Vulcan To The Sky - Forums

XH558 Operations => Engineering => Topic started by: Rover3500 on October 02, 2015, 10:56:00 PM

Title: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: Rover3500 on October 02, 2015, 10:56:00 PM
My views might be controversial, I don't wish to offend anybody.

I speak as someone who has studied both Material Science and Mechanical engineering but I don't profess to be an aviation expert.  But  I have to say that calling a halt to XH558  flights seems like a massive failure of well..bottle to me . That's on the part of the Aviation Authorities that seem to have got  their risk assessment slide rules out  and decided they want to remove a miniscule theoretical risk of their books.

Isn't the Vulcan  becoming the true 'Spirit of Great Britain'..... in 2015. Cowed by the Health and safety shouty people that say almost no level of risk can be tolerated anymore.?. It seems we can't make or do anything as it's too expensive/dangerous or difficult...
We can't even use a ladder anymore for goodness sake, never mind fly a well maintained Jet plane that is by all accounts in excellent condition.

I thought the Vulcan was supposed to be inspirational and an antidote to the 'can't do',  defeatist  attitude that prevails in much of modern Britain.  Well it was until now.......

And I'm sorry but what is the point of another Vulcan that cannot fly. Another eagle with it's wings clipped.  How are kids going to get inspired by a jet plane that cannot fly because someone in an office,in London  that has never even wielded a spanner or a throttle lever  says it's too dangerous ?

The whole USP of XH558 is that she can fly and show kids, big and little what an amazing machine this country could build on it's own.  To make us proud again, to tingle our spines... just for a few moments ..now that's been taken away...

Why stop flight  now ?. Surely the point of maximum risk was the return to  flight just after the overhaul  when the Vulcan  was literally pulled apart and rebuilt ?.  Many systems had been overhauled and un-tested in flight. Now 7 years after effectively much testing, validation  and much experience gained, Vulcan   is to be grounded.  This makes no sense.

Yes I know the aircraft is 50 years old but so what ? . She is an aeroplane -  not a horse,a human being or a Datsun Sunny. She cannot get dementia, wrinkles, suffer  bronchitis or rust away into a pile of dust overnight.

She is made of steel, aluminium with rubber and plastic parts that can be replaced should they degrade in safety critical areas.  The rotating parts of the engine could have all kinds of sophisticated material testing done on them (that wasn't available in the 1960's) to validate them for further flight. If the WILL was there from Rolls Royce which it doesn't seem to be.
The operating  hours and power requirements of the engine (in display duty)  are minimal  compared to what she has covered in service.

The condition of the airframe itself could be checked by non destructive methods . The flights hours on XH558  are said to be high  but that is in the context of the  theoretical limits  set by arbitrarily defined factors of safety.
The repairs to the wing leading edge having been completed would suggest the frame is now in very good shape.

I have a massive amount of respect for the team -  pilots and volunteers that made the return to flight possible - but really why are the aviation authority's stopping them now. ?.  We need more of the  'Spirit of Great Britain 1959'....not  the 'spirit of 2015'.
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: jocelyn on October 03, 2015, 12:03:32 AM
Bravo, Rover3500....... Nail, head etc !
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: StAthan lecky on October 03, 2015, 08:29:40 AM
Excellent comments and to the point,unfortunately these will fall on deaf ears regrettably.

Mike
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: dee on October 03, 2015, 08:38:53 AM
A deafening round of applause from me!!!! Well said!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: paulh on October 03, 2015, 09:02:23 AM
Another well said  ;)

Cheers Paul.
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: Mayfly on October 03, 2015, 09:14:01 AM
Looks like I'm in minority here then.

Of course I would love to see 558 fly into the next century but all knew this was coming.

Without the OEMs backing, 558 would never have flown again, 8 years down the line I can't blame them for re-evaluating the situation nor for putting their core business interests first.

A MOD that was never carried out in service and 10% more flying hours than any other aircraft of it's type? I think their backing thus far has been amazing and if they feel it's time to call it a day they have their reasons.

Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: PaulH2015 on October 03, 2015, 10:58:05 AM
As I understand it it is the Trust that has called a halt, not any external authority.  How come any number of classic piston-engined aircraft and jets (Hunter excluded at the moment) can continue to fly if the authorities were getting windy about age?

The Trust's decision is on the basis of not being able to call on the expertise of its three technical partners after this year.  That expertise has been from retired personnel, something they feel they can no longer guarantee - people get older too.

Do you know how many aircraft and crew were lost due to accidents and failures when these aircraft were new?  I was shocked when I read the 60th anniversary book, and none of them involved 'enemy' action of any kind. 

When a Victor or Valiant was moved to Cosford they had to remove the wings, and they found extensive corrosion that had occurred internally, but were able to repair otherwise there would have even been limitations on how they could display it statically.  The same corrosion was found on the Vulcan and had to be repaired during its restoration.  Metals and plastics and everything else deteriorate over time even when doing nothing and have a finite life.  The wing modification had always been planned for by Avro based on their life-cycle testing where they take an airframe and stress it until it breaks, look for the cause and fix it, then do it all over again and again.  All that wing mod meant was that part was strengthened, it says nothing about the rest of the airframe.  And the very fact it needed to be applied shows how that area was likely to have deteriorated.  The Vulcan is now beyond what Avro ever envisioned.  An aircraft is not like a old car where if it breaks it just coasts to a halt at the side of the road, failure in the air is going to have a huge impact (!) down below.

The permit to fly for the Vulcan doesn't expire until May or so next year, so it could have conceivably flown until then.  But Taff Stone told me earlier this year that if they were to do that the scheduled 2015/16 winter service that would be needed is only one short of the full restoration that was carried out before it returned to flight. Can you imagine what that would cost?

Every time I see the Vulcan I just shake my head in wonder at its grace and power, it's balletic.  I shall be very sad to see its final flight, but I think the trust have made a brave decision.  Better to retire gracefully and live to do engine runs and fast taxys, than to end in disaster like the last Mosquito.

