Denis ParkerWas it the IWM seeing as they effectively own the place??
?????????? .:confused: :confused: …….HLF own the aircraft post flight
. :confused:
Denis Parkerand yet another slinging match starts…”duck here come the teddies”
I can asure you I have not even got a teddy, let alone slinging one around… 😮 😮
Denis ParkerDenis – Absolutely amazed yet again ! Never heard before that the responsibilty of placing her on retirement is with HLF !
Hi David
Can I ask.. who did you think decided on Duxford, effectively they own the aircraft when we finish flying!!
Denis
Denis ParkerDenis – Are you telling me that the HLF whilst funding the rebuild will have no influence in the way in which she is displayed? I thought the funding of the package was as the ‘power of peace’ or something along those lines ? I will be amazed if they have no imput having been involved in a HLF application they are very much interested in how the finished item is displayed.
As for the commercial side of things – I was under the impression that she was purchased for the Nation ? Does that mean if a sponsor offers you £1 million a year to fly her painted pink the huddled masses who bought their lottery tickets have no say in it?
….the HLF whilst funding the rebuild will have no influence in the way in which she is displayed?….
.…..Actually if you look at the figures HLF funding only represented £2.7million of a project cost of £5.8million… a little under half!!!
The funding was for return to full working order and the education aspect of the project which is where ‘power of peace’ & ‘The Cold War Story’ comes in.
Their rules DO NOT allow them to support a flying aircraft.
Therefore that is up to us to fund flight…. hence the sponsor requirement….. Roll-out, discharged their [HLF] commitment until she stops flying in 10yrs+ and then they reposess her for the nation and sending her to wherever they wish her to reside..be it Duxford or wherever
Does that mean if a sponsor offers you £1 million a year to fly her painted pink
in a word…. yes…… and to be honest, with 14yrs of my life invested in this aircraft…. as project “Anorak”…so long as she flies, I don’t have a problem with it
Denis 🙂 🙂 🙂
Denis ParkerFor ‘additional’, read ‘wrongly costed’
QED
Moggy
No read…. Marshalls found that there was more design work entailed in the removal of redundant systems than expected…… nothing to do with our costings… you can’t blame us but we have to accept and fund their unforseen extra work costs.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Denis ParkerPeter – problem you have with any work of that kind is that the HLF are not going to find it aceptable for the aircraft they have funded to a large degree to be carrying out work for private companies when it was essentially bought for the nation to be flying as a historic aircraft.
David… I’m afraid you are wrong…. the whole point of “Commercial Sponsorship” is that she will work for the sponsor… in fact airshow appearance, will be secondary to being a vehicle for the sponsor to show of his advertising to as many people as possible…… with total HLF agreement……
In fact the HLF will have no input to the flying phase of the project…… their funding was for “return to full working order”….. not flight….. thats our problem
🙂
Denis ParkerIf the VTTS setup a direct debit scheme, allowing people to donate £25 a quarter like they do with SallyB, albeit only £100 a year, if 500 people done it, thats a steady £500,000 a year to keep her ticking over and it could be more if people were allowed to donate more a quarter say if they done it in stages and gave you the choice of £25, £50 or £100.
In return, they could say give you executive membership of the VTTS, giving you say free access to the Vulcan when not at Air Displays or free entry to events held in correspondense with the Vulcan.
These facillities already exist, and should be somewhere on the project website, or you can send me a PM with your address I will send you the paperwork..
Access to the aircraft is already available all you have to do is ring me on 0116 2478145……
Denis
Denis ParkerSorry I’m finding it very hard to follow what you are asking.
The VTST costings have self-evidently been consistently wrong. What more proof do you need beyond the last few weeks pantomime and the ‘Give us more money or we’ll scrap it’ debacle earlier?
Moggy
My questions seem crystal clear to me…. anybody else got any problems??
I disagree….. it is not self evident that….. “the VTST costings were consistently wrong,”…..you have not come up with one scrap of hard evidence of overspend by VTST(engineering div…[TVOC]) on the aircraft rebuild..
As I said earlier, the problems stem not from, our mis-calculations, our overspends or faulty project projections, but from an inabillity to raise sufficient funds and to attract a sponsor which (until recently) was not the responsibillity of the engineering div, but the soon to close Campaign Office at Wimbourne.
The “last few weeks pantomime”… was the Club and the Engineering Div pulling the fat out of the fire….after the campaign office had given up!
The ” ‘Give us more money or we’ll scrap it’ debacle earlier?”,…… again arose from an inabillity to raise sufficient funds and to attract a sponsor, and happened before the “Trust” took full control of the aircraft , and pre HLF involvment.
