Avro Vulcan

Totally agree with all that's been said here. The greenhouse sounds daft and would be loss making from the start. They are on to hiding to nothing in this one.

That's one more vote for brunty then, someone should start a face book campaign!

Mark my words, she'll end up in the US...

YellowPinkie;113489 wrote:

Mark my words, she'll end up in the US...

Not a chance - it'll end up at Brunty: 10p on it?

MethodMan;113494 wrote:

Not a chance - it'll end up at Brunty: 10p on it?

Yeah, I'll have a go at that.

I've no idea what an airworthy Vulcan goes for these days, but as the FAA aren't quite so stringent as the CAA, I reckon she could have another 10 years flying over there. A couple of million quid? Then the VTTS 'charity' can spend their cash on another project, like a Javelin - I'd love to see one of those in the sky - and a simpler job than the Vulcan!

Yeah, I'll have a go at that.

Wager accepted Sir.

Iacta alea est

MethodMan;113498 wrote:

Yeah, I'll have a go at that.

Wager accepted Sir.

Iacta alea est

My money's safe...

quod erat demonstrandum

I don't think she'll be able to carry on flying in America Yellowpinkie unless they can build some brand new engines from scratch and other vital vulcan parts for her which would be virtually impossible and hugely expensive even in the USA.

Here's a selection of Questions and Answers on the current situation and future...although not much about her eventual retirement i notice. Courtesy of the VTTS news letter and VTTS website -

End-of-Flight - Questions and Answers - Part 1

Here, Dr Robert Pleming aims to settle some of the more popular questions we have been asked over the last few weeks. Do check back in the future as we will add to this listing.

Part 1
Since announcing that various substantial technical challenges may prevent XH558 flying after the 2013 season, we have received a number of interesting questions. Here, supplementing the Q&A document and technical explanation published alongside the announcement, is the first installment of answers to those most commonly asked.
If you prefer a pdf to print from, then do please click here:


Q – What is the point continuing to give you money if you are going to give up?What are you planning to do with her after the 2013 season?
A – We're most certainly not giving up on XH558 flying on after the 2013 season, and we’re doing everything we can to fly XH558 for as long as possible. It's just that right at the moment, we haven't got a viable technical path forward from the end of 2013. However we have to plan for the day when she will no longer be able to fly, so we have decided we have to start planning now, and as part of this, we felt that it was only fair to let people know the current position on aircraft flying life. It's possible that we may be able to fly on, but the hard technical decision will not be ours alone – it will also involve the Vulcan’s engineering and design authorities.

Q - If £200,000 cannot be justified for two or three year’s life, how can £400,000 be justified for a single season?Why has it taken up to now to find out the work required would cost as much as you are stating to keep it in the air?
A – Let me clarify - the £200,000 on the wing modification would be justified if we could see 2-3 more years flying, but at the moment other factors may, and I emphasise may, cause us to stop flying in early 2014, in which case the £200,000 would not be justified. The estimated cost of the wing modification for winter 2013-14 is similar to that of the fatigue life extension modifications embodied in winter 2009-10.
The £400,000 is the partial cost of the Vulcan's winter service period. What we are saying is required for this winter’s service is not very different from that required in each of the previous four winter services we have performed on XH558. The winter is always an expensive time for us; it's a period when we have to spend about 50% of our £2million annual budget without any airshow revenue. It always was going to be an extremely expensive business to operate a Vulcan on the civil register, given the aircraft’s age, size and complexity.



Q – Five years ago when 558 had her first post-restoration flight that it was expected she would fly for ten years. Here we are only five years later and it is proposed that 2013 will likely be her sixth and final display season. Could someone please offer some reasons for this drastic change as the 'People's' aircraft has been constantly funded through annual dilemmas by the people who will now lose 40% of her proposed lifespan?
A – The assertion that we originally intended to fly for ten years is correct, but this plan had XH558 only flying for an average of 25 hours per year, or a total of 250 hours. In fact financial viability during the airshow season, and to some extent demand from XH558’s supporters, has increased the annual flying rate to about 35-40 hours per year. It turns out that by the end 2013, we will have been flying for more than 240 hours, or quite close to the original commitment. We continue to investigate how from a technical perspective we might extend XH558's flying life but the numbers right now say we have to stop at around the end of 2013.

Q – Is there no chance of ever getting more engines if enough money could be raised?

A – No. Sadly, there are no more zero-time, airworthy Olympus 202-series aircraft engines in existence. To build more, if it were technically possible, would be hugely expensive. But the design data no longer exists, and manufacturing processes have moved on. The project to return XH558 to flight was extremely lucky in having access to the only eight flight-worthy zero-time Olympus 202 engines available.

Q – Are any VC10 Conways available that might installed in XH558 instead of the Olympus?
A – Sadly, changing the XH558’s engine to a new type such as the Conway is not as simple as might seem at first glance. There are the obvious questions: Is the Conway physically the same size and weight? Where are the mounting points and the centre-of-gravity? How about CSDUs, alternators, hydraulic pumps, starters, fuel systems, bleed air & crossfeed, engine instruments etc? But there is a more challenging issue arising from how Vulcan XH558 is certified as safe to fly on the civil register.

Since the aircraft is not type-certificated, as are commercial aircraft, this is a two stage process:
1. In RAF service, was the aircraft's safety record good enough to fly by civilian standards? The answer for the Vulcan B.Mk2 with Olympus 202 engines was "Yes".
2. Is the aircraft's current configuration (engines, flying controls etc) sufficiently close to the configuration of RAF service versions for the safety record to be applicable? For XH558 with Olympus 202 engines, the answer is again "Yes".

