Vulcan XH558 to leave Doncaster, possible ferry flight

[Brevet Cable]

Me being pedantic, I know, and it's not aimed at any particular poster, but....

They are not VTTS, they are VTST !!
If you need confirmation, check out Companies House ( https://find-and-update.company-informa ... y/04478686 ) and in particular the accounts they filed.

Rant over!

Oh, and from the accounts....
They still put a value on XH558 at around £750k
They still have an outstanding loan of £402k from the NHMF ( the heritage body which dishes out money from the National Lottery )

[richw_82]

Room is the problem there, already they're getting a Shackleton, so less room on the museums ground.

I would argue that room is one of the more easily overcome problems they have. It's big, but not so big that if you really wanted to, most airfields could find space for a Vulcan.

Room is definitely a problem... the airfield and museum are two completely separate entities.

As much as people like it, or think its logical; believe what the powers up there have told you already. Its taken nearly two years of negotiation to secure a spot for the Shackleton... and we're not as inflexible as VTST on what we wanted out of the deal.

[ericbee123]

That USS Texas thread has given me an idea.

The River Idle is only 3 miles from Doncaster airport.

Transport XH558 to there, onto a barge, tug it to The Trent, onto the Humber, then transport it anywhere near a River or the coast.

Job Done.

They’ve got 8 months or so left to plan the move.

Maybe on a barge off Greenwich or moored next to HMS Belfast.

Could do high speed jet powered barge runs up the Thames.

[AndyXH558]

Also elvington hasn't got a strong enough area to accommodate her. Most of their grounds are tarmacked, and as 558 is a heavier aircraft than the other aircraft in the collection there is a distinct possibility of the ground not being suitable

Hence why Lindy and the Nimrod are where they are. Any further up the taxiway the foundations give way. As rich has pointed out the area of the museum is rather small in comparison to the rest of the airfield which has nothing to do with the museum. It's a private separate company that owns the airfield.

There has to be some negotiations to even run aircraft on thunder days.

[Blue_2]

Elvington would seem the most logical to me. There appears to be space for another hangar if needs be.

Seems odd just how quick out the blocks YAM were with their statement. I find it hard to believe that having the aircraft there doesn't appeal... so you assume there must be some issue with VTTS.

They were 'so quick out of the blocks' because some of us aircraft eng teams there were having our social media, both project and personal, bombed with 558 talk. We asked the office to put out a statement we could point people at, to try nip it in the bud.

Not that it worked, because some people seem to think yes means yes and no also means yes...

Having the aircraft here doesn't appeal one bit; we don't have the space, and we don't want the associated 'baggage' that comes with that aircraft.

Also, we'd love another hangar, some of our long term residents deserve a roof over their heads. Certainly more than the Tin Triangle would. But these things cost, and cost big, so if you've mastered the art of magically pulling hangars out of your @rse, please do come and tell us your secret!

[tache3]

Would anyone like to try another poll- well done mods for locking the last one

Shame it was locked. It was no more ridiculous than most of the rubbish posted in this thread.

[aviodromefriend]

so if you've mastered the art of magically pulling hangars out of your @rse, please do come and tell us your secret!

I can't find it quickly, but I seem to remember that BPAG did quite nicely at Kemble. One of the reasons why I think Kemble will not see 558, as BPAG will be doing what VTTST promised to do post flying in a building too small to house a V-bomber.

[Brevet Cable]

Shame it was locked. It was no more ridiculous than most of the rubbish posted in this thread.

Feel free not to read it, then

[tache3]

Shame it was locked. It was no more ridiculous than most of the rubbish posted in this thread.

Feel free not to read it, then

But then I wouldn't be informed. Which is the whole point I'm making.

[Brevet Cable]

Yep, my apologies, I mis-read what you actually posted.

Which leads to the question of what's rubbish.
Some of what could be considered informative could also be viewed as rubbish, yet what could be considered rubbish could simply be because the person making the post doesn't know/understand, and often leads to replies which explain things or are otherwise informative.

Ultimately it's for the Mods to decide ( and delete content if required )....but then, in my opinion some of them have their own biases which tend to come into play.

[tache3]

Which leads to the question of what's rubbish.

Banging on about Elvington long after Elvington themselves issued a statement saying that the aircraft isn't going there for starters.

Pointing out that a Vulcan has been disassembled in the past without taking into account the wildly different circumstances.

Gate guardian status at the soon to be closed and sold Scampton or at that noted V force bomber base RAF Coningsby.

Also statements such as-

"I’m sure they’ll be someone out there will the skills to dismantle it, move it by road and then reassemble it in such condition that it can still be taxied".

"They could just do this- a Boeing 737 took off from Perth airport and flew illegally to Jandakot. No one knew who the pilots were, done first thing in the morning. Pilots were off the aircraft and flown out of the country before the authorities knew what had actually happened".