The Trust's biggest problem now is the final flight.  I was amazed at how many people turned up in Old Bawtry Road for an 'ordinary' Sunday flight earlier this year.  They can plead all they like but given the selfishness and lack of consideration for others that seems so prevalent these days I can see thousands still turning up on the basis that perhaps enough other people wouldn't.  The Trust are running the real risk of massive penalties from Police and airport autorities.  They are either going to have to cancel the final flights, announce others then cancel those, or make the final planned flight from and to an unannounced airfield, and fly back to Doncaster unannounced.
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: leslie on October 03, 2015, 07:35:51 PM
No the OEMs and design authorities have withdrawn their support for the aircraft, without these companies support she CAN NOT legally fly, although the trust announced her retirement that decision was forced my the OEMs, the trust did everything they could to change the companies minds many many many meetings, alas they were not swayed. The trust if they could would fly her forever.
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: Rover3500 on October 04, 2015, 12:42:40 AM
My understanding is  that the Trust's initial aim was to fly the Vulcan for 10 years - this seemed like a reasonable aim considering XH558 came with 8 spare engines (4 of which were zero hours units) and the huge costs of the repairs and maintenance needed.

Now  we are told that after  less than 40 hours of careful flying  a year,  over 8 years the engines  are now all clapped out and unable to carry on anymore. I appreciate metal fatigue is inherently unpredictable but 320 hours  seems like a ludicrously short life even for a military spec jet engine.  At this rate XH558 covering around 7000 HRS during her  RAF duty would have needed   a set of 4 new or overhauled engines every 18 months.
 
Bearing in mind XH558 is flown not  as aggressively as it would have been whilst in RAF service, this is even more surprising.
As late as 2014, the Trust made it clear it still had 6 spare engines available and that measures were in place to limit the numbers of hours used..
 
However engine life doesn't seem to be the problem. The trust commenting on
the early retirement say :-

'The issues causing us to cease flying are more to do with calendar life than flying hours'.

So if it's not an engine life issue, what are the components that are deteriorating because of old age rather than stress and fatigue ?. And why cannot these be checked/replaced/overhauled ?.

There have been Vulcan accidents but many of these are attributed to error by pilots stretching the envelope of what is possible just a bit too far  or just their lack of experience . This isn't an issue for  XH558 considering the experience of her pilots and the stringent regulations on display flying.  Furthermore such incidents can occur to any display aircraft - a risk that is acceptable.

Other incidents  were caused by earlier less well developed and proven Vulcans. No incident with a B2 Vulcan has ever been attributed to structural failure  - the likelihood of this occurring to XH558 would seem to be vanishingly small given the low g manoeuvre's executed and the amount of monitoring and maintenance she has received.

I can't help feeling this decision  is just a back covering exercise on someone's part - calling a halt to flight because it's the easy thing to do in a world where common sense seems to have been abolished. .  It's a 50 mph speed limit on an empty section of  motorway or a visitor to a factory been told to wear goggles,  hi - viz jacket safety and  boots. A sign of our times.

Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: Funtera on October 04, 2015, 05:43:40 AM
calling a halt to flight because it's the easy thing to do in a world where common sense seems to have been abolished. .  It's a 50 mph speed limit on an empty section of  motorway. A sign of our times.

Whilst I agree with some of your points .. the 50s are for your safety .. if we recieve a report of debris,animals,pedestrians or possible accidents, we lower the speeds until we can check with a Traffic Officer Crew and make a visual check to ensure your safety and the smoothness of your journey. We don't like slamming restrictions on for no reason but it's safer doing 50 than 70+ and having to slam to a stop (possibly with an hgv behind you) because of a tyre carcass in lane 1!
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: Captain Black on October 04, 2015, 07:41:45 AM
 'Spirit of Great Britain 1959' ?


http://www.ukserials.com/losses-1959.htm
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: MrTim on October 04, 2015, 09:52:00 AM
As far as I am aware, the Trust have 6 engines (4 installed), not 6 spare engines.
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: Rover3500 on October 04, 2015, 05:52:22 PM
calling a halt to flight because it's the easy thing to do in a world where common sense seems to have been abolished. .  It's a 50 mph speed limit on an empty section of  motorway. A sign of our times.

Whilst I agree with some of your points .. the 50s are for your safety .. if we recieve a report of debris,animals,pedestrians or possible accidents, we lower the speeds until we can check with a Traffic Officer Crew and make a visual check to ensure your safety and the smoothness of your journey. We don't like slamming restrictions on for no reason but it's safer doing 50 than 70+ and having to slam to a stop (possibly with an hgv behind you) because of a tyre carcass in lane 1!

I don't have a problem with the temporary restrictions in response to traffic incidents. That is sensible..

My own experience has been miles and miles of 50 MPH restrictions on the M1 - despite the fact that there NEVER seems to be  anyone doing any actual work and the work areas are well segregated for the 2 minutes a day when someone actually picks up a shovel.
We can no longer be trusted to make a judgement on what is a safe speed to travel so we sit there for mile after mile watching our speedometers and not the car in front.
Furthermore we are subjected to many patronising messages 'My Dad  works here, please drive carefully'.  Then so as to be PC this has to be balanced with another 'My Mum works here... I'm fairly sure I saw 'My uncle works here ..' too.  :o

Then worst of all is the 'Lets all get home safely' message. At this point I almost need to vomit with the stomach churning sentimentality of it thinking of all the ridiculous meetings  that decided this bilge was a good idea.   
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: Funtera on October 04, 2015, 07:37:36 PM

I don't have a problem with the temporary restrictions in response to traffic incidents. That is sensible..

My own experience has been miles and miles of 50 MPH restrictions on the M1 - despite the fact that there NEVER seems to be  anyone doing any actual work and the work areas are well segregated for the 2 minutes a day when someone actually picks up a shovel.
We can no longer be trusted to make a judgement on what is a safe speed to travel so we sit there for mile after mile watching our speedometers and not the car in front.
Furthermore we are subjected to many patronising messages 'My Dad  works here, please drive carefully'.  Then so as to be PC this has to be balanced with another 'My Mum works here... I'm fairly sure I saw 'My uncle works here ..' too.  :o

Then worst of all is the 'Lets all get home safely' message. At this point I almost need to vomit with the stomach churning sentimentality of it thinking of all the ridiculous meetings  that decided this bilge was a good idea.

