558's Future.

Discussions on XM655, XH558, XM607, XL426 or any other preserved aircraft

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Coastergirl » Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:44 pm

Dougs wrote:the current operators are very good at getting the engineering organised


Do you think so?

I'm not so sure. The engineers themselves are fantastic, and the volunteer band are absolutely amazing but I would still disagree that the current operators are good at organising the engineering. A good example of my point is the devastating permit-gate for Waddington last year- which was completely down to the engineering not being organised - goodness knows how much goodwill and money that mistake cost us. In this edition of the Club Magazine, even Barry Masefield himself describes the situation as:

"We arrived at Waddington under the glare of the media with great expectations of a successful display weekend at what is really the spiritual home of the vulcan and most certainly that of 558. How our hopes were dashed when we aircrew were told the following day, Saturday, that our permit to fly had elapsed on the Friday and that a new permit wouldn't be issued until certain engineering complexities had been resolved. someone had taken their eye off the ball and allowed this situation to happen and despite frantic telephone calls between the relevant agencies involed our renewal of the permit to fly was denied............ Anyway, the weekend was a PR disaster and we on the frontline were bitterly disappointed and felt let down by those responsible."

In this case, we have some of the best aviation engineers you could find (and sadly lost some of them ~x( ) doing a grand job. We have a country full of supporters turning out in any weather to watch any slight movement '558 makes and donating or pledging their hard-earned money in the tightest economic climate we've seen in decades.... for my opinion, it is just a pity that on many occasions (some big, some small, some HUGE) the current operators have been unable to fulfill their promises to their staff and their supporters.

As Bubbles said on page 2 of this thread:

"By doing what's best for the aeroplane doesn't mean carrying on raising funds for the current organisation, it is now simply throwing peoples hard earned money down the drain just to stave off what is the inevitable, better to end it now whilst there is still goodwill among people, there is noway we will survive another appeal like this. No doubt someone will come along with saying how things are changed etc, but if Gully is correct and the club has no say etc then wheres the change? what and who is different in the set up? I have seen nothing to suggest that this time next year we won't be in this mess again. I am not calling for heads to roll but i believe that any faith or trust in the current set up has gone and when that goes you've had it."

...and I completely agree with him. How do we know there is no-one with better skills to run this thing? Has someone 'phoned every commercial aircraft operator recently and asked them if they would be interested in running it should the opportunity ever arise? Or if they would like to collaborate with the Club, who would then handle the fundraising side of the operation (as they pretty much are now)? How can anyone possibly say that there's no-one out there who could do it, if they haven't asked...? Nothing is impossible and as my favourite public speaker (talking about Autism) says; "never isn't a word that applies to my condition".

CG x
Genealogists never die; they just swap places in the family tree
User avatar
Coastergirl
Boeing B-29 Superfortress
Boeing B-29 Superfortress
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:20 pm
Location: Thornbury
Also Known As: themeparkgirl

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Gully » Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:45 pm

Old Rigger wrote:Gully, with regards to:

fundraising for VTTS is just like every other charity - an all-year-round begging bowl


I think we all understand this, but the applicable part 'all year round charity begging bowl' which last year was an opportunity lost as we became a vitcim of our own success with such a superb flying season and failed to capitalise on this success. This is another area that will have to change if 558 is to continue to thrill all and sundry in the future.


100% agree!

Now, how does it go... Plan - Implement - Monitor - Review / Feedback - Ignore... ;)

Gully
Aircraft - The Greatest Gigs in the Sky!
User avatar
Gully
Boeing C-17 Globemaster III
Boeing C-17 Globemaster III
 
Posts: 1798
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 1:53 pm
Location: Hitchin, Herts.

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Xplumberlives » Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:46 pm

Thats the way to do it - NOT!
"All modern aircraft have 4 dimensions: span, length, height and politics.
TSR-2 simply got the first 3 right. ”
— Sir Sydney Camm
User avatar
Xplumberlives
Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
 
Posts: 41162
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 9:27 pm
Location: Close to a former Harrier Airfield
Also Known As: ROCKETMAN

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Gully » Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:01 pm

Coastergirl wrote: How do we know there is no-one with better skills to run this thing? Has someone 'phoned every commercial aircraft operator recently and asked them if they would be interested in running it should the opportunity ever arise? Or if they would like to collaborate with the Club, who would then handle the fundraising side of the operation (as they pretty much are now)? How can anyone possibly say that there's no-one out there who could do it, if they haven't asked...? Nothing is impossible and as my favourite public speaker (talking about Autism) says; "never isn't a word that applies to my condition".

