Lottery Cash

Mike Currill wrote
“The answer is NO!!!, if they don’t consider the Vulcan historically significant (their words) I can’t imagine they would give any money for a taxiing example any more than they would for a flying one”

With the greatest respect I think you are wrong. Although no preservation group has yet recieved money towards a aircraft restoration programme, several railways groups have received money towards such projects to restore to steam and run locos on private lines. I do not know how they achieved this, but would like to find out how.
The main problem with restoring a aircraft to fly will always be the hugh cost of maintaining and opperating such a expensive beast, OK steam trains need opperating funds but this can be generated by carrying passengers, the CAA will not allow this to happen with preserved aircraft. Also every incident involving an historic plane always recieves an high profile, and often leads to death or injury, this is unacceptable to the Lottery.
Unfortunatly the bad feeling generated when the TVOC funding as refused has lead to a very negetive attitude between aviation groups and the Lottery. Maybe if the TVOC had set its sights a little lower ie had asked for lottery cash to fund a hangar and investment programme we may all be able to enjoy the sight and sound of a live Vulcan at Bruntingthorpe on a regular basis and with a long term future.
Although the Lottery likes big headline grabbing projects I feel more smaller projects should benefit .

DOUGHNUT

I think they would give money to get a Vulcan undercover but I am inclined to believe that they would rather fund a machine like the East Fortune example where it’s an example for the people of Scotland rather than fund one a few miles away from another one
which is undercover.
Sadly there isn’t enough money to get them all undercover –
some will go to the scrapman but if it’s posible to target the historically important ones well so much the better.
As for taxying – well that only preserves them in the short term – a hanger is the only option !

Re: Lottery Cash

Originally posted by andrewman
Hi

I know that the Lottery don’t want to pay for rebuilds/repairs etc on flying aircraft but what about taxing aircraft ?

Would they give some cash to put say a Vulcan or Victor undercover or to get a plane in running/taxing condition ?

The answer is NO!!!, if they don’t consider the Vulcan historically significant (their words) I can’t imagine they would give any money for a taxiing example any more than they would for a flying one

The answer should be yes, especially if the project involves a construction project. The Lottery are very keen on ‘bricks and mortar’ because it can see a return for its money, it also means that the Lottery team can control and audit the flow of money. The money is also dirrected to a third party, ie the construction company and not the applicant so the risk of fraud can be reduce.
(I have worked on such Lottery funded construction projects)

But the BIG promblem is shared funding. The Lottery will only commit funding if the applicant has already got at least half of the required budget, and preliminary costs such as design and planning permission would have to have been recieved, and paid for before the Lottery will confirm funding.

If I remember correctly a recent Flypast carried a good artical on the Newark Hangar bid.

DOUGHNUT