Phew, that's OK then .. Not My region ! M1 is a Mess , I deal with the West Midlands Region!
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: StAthan lecky on October 04, 2015, 08:02:31 PM
Loving this thread,you should be on "Have I Got News For You"

 :))

Mike
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: planenut on October 05, 2015, 12:20:15 AM
Where did this thread start? oh yes, the decision has been made, move on.
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: Rover3500 on October 10, 2015, 12:53:33 AM

http://www.caa.co.uk/aandocs/27038/27038000000.pdf

I'm curious why the Vulcan has such a (predicted) relatively  low airframe life expectancy.
These are said to be  strong aircraft..perhaps the designers understandably 'played safe' with  fatigue modelling as airframe  technology was less well understood in the 1960's.
It's disappointing that we don't have methods available  today that would allow us to predict more accurately  where failure on XH558 is likely to occur and what effect,if any  this might have on flight performance.

The RAF were granted an extension to the fatigue index of XH558 in 1986  to allow her to operate in the Vulcan display team until 1996. It seems unfortunate that  a similarly sensible decision can't be taken now to allow XH558 to fly until 2018 .

For comparison most of the Concorde fleet had around 25,000 hrs of service . A Boeing 747 airframe can easily achieve  100,000 hrs. and it's wings have plenty of 'flex' in them .  Vulcans 7500 hrs seems like nothing in comparison.
Similarly Rolls Royce designed the major components of the  1966  Olympus 593 engine to have a life of 25,000 hrs. It's hard to imagine a Vulcan Olympus covering anything like that.

The lifed components on the Vulcan airframe nearing their fatigue limit (from the caa report doc)  are the 'Rear  Spar bottom boom' & 'Front spar bottom boom & skin'. (both covered by modifications 2222 & 2429). The rest of the airframe has plenty of fatigue life left.

The problem for the Vulcan seems to be that Rolls Royce imposed a 'maximum installed life for each engine of 7 years'  in 2008 .

 Up to this limit (if operated properly) Rolls Royce determined that a risk of 'hazardous engine failure ' was less than 0.00001% per flying hour.

To go from 0.00001% to unacceptable risk because the engine is operated for 8, 9 or 10 years  seems a bit crazy to me.
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: eddief on October 10, 2015, 01:55:40 AM
It's been a really long day here but I'll say it clear.

Anybody who knows me here will know my affection for 558 & my professional involvement in flight-safety.

I am of course, sad to know her days in the sky are numbered but everything comes to an end & I personally, feel this is about the right time.

She is a safe aeroplane, her team operates to the same standards as an airline & I have absolute confidence in it all - but given another few years & we would be into completely unknown areas in respect of fatigue; not good.  Aircraft don't forgive lapses of emotion - ever.  That's why cold-hearted professionals are given the task of deciding when the time has come & that time will come (in my opinion) around the middle of 2016; which is near enough 'now' to make no difference.

Enjoy her while you can...
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: Flipflopman on October 11, 2015, 11:44:15 PM
Oh dear. I fear that this is a typical case of a little knowledge being dangerous.

I've looked at this thread twice now and held off from replying, but I think it only fair that I refute some of your misinformed points.

Before I start, I note that there are plenty of figures and statistics contained within your posts, most unrelated to the specifics surrounding XH558's operation so can hopefully give you some more accurate figures to base your rants on.

I personally, am probably just as devastated as you are to see XH558 finish her flying career. I say probably because I have no idea as to your relationship with the aircraft or the history you have. We all have our stories. Personally, as a young lad being taken to airshows, watching the Vulcan display was the driving factor for me to join the Royal Air Force. It was the reason that long before restoration and return to the air became an option, I visited and donated to the aircraft and club. It was the reason that upon leaving the Air Force, I emailed the Trust and offered my services and became part of the restoration team.

Now, I should add at this point that not only am I no longer a member of the engineering team on XH558, but I have not been since October 2007 and the time of her first flight, but what I can hopefully offer is an educated opinion and some of my own experiences.

Firstly, at the very beginning of the restoration period it was only ever envisaged that there would be ten years of flight available to XH558. TVOC had at that point, thanks to David Walton and his foresight to buy the RAF spares inventory, 8 'zero timed' Olympus 201 engines, and these 'zero timed' engines were the whole reason that Rolls-Royce offered to give VTST their backing and support. When I use the term 'zero timed' that is to say that they had undergone a full overhaul at Rolls-Royce Ansty in September 1981 and even though they had previously accumulated many hours of running, were deemed fit by R-R to run for another overhaul cycle of 2000 hours.

Now, a condition of Rolls-Royce to offer their support to these engines and VTST, was that the engines would now be rated on a cyclic basis, in line with all of their civil fleet and in line with current practice and years of experience of engine wear life. As you make reference to the Concorde Olympus (Which are very different engines despite their common nomenclature) Which engines do you feel may have had a tougher life? 2000 hours of transatlantic cruising, or 2000 hours of Valley and Glen punishment with the engine being accelerated and decelerated thousands of times over the course of those 2000 hours?

Of those 8 engines, one was contested by R-R due to the fact that the history of silica bag changes could not be verified and following the first flights, one came back with a high debris count on the magnetic chip detectors leading to R-R putting that engine in quarantine. This meant that there were only 6 acceptable flight worthy engines available, cutting the available lifetime by a quarter. An incident with silica bags in the intake reduced the total available engine stock down to four, but thankfully some excellent negotiations meant that R-R agreed to accept and support the previous engines that had been questioned and took the total back up to six.

Of these six engines, as a former RAF Propulsion Engineer, as one of XH558's engine men and someone who currently manages engineering projects for Rolls-Royce's civil large engine fleet, the Olympus 201 is a very temperamental and unreliable engine with a long history of uncontained failures and many of which have led to the loss of the aircraft. Don't believe me, ask google. All of this is known, understood and managed by the aircrew, however, these should not be thought of as the carefree handling engines of today.