Again I say where is your hard evidence of faulty project costings?????
:confused: :confused: :confused:
Denis Parker]
]”Scepticism.. thanks for this never could spell!!!
again I ask.. can you prove this with hard facts not supposition apart from OEM design uplifts what have we costed wrong on the aircraft? as I see it our problems have been not attracting sponsorship, no matter how hard we tried..
Maybe you can point the mistakes we made out to me???
Probably laying myself wide open now..
.
Come on Moggy….. any offers yet??
.
Denis Parker“Scepticism”
Just look back over the history of the project. The costings have been wrong since day one and continue so to be.
Moggy
]
]”Scepticism.. thanks for this never could spell!!!
again I ask.. can you prove this with hard facts not supposition apart from OEM design uplifts what have we costed wrong on the aircraft? as I see it our problems have been not attracting sponsorship, no matter how hard we tried..
Maybe you can point the mistakes we made out to me???
Probably laying myself wide open now..
.
Denis ParkerHi,
The ‘plates’ on the windscreens are in fact waxed paper protective coverings. The windscreens are brand new, and these are manufacturer fitted. Due to the fact that the canopy will be removed again, to allow seat fitment and cockpit rebuild with the new avionics suite, it was decided to leave the coverings on, to prevent any inadvertant damage.
You are quite correct multivac, in that the work will start again now, to complete the remaining 30 – 35% of work. As myself and others have stated previously, this has never been hidden, and is not a hidden cost. Roll Out work has always been budgeted for, in both a financial and time sense. Those taking an interest will note the aircraft on jacks having its canopy, u/c and other parts removed, in the next few weeks. What is difficult to convey to people is that the majority of the work that has been carried out, has been deep inside the aircraft, and as such, is not immediately obvious. Work like deletions of redundant systems, and their wiring looms, re-wiring of the PFCU’s, Replacement of o2, hydraulic, pneumatic systems, which the whole aircraft has been built around, is not obvious to the untrained eye, so it may well appear that not much has been done. I can assure you all however, that it has. My message therefore is this, do not be alarmed in the next few weeks as the aircraft is jacked up and panels disappear. This was always going to happen, was never hidden and will not affect the proposed dates for completion and initial flight.
May I also say an extremely heartfelt and genuine THANK YOU to everybody who has supported this project, and pledged or donated money. Your support has been outstanding and humbling, and we are ALL extremely grateful that we have the opportunity to show everybody what we had always known to be possible.
Flipflopman
My God doesn’t he speak well for one so young?????
Amazing what a few cans of Stella will do??
.
Denis Parker😀 😀 😀 😀
Moggy
OK… can prove your scepticisum??(needs spell checker on this site) do you have hard facts please??
.
Denis ParkerDenis- my post was in response to post no.70. There are distinct differences in the operation of aircraft on a CofA as opposed to a Permit to Fly . A Permit
aircraft is usually limited to VFR flight-restricted to U.K airspace unless with prior foreign government permission and generaly not approved for flight over built up areas.
David..
Thanks for clarification, and you are quite correct… as yet we have no plans to exit these shores….
as regards the last point anyone fancy arguing with the queen for whome the June Falklands Flypast is for???
.
Denis ParkerAnd in the light of the last few months events, that is somehow meant to reassure us?
Moggy
Nothing wrong with project plan costings…… just other peoples unforseen planning costings and our own inabillity to attract a sponsor.
We now, I believe, have the way ahead cleared thanks to the Herculian efforts of the VTTSClub over the last 18 days and Sir Jack Haywoods generosity…… plus a new command structure…. I think things will now improve PR wise… 1st step we have just about gained control of the Project Website.. other changes in the pipeline….
Denis
. 🙂 🙂 🙂
Denis ParkerThe Vulcan will fly under a CAA Permit To Fly. The type has never operated under a Cof A and the terms of that wouldn’t really be applicable to a type like a Vulcan.
The Permit to Fly does have restrictions on the type of flying that can be carried out and some restrictions on leaving British shores from memory.
The Display Authorisation is carried out by an appointed CAA examiner by an examination of the display routine. The pilot is the person who receives the DA . In the case of the Vulcan it would be prudent to have more than one crew trained on type . The CAA will appoint a suitable person to act as the display authorisation examiner -undoubtedly a pilot who had Vulcan experience.
Absolutly correct…… can I ask what is your point or have I missed something previous that you have posted an answer to???
:confused:
Sign In
