foxOneFive
Corporal
- 379
- 29
- 28
Didn't realise they were so far ahead with this old girl? But good luck, and hopefully all will go ok. Well done to all.
-
Welcome to the E-Goat :: The Totally Unofficial RAF Rumour Network.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Maybe a third Lancaster into the sky soon?
- Thread starter foxOneFive
- Start date
- 4,931
- 107
- 63
Every summer they do taxi runs with pax for money - every winter they take it apart and fix something else with the cash. It's a very long way off flying and as it is a family owned concern, there isn't enough cash going in to run a through life maintenance programme to CAA standards.
Then there's the little matter of take off space
Then there's the little matter of take off space
- 2,163
- 122
- 63
"...there isn't enough cash going in to run a through life maintenance programme to CAA standards."
That really depends on how many hours they say they're going to fly on their Permit to Fly - The brothers are canny folk and have probably figured it out. I recon they will have a very low 1st year, perhaps 30 hours, that may fund their 2nd year etc.
If the engines are sound and there are no major defects I can't see how this will entail a great cost in the 1st year. Their biggest worry is an engine failure and replacement, off-base.
Admittedly, before the latest reduction is airshows, but I have run a classic aircraft on a Permit to Fly, flying about 80 hours in a year and doing the equivalent of a 50 hour check every 10 hours and 150 hour check annually. Well within the money earned attending shows in UK.
Perhaps their next project is clearing a space to launch from... their launches will all be without 'payloads', so may be a lot shorter that we expect.
Again, I worked at a helicopter base where our new helicopters were forced to do CAT A take-offs, whereas, if they had the length of clear space to move into, they could launch directly from a low hover. They simply bought two adjacent fields and created a suitable 'runway', 700m long, to which they could taxi and launch, with the fullest load.
That really depends on how many hours they say they're going to fly on their Permit to Fly - The brothers are canny folk and have probably figured it out. I recon they will have a very low 1st year, perhaps 30 hours, that may fund their 2nd year etc.
If the engines are sound and there are no major defects I can't see how this will entail a great cost in the 1st year. Their biggest worry is an engine failure and replacement, off-base.
Admittedly, before the latest reduction is airshows, but I have run a classic aircraft on a Permit to Fly, flying about 80 hours in a year and doing the equivalent of a 50 hour check every 10 hours and 150 hour check annually. Well within the money earned attending shows in UK.
Perhaps their next project is clearing a space to launch from... their launches will all be without 'payloads', so may be a lot shorter that we expect.
Again, I worked at a helicopter base where our new helicopters were forced to do CAT A take-offs, whereas, if they had the length of clear space to move into, they could launch directly from a low hover. They simply bought two adjacent fields and created a suitable 'runway', 700m long, to which they could taxi and launch, with the fullest load.
Last edited:
foxOneFive
Corporal
- 379
- 29
- 28
Can they not get "lottery money" if they still do that? Such a shame that cash is always king