
Sooty655 wrote:SnailRFC wrote:Bovril wrote:655 is a a VULCAN![]()
![]()
What's the realistic likelyhood that this one gets airbourne too?
Absolutely no chance at all. There is no practical way the airframe could be brought back to a condition the CAA would consider airworthy, and there are NO airworthy Olympus 301s anywhere in the world.
And there is no way 655 would ever do a "Teasin' Tina", because she is always taxied by competent and responsible aircrew.
And the final nail in the 655 return to flight campaign's coffin is that even if she could by some miracle be classed as airworthy, Wellesbourne's runway isn't long enough.

SnailRFC wrote:I just googled this because I wasn't sure what it was, and wow ,they got lucky!!


Lucky is one word you could use - I could think of many others!!!!! 



SnailRFC wrote:Sooty655 wrote:SnailRFC wrote:Bovril wrote:655 is a a VULCAN![]()
![]()
What's the realistic likelyhood that this one gets airbourne too?
Absolutely no chance at all. There is no practical way the airframe could be brought back to a condition the CAA would consider airworthy, and there are NO airworthy Olympus 301s anywhere in the world.
And there is no way 655 would ever do a "Teasin' Tina", because she is always taxied by competent and responsible aircrew.
And the final nail in the 655 return to flight campaign's coffin is that even if she could by some miracle be classed as airworthy, Wellesbourne's runway isn't long enough.
I just googled this because I wasn't sure what it was, and wow ,they got lucky!!


Mayfly wrote:Sooty655 wrote:And there is no way 655 would ever do a "Teasin' Tina", because she is always taxied by competent and responsible aircrew.
have you been in the same bar with them at closing time?![]()
![]()




Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests