Really that narrow minded ? It is living history if we let it go people forget, just because its cold war or nuclear we shouldn't bother. Frankly that attitude sucks mate, do you feel the same about WW2 aircraft? And if its the death factor associated with nukes that's putting you off I assure you concord killed more people in its history than the Vulcan did.
Plus this, ever heard its howl? unique...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqA6bgFPGWI

1) I'm tired of people begging for it (or making profit off it for the matter). Every given airshow I have attended this year there were the vulcan to the sky trust folks begging for pennies. You can't secure a good sponsor after 4 years of operations? Give up.

2) With so many planes that need care and attention out there, the Vulcan was the last thing to be worried about and keep airborne. It doesn't represent anything important, or better, it represents a questionable time in history.

Someone somewhere really wanted to fly this plane, and they set up all this charity malarkey to bring the plane back to the sky, but alas, the guy behind this thing had little or no understanding of the ginormous costs behind such a venture..

oh believe me, I did hear that a lot of times. I was based in Brunters for long time, working with some friends on other restorations, so I know ALL the story, even the more obscure aspects of it probably, the murky ones that don't make it to the public.

I regularly fly with WW2 planes, and I can tell you that there's a HUGE difference between flying a B-17 and a Vulcan. Putting aside the "moral aspects" (although I'd still like any of you to explain me what's the point of that thing opening the London Olympics), the prohibitive costs should be enough to make you want to have a more responsible managing or a different project altogether.

ALL the story, i doubt that mate unless you worked on it yourself, rumors are rumors, when you say based in Brunters do you mean worked in Brunters as a civ?

Mate you are answering your own questions about the Vulcan with answers that you use for other restoration projects, its the same principle and the same passion. Why shouldn't they ask for donations?

All famous aircraft have a trust fund if its one of a kind and the only airworthy example. The government helps pay for unique things in this country but they only pay so much, as they do with the BBMF, the rest relys on public funding.

The people who pay to help keep this bird in the air do so because it defines a generation and not only that it is a unique aircraft that does define UK aviation and its ingenuity through the 60's, that's also the reason why they may be using it to open the London Olympics (not heard that though) but personally I couldn't think of anything more fitting to open the Olympics in England than the Avro Vulcan.

I'm finding it crazy that I would have to explain all this to an aviation enthusiast. There's plenty of crap flying around that I don't like but if i have the money spare at a show to make a donation I do so to preserve the history and the happiness of the people who do love that aircraft.

I guess the main reason why your argument is invalid is because its not your money your arguing over, also why do moral aspects even come into it? Surely if that were true you'd object to the Lancaster flying.

Without going into too much detail, we were offered the possibility of collaborating with them as a hack plane, using our twin engined plane for ferry flights to move personnel etc.. but then they changed their minds and actually wanted to charge us for it (!!!).
it's more of an exception to the rule than a standard thing. Most warbird operators do it only with their own means, they don't go around begging for money. Many airshow organisers don't even cover fuel costs anymore, and God knows how expensive an hour on a Mustang is.. still, they do it out of passion and with their own means, not begging around for money.

yeah, I'm sure that the Argentinians will be chuffed to bits about it :rolleyes:
Besides, what's better to promote the spirit of sport as an event that unites people from all over the world in a healthy competition than a former nuclear bomber?! :rolleyes:

Wait wait wait. There's a HUGE difference between a Lancaster flying and a Vulcan flying.
Lancasters contributed to the end of WW2, and albeit involved in the questionable trategic bombing of Germany, the sacrifice of so many young British airmen needs to be celebrated somehow.

I dunno if it's about the shape, the dark colour or the solemnity of the thing, but whenever the BBMF Lancaster flies at an airshow, there's silence and there's always a feeling of insight and respect, not excitement.

lol

I saw it flying at Farnborough Air Show this year. Several things amazed me. It seems really small close up, but compared to a Lancaster it was big. Then you realise that the Vulcan's wingspan is the same (almost) as the wingspan of the tailplane of the Airbus A380.

Taking off the thing looks weird, probably because it's a delta wing.

I don't get you at all Stern.......but I'm guessing you have a real stick up your arse with anything British (past threads have indicated this inclination)

The Vulcan has no more a questionable history than any other military machine in existence, they were built for a purpouse dictated by the times, are you really upset that it was used to drop bombs on an airfield in the Falklands?.........god forbid an aircraft built to be a bomber should do the job it was intended for (not like it dropped nukes on Bueno Aires)

it's a helluva beast, seeing it taking off is surely impressive, although I have to say it was way more impressive when the Victor "accidentally" took off in Brunters in 2009 :mrgreen:

au contraire mon ami, I find British engineering to be fascinating to say the least. There's a lot of vision and unorthodox design in anything British, but this is not the point..

I simply think it's not worth spending all that money for such a plane, and worst of all I don't think it deserves all the attention and meaning it's been given, nowadays you stick a poppy and some flags on something and it must become a national symbol for the armed forces, come on, really? What's the significance of such a machine in historical terms? I'd rather have that money poured into the re-building of a Stirling or a Mosquito.. or how about the plane that never was, the TSR-2?

Bomber command is represented well enough by the 2+1 existing flyable Lancs, there are a few Mossies about and being restored, there is nothing else flying that represents the 'V force' and at least there are some to make airworthy, a Stirling would have to be remanufactured because there are none in existense, I personally would like to see a Halifax and a Wimpy....actually I'd rather see a Warwick because my uncle flew them in WWII.

TSR 2 would never be able to fly in the UK for the same reason we don't fly the Lightning and theres probably nobody left alive with any flight time on it.

The Vulcan is perfectly valid to represent British engineering and act as ambassador for British armed forces of the past, and if people want to pay for it....so be it, why don't you start a Stirling rebuild campaign and see if you can raise the funds?