At least the Vulcan should (one hopes) be preserved. I do wish I'd seen it flying. One of the most beautiful aluminium overcasts ever, even if its designed purpose might have upset some.

I think that was a practical problem. Nobody was willing to continue certifying its fitness for flight. Am I thinking of the engines? - must do a little re-reading - but I don't think anyone was making spares for them, nor was anyone willing to take responsibility for them any more. I suspect there were also concerns over the airframe, which was probably beyond its designed "use-by" limit, either by flying hours or by date - or both.

Presumably the only problem with the hovercraft is that it takes up an awful lot of space. It's a great rectangle, unlike an aircraft which can often be shoe-horned into a hanger with other aircraft wings etc interlocking/over or under its own.

Of course, it's impossible to put a monetary value on it - which makes it difficult to decide, in purely financial terms, whether it should be preserved, or whether the property developers would quickly realise greater monetary value from the land used.

I really don't know when emotive concerns should be over-ridden by practicality. Personally, I'd hate to see both hovercraft broken up, or all the remaining Vulcans, or Concordes. And are there any Comet 2 or 3s left? I seem to remember a Comet 2 was the "gate guardian" to RAF Lyneham - and has been scrapped. Tragic, if so. But practically, it took up a lot of expensive space.

My own attitude is "Sod the space," which is probably why I will die poor.

(Ah, Lyneham - happy memories of dragging  DC-8s out of there and using what felt like every metre of runway to do so... but I digress.)