In short, XH558 has used almost all of the lifing that R-R are happy and prepared to underwrite, based upon not only the decades that she was in service, but also the decades of experience that has been gained since then and put that towards establishing a safe limit that has meant we have all got to witness her safely and without fear of escaping turbine discs.

Airframe life... Now, I'm realising that I'm already in the middle of War and Peace here, but again, this is another whopper of a topic. Basically, as you must clearly understand from all of the qualifications that you consider necessary to start your posts with, aircraft have not only a 'safe life' but a 'fatigue index' that is used to work out how long an airframe is safe to fly for. Well now, it won't surprise you to know that Avro, and later Hawker Siddeley had a Vulcan airframe on a test rig that stretched, twisted, pulled and pushed that airframe to simulate an entire flying career. Over that testing cycle, every single modification on every single Vulcan was developed on every single area that began to show problems. An airframe is normally lifed to 100FI with FI referring to Fatigue Index. 100FI relates to 100% of an aircraft's design life. XH558, through following all of the manufacturers repairs and modifications is now as far as I can tell you, far in excess of 240FI, or 240% of it's intended design life. As you can perhaps imagine, testing was stopped there, as nobody expected a vulcan to surpass that life. Of course, repairs and workarounds could be developed to keep 558 flying, but at what cost? Which airframe would you propose to build a testing rig around and how would you account for the corrosion and years which have taken their toll? Computer modelling you say? How would you account for the changes in 558 over the years structurally and how would you factor in the hidden degradation? Who would then sign that off and under what conditions and regulations?

Sadly, as much as it genuinely upsets me, the time is right for XH558 to make a graceful bow out and to say goodbye while still able to and while still able to carry out a farewell tour.

In light of the giant post I have just created, I'm going to stop there, but not before saying that I will happily answer any questions you may have and hopefully give you a few facts to work with as opposed to the fistful of half truths and best guesses you are currently bandying around as your own half cocked version of the truth. Undoubtedly, Sam Evans and Taff Stone can fill in any parts I have missed or which may have changed over the years, either way, I strongly feel that we should be grateful for the seven years of a flying Vulcan that we've just had, rather than being bitter about another couple of years that we would never have had anyway...


Best Regards,
Ron Evans,
Flipflopman.
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: Rover3500 on October 12, 2015, 12:22:56 AM
My 1/2p worth again...
I agree cold hard headed decisions have to be made based on good  science and engineering. Obviously the  discovery  of significant   cracks in critical and un-repairable airframe structures, erosion of turbine discs etc. should lead to an immediate grounding of XH558.

Without information on any such discoveries, the decision to end flight  does look a little like a 'back covering exercise' inspired  more by lawyers  than scientists and Engineers.
I don't blame the corporations involved for this - that's life in 2015.  I don't wish to be in any way  critical of the team behind XH558 - 8 years of flight  is an amazing achievement - the amount of work, dedication , skill and the jumping through of hoops set by the CIA  is mind boggling.

Fatigue failure  although inherently unpredictable always  presents itself as a crack long before failure occurs. When such  a crack   reaches a critical size (after the crack propagation life has expired )  these initial cracks  can  propagate through the structure and cause failure.   
 
By having comprehensive inspection measures in place to detect these initial cracks in critical components, aged aircraft are routinely  kept airworthy...I can't see why this cannot be done for Vulcan -  the maintenance regime seems too hung up on flying hours rather than being guided by  evaluation of the condition of the aircraft.

It has been said by the trust that is it ' knowing where to look for any possible failure will become gradually more difficult'.  Well surely they should look at the weakest links at the front/rear wing spars (in the case of the airframe) which is the most heavily stressed wing component.

 If this (and the other critical high stress areas)  can be given a clean bill of health by visual inspection and possibly more advanced  non destructive testing methods such as  ultrasound ,  I  can't see why airframe fatigue has to be a big show stopper.
Andrew Edmondson described the rear spars as being in 'fantastic condition' during the last major service so it would seem unlikely their condition is in doubt. 

Much emphasis is placed on the  Avro airframe fatigue test - an unmodified airframe that had a series of estimated loads applied to failure after which a 'best guess'  safety factor was applied to determine allowable fatigue life. My view is that after XH558's  50 years of mixed use  a  common sense approach should be used and the life of XH558's airframe determined by inspection  with the fatigue limits used as a guide only.

 
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: Flipflopman on October 12, 2015, 12:36:46 AM
Rover 3500,

It is abundantly clear that you have absolutely no experience or understanding whatsoever with regard to Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering, the inspection and overhaul frequencies of the work and costs involved or the legislation required to comply with such. Consequently I feel that any attempts to convince you otherwise would be absolutely futile and a waste of both of our time.

I'll instead bid you goodnight but leave you with the reassurance that the safety of UK air travel is thankfully in much safer and better informed hands than your own.


Cheers,
Flipflopman.
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: Rover3500 on October 12, 2015, 02:22:02 AM
'Flipflopman',

Well that put me in my place!. What's wrong with saying 'no I don't agree with you..but this is how it is...'

Silly me I thought this was an 'Engineering' forum -  free for anyone to ask  tecky questions or  express views, however ridiculous and  have them contradicted, provoke debate,  learn things from those in the know . That's generally how it works.

Nothing about sly personal abuse from people who should know better

Yes I only have a little knowledge of XH558 except the snippets on the website. 
A project like this brings up millions of 'what if' and why  type questions that drive you mad. You want to know the rationale behind the decisions....

I thought my background   was relevant from where i'm coming from ... but sorry for bringing this up.
I suspect a lot of followers of Vulcan  know enough about engineering  to be intrigued and fascinated by what's under the skin of  XH558..then you realise how complex it is and how little you really do know!.
I did some  work years ago installing the condition monitoring equipment on the    RB211 gas turbines at Easington  but that was really nothing compared to the problems faced with managing an aged fighter bomber.