"The aircraft is serviceable and fit for flight (it probably is, more or less).
The CAA says "Yes" to a direct transit single flight.
Await a nice clear blue day with no significant wind. Ideally a reasonable headwind at the destination to aid stopping.
Have the undercarriage physically locked down using ground locks.
Two pilots, one Air Electronics Operator on board. Both pilots on live ejection seats.
Start up, Air Electronics Operator gets out once the machine is functioning normally.
The AEO would have very limited chances of survival if the aircraft were to be abandoned in flight as he would have to slide down the crew entrance door to be faced with the nose gear leg in his path.
A chase plane (Jet Provost or similar) shadows the Vulcan from an airborne start as the Vulcan takes off.
An experienced Vulcan pilot as passenger in the JP is on hand to monitor and assist the two pilots in the Vulcan if issues arise.
Transit to new home.
Land.
Stopping aided by headwind, aerodynamic breaking (i.e. holding the nose off in traditional Vulcan fashion), streaming the huge brake chute.
Park up.
Job done".

"Currency? Way back in the 1950s when the first Vulcan flight occured nobody was current on it"

"As I have referred to twice on this thread, there is always the chance that the notice to leave can be rescinded through appeal, negotiation and/or pressure being brought to bear on the airfield owners".

[106500]

Which leads to the question of what's rubbish.

Banging on about Elvington long after Elvington themselves issued a statement saying that the aircraft isn't going there for starters.

Pointing out that a Vulcan has been disassembled in the past without taking into account the wildly different circumstances.

Gate guardian status at the soon to be closed and sold Scampton or at that noted V force bomber base RAF Coningsby.

Also statements such as-

"I’m sure they’ll be someone out there will the skills to dismantle it, move it by road and then reassemble it in such condition that it can still be taxied".

"They could just do this- a Boeing 737 took off from Perth airport and flew illegally to Jandakot. No one knew who the pilots were, done first thing in the morning. Pilots were off the aircraft and flown out of the country before the authorities knew what had actually happened".

"The aircraft is serviceable and fit for flight (it probably is, more or less).
The CAA says "Yes" to a direct transit single flight.
Await a nice clear blue day with no significant wind. Ideally a reasonable headwind at the destination to aid stopping.
Have the undercarriage physically locked down using ground locks.
Two pilots, one Air Electronics Operator on board. Both pilots on live ejection seats.
Start up, Air Electronics Operator gets out once the machine is functioning normally.
The AEO would have very limited chances of survival if the aircraft were to be abandoned in flight as he would have to slide down the crew entrance door to be faced with the nose gear leg in his path.
A chase plane (Jet Provost or similar) shadows the Vulcan from an airborne start as the Vulcan takes off.
An experienced Vulcan pilot as passenger in the JP is on hand to monitor and assist the two pilots in the Vulcan if issues arise.
Transit to new home.
Land.
Stopping aided by headwind, aerodynamic breaking (i.e. holding the nose off in traditional Vulcan fashion), streaming the huge brake chute.
Park up.
Job done".

"Currency? Way back in the 1950s when the first Vulcan flight occured nobody was current on it"

"As I have referred to twice on this thread, there is always the chance that the notice to leave can be rescinded through appeal, negotiation and/or pressure being brought to bear on the airfield owners".

I agree with you regarding all of the comments you have drawn attention to except the last one which you will be unsurprised to learn that I posted. I don’t know why you believe this is in the same category as the others? I think this is a perfectly reasonable statement to make. Pressure can certainly be brought to bear on Peel Group - they have received substantial loans for DSA and in respect of this, political influence is quite possible. I note you haven’t included the somewhat childish poll you added which was subsequently locked?

[aviodromefriend]

Which leads to the question of what's rubbish.

Banging on about Elvington long after Elvington themselves issued a statement saying that the aircraft isn't going there for starters.

Pointing out that a Vulcan has been disassembled in the past without taking into account the wildly different circumstances.

Gate guardian status at the soon to be closed and sold Scampton or at that noted V force bomber base RAF Coningsby.

Also statements such as-

"I’m sure they’ll be someone out there will the skills to dismantle it, move it by road and then reassemble it in such condition that it can still be taxied".

"They could just do this- a Boeing 737 took off from Perth airport and flew illegally to Jandakot. No one knew who the pilots were, done first thing in the morning. Pilots were off the aircraft and flown out of the country before the authorities knew what had actually happened".

