Is there any evidence that proves that people who donate to XH558 would only donate to that project ?

Out of interest, where did the £50K ish for the purchase and transport of the Canberra come from? Surely they didn’t use public funds donated for the care and protection of the Vulcan?

VTTS have for several years raised direct donations by the issue of what they refer to as ‘shares’ for specific aspects of the upkeep of 558 (with the issue of a printed certificate and various rewards in the form of items of merchandise depending on the size of the chosen donation). Those donating in this way will have been able to purchase shares specific, not just to one or other aircraft, but specific to a single aspect of the funding required.

The funding for the purchase and relocation of the Canberra was done through similar specific ‘share’ appeals to cover the pre-purchase assessment/inspection, purchase and transport. People who donated directly this way will have known that the donation was specific to the Canberra, and VTTS have clearly stated that Canberra account is being kept separate from the Vulcan, and donations made for the Canberra will only be used for the Canberra. Without direct access to the VTTS bank account, I imagine we will have to take their word for it (until the accounts are published in the future anyway).

At this point, I think any general donations, or income from merchandising or other sources will have gone into the general XH558 pot.

They have taken reference to the Canberra off the Vulcan website (at least in part because of complaints from some that putting the Canberra appeals on the same website would detract from fundraising efforts for the Vulcan), and one of the engineering team posted on the VTTS forum the other week that a seperate website for the Canberra to the Sky project is being prepared (though presumably won’t be progressed or appear until they get through the current hiatus and restart the Canberra project).

The full press release is worth a read.

trouble is, too many people aren’t reading it, and a lot of the ones who have done are not actually reading it and understanding it – those with axes to regrind are just seeing the bits they want to see.

It is also apparent (from the quote in an earlier post by TonyT) that the current situation has been building since last summer, and discussions and plans to resolve it have been ongoing during that time – the surprise and panic among those outside VTTS is just down to the suddenness of the public announcement.

It appears the airport management are still fully supportive and have not turned against VTTS (as some voices elsewhere are desperately trying to suggest). I am a little puzzled by the terminology of a “storage facility which will be provided by the airport” – I assumed this means Hangar 1 (VTTS said some time ago that WK163 is already in Hangar 1), but the odd term now used makes me wonder?

It certainly makes sense to me for the trust to spend money on a move to a purpose built hangar, rather than spend the very considerable summ which would have been necessary to make Hangar 1 suitable for housing their current visitor functions as well as the restoration work needed fro the Canberra. As the plans for the new hangar shown in the lastest newsletter suggest that it will not be large enough to accommodate both the Vulcan and workshop space for the Canberra restoration, I assume that the Canberra restoration will take place in Hangar 1, when they get 558 sorted and restart the Canberra project.

Worth noting (before people start raising the same arguments about wasting money on the Canberra), that money already raised towardss that project was donated specifically to WK163, and VTTS have already said some time ago that this is ring fenced and will only be used for the Canberra.

And don’t let us start suffering from the delusion that the money donated to the current appeal would be better used for providing a hangar for another museum – the same issue applies as always applied to the appeals during the display life of XH558; many of the people who are donating are likely to be people who have followed XH558 during her restoration and display seasons, probably people who were drawn in by previous appeals and stories in the media, and feel an affinity with Vulcan XH558 which they don’t feel for other aeroplanes. In short, the money they are donating now wasn’t ever likely to go into a different aviation appeal if things were different 😉

The people who infest facebook?

I think that is suitable description of the type of people who shout about in the comments sections of facebook pages.

VTTS appear to be in full panic mode on FB today.

Most of the posters on there give me the impression that they haven’t actually read the article. It’s the sort of hysterical reaction you expect from the type of people who infest facebook.

And still some people haven’t grasped that a ‘ferry flight’ elsewhere really isn’t going to happen :rolleyes:

…… Why would young people wish to training on a 1960’s jet when they can train with BAe on Hawks and get paid for it…..

Agreed, a 1970’s one is much better :rolleyes: 🙂

From what I recall reading about the academy proposal, it never was the intention to use XH558 as the instructional/training airframe. The eventual intention was for it to be a ‘centrepiece’, housed in an adjoining heritage centre. The whole academy proposal, along with everything else that has been proposed in conjunction with it, was/is intended to provide further streams of income to keep the organisation solvent, and enable them to keep the Vulcan properly housed and maintained in the future as (inevitably) the interest from the public wanes and donations dwindle.

VTTS have already made a small start with the inspiring and training, first via their involvement with the Spirit of Goole project, and since the completion of that aircraft, have embarked on their own Sherwood Ranger build ‘Spirit of Doncaster’ with various local air cadets under the guidance of the VTTS engineers.

Neither this, nor any of the future proposed ventures (or indeeed the most of the types of fundraising events held so far) would have been practical (or indeed, possible) at the popularly mentioned alternative homes for 558 😉

No possible home is 100% guaranteed – all it takes is a change of site ownership, or newer generations of the original owners family taking control (and having more interest in financial gain than in preserving ageing aeroplanes) for everything to be turned upside down. We’ve all seen the cloud that’s been hanging over 655 at Wellesbourne for several years now. There is no reason to assume that places such as Bruntingthorpe or Elvington couldn’t face a similar change of attitudes in the future.

Whilst of concern, I don’t see the current move at Doncaster as necessarily being the beginning of the end, and certainly no justification of the kind underlying nastiness that is apparent in a couple of posts here. We can leave the arrogant vitriolic unpleasantness to UKAR, safe in the knowledge that they will take care of that angle more than adequately 😉

Just exactly what do the diggers hope to gain, and the UK Government think they are losing?

They not only hope to gain, the very frequently do – by illegally detecting at night when nobody is around to stop them, often on known sites of historic interest for which they would not be granted permission to search in the first place, these low lifes make very good money from the antiquities they rob from such sites. There are always plenty of ‘collectors’ out there quite happy to pay for something rare and valuable without worrying about where it came from. Equally, there are others out there who never give a second thought to the possibility that the antiquity they are buying might have been stolen from someone elses property by these robbing detector users.

What does the Government lose?? For a start, they (or at least the nations museums) lose out on historically important items, and worse than that, they lose the reference point of where such things have been found, and thus lose the relationship to other artefacts or historical events tied to a particular site. Many of the items that these nighthawks search for and find are items which would be ruled as treasure trove by a court, so there is a loss there too (both to the landowner concerned as well as the Government).

There is also the matter of the damage (effectively vandalism) which is done to historic sites by the random and insensitive digging for buried objects, but I wouldn’t necessarily expect a historic aviation forum to appreciate that aspect when I look at the way buried aircraft wrecks are unceremoniously ripped out of the ground with no regard to normal archeological procedures 😉

As far as I can see, the BBMF fb page is only suffering from the same affliction as most fb pages – a nag screen to try and make those viewing either register with facebook, or sign in. All that is needed is to click ‘Not Now’, and the popup will shrink to the bottom third of the screen, from where it is merely a minor irritation.

I think the big problem that some people have with facebook, is the amount of personal information they seem to require when you register, and subsequently glean from your account if you provide it for them to harvest, and what they do with once it is provided. True, you can try registering with false details, but from what I understand, facebook is getting increasingly adept at sniffing out false identities and terminating them.

Not really ‘historic’ 😉 but;

The accident report was published in 2014: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/service-inquiry-into-the-accident-involving-hawk-tmk1-xx177.

It takes some wading through, but the important conclusions can be found on page 68 of the third pdf of section 1.4: Analysis and findings.