So that's why I came here to find answers (clumsily it seems)  from those  that have worked with XH558!.

The new role seems to be as a sort of Engineering recruitment role which I think is great for the industry which is too often seen  as boring and for 'geeks'. 

I have always said that I am a great admirer of the people that put XH558 back in the air.
They are all true British heroes.  For those  that put all the hard work in and us watching, 10 years of flight would have been an extraordinary achievement  but I know it wasn't to be.
8 years is still beyond expectations.

Over and out.


Regards
Ken Moore


Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: dee on October 12, 2015, 08:43:16 AM
Well after reading Flipflops in depth piece i guess ive just been selfish in wanting my Vulcan to fly for more years. Not going to apologise for that, shes been a  massive part of my life for so long now.
  Ive made some fantastic friends and met so many wonderful people. All the ground crew ive met have  always made me feel welcome. Because of this club and Sam Evans i even got to get my hands on her to help keep her clean!!.These memories will stay with me always. But yea i know now its time to say goodbye to this stage in her life.. Safety always should come first. 

Thanks for the memories
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: Mayfly on October 12, 2015, 08:49:54 AM
Not selfish Dee simply leading with your heart. I too would love to see 558 go on forever but if those who bear the brunt of responsibility decide it's time to let her go then so be it.

Good to see you are still alive and kicking Ron.
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: Gareth on October 12, 2015, 10:45:43 AM
Great explanation from Flipflop man, and completely justifies the decision to me.

The other aspect that nobody has mentioned, which is essential before any flying can happen, is INSURANCE!  It must cost a fortune to insure a 50yr old ex military, complex jet, to fly at displays.

Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: brains_mt on October 12, 2015, 11:02:33 AM
Ron! Delighted to see you posting after all this time ;D Hope the family ! is well and thriving  ;D

I think that if there is any doubt in anyone's mind ever then the time has come. Safety must always come first. This is especially true for people who are in the position of having to sign off the aircraft as safe to fly. I wouldn't want to be in their position for all the tea in China.

We've had a ball and we will always treasure the time we've had together with XH558.
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: Paddy Langdown on October 12, 2015, 01:17:18 PM
Great explanation from Flipflop man, and completely justifies the decision to me.

The other aspect that nobody has mentioned, which is essential before any flying can happen, is INSURANCE!  It must cost a fortune to insure a 50yr old ex military, complex jet, to fly at displays.

£183,750 pa was the latest figure I was given - I don't know if there is a No Claims Bonus!
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: Wizzy on October 12, 2015, 11:13:32 PM
Great to see you posting again Ron, and thank you for such a reasoned (as always!) post - that, more than any other explanation I've read, has convinced me that sadly, the time is right for 558 to retire.

Seeing you posting has brought things full circle, and takes me back to the exciting days of the restoration, the hangar cams, and regular updates from the team working on 558.  Such a shame all that has been lost over several changes to the forum software.
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: Mattk303 on October 12, 2015, 11:43:41 PM
Great explanation from Flipflop man, and completely justifies the decision to me.

The other aspect that nobody has mentioned, which is essential before any flying can happen, is INSURANCE!  It must cost a fortune to insure a 50yr old ex military, complex jet, to fly at displays.

£183,750 pa was the latest figure I was given - I don't know if there is a No Claims Bonus!

Really? costs more to insure a 17y old on a Fiesta!
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: Flipflopman on October 13, 2015, 08:44:05 PM
Thanks for the kind words everyone. I'm really good thank you, but definitely more of a lurker nowadays!!

As I've said, on a personal level, I really am genuinely gutted to know that 558 has finally reached the end of her 'second life' but feel really proud and pleased to have been even a small part in helping her get there in the first place. As an engineer though, I understand the reasons why and can support those decisions.

It's a very emotive subject and while I can understand the depth of the feeling towards wanting to see 558 remain in the air, that has to be weighed against the reality of the situation. I certainly don't understand all of the anger toward the Authorities or indeed toward the Trust and I definitely don't understand what certain parties hope to achieve with their anger.

I've got all the time in the world for genuine questions and requests for information, as anyone who remembers my posts from the old forums, but can't quite extend the same level of patience when opinions and misleading statements are repeatedly stated as fact. Unfortunately, it appears that among some posters, not only here, but across most of the aviation forums, there is a depth of feeling and an anger bubbling away that all of the hours in the day spent in replying wouldn't fix!  ;D

Not that it would make much difference anyway!!  ;D


Cheers all,
Flipflopman
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: Trev on October 13, 2015, 11:08:30 PM

As always Ron an in-depth and reasoned response.

So great to hear from you again after all these years

Regards Trev
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: Rover3500 on October 13, 2015, 11:22:23 PM
I'm curious about how the management of  the   engines has changed from the RAF days to the present.
I presume RR set a much more stringent requirement   when they changed over from flying time to cycle monitoring ?. 

The public display Vulcans presumably had the same maintenance requirements as all the other Vulcans?. What was acceptable in 1993 doesn't seem to be allowed in 2015.  but I guess that could be as much to do with better understanding of rotor fatigue as any increasing aversion to risk .

So the  engines that were overhauled and stored in 1981 were rated for 2000 hours use - it would be interesting to see how this compares to the 1200 cycle limit imposed on the trust.
I presume if engine life is now almost expired, 1200 cycles must allow less than  400 flying hours.

I'm aware of the 2 Vulcans that were lost because of engine failure ...and other accounts of pilots needing to shut down engines because of turbine/bearing failure etc. after which the aircraft was able to land safely. I don't know how bad this record is keeping  in mind the  100,000's of hours the Vulcan fleet flew but the incidents are shocking.
By all accounts, later  Vulcans had the areas surrounding the engine protected to prevent engine failure causing wing damage.

 Is the Olympus 202 any worse for reliability  than other comparable engines of that era such as the Avon and Spey which was still used by the RAF transporters  until recently ?.

Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: ascot5046 on October 13, 2015, 11:51:06 PM
Hi FFM and great to see you emerge to try and pour some sense onto the trouble emotional waters that have flowed over the past few weeks.




