

I only live 45mins from the Vulcan, i'm pretty sure that the teams only going to operate the machine for 3 to 4 seasons, then it's being retired to Duxford.

Martyn

A tenner says it'll never get to Duxford.

NOBODY (least of all the IWM, who I emailed directly asking this question) has been able to adequately explain just why the heck they'd want ANOTHER Vulcan (and a civilianised one, unrepresentative of a service example) when they've just spent a good few million getting their present example under cover. Oh, and when they've a history of cutting up duplicate airframes for scrap (Varsity, Comet, etc).

And the VOC's statements from the start of this project have continually mentioned an anticipated operating life of 10-15 years.

[Boghopper]

Time will tell my Air Marshall chum

Martyn

P.S , And once it's at duxford it will perform taxi runs at Airshows while still owned by VOC.

[AndyG]

And she'll fly again no thanks whatsover to the extreme negativity cultivated and allowed to flourish on the Flypast forum by the biased moderating team....

Disgraceful.

[David J Burke]

Andy - I think you misunderstand the meaning of moderation. The purpose of it is to keep debates civil and try and keep them roughly on track . It is not to gloss over gapping cracks which appear in projects or indeed to rally a cause when there are deep concens about it.

Some of my concerns are:

1. Funding a £1 million operating cost each year.
2. Why she should be preserved at Duxford when they already have a prime example.
3. How they could fund her insurance as a taxying machine at Duxford
4. How many air shows could actually afford to book her
5. Why would she appeal to more than a couple of displays each year if the booking cost is high - surely enthusiasts would just visit one display!
6. If current instability in the Middle East continues the cost of fuel
could spiral dramatically in the next few years.
7. Why would potential sponsors choose to have their products associated
with a 1960's bomber when the public is getting increasingly tired of war on their televisions.


Address these concerns with accurate and thoughtful comments and maybe even I would come on board in supporting the project .

[sabredriver]

any warbird is different to current war machines - dont you realise this?

[David J Burke]

Ah right so the public perception of a L-39 flying in pseudo U.S markings is entirely different to any number of 'L-39' type aircraft bombing in a real war?

[Mike]

P.S , And once it's at duxford it will perform taxi runs at Airshows while still owned by VOC.

Actually the terms of the HLF grant specify that is donated to a major national collection at the end of its flying career, which implies transfer of ownership. How many taxi runs do IWM perform with their aircraft at present? A Vulcan at full chat on Duxford's truncated runway, with a motorway at one end? I don't think so. Oh, and none of Duxford's hangars (other than AirSpace, which already has a Vulcan) are big enough to house it.

[PhantomAce08]

Just curious, but this goes back to the "Jet Bomber" thread... what is an estimate on the cost of getting say like a B-47 or B-58 flyable as compared to the Vulcan? I'm guessing pretty much the same?