CG x


And in what capacity would this person be doing it? They would have no authority and actually nothing to sell to said commercial operator as this unnamed individual would have no control over the aircraft's fate!

To answer my own question, only the Trust's administrator / liquidator / receiver would have the authority to go down the route that has been suggested.

Furthermore, why would a commercial operator take on an aircraft with 558's operating costs? There is no profit in it - that's why she's run by a charitable trust for the nation.

Lastly, please re-read DB / BB's explanation of the problems facing a different operator - simply bringing in another organisation is not simple at all. Flying in 2010 would almost certainly be precluded - then where do the funds come from and what commercial organisation would be interested without a profitable income stream?

Gully
Aircraft - The Greatest Gigs in the Sky!
User avatar
Gully
Boeing C-17 Globemaster III
Boeing C-17 Globemaster III
 
Posts: 1798
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 1:53 pm
Location: Hitchin, Herts.

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Dougs » Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:04 pm

CG point taken but dont forget the only reason 558 has flown was because of the team who fixed her up as i said the operation of the aircraft is not the current problem the airframe mod is, if it is not done now she will not fly for more that an hour or two again EVER! the permit gate issue was an paperwork cockup however the work required to keep her flying in purely an engineering execise and TVOC are good at that!, I dont like the managers but the team doing the engineering are the best at what they do and the conditions for the mod being viable cant be replaced if TVOC breakup so i belive my point stands ;)
B-)
User avatar
Dougs
Boeing C-17 Globemaster III
Boeing C-17 Globemaster III
 
Posts: 1062
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 4:20 pm
Location: coalville leicestershire
Also Known As: Avro Atlantic

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Mayfly » Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:10 pm

It would be suicidal to think of replacing the entire organisation - however to change one or two key personnel cannot be impossible can it?
In memory of a very dear friend - Mike Pearson

Very fond memories of Robbie Gilvary - DTs 1st Vulcan Captain who taught DT all he knew.
User avatar
Mayfly
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 29760
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:11 pm
Location: Bomber County

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Coastergirl » Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:20 pm

Gully wrote:
Coastergirl wrote: How do we know there is no-one with better skills to run this thing? Has someone 'phoned every commercial aircraft operator recently and asked them if they would be interested in running it should the opportunity ever arise? Or if they would like to collaborate with the Club, who would then handle the fundraising side of the operation (as they pretty much are now)? How can anyone possibly say that there's no-one out there who could do it, if they haven't asked...? Nothing is impossible and as my favourite public speaker (talking about Autism) says; "never isn't a word that applies to my condition".

CG x


And in what capacity would this person be doing it? They would have no authority and actually nothing to sell to said commercial operator as this unnamed individual would have no control over the aircraft's fate!

To answer my own question, only the Trust's administrator / liquidator / receiver would have the authority to go down the route that has been suggested.


So no future options are to be explored by anyone at all barr the official administrator, by which time most options would be too late to set-up?

Furthermore, why would a commercial operator take on an aircraft with 558's operating costs? There is no profit in it - that's why she's run by a charitable trust for the nation.


I can't answer that. Equally, you can't say categorically that they wouldn't. You are looking at the benefit of running her as purely a financial one but profit isn't the only criteria that people look at. There are people out there who give massive sums of money to projects just because they want to see it succeed. EddieF wasn't expecting a monetary return for his capital, nor was Jack Heywood....so I don't think you should right off the option that there might be a rich person out there who has the contacts and money to take this on.

Lastly, please re-read DB / BB's explanation of the problems facing a different operator - simply bringing in another organisation is not simple at all. Flying in 2010 would almost certainly be precluded - then where do the funds come from and what commercial organisation would be interested without a profitable income stream?

Gully


Did I say it was 'simple'? I'm sure there would be problems facing other operators but problems do have solutions, it just depends how far and wide you look. If we aren't going to look for other options, should we just give in and accept that if this trust fails, then the only option left is for her to become a dust-collecting exhibit somewhere. This attitude seems so defeatist to me.

CG
Genealogists never die; they just swap places in the family tree
User avatar
Coastergirl
Boeing B-29 Superfortress
Boeing B-29 Superfortress
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:20 pm
Location: Thornbury
Also Known As: themeparkgirl

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Wizzy » Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:23 pm

Spitfire wrote:So then my positive cash making suggestion will be that everyone whips smartly down to Ladbrokes to lay a bet that we'll be in the same position next year - then when we all win - as we surely will - it'll be much easier to raise the money next time :D :p ......(or will the odds be far too short :ymdevil:)

Sounds a bit like what one of my old friends used to describe as "disappearing up your own ars*h*le!"