 

Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: Vulcanatic on October 14, 2015, 12:52:45 AM
I'm curious about how the management of  the   engines has changed from the RAF days to the present.
I presume RR set a much more stringent requirement   when they changed over from flying time to cycle monitoring ?. 

The public display Vulcans presumably had the same maintenance requirements as all the other Vulcans?. What was acceptable in 1993 doesn't seem to be allowed in 2015.  but I guess that could be as much to do with better understanding of rotor fatigue as any increasing aversion to risk .

So the  engines that were overhauled and stored in 1981 were rated for 2000 hours use - it would be interesting to see how this compares to the 1200 cycle limit imposed on the trust.
I presume if engine life is now almost expired, 1200 cycles must allow less than  400 flying hours.

I'm aware of the 2 Vulcans that were lost because of engine failure ...and other accounts of pilots needing to shut down engines because of turbine/bearing failure etc. after which the aircraft was able to land safely. I don't know how bad this record is keeping  in mind the  100,000's of hours the Vulcan fleet flew but the incidents are shocking.
By all accounts, later  Vulcans had the areas surrounding the engine protected to prevent engine failure causing wing damage.

 Is the Olympus 202 any worse for reliability  than other comparable engines of that era such as the Avon and Spey which was still used by the RAF transporters  until recently ?.

Hi Rover 3500,

I think you're asking a lot of pertinent questions.
Not everyone on here is ex-RAF or an engineer.
I think that it's sad that the more informed in the community, who should know better, seek to belittle you with unpleasant personal attacks.

I think there is a bigger issue here, beyond fatigue indexes on the airframe as it stands & hours / cycles left on these engines as they stand.

XH558 is a heritage asset which has absorbed considerable public money in the form of grants & money from individual donors.
For the past 5 years it has been 'ticking over' on around £2.5M a year which is a lot of money but not in terms of running an operation of this nature.
As is obvious to see XH558 enjoys unprecedented levels of public support & adulation.
We are continually seeing horrendous amounts of public money wasted on arts projects / theatre with low or no popular support.  Governmental waste running into many tens of £Billions, £100M+ alone EVERY YEAR on abortive IT schemes which never reach completion.
Buck House is due for a revamp at £150M, the Westminster renovation is due to come in at £7Bn
My guess is that all of XH558 's ills could be sorted out for £5M perhaps? That buying another 8 or 10 years of displays.
How much does it cost to keep the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight in the air each year?
I think that GB OWES it to the brave servicemen & women of the Cold War to keep this living memorial aloft for as long as possible, well who christened XH558 "Spirit of Great Britain"?

Yes VULCAN as a breed is bordering on perilous, I think that during development & service nearly 18% of all the VULCAN's built fell out of the air, crashed or went up in flames.  I personally think that with CAA oversight XH558 is probably operating as safely as any VULCAN ever has.

No-one wishes to see air-crew put in harms way but by the same token I don't see anyone getting into XH558 with a gun to their head, (if the Trust offered me a flight in a back seat tomorrow with a 99% chance of crashing I'd take that flight!)

As for those who say, "Good while it lasted, over now, move on!" Some of these people may understand VULCAN in technical & engineering terms but I feel they don't 'get' VULCAN.  You obviously do.

I think that this has to be be about;
What is best for this aeroplane as a heritage asset for the UK.
  &
What do the people of Great Britain want of XH558 going forward.

I am wondering if bolder & more imaginative leadership is needed here?

Regards,
Chris
(btw) I had the 3500 in P5B Coupe, P6 & SD1
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: leslie on October 14, 2015, 07:00:09 AM
Engine hours in terms of cycles depends entirely on how the crew use the engines, an engine cycle is from idol -100% and back to idol, that rarely happens in display flying, 100%-50%-75%-40%-100% the trick is using these part cycles efficiently to maximize the full cycle usage, which is why the crew use alot of momentum rather than power to fly displays, less cycles, over the last 2 season non display takeoffs were at a low power settings, to conserve cycles. Current on wing time about 200 hours, that doesn't mean there is 1800 hours missing life, RR said they would support the engines for 1200 cycles irrespective of previous RAF usage, the trust have had numerous conversation with RR about increasing the number of available cycles, but the answer has always been no 1200 is what you have mo more no less.
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: Rover3500 on October 14, 2015, 11:02:01 PM

Hi Rover 3500,

I think you're asking a lot of pertinent questions.
Not everyone on here is ex-RAF or an engineer.
I think that it's sad that the more informed in the community, who should know better, seek to belittle you with unpleasant personal attacks.

I think there is a bigger issue here, beyond fatigue indexes on the airframe as it stands & hours / cycles left on these engines as they stand.

XH558 is a heritage asset which has absorbed considerable public money in the form of grants & money from individual donors.
For the past 5 years it has been 'ticking over' on around £2.5M a year which is a lot of money but not in terms of running an operation of this nature.
As is obvious to see XH558 enjoys unprecedented levels of public support & adulation.
We are continually seeing horrendous amounts of public money wasted on arts projects / theatre with low or no popular support.  Governmental waste running into many tens of £Billions, £100M+ alone EVERY YEAR on abortive IT schemes which never reach completion.
Buck House is due for a revamp at £150M, the Westminster renovation is due to come in at £7Bn
My guess is that all of XH558 's ills could be sorted out for £5M perhaps? That buying another 8 or 10 years of displays.
How much does it cost to keep the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight in the air each year?
I think that GB OWES it to the brave servicemen & women of the Cold War to keep this living memorial aloft for as long as possible, well who christened XH558 "Spirit of Great Britain"?

Yes VULCAN as a breed is bordering on perilous, I think that during development & service nearly 18% of all the VULCAN's built fell out of the air, crashed or went up in flames.  I personally think that with CAA oversight XH558 is probably operating as safely as any VULCAN ever has.

No-one wishes to see air-crew put in harms way but by the same token I don't see anyone getting into XH558 with a gun to their head, (if the Trust offered me a flight in a back seat tomorrow with a 99% chance of crashing I'd take that flight!)