"The aircraft is serviceable and fit for flight (it probably is, more or less).
The CAA says "Yes" to a direct transit single flight.
Await a nice clear blue day with no significant wind. Ideally a reasonable headwind at the destination to aid stopping.
Have the undercarriage physically locked down using ground locks.
Two pilots, one Air Electronics Operator on board. Both pilots on live ejection seats.
Start up, Air Electronics Operator gets out once the machine is functioning normally.
The AEO would have very limited chances of survival if the aircraft were to be abandoned in flight as he would have to slide down the crew entrance door to be faced with the nose gear leg in his path.
A chase plane (Jet Provost or similar) shadows the Vulcan from an airborne start as the Vulcan takes off.
An experienced Vulcan pilot as passenger in the JP is on hand to monitor and assist the two pilots in the Vulcan if issues arise.
Transit to new home.
Land.
Stopping aided by headwind, aerodynamic breaking (i.e. holding the nose off in traditional Vulcan fashion), streaming the huge brake chute.
Park up.
Job done".

"Currency? Way back in the 1950s when the first Vulcan flight occured nobody was current on it"

"As I have referred to twice on this thread, there is always the chance that the notice to leave can be rescinded through appeal, negotiation and/or pressure being brought to bear on the airfield owners".

I agree with you regarding all of the comments you have drawn attention to except the last one which you will be unsurprised to learn that I posted. I don’t know why you believe this is in the same category as the others? I think this is a perfectly reasonable statement to make. Pressure can certainly be brought to bear on Peel Group - they have received substantial loans for DSA and in respect of this, political influence is quite possible. I note you haven’t included the somewhat childish poll you added which was subsequently locked?

Maybe you could read back into the discussion? tache is putting remarks from this thread which (s)he feels is MORE rubbish than that poll. A poll can't be more rubbish than itself (how much rubbish that poll is in itself).

[tache3]

I agree with you regarding all of the comments you have drawn attention to except the last one which you will be unsurprised to learn that I posted. I don’t know why you believe this is in the same category as the others? I think this is a perfectly reasonable statement to make. Pressure can certainly be brought to bear on Peel Group - they have received substantial loans for DSA and in respect of this, political influence is quite possible.

Because the statement from VTST about 558 leaving DSA is PR armageddon. The trust have a massive PR problem already and it would be sheer lunacy to make that worse by releasing that statement before all other avenues had been fully investigated and found to be dead ends.

I note you haven’t included the somewhat childish poll you added which was subsequently locked?

Because my statement referred to "the rubbish posted in this thread" and not the poll. The poll was a joke, made to prove a point. It is possible that you may have missed both.

[106500]

I agree with you regarding all of the comments you have drawn attention to except the last one which you will be unsurprised to learn that I posted. I don’t know why you believe this is in the same category as the others? I think this is a perfectly reasonable statement to make. Pressure can certainly be brought to bear on Peel Group - they have received substantial loans for DSA and in respect of this, political influence is quite possible.

Because the statement from VTST about 558 leaving DSA is PR armageddon. The trust have a massive PR problem already and it would be sheer lunacy to make that worse by releasing that statement before all other avenues had been fully investigated and found to be dead ends.

I note you haven’t included the somewhat childish poll you added which was subsequently locked?

Because my statement referred to "the rubbish posted in this thread" and not the poll. The poll was a joke, made to prove a point. It is possible that you may have missed both.

You misunderstand. It’s the statement I made about pressure being brought to bear on Peel Group which I am referring to. Not any statement made by VTST. I don’t understand why you feel my statement is ‘“rubbish”?

[ericbee123]

I can’t believe that people think the likes of Peel take over some prime real estate like airports and docks with the sole intention of making them profitable going concerns with no changes whatsoever.

It’s not like they would take over a waterfront Docklands area and concentrate the business into a highly profitable container port in one small corner, while developing very expensive waterfront housing, music arenas and football stadium on as much of the rest of the docks as they can get away with.

It’s not like they wouldn’t expand industrial areas into airfield boundaries and look to develop housing on the areas of the airfield they can get away with - airports tend to be near big conurbations in the countryside or green belt - prime desirable development land with a large catchment area in the commuter belt.

Airports and docks are also ideal for development as they can cite “security concerns” to block 100s of years of public right of way with fences and gates and security and deny access to prying eyes or protestors.

The most surprising thing is people think the likes of Peel and Balfour Beatty, etc, are vulnerable to political pressure from local and national government - when the exact opposite is true.

[Orion]

Be careful, chaps. Best to let this go. This thread has provided a lot of illumination to the situation of this Vulcan, it would be a shame if it were to be locked

[106500]

Be careful, chaps. Best to let this go. This thread has provided a lot of illumination to the situation of this Vulcan, it would be a shame if it were to be locked

Understand your caution. However, there’s some interesting discussion here made in good spirit and I haven’t really seen anything that would create a problem for the mods.