If we place the bet and raise the money, we won't be in this mess, and therefore the bet won't pay out........

Catch 22?!? ;)
Life is what happens to you whilst you're busy making other plans...
User avatar
Wizzy
AgustaWestland Merlin
AgustaWestland Merlin
 
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:10 am
Location: York

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Dougs » Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:29 pm

Mayfly wrote:It would be suicidal to think of replacing the entire organisation - however to change one or two key personnel cannot be impossible can it?


wouldnt that be nice ;)
shame the personnel cant move on to other things without being pushed though :(
B-)
User avatar
Dougs
Boeing C-17 Globemaster III
Boeing C-17 Globemaster III
 
Posts: 1062
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 4:20 pm
Location: coalville leicestershire
Also Known As: Avro Atlantic

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Coastergirl » Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:36 pm

Mayfly wrote:It would be suicidal to think of replacing the entire organisation - however to change one or two key personnel cannot be impossible can it?


I wasn't suggesting 'replacing' the entire organisation while the current one is still an option.... I said "if the trust fails" i.e. goes into receivership (whatever the correct business term is). My points were in relation to what happens after that.

Dougs wrote: the permit gate issue was an paperwork cockup


The permit was denied because TVOC had failed to meet the engineering requirements set out in the original permit; that the renewal was dependent on the NDT work being carried out on 603. The fact that this had not been done is entirely down to the engineering organisation. How can you call that good?

CG
Genealogists never die; they just swap places in the family tree
User avatar
Coastergirl
Boeing B-29 Superfortress
Boeing B-29 Superfortress
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:20 pm
Location: Thornbury
Also Known As: themeparkgirl

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Mayfly » Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:45 pm

Coastergirl wrote:
Mayfly wrote:It would be suicidal to think of replacing the entire organisation - however to change one or two key personnel cannot be impossible can it?


I wasn't suggesting 'replacing' the entire organisation while the current one is still an option.... I said "if the trust fails" i.e. goes into receivership (whatever the correct business term is). My points were in relation to what happens after that.


CG


I know you weren't CG my comment wasn't aimed at you...........it was reference to Gullys quote from DB about a different operator!

but Dougs posted in between
In memory of a very dear friend - Mike Pearson

Very fond memories of Robbie Gilvary - DTs 1st Vulcan Captain who taught DT all he knew.
User avatar
Mayfly
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 29760
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:11 pm
Location: Bomber County

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Xplumberlives » Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:46 pm

Naughty Dougs!
"All modern aircraft have 4 dimensions: span, length, height and politics.
TSR-2 simply got the first 3 right. ”
— Sir Sydney Camm
User avatar
Xplumberlives
Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
 
Posts: 41162
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 9:27 pm
Location: Close to a former Harrier Airfield
Also Known As: ROCKETMAN

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Spitfire » Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:49 pm

Wizzy wrote:
Spitfire wrote:So then my positive cash making suggestion will be that everyone whips smartly down to Ladbrokes to lay a bet that we'll be in the same position next year - then when we all win - as we surely will - it'll be much easier to raise the money next time :D :p ......(or will the odds be far too short :ymdevil:)

Sounds a bit like what one of my old friends used to describe as "disappearing up your own ars*h*le!"

If we place the bet and raise the money, we won't be in this mess, and therefore the bet won't pay out........

Catch 22?!? ;)


No - No ... we place the bet only after this years funding is secured - so we aren't in a mess - then we lay a bet that we may be short next year - possibly - who knows - could be [for all those read - will be ;) ] But Ladbrokes wont know that - I mean we've never been in a mess before have we =)) =))
User avatar
Spitfire
Boeing 747
Boeing 747
 
Posts: 5207
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 11:06 am
Location: Hayle, SW Cornwall

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Dougs » Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:55 pm

SORRY please dont thawk me :(

CG;
The permit was denied because TVOC had failed to meet the engineering requirements set out in the original permit; that the renewal was dependent on the NDT work being carried out on 603. The fact that this had not been done is entirely down to the engineering organisation. How can you call that good?

not quite! i understand the permit was dependant on the NDT or mitigating evidence being supplied, which is what eventually got the permit not the NDT work. the engineering tasks that have been done e.g. mod.2222 have been completed well I again will say that i DO NOT endorse the current team RUNNING the aircraft opperation, fundraising and education.
Last edited by Dougs on Wed Feb 24, 2010 4:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
B-)
User avatar
Dougs
Boeing C-17 Globemaster III
Boeing C-17 Globemaster III
 
Posts: 1062
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 4:20 pm
Location: coalville leicestershire
Also Known As: Avro Atlantic