As for those who say, "Good while it lasted, over now, move on!" Some of these people may understand VULCAN in technical & engineering terms but I feel they don't 'get' VULCAN.  You obviously do.

I think that this has to be be about;
What is best for this aeroplane as a heritage asset for the UK.
  &
What do the people of Great Britain want of XH558 going forward.

I am wondering if bolder & more imaginative leadership is needed here?

Regards,
Chris
(btw) I had the 3500 in P5B Coupe, P6 & SD1
[/quote]

I don't mind when people say unpleasant things,  I'm used to it after working in troubleshooter type roles in   what's left of British manufacturing industry all my working life. Heard it all.
 But people all have egos and going around questioning assumptions can be misinterpreted   ..not the best way of winning friends even if you mean well.

In the US and Japan I find people much more open to new ideas and having their assumptions challenged. 
In Britain it's all a lot more cliquey with decisions often  based on who shouts loudest and has the most influence. Promotions are too often based on 'whose  face fits' rather rather   than results and competence which I find very depressing.
Group-think is absolutely rife in my view.

You may recall the scrapping of the MRA4 Nimrod in 2010.
Some very distinguished people   failed to realise that the 1960's Comet airframes on which it was to be built were   essentially 'coach built' to a non uniform standard . Something should have told them from the start it was a bad idea - but the decision had been taken and nobody wanted to rock the boat by saying 'hey wait a minute this is a terrible idea'.

 Unfortunately this made it almost impossible to fit the all new wings to the Comet fuselage - some of the mounting points differed by up to 4 inches!.

The point is that a handyman with a £2.99 tape measure could have spotted this - but the senior people  did not and in the end  4 billion pounds had to be written off. So I always check facts for myself  and if someone tells me  an argument is settled..well double check the facts  and assumptions made.

So no I would never dismiss somebody less experienced  by saying they don't know what they are talking about, are motivated by bitterness,  or need to 'move on'  - the best, the great and the good  can and do get it spectacularly wrong. Sometimes the most obvious mistakes are the hardest to spot by people at the core of a project. 

Lovely car the P5B but's for me it's got to be the   SD1 3500  with the  manual gearbox :)



Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: Vulcanatic on October 15, 2015, 12:12:07 AM
Re. Lovely car the P5B but's for me it's got to be the   SD1 3500  with the  manual gearbox :)

I hope it's the Vitesse.  If it's twin plenum they're getting as rare as hens teeth these days!
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: Rover3500 on October 15, 2015, 12:13:31 AM
Engine hours in terms of cycles depends entirely on how the crew use the engines, an engine cycle is from idol -100% and back to idol, that rarely happens in display flying, 100%-50%-75%-40%-100% the trick is using these part cycles efficiently to maximize the full cycle usage, which is why the crew use alot of momentum rather than power to fly displays, less cycles, over the last 2 season non display takeoffs were at a low power settings, to conserve cycles. Current on wing time about 200 hours, that doesn't mean there is 1800 hours missing life, RR said they would support the engines for 1200 cycles irrespective of previous RAF usage, the trust have had numerous conversation with RR about increasing the number of available cycles, but the answer has always been no 1200 is what you have mo more no less.

Thanks for the additional information - I can see the rationale in changing to cycle based monitoring to reflect changing temperatures and loads. Commercial airline jets running at steady loads for long periods  must have a much easier life.

If RR's 1200 cycle limit only corresponds to around 200 Vulcan flying  hours that's only 10% of the hours that the engine would have been permitted  to run  in the 80's and 90's. It would be interesting to see the reasoning for such a drastic reduction. RR quote a  0.00001% chance   of a 'hazardous  engine failure' per flying hour for an engne operating  less than 1200 cycles...that's about the same chance as me being killed as a pedestrian next year ie acceptably low.  Are all CAA certified aircraft held to this standard  ?

http://www.riskcomm.com/visualaids/riskscale/datasources.php

I remember in 1993 it was reported in the press that XH558 was at the end of it's airframe life ...engine life wasn't mentioned then as far as I know as a factor.   

Perhaps RR use a different and more stringent  risk assessment for engines certified by the  CAA  compared to those certified for  military use ?.   Certainly RR felt able to support the elderly  Spey and Conway series engines on the MR2 Nimrod and VC-10 fleet up until 2007 and  2013 so the expertise must not be entirely extinct.

Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: Rover3500 on October 15, 2015, 12:28:30 AM
Re. Lovely car the P5B but's for me it's got to be the   SD1 3500  with the  manual gearbox :)

I hope it's the Vitesse.  If it's twin plenum they're getting as rare as hens teeth these days!

No just a 3500  Vanden Plas unfortunately...much nicer car than that awful re-badged Honda thing!
I would love a Vitesse twin plenum   ..but then I wouldn't have a pair of twin Stromberg carburettors to play with on Sunday mornings and it still makes a lovely noise!.
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: PhillyJ on October 15, 2015, 09:07:54 AM
..but then I wouldn't have a pair of twin Stromberg carburettors to play with on Sunday mornings and it still makes a lovely noise!.
Off topic I know, but I had an Austin Maxi 1750HL with twin SU Carbs!
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: StAthan lecky on October 15, 2015, 01:06:57 PM
I had an Austin Princess !! does that count in the hall of fame,it was a lovely car and felt like a limo to drive

 :)

Mike
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: Rick Steer on October 15, 2015, 01:52:59 PM
Morris Marina 1.8TC Coupe - great in a straight line, but cornering at speed was........an experience :-)
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: eddief on October 15, 2015, 10:56:20 PM
Sorry - totally off topic!

Morris Marina 1.8TC Coupe - great in a straight line...

Ha!  Only so long as you didn't touch the brakes  ;)  Mine used to constantly surprise me by trying to overtake me with its rear-end whenever I braked hard!

