Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By neilmurg
#1663875
JAFO wrote:Stumbled across this, don't know if it's been posted before but I enjoyed it. [badlink]
'youtube]-PHcdn8R4d4[/youtube'. You missed a '-'
rats, pipped at the post
User avatar
By Trent772
#1663891
2016

Sun 'n Fun

Art displayed the SHAR.

Most of the septics hadn't a clue what was about to happen, but almost as soon as it took off, I clocked it as I was enjoying a libation at the time.

It smoked away into the distance, circled around and started with a couple of fast passes. I was damp.

He then came into the hover. I was moist.

He then did that voodoo that SHARs do so well. I blubbed.

He then bowed and climbed away. I came....... :mrgreen:

All I can say is that it nearly stole the show - nothing eclipses Matt Younkin in the Beech 18, soz...

The Vulcan should have gone over to the States, it would still be flying and would for years to come. The UK is administered by morons, but it is probably for the good of the public, as they say :evil:
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1663898
Could the Vulcan be re-registered in the states and then flown out?
User avatar
By kanga
#1664006
Sooty25 wrote:Could the Vulcan be re-registered in the states and then flown out?


I suppose, in theory, if (in some order):

a. FAA would issue a Ferry Permit, and issue necessary Type Rating to adequate crew; and nations necessarily overflown or used for intermediate landing or declared as potential diversions (UK, potentially RoI, Iceland, Denmark for Greenland, Canada ..) gave appropriate permissions
b. HMG would issue an arms export licence (wouldn't want some Argentinian nationalist millionaire to buy it after it had been fully restored to speed and altitude capability :wink: )
[if same millionaire sought to buy up the Wellesbourne one that might be particularly suspicious ..]
c. owners had repaid all funds received for it to National Heritage Lottery Fund; and
d. .. to all donors who had contributed to it, if such an export was, in opinion of Charity Commission, incompatible with the purposes for which the Trust had been set up. Donors would also, presumably have to refund HMT for any tax breaks received.
e. .. and possibly other hurdles I haven't yet thought of, but if pockets are deep enough ..

Yes, US (very) rich private operators of former military aircraft may have more freedom to do so in USA than in UK, but I've not heard of any move nor inclination of USAF to sell off, say, XB70 in their museum to such an operator. However, with present incumbent of White House, the greatest ever negotiator as we all know, who knows .. ? :)
Last edited by kanga on Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1664017
it was just an idle thought that if it lived in the states, it could visit occasionally, like the Canadian Lancaster did.

Any reason why a UK charity can't have a USA base and a part owned, USA registered asset?

I need to stop thinking out loud!
By Lefty
#1664028
At Oskosh 2015, just one aircraft stole the show and got every single one of the 300k spectators standing up and starring at the the display line - two USMC AV8 Harriers.
Not sure if it was the display - or the ear splitting noise level that caught their attention.

Excellent display though. Pretty much copied everything the late (great) John Farley used to do.

Why do we sell of everything great that we develop?
By Graham56
#1664541
ls8pilot wrote:Great - so glad someone has the time, money & motivation to keep some examples of the Harrier flying.


Yep, but it helped having a positive-thinking NAA to work with. Did he really get FAA approval to fly it based on a single phone call?

Try that here, with say, a Tornado about to come out of service...