Talk:List of surviving Avro Lancasters

Surviving Lancaster in Argentina

Hi wikipedians,
Just added an entry for listing the surviving example of a Lancaster B.I B-038 of the Argentine Air Force, whic is on display at the V Air Brigade base in Villa Reynolds, San Luis province, Argentina; AFAIK only surviving example in argentina.
I was unable to find online references in either the official Argentine Air force website, or in that of the Air Force Museum ("Museo Nacional de Aeronáutica", it don't even have a full list of aircraft in its collection!); so I added as online reference an unofficial website that looks quite serious and which info matches the one of the bibliography that I've also added ("Avro Lancaster, Lancastrian & Lincoln – Serie Fuerza Aerea Nº 17", by Fernando Benedetto). I'll add additional verifiable sources when I find them, as I'll keep looking for them.
I'd appreciate any further info about this particular aircraft to be added to the corresponding section; also please check the whole article for consistency in number of aircraft currently preserved, etc.
Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Please note that other, older online sources mention that htere are no surviving Lancasters in Argentina, or that B-038 was presumably scrapped. Regards, DPdH (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Sadly Mr Benedetto's information seems to be incorrect. The aircraft on display at Villa Reynolds is an Avro Lincoln, B-016.95.150.44.143 (talk) 00:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

After long time found other verifiable sources confirming that no Argentinian Lancasters survived, just two Lincolns. Regards, DPdH (talk) 07:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

NX611

Apparantly it will take about £1m to restore to airworthy. The brothers who own it have been releuctant because one its airworthy, all sort sof official bodies from the CAA to English Heritiage get a say in the control of it, as well as Rolls Royce, BA and the RAF. You effectively have to give it away to the authorities to fly it. Its reguklarly taxied upo and down the runway, ive even seen the tail lift up on one full length run, it was seconds from taking off. They also have had Elf'n'Safety imposed on them, you cant get near it now when its running. At first you could stand literally feet away from the front of the props when they fired it up and took all four engines to 5500 RPM, the noise was incredible, and you could see it straining on the wheel brakes and chocks to go, and feel the power through your feet, making the concrete rummble, Awesome, raw naked 24,000 BHP. 82.21.204.60 (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, but they'll only get a say in anything if they make donations and include in their donations a clause making certain conditions apply. So no, apart from the CAA who would apply the normal airworthiness rules, there shouldn't be any problem other than finding the funds. If the aircraft is open to the public then 'health and safety' will apply but only IIRC if money is charged and the aircraft is accessible by anyone. If it's invited guests only then no, they don't apply - the aircraft is (I would guess) private property, and so the owners can do what they like with it, and allow in anyone they wish. The only problem would be if it's specifically open to the public or if their insurers make conditions on access due to safety concerns, e.g., someone walking into a rotating propeller.

No, English Heritage won't have any say in it unless they pay something towards it's upkeep/restoration and make certain conditions on the donation of these funds. The owners would have to agree to that beforehand, so no, unless they accept a donation from EH with certain conditions, the aeroplane is nothing to do with EH. If I were the owners then I would avoid accepting any donations, awards, etc., from government bodies such as the National Lottery, etc., for the reasons the original poster mentioned. As long as the current owners retain full ownership, they will be able to fly it once it's again airworthy just as any other private aircraft, as long as they don't carry members of the public.

BTW, IIRC, Charles Church's Lancaster was needing a re-spar some time ago - 1990s? - and he was lucky enough to be able to use spare spar material ordered from BAe for the Battle of Britain Flight's PA474. Unfortunately IIARC this material has now been used and so it would be necessary to get more made to special order and this would be comparatively expensive. If I were the owners I would sound out BAe on cost and then see if I could find enough people who would donate the required money on a sponsorship basis, and I would probably also seek out the advice of someone like Kermit Weeks, who might be able to come up with some wealthy contacts who might be willing to put up some substantial money. And if I were that keen on getting it into the air again, I would seriously think about re-locating to another less bureaucratic country with fewer shuysters eager to 'stick their fingers into the pie'. To do this would require IIRC the CAA to issue a 'Temporary Permit to Fly' to cover the ferry flight to the destination outside the UK, although that would have to be discussed with the CAA themselves, as I don't know how time-expired the spar is. Once outside the UK they may also be able to get a new spar made at much less cost.

I didn't know Kermit Weeks had bought Charles Church's Lancaster. There's an article about the trans-Atlantic flight - Canada - UK - of this aircraft in an issue of Aeroplane Monthly from around 1974.

no the first post is correct. Because its been classed by the government now as an historic artifact, its open to the public, you can boo ktaxi runs, and they have had to engage Rolls Royce to assist in engine renovation, all sorts of bodies now have thier finger in the pie and will insist on all sorts of rules and inputs if it ever flies. I spoke to one of the brothers a few years ago, they will not make it airworthy under these conditions. 2.59.114.197 (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

File:LANCASTER KB-976 FLIGHT JUL 4 1967.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:LANCASTER KB-976 FLIGHT JUL 4 1967.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of surviving Avro Lancasters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080615132137/http://www.asmac.ab.ca/html/aircraft.html to http://www.asmac.ab.ca/html/aircraft.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Format change

The format of this article is extremely messy and difficult to read. I have devised a new format that I think is far more effective. It is visually much easier to navigate, and it allows for information to be sorted into logical categories. Additionally, the format I devised allows for the inclusion of an image of each item (plane). I had previously changed the page to this format, however, another user reverted the page to its previous format and suggested that this major change should be discussed.

Please look at the previous version that I created. If there is no objection, I will change the format back in a few days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsc9i8 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Really needs a wider discussion to introduce a new format as we have many such aircraft lists in wikipedia which mainly follow the same format. We have some differences in opinion on the format as suggested by User:Noha307 at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft) but mainly in the use of identiies. This should really be raised on that page so it can be agreed at a project level. MilborneOne (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'll post a comment on that page. Perhaps I could change this page back to my new format and have it as an example of an alternative format, which other people working on the project can see? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsc9i8 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It's in the page history, so anyone can link tot hat snapshot of it in time. Meanwhile back to the readable version IMO. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi I'm made a few updates particularly for those airframes undergoing restoration.

I've also narrowed the table a little to reduce continual left-right scrolling on devices which don't have big screens (e.g. laptops, tablets, phones) by moving the photos to below the build number - I know it differs a bit from other surviving aircraft lists, but I think it's the lesser of two evils - hope nobody minds too much! However it's an independent edit, and you can revert it if you think it's really too major! Fh1 (talk) 11:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)