These days, my 'old' cars are the Citroen CXes still waiting for me to get them back on the road.  Maybe next summer now the airshow circuit is going to be so sterile...  :(
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: PhillyJ on October 15, 2015, 11:41:55 PM
These days, my 'old' cars are the Citroen CXes still waiting for me to get them back on the road.  Maybe next summer now the airshow circuit is going to be so sterile...  :(
Exactly Eddie, perhaps I'll get my Firebird back on the road!
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: Rover3500 on October 15, 2015, 11:49:30 PM
I had an Austin Princess !! does that count in the hall of fame,it was a lovely car and felt like a limo to drive

 :)

Mike

I'm sure I was talking about an aeroplane or summat need to get back on track. Ah Austin Princess...

Ooof no that space is reserved for the Austin Ambassador ..mine was  a Y reg in beige :)
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: Rushy on October 16, 2015, 06:45:44 AM
Ooof no that space is reserved for the Austin Ambassador ..mine was  a Y reg in beige :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNCAcKybSfE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNCAcKybSfE)
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: PhillyJ on October 16, 2015, 10:46:37 AM
Ooof no that space is reserved for the Austin Ambassador ..mine was  a Y reg in beige :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNCAcKybSfE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNCAcKybSfE)
Thanks for that, my Dad had an Austin Ambassador VanDen Plas, I think that was a 'Y' Reg!
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: Rover3500 on October 16, 2015, 11:23:49 AM
Ooof no that space is reserved for the Austin Ambassador ..mine was  a Y reg in beige :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNCAcKybSfE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNCAcKybSfE)
Thanks for that, my Dad had an Austin Ambassador VanDen Plas, I think that was a 'Y' Reg!

Ooh they  were properly  posh ..2 litre O series power and velour seats! :)

Just a thought ... John Shuttleworth could record a version of  'Pigeons in Flight' for XH558 called 'Avro Vulcan in Flight' to raise awareness and  keep XH558 in the air!. A fun track with a knockabout quality that could be just what's needed to keep Vulcan in the public eye!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ww98UIZ5Us

Have a listen, join in when you feel comfortable and punch the  air for added emphasis !



Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: MrTim on October 16, 2015, 12:09:17 PM
I don't think even the mighty John Shuttleworth (Sheffield's funniest man, no less) could keep 558 flying.

'Ooof - Ken, what do you reckon? A fundraiser at the Doncaster Dome to raise a few quid for a rebuild?'

'Don't be silly, John. Have you been overdosing on those Werther's Originals again?'
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: Rover3500 on October 16, 2015, 01:01:51 PM


I think John Shuttleworth  would say.

....but Ken it's crazy!... we can't have TWO Vulcans on the go that can only taxy due to a load of red tape..It's a nightmare scenario! .

I will do the gig but I want my own private car parking space and an assurance that Doncaster police won't attempt to 'lock down' the whole of West Yorkshire if it might get a bit busy etc.

Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: Vulcanatic on October 16, 2015, 01:09:41 PM
Ooof no that space is reserved for the Austin Ambassador ..mine was  a Y reg in beige :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNCAcKybSfE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNCAcKybSfE)
Thanks for that, my Dad had an Austin Ambassador VanDen Plas, I think that was a 'Y' Reg!

Yes we're way off topic with Werthers Originals & Austin Ambassadors but ...

I can't say it's a car I'm all that bothered with but this one did catch my eye on ebay a few weeks ago simply due to the condition.  The description said 'probably the best in the world' - I'd be surprised if they were incorrect in their assumption. Auction finished at £6,100.00 reserve not met.
(http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTA2N1gxNjAw/z/0SkAAOSwWnFV~QI0/$_57.JPG)
(http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTA2NlgxNjAw/z/Io4AAOSwVL1V~QJs/$_57.JPG)

(http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTA2N1gxNjAw/z/6LwAAOSwKIpV~QIb/$_57.JPG)

Original listing;
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/BREATHTAKING-AUSTIN-PRINCESS-2-2200-HLS-AUTO-TOTALLY-ORIGINAL-JUST-29-000-MILES-/201433038686?hash=item2ee6583f5e&nma=true&si=iYzAHSF%252FRHYwzKFBQCYOQkLH%252FHo%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

My car ownership from 18 went something like this;
Triumph Stag (3 litre)Mk 1
Jaguar XJ6 4.2 litre S1  :)
Jaguar XJ6L 4.2 litre S2  :)
Vanden Plas Princess (Austin 1300 type)
Rover P6 3.5 litre S1
Austin Allegro 1300 (OK, I know!  ::) It was a family car and we dropped an uprated engine my brother had built into it so it had Porsche acceleration if not looks).
Rover P5B Coupe (3.5 litre)  :)
Jaguar Mk X 3.8 litre (still holds the British record for being the widest production saloon).  ;D
Rover P6 2 litre (another family car)
Triumph Spitfire 1300 Mk IV
Rover SD1 3500  :)
Triumph Stag Mk II  :)
VW Golf 1500 Sports Mk1  >:D

And around that time I started to buy more modern, boring stuff as I needed the reliability & mpg's  :(
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: MrTim on October 16, 2015, 02:37:03 PM
I think John Shuttleworth  would say.

....but Ken it's crazy!... we can't have TWO Vulcans on the go that can only taxy due to a load of red tape..It's a nightmare scenario! .

I will do the gig but I want my own private car parking space and an assurance that Doncaster police won't attempt to 'lock down' the whole of West Yorkshire if it might get a bit busy etc.
... plus free and unfettered use of the tea urn.
Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: Rover3500 on October 16, 2015, 05:44:57 PM
Very nice but a bit rich for me at £6100..but  if it was the Wolseley with illuminated badge and quad headlamps! :)

Title: Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
Post by: Rover3500 on October 16, 2015, 05:55:37 PM
I think John Shuttleworth  would say.

....but Ken it's crazy!... we can't have TWO Vulcans on the go that can only taxy due to a load of red tape..It's a nightmare scenario! .

I will do the gig but I want my own private car parking space and an assurance that Doncaster police won't attempt to 'lock down' the whole of West Yorkshire if it might get a bit busy etc.
... plus free and unfettered use of the tea urn.

plus  petrol money and it's a done deal.