[Orion]

I attended the Elstree Open Day last Thursday and got chatting with a friend about airfields and brown field sites.
He, being a flight instructor, has much more vehement views than I about this topic, but I feel that although people have need of houses and jobs and airfields can provide them, it also should be possible, especially for the enormous WW2 airfields, to provide for GA as well. Perhaps the new electric training aircraft provide part of the solution but silencers on exhausts would help too.
As for XH558, unless the VTST radically improves its social skills I fear that the scrappy awaits.

[106500]

I can’t believe that people think the likes of Peel take over some prime real estate like airports and docks with the sole intention of making them profitable going concerns with no changes whatsoever.

It’s not like they would take over a waterfront Docklands area and concentrate the business into a highly profitable container port in one small corner, while developing very expensive waterfront housing, music arenas and football stadium on as much of the rest of the docks as they can get away with.

It’s not like they wouldn’t expand industrial areas into airfield boundaries and look to develop housing on the areas of the airfield they can get away with - airports tend to be near big conurbations in the countryside or green belt - prime desirable development land with a large catchment area in the commuter belt.

Airports and docks are also ideal for development as they can cite “security concerns” to block 100s of years of public right of way with fences and gates and security and deny access to prying eyes or protestors.

The most surprising thing is people think the likes of Peel and Balfour Beatty, etc, are vulnerable to political pressure from local and national government - when the exact opposite is true.

A useful perspective. My challenge would be that it’s all well and good that we have companies which seek profit through development of such locations and provided they are self funded through their stakeholders, then fine. However, the point I’m making is that organisations such as Peel Group have and continue to receive significant taxpayer funded handouts and loans particularly for airport development and in respect of this, I’d be surprised that political and other pressures can’t be brought to bear as a consequence particularly where the funded parties embark on ‘negative’ activities.

[911SC]

There will be an element of clarity in a couple of weeks. The initial consultation announcement on the airport future is 16th September. At that point if there’s no external partner of whatever kind or commercial improvement, then we can assume the ‘eviction’ is even more likely than it currently appears.

The irony of the whole ferry flight guff is that it’s been set rolling by VTST, whom should have consulted with the CAA prior to even mentioning any possibility. If (when) they get refused they’ve dug themselves another PR debacle hole.

[CJS]

The irony of the whole ferry flight guff is that it’s been set rolling by VTST, whom should have consulted with the CAA prior to even mentioning any possibility. If (when) they get refused they’ve dug themselves another PR debacle hole.

I made the point several pages back that the mere mention of a ferry flight (which I do not believe for one second anyone at VTVSTVSSTTV (is that right Brevet?...) actually thinks has any chance of happening) was always going to be enough to get people talking about '558 again. It has achieved that aim at least, so if the old adage 'no publicity is bad publicity' rings true (which it doesn't obviously. See: Will Smith, thingy Vardy, Donald Trump etc etc...) then they have done a good job.

I'd be interested to know if anyone on here actually thinks the ferry flight is possible (as in, will happen). I might do a poll...

[ExVulcanGC]

I suppose that technically the money that has been donated towards the now defunct new hangar should be offered back to those who donated it as it has not been used for the purpose it was donated for. If the people state that it can be used to help 558's future, or for that matter the Canberra (which is more likely), and if all still does not go to plan then the money should be returned at that point, rather than being used to pay off the paid staff/debts etc.

[Ken Shabby]

I suppose that technically the money that has been donated towards the now defunct new hangar should be offered back to those who donated it as it has not been used for the purpose it was donated for. If the people state that it can be used to help 558's future, or for that matter the Canberra (which is more likely), and if all still does not go to plan then the money should be returned at that point, rather than being used to pay off the paid staff/debts etc.

It has been offered back. According to VTST, nine out of 10 donors said their donations could be kept. Given that they raised £500K, that does pro rata leave £450K with VTST, which is a decent sum to go towards moving XH558.

This assuming, of course, that it hasn’t already been spent.

[CJS]

I suppose that technically the money that has been donated towards the now defunct new hangar should be offered back to those who donated it as it has not been used for the purpose it was donated for. If the people state that it can be used to help 558's future, or for that matter the Canberra (which is more likely), and if all still does not go to plan then the money should be returned at that point, rather than being used to pay off the paid staff/debts etc.

It has been offered back. According to VTST, nine out of 10 donors said their donations could be kept. Given that they raised £500K, that does pro rata leave £450K with VTST, which is a decent sum to go towards moving XH558.

This assuming, of course, that it hasn’t already been spent.

Is there anyone in here who could have a reasonable stab at estimating the cost of moving '558 out by road ?
Let's say I approach the VTST people with my chequebook (there's no school like the old school) and promise to cover the cost of dismantling, ferry by road and...err...remantling (?) at the other end. How much are they going to need?

It's a genuine question, I've got no idea.