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Mayfly » Wed Feb 24, 2010 4:00 pm

Dougs wrote:SORRY please dont thawk me :(



awwww - go on let me - my fault I should have quoted it - that'll teach me!
In memory of a very dear friend - Mike Pearson

Very fond memories of Robbie Gilvary - DTs 1st Vulcan Captain who taught DT all he knew.
User avatar
Mayfly
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 29760
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:11 pm
Location: Bomber County

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Coastergirl » Wed Feb 24, 2010 4:37 pm

Dougs wrote:SORRY please dont thawk me :(

CG;
The permit was denied because TVOC had failed to meet the engineering requirements set out in the original permit; that the renewal was dependent on the NDT work being carried out on 603. The fact that this had not been done is entirely down to the engineering organisation. How can you call that good?

not quite! i understand the permit was dependant on the NDT or mitigating evidence being supplied, which is what eventually got the permit not the NDT work. the engineering tasks that have been done e.g. mod.2222 have been completed well I again will say that i DO NOT endorse the current team RUNNING the aircraft opperation, fundraising and education.


I think I misinterpreted your original paragraph and that actually we are in agreement. For the benefit of anyone else reading this conversation and forming opinions, I think it should be noted that yes, mitigating evidence would have been another way around not doing the NDT (and in the end, is the way it worked out) but who's department should have organised that mitigating evidence? It isn't going to be the education program, or the admin dept, or the PR office - it has to have been Engineering...so whether they were wrong because they didn't do the NDT, or wrong because they didn't provide mitigating evidence in time, either way they are still wrong.

Just a heads up - I might not reply for a while as I have things to do this afternoon/evening, but it will not be because I'm being rude or ignoring your comments. :)

CG
P.S. Go on Mayfly, thwack him!! Go on, go on, go on! Tee hee :D
Genealogists never die; they just swap places in the family tree
User avatar
Coastergirl
Boeing B-29 Superfortress
Boeing B-29 Superfortress
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:20 pm
Location: Thornbury
Also Known As: themeparkgirl

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Spitfire » Wed Feb 24, 2010 4:39 pm

Coastergirl wrote:
Dougs wrote:SORRY please dont thawk me :(



P.S. Go on Mayfly, thwack him!! Go on, go on, go on! Tee hee :D


No surely she's got to THAWK him .... sorry old habits die hard =)) =))
User avatar
Spitfire
Boeing 747
Boeing 747
 
Posts: 5207
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 11:06 am
Location: Hayle, SW Cornwall

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Xplumberlives » Wed Feb 24, 2010 4:41 pm

Spitfire wrote:
Coastergirl wrote:
Dougs wrote:SORRY please dont thawk me :(



P.S. Go on Mayfly, thwack him!! Go on, go on, go on! Tee hee :D


No surely she's got to THAWK him .... sorry old habits die hard =)) =))





The PEDANT returns, go on, ban yourself immediately! ;) :-o
"All modern aircraft have 4 dimensions: span, length, height and politics.
TSR-2 simply got the first 3 right. ”
— Sir Sydney Camm
User avatar
Xplumberlives
Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
 
Posts: 41162
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 9:27 pm
Location: Close to a former Harrier Airfield
Also Known As: ROCKETMAN

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Checkflaps » Wed Feb 24, 2010 4:42 pm

Dougs wrote:SORRY please dont thawk me :(

CG;
The permit was denied because TVOC had failed to meet the engineering requirements set out in the original permit; that the renewal was dependent on the NDT work being carried out on 603. The fact that this had not been done is entirely down to the engineering organisation. How can you call that good?

not quite! i understand the permit was dependant on the NDT or mitigating evidence being supplied, which is what eventually got the permit not the NDT work. the engineering tasks that have been done e.g. mod.2222 have been completed well I again will say that i DO NOT endorse the current team RUNNING the aircraft opperation, fundraising and education.


Not ganging up on you here Dougs. But, surely with it being known that there had to be this work carried out on 603 OR mitigating evidence supplied to enable the permit to be renewed or extended, the 'management team' surely would have known in the week running up to Waddo that the work on 603 had not been done - afterall, it was TVOC engineers who ultimately did the work on 603. Knowing the work had not been done and then not making sure that the mitigation was in the grubby hands of the CAA is where I see the problem.