Any deviation from the original configuration requires a risk assessment and safety case to be written - and this is exactly what we had to do with XH558 for all of the many changes made during the restoration project, for example removing unwanted operational systems and upgrading the avionics. As for replacing the Olympus engines with Conways, even if it were practically possible, there is no experience on which a safety case could be built - it's just too big a change to be effected at affordable cost.

Q - I cannot help feeling that the Vulcan is taking a disproportionate amount of the financial resources available for the aircraft preservation movement as a whole?
A - As regards taking a disproportionate of the financial resources for the aircraft preservation movement, I would agree with you if those resources were being distributed by say a government department.
But for the most part the funds we receive from supporters are freely given by members of the public wanting to support the flight of Vulcan XH558, and as such it’s difficult to know whether they would have been given to any other aircraft preservation activities if there was no Vulcan project.

Q – Why can't she be kept going like the Lancaster? How is it we can keep the Lancaster flying?
A – The RAF BBMF Lancaster PA474’s flying life was extended during the winter of 1995 by a number of years, which was only possible because a new rear spar from a Shackleton could be used. There is sadly no possibility of renewing the primary structure – the spars – on XH558. Also, PA474 uses Rolls-Royce Merlin engines, for which there are spares and overhaul facilities available. No such spares or facilities are available for XH558’s Olympus turbojet engines. Also, the BBMF Lancaster remains under military authorizations, processes and procedures, whereas the Vulcan is maintained and operated under rightly tough civilian regulations.

Q – Why is it that Aircraft like the Spitfire, Hurricanes and Lancaster still fly and they are much older than the Vulcan but the Vulcan will be grounded?
A – Spitfires, Hurricanes and the Lancaster are much simpler aircraft than the Vulcan, and are classified as such by the CAA. They are powered by an engine which remains in reasonable supply with good maintenance facilities. There are none such for the Olympus.

Q – There are many Vulcan museum and static display aircraft. Is it not possible to find an example with low hours and do a wing swap (obviously dependent upon condition)?

A – Sadly, there is no possibility of a "wing swap" with another Vulcan. First, those Vulcans which are under cover (and so in reasonable corrosion-free condition) are at national museums such as Hendon, Duxford, and Cosford. These museums would not be amenable to such an invasive operation on one of their exhibits. The Vulcan's structure is made of (mainly) aluminium alloy, which corrodes in the damp. We know that as the result externally-stored Vulcans are generally in a poor condition structurally.

Second, we would need accurate information for not only the flying life but also the fatigue consumption for those aircraft, and these records are now not available - so we don't have the provenance needed to justify the use of other aircraft structure.
Third, the engineering effort required to swap wings would be huge, because of the complexity of the aircraft. It might be possible for a static Vulcan, but maintaining airworthiness would be prohibitively expensive.

Q – What are the possibilities of getting the Wellesbourne Vulcan XM655 into a flying condition?

A – Whilst XM655 is the youngest Vulcan in existence and has been restored to fast-taxi condition by a sterling effort from her supporters, there are several reasons why it would be very difficult, if not impossible to return her to flight. XM655 has been kept outside for many years so there must be some serious questions about the level of corrosion in the airframe. As regards her engines, first they are 300-series Olympuses, which suffered a higher failure rate than XH558’s 200-series and as such are viewed as relatively less suitable for civilian operations. Second they have been on wing for more than 30 years, so their internal condition must be questionable. The on-wing calendar life for an Olympus is set at a maximum of 7 years. There is no doubt that there is no possibility of returning XM655 to flight under CAA regulations.

Q – The latest Newsbytes records the need for the annual ejection seat service to 'assure the complete safety of our flight crew'. Inevitably, this will be an expensive procedure. Has anyone considered disabling the ejector seats and saving a lot of money?
A – The safety case for the Vulcan requires that the crew escape mechanisms that existed during her RAF service career are maintained in an operational state during her civilian flying career. The Ejection Seats are the most high profile element and expensive of the safety systems, as they require servicing every 12 months, but there are others – the canopy gun, the rear crew booster cushions, parachutes and additional personal safety kit. Key to this is the fact that there is no practiced in-flight escape route for the pilots apart from ejection. Finally, the aircraft is not certified to international standards of safety; it is not an airliner, so the regulations demand that these safety systems are serviced in line with Martin-Baker requirements.

Q – What will happen to XH558 when she can no longer fly?

A – We strongly believe that after XH558 is no longer able to fly, there needs to be some lasting legacy from her iconic status, from what she means in terms of engineering design and innovation, and from the considerable effort and resources that have been expended returning her to flight and operating her since 2007. We have embarked on our planning by asking for ideas, proposals and comments on what people think should be an appropriate and beneficial legacy. You will find our consultation document here: link needed – and we are grateful for any and all responses.

More Questions and Answers very soon!

Thanks Stevie. The closing statement sounds like it's not a done deal yet. If you can find the link for the consultation document, post it up so we can all reply with one word "BRUNTINGTHORPE!"

I agree with you YellowPikie" BRUNTINGTHORPE!!!!!

Bomber;113671 wrote:

I agree with you YellowPikie" BRUNTINGTHORPE!!!!!

Well we certainly don't need any Pikie's, yellow or otherwise Bomber,at BRUNTINGTHORPE!!