Crikey! My apologies for not having contributed to this thread in a while; I’ve had a few things on. I can’t respond to everything that has been asked over the last month immediately, but it looks like the most recent questions have been about the Canberra. I’ll have a go with those for now and do my best to respond to the rest in due course.
The XH134 v WK163 and ‘money donated for XH558 spent on Canberra’ questions were answered in the Sept 2017 Q&A (by myself). It is linked here:
http://www.vulcantothesky.org/6monthreview.htmlXH134 v WK163
• VTST engineering staff considered XH134 to the extent of visiting and inspecting the aircraft at Kemble
• As said above, the aircraft was in the hands of the receivers of MidAir Squadron at the time and the valuation appeared to be well above any figure that could be raised in time.
• There were (and remain) serious concerns about the relative complication and small production run of the PR9, following the VTST engineering assessment. Clearly it is not impossible to operate a PR9 on the display circuit and we were used to a Complex category aircraft, but there were additional layers of difficulty associated with its systems etc that were potential banana skins. Think about the Sea Vixen compared to a Hunter for example.
• Our expertise was in returning aircraft to flight – the most value that could be added to the heritage sector by us was in doing this, using the capability that had been built by our supporters.
• There was nothing in this that stopped someone else/another group flying XH134. That has not happened, but not because of anything VTST has done (in my view).
• At the same time, we were offered the opportunity to purchase WK163, which as noted by Mr O’Hagan is an historically significant airframe in its own right and representative of the Canberra bomber force.
• The B2 is much closer to the clockwork and string end of the spectrum than the PR9.
• XH134 was in close to airworthy condition, hangered and looked after (albeit stored). There was no immediate threat to its potential as an airworthy heritage asset.
• WK163 by contrast was struggling and could have been lost as a potentially airworthy aircraft if not attended to soon. The probability of flying again given the run down of the fleet at Coventry was relatively low.
• The experience with XH558 meant that VTST was confident it could return WK163 to flight and generate the finance to do so.
Funding for the Canberra.
• The annual accounts describe WK163 as ‘Held at cost’ of ~£51k. This included (but is not limited to) the purchase price + VAT + spares + cost of transport to Doncaster.
• We don’t know what price could have been agreed for XH134, but it is reasonable to suppose that there would have been additional costs for the work required and hangarage while it was performed, together with equivalent transport for the spares stock.
• All of this cost was recovered by the subsequent Canberra appeal, hence no VTST central funding (let alone that specifically for XH558 as has been alleged) was ultimately used for the Canberra purchase.
• Including the Phase 1 assessment work at Doncaster, which aimed to survey the airframe for return to flight, more than 90% of the total project cost to date has been covered by the Canberra appeal. The remainder (less than 10%, obviously) did come from VTST central funding, but would have involved engineering support that existed anyway.
• Some of this proportion has been subsequently recovered by Canberra specific merchandise, which does rather well.
• We have not marketed the Canberra appeal recently for obvious reasons; the reaction at airshows and generally from our supporters gives us hope that the relaunch following the hangar build has a good chance of success.
• We intend to pursue an HLF grant for the Canberra project.
The plan for the Canberra
• We intend to return WK163 to flight and the airshow circuit. The phase 1 work has not revealed any showstoppers to the best of my knowledge.
• Had things panned out as we thought they would, then a return about two years after the purchase was targeted.
• There are at least four prerequisites to the restoration commencing; the availability of the hangar, the HLF grant (which cannot be sought for a project that has already started), further understanding of the costs and finally the impact of the Shoreham inquest on the regulatory environment.
• No further work on the restoration will be taking place until the hangar is available. We have said that we hope this will be in 2019.
Steve
Dan O'Hagan wrote:If '163 flies again under their stewardship, I will run naked through the streets of Doncaster.
I have never felt so motivated. Are there any conditions attached to this and can I choose the particular streets?