Its actually not too dissimilar to a situation happening to the company I am working for (not my site I would add). They have had to remove some poured concrete beams from the ground due to the wrong size steel reinforcement being in them. The issue / problem lies with the Project Manager. Either he knew it was wrong - and let it slide hoping it wouldn't be a problem in the long term or he just didn't check it (through the usual QA system) and its all gone wrong. The problem is simple though - by not managing the project as he should, there has been an engineering cock up, not exclusively his fault I know, but by not having the appropriate checks in place and the correct monitoring before pouring concrete - the company looks bad having dropped a bollock and he is shown to be negligent. Yes it is fixable - like most things. However, it costs money to do and time, neither of which are in great supply in construction. In a similar way with the Vulcan. It was 'easily' fixable, but it took time to do and cost them a lot of (lost) money and more importantly, goodwill.

G
User avatar
Checkflaps
Lockheed F-104 Starfighter
Lockheed F-104 Starfighter
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:23 pm

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Hungry Haggis » Wed Feb 24, 2010 4:56 pm

Gully wrote:If the February and March targets are achieved, that still does not guarantee a full season's flying as I read the income pie charts. It clears the engineering work and gets us into the season. There's the small matter of the 'identified, but not secured' income predominently associated with corporate 'events' / entertainment, which I would assume will be Michael Trotter's post-appeal priority.

Think we all (inc. the Trust if they are still around) have to face the fact that in the current market and without a commercial backer, fundraising for VTTS is just like every other charity - an all-year-round begging bowl. Which is not to detract from the need to have a vision / hook to attract sponsorship!

Gully



Is it not that they fund-raise and hold out the empty tin over winter to fund the winter service pay the staff other bills go into red etc get to flying at hopefully loads of displays use the income from those to get to the other end of the season and start again .As far as I can figure out there doesn't seem to be any contingency fund held back to build up some sort of buffer and smooth out these perpetual nose dives.Charities fund raise all the time ,at least they do round here .We have the headquarters of Cancer research here and they are forever rattling tins outside the supermarkets The scouts and Air cadets (those annoying little blue clad menaces) are forever trying to pack bags to raise funds for someone . Yes i know the club do stuff but it's mostly round the Leicestershire area .Why is that .
Ducking to avoid the incoming hard objects now
http://www.newcastle-hospitals.org.uk/s ... ancer.aspx . 2018 is not my favourite year at all
User avatar
Hungry Haggis
Boeing C-17 Globemaster III
Boeing C-17 Globemaster III
 
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:10 pm

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Mayfly » Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:07 pm

No need to duck HH unless TDC sees you have called him an 'Annoying Little blue clad Menace' :))
In memory of a very dear friend - Mike Pearson

Very fond memories of Robbie Gilvary - DTs 1st Vulcan Captain who taught DT all he knew.
User avatar
Mayfly
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 29760
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:11 pm
Location: Bomber County

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Hungry Haggis » Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:16 pm

Now thats why I am hidding =)) =)) =)) =)) .
Back on topic now or I'll be in trouble :p :p
http://www.newcastle-hospitals.org.uk/s ... ancer.aspx . 2018 is not my favourite year at all
User avatar
Hungry Haggis
Boeing C-17 Globemaster III
Boeing C-17 Globemaster III
 
Posts: 1708
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:10 pm

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Baldrick » Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:29 pm

and the waddo cock up/hush up is surely a huge factor as to why they're in this mess yet again.............. ~x(
User avatar
Baldrick
Piper J-3 Cub
Piper J-3 Cub
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 3:31 pm
Location: bicester
Also Known As: sinbad558

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Sooty655 » Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:53 pm

And isn't the fatigue life problem another example of the same quality of management?

The fact that almost all the fatigue life was used up this season isn't directly the fault of TVOC management. But the fact that the issue was apparently not noticed, and certainly never raised until it had reached the point where the mod had to be brought forward by a year AND the airshow season and its fundraising opportunities had passed is definitely the fault of TVOC management.

(For clarity, I stress once again NOT the engineers, the MANAGEMENT)
Sooty

One Olympus 301 has twice the power of a complete F1 starting grid.
XM655 has four of them, all serviceable.
When we make noise, WE MAKE NOIZE ! !
User avatar
Sooty655
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 8871
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 9:17 pm
Location: Weedon, Northants

Re: 558's Future.

Postby Xplumberlives » Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:07 pm

Mayfly wrote:No need to duck HH unless TDC sees you have called him an 'Annoying Little blue clad Menace' :))




Sounds fair to me!
"All modern aircraft have 4 dimensions: span, length, height and politics.
TSR-2 simply got the first 3 right. ”
— Sir Sydney Camm
User avatar
Xplumberlives
Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
 
Posts: 41162
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 9:27 pm
Location: Close to a former Harrier Airfield
Also Known As: ROCKETMAN

PreviousNext

Return to Anything Vulcan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests