Or you could take the view that the Vulcan would have enabled the development of a heritage facility with unrestricted runway use and good access. Lots of aeroplanes at Bruntingthorpe that would have been far more attractive alongside the Vulcan. Given that none of them fly, do they need unrestrict...

Domvickery wrote:Can we not turn this into an XH558 thread please, there's more to Bruntingthorpe than an aircraft that isnt there

He started it!

And personally, having donated much time, blood, sweat and tears to the aircraft resident at Brunty, know that point very well indeed.

While not stating a view on its merits either one way or another, such uncertainties do give credence to the informed decision taken by VTTS not to relocate a certain airframe to this place! Or you could take the view that the Vulcan would have enabled the development of a heritage facility with un...

Interesting info on Hawk/Tucano. Former makes sense, the latter I assume due to the US market for them?

Great news for NAM! Absolutely bizarre decision from Duxford and the IWM. Getting rid of your only example of the RAF’s premier frontline fast-jet? And a development aircraft at that. Baffling really. Unless they’re getting another example more representative of the type as currently in service? I ...

NAM Updater wrote:Thanks for the feedback.

No other active targets at present although both trainers would fit in nicely; lots of development plans now being evaluated & hopefully pursued. #NAMwatchThisSpace

I guess easier to come by than a Typhoon?!

Al’s funeral was held yesterday. Standing room only in the crematorium, with more standing outside listening on the speakers.

The world has lost a fine bloke and a world class aviator. RIP.

DerekF wrote:And for those without encyclopaedic knowledge of the UK civil or military register these are a Harrier T.8 and a Sea Harrier F/A.2

Well said!

Petulance, methinks. It looks to be a case of "If we can't get the planning permission through one way, we'll get it through another way" I think it maybe a case of acquiring the airfield under the auspices of getting planning permission for something “aviation sympathetic”, and then when...

Sounds like they probably should have talked to each other before pressing “post” on social media.

The Blades are almost exclusively all ex-Reds aren’t they?

Seeing as they exist to make money for a private company, I doubt they’ll be filling in for the RAF Events Team on the Reds’ behalf!

There’s an interesting thread over on Twitter, remarking that the “8200” designation has been in place for some time, but until now hasn’t been “publicly” used.

I know i'm exaggerating but at the moment it looks like pretty much every country in the world is making an effort except the UK? Whats up boys? so devoid of passion for your forefathers fantastic deeds, you just shrug and go 'me-h'? Where is the passion? Although granted that might have been beate...

AIRCRAFT POSITIONS REPORT – 23/05 I put all of this together using Flightaware, Flightradar24 and social media posts to get an accurate overview of the current situation. This is all the U.S. Dakotas listed on the Daks over Normandy website. Currently it looks like only 13 of the U.S. based Dakotas...

Scary really that this got into the public domain. Are our forces so into instawhatsbook that stuff now gets put out there without going through a P.R. department first for approval? Why would it go through a PR department? Why would anyone want this in the public domain? Agreed. It should have bee...

capercaillie wrote:

GertrudetheMerciless wrote:Or maybe just spend the money on something useful?

Are you available for children's parties?

Not after the last one...

The day we can fly at least one serviceable aeroplane of each type in the RAF simultaneously would be nice to see though.

Agg wrote:

GertrudetheMerciless wrote:Or maybe just spend the money on something useful?

I don't think painting a couple of black and white stripes on an aircraft would break the bank.

This is the MoD we’re talking about. They’d probably sign a contract at £1m per stripe.

But “he didn’t know” come the cries of the public “How unfair” they say. “How can they sack him for something so minor”. So, let’s rephrase the allegation, an allegation that he used a service asset (that would have cost public money) for personal use. Let’s call it fraud. Still happy he’s in charg...

But “he didn’t know” come the cries of the public “How unfair” they say. “How can they sack him for something so minor”. So, let’s rephrase the allegation, an allegation that he used a service asset (that would have cost public money) for personal use. Let’s call it fraud. Still happy he’s in charge...

Or maybe just spend the money on something useful?

To be fair it’s been talked about for decades

farnboroughrob wrote: So maintenance of four engines is less of a issue than it would be for airlines as the aircraft have more down time.

Not sure that's really a consideration. Maintaining 4 engines costs far more too.

I was wondering why some large military planes like the C-17 are four engine, when most airliners were twins by the time that first flew. Surely a plane full of people weighs more than most military loads. I presume it is because of extra thrust needed in hostile/urgent situations and an engine mig...

Berf wrote:For anyone wishing to follow the airspace change process https://airspacechange.caa.co.uk/PublicProposalArea?pID=105

The documents are well worth reading, particularly those from the end of March.

I wonder if the other bidders will appeal?

I guess when the TriStars finally leave Bruntingthorpe, we’ll know it’s on.