Sorry to make my first post a ‘nit-picker’, but the HLF only donated less than half of the £6m you mention, and that was given, I believe, if it was matched by other fundraising.

To put this into scale amongst other restoration handouts, HLF has just awarded £21million to put a building over the Mary Rose ship, and £10million to the Cutty Sark.

I am not questioning whether these projects should recieve the funding ( but I would question the £120million!! given to Wembley Stadium ), I would just like people to apply a little perspective with regards the £2.7million(i think) given to TVOC to keep the XH558 project alive.

Beastman,
My gripe isn’t with the cost… I couldn’t care less if it was 1 million or 10million. I issue with the whole thing is the poor management that has been on going with this project… And the fact that all we ever hear about the lack of money.

Has anyone looked at the web site recently?… IT”S RUBBISH!!! What idiots are running this show. Look at news now… NEWS. The main news for this £6 million project is reminding us to buy our valentines present online.

If course the project was always going to cost huge amounts of money, but it really feels to me like the people at the top are just creaming off a big wage for very little… And if they are working, and they have done stuff over the last 4 months while are aircraft has sat on the ground, then tell us about it. I think any commercial sponsor who looks at that web site will run a mile.

It’s OK everyone saying that we should be impressed with what they have achieved… I am impressed… With the guys who did the work, but I think it’s time for change at the top.

I certainly don’t think that the reason it’s not having a est flight today (it’s a beautiful day for flying!) is because Marshals haven’t been paid. I think it goes far deeper than that.

Just think, could YOU have restored such an aircraft back to flight??? What they have done so far is a big achievement even if she cannot fly. They’ve overcome a massive hurdle to even get her in the air again so I think so much criticism is out of order (not just here, on other forums too).

Good luck XH558. 🙂

I Don’t!!!

Are you saying that you are happy with the current situation? An aircraft that has had £6MILLION spent on it and it still sits in the hangar unable to move because of a lack of money. This wants an engineering exercise to see if it could be bone.. Of course it could be done. This is real peoples money. People have given a lot, and so far, they’ve had 20 mins of flight for that. You’re entitled to your opinion, but I really don’t think that is acceptable.

FULL CREDIT to the boys and girls who did the work, but the management, PR and the rest of them ought to be ashamed of themselves. I know they think they’ve done a wonderful job, but we’re only a few months away from the first airshows and there is so sign of her being there! – IT SUCKS. 😡

It really is an absurd amount of money, isn’t it?

It sure is… It’s even more absurd when you think that the people responsible for spending it have done such a bad job of managing it.

I think RAF Scampton should be on the list… Not least because of 617sqn, Niggers grave and it’s overall war time roll…

But it’s hard to find a WWII airfield that shouldn’t be on the list!

If the aircraft doesn’t fly at public events it cannot raise revenue . If it sits on the ground it costs money due to hangarage and wages. It’s a big money pit! I cannot imagine anyone would insure her on a flight basis – she would need ground liability . As for sponsorship – money is out there – whether for Cold War ‘dinosaurs’ remains to be seen .

So David, forgive me, but what is the problem with re starting the test flights… She’s got fuel, she’s insured, she’s got an aircrew and she’s got a ground crew…

Of course she’s a big money pit… But what was the merit of keeping her on the ground for the last 4 months? All that has happened is that now we’re fast approaching the ‘revenue earning season’ aka airshows, and she’s still not ready? Good reason or miss management? And now it’s all because of the economic change… excuses excuses.

I think the issue isn’t fuel – you need insurance and the back up of Marshall’s which all costs money.

Of course… And despite the flippant nature of my comment, I’m seriously saying that fuel is the factor. What I am saying is that everything was in place for her to fly again on 19th October after the first flight… what has changed? Apart from using the money to pay £50k’s worth of wages per month?

At the end of the day, if there is now less money in the bank then there was on 19th Oct, then that shows bad management. The aircraft hasn’t moved since (has she even been run up?) yet the overheads don’t match the donations… How will it ever work?

Just out of interest, is the aircraft insured on a ‘per flight basis’?

Bri,

Isn’t a forum about debate?… Which can be conceived as an argument! What are you looking for?.. a bunch of yes men who will all agree with you, or someone to give their opinions on the subject you raised? Anyway, like you, I’m not looking for an argument… I’m simply asking how should we have read your post?

I think that what you’ll find is that those people who actually know a bit about what they’re talking about are able to consider ALL the factors that go into things like wind farms, and are able to make a reasoned opinion based on those factors. The reality is that everything has to be manufactured. Would you rather they manufacture a wind turbine, and then get sustainable energy from it, or should we manufacture fossil fuel power stations and get non renewable energy from it?

Or should we go Nuclear?

Going back to the original question, “Wind Farms and Aviation Safety” – If the CAA get their way and persuade the wind generation company’s to assist in the finance of a low cost, low power mode S transponder for the GA community, then wind farms will have done their bit to improve overall aviation safety.