Snapper I can’t respond to most of your post as I don’t understand what you are trying to say.

If you think that’s bad you want to try and understand him after he’s had a few Gins, believe me this is nothing

“Noted for sarcasm was Ian,

Was ??? I’m still here and I’m hurt by that comment, I’ve always considered it to be acerbic wit

and it doesn’t appear that he needs any help expressing himself.

True and I do often, it’s part of my charm.

If the Vulcan doesn’t fly it’s not a victory for the “I told you so’s” it’s a missed oportunity.

There has to be a point where the plug is pulled, whether it’s a life support machine keeping a family member alive or in this case Vulcan to the Sky, however hard that decision maybe. You can’t expect people to keep on poring hard earned money into something when it is haemorrhaging money at the rate the project is.

Thanks for the PM Stuart I will reply in due course in the meantime :-

I said that a charitable donation is tax deductable (at both ends i.e gift aid)

Businesses can also give tax effectively to charity in a number of ways: –

Gift Aid
Companies make donations under Gift Aid by simply making a payment to a charity. The company can then deduct that amount as a charge against their profit for corporation tax purposes, for the accounting period in which the donation was made. The company does not have to give a Gift Aid declaration.

Wholly-owned subsidiaries of charities can make donations to their parent charity and carry back the deduction, up to 9 months, into an earlier accounting period.

Sole traders, or partners in a partnership make Gift Aid payments as individuals, as set out above.

Gifts of land, buildings and certain shares and securities
Companies can claim a deduction for a gift of land, buildings and certain shares and securities as a charge against their profit for corporation tax purposes, equal to the value of the investment donated. This is in addition, to the exemption from corporation tax on chargeable gains, which is available for gifts of investments to charity.

Giving business assets
Relief is available to businesses for a gift of an article to charity that is either: –

an item manufactured or sold in the course of the trade, or
machinery or plant used in the course of the trade.
The relief is available to companies, sole traders and trading partnerships.

Nothing there that say’s Gift Aid also covers a donation of manpower or resources, which in effect you are claiming Marshall’s should do.

but as a man noted for his sarcasm I feel that you can “dish it out” but….

Drop in on the Red Lion after Legends next year, introduce yourself to the forumites and then found out who can or can not take the sarcasm, believe me (and Snapper) we take just as much and more than we give out, as anyone who knows and has met us will confirm.

You don’t do much charity work then?

I would say it’s a fair bet to say that Ian does far more charity work than you actually. He stings me for a few quid every time i see him, he’s organised some impressive memorials to downed airman, and he even dresses up as Christopher Biggins full time. I suggest you refrain from making insulting assumptions when somebody tries to give an insight into living in the real world.

The Vulcan isn’t going to fly. There are too many dreamers and no-one with any sense of realism involved. Change that and there’s a chance. Delusional reality is not reality.

Thanks Mark

As Mark points out, yes I do. Though I don’t subscribe to any particular charity, choosing to raise funds for several different charities

I don’t normally highlight the things we have been involved in but for the purposes of your claims.

Apart from the two memorials, to date projects that my wife and I have run with include, a calendar which raised £1,500 for GOSH, a raffle which raised £200+ for MoM, other post Legends raffles which have raised somewhere in the region of £600 for various historic aviation benefactors, this year £250 was raised for the Grace Spitfire. Last year two projects that we were directly involved in and joint organisers, a charity auction and a charity dinner raised in excess of £50K for the Tsunami victims.

So please, in future, do not make claims about forum members when you clearly have no idea of their back ground.

10 MONTHS FROM TODAY THEY COULD JUST BE DOING THAT.

Skips do Fly in IMC ????? 🙂

A slight change of direction, where did the initial £125k come from to buy the aircraft ?

Another question, maybe TexanTomcat can answer this as I believe he has something of a legal back ground :-

VULCAN TO THE SKY TRUST is listed with Companies House as a private company, limited by guarantee, no share capital under section 30 of the Companies Act.

Limited companies must normally have the word ‘limited’ (or its Welsh equivalent ‘cyfyngedig’) as part of their company name. This may be abbreviated to ‘ltd.’ (or ‘cyf.’). However, under Section 30 of the Companies Act 1985, some company names need not include the word ‘limited’ if they satisfy certain criteria.

A company which takes advantage of such an exemption will also:
be exempt from the Companies Act 1985 in relation to the publication of its name; and will not have to send lists of members to the Registrar.

2. What kind of company can be exempt from using ‘limited’ in its name?

To be exempt, a company must be a private company limited by guarantee; the objects of the company must be the promotion of commerce, art, science, education, religion, charity or any profession; and the memorandum or articles of association must say that: any profits, or other income, are to be spent in promoting the company’s objects; no dividends are to be paid to members; [b]if the company is wound up, all the assets are to be transferred to another body which has similar objects, or which promotes a charity.[/b]

It’s this last line that intrigues me, if the project is wound up, under section 30 of the companies act, the assets have to be passed to a body which has similar objects, or which promotes a charity. If I read this correct the project should in theory pass to another body !!!

Stop the presses, break out the champagne, our prays have been answered :-

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?p=988578#post988578

Now where would you like it delivered ?

There’s a reply from Dr. Plemming on the Pprune vulcan thread. Good to hear from the horses mouth at last.

I took the liberty of copying and pasting his post from PPrune, to save having to search for the thread.

Dear PPruners

Yesterday, I was asked by Nigel Bradley to take a look at this forum.

I have to say since leaving my job at internet company Cisco Systems that I have never taken much interest in Forums, since they seem to me to generate rather more heat than they do illumination, but having read the last couple of pages of this thread, there is certainly some illumination that I can supply.

I refer to the following list of questions, that seem to me to be appropriate and worthwhile answering:

1. Please ask him to consider coming onto this forum (or through yourself) and give it to us all ‘straight from the horses mouth’?

Happy to do this, hopefully this long posting will supply the answers.

2. If he declines, would you please ask him why not?

That one’s easy!

3. Please express the deep and serious concern amongst PPrune members at his lack of comments on the problem?

Understood, having read a couple of pages of this thread.

4. Will you ask him to make a statement to the aviation world, stating EXACTLY where the project stands, what EXACTLY is needed and WHEN it is needed by?

The Engineering Status of the Project now, almost exactly a year after the work on the aircraft started is this:

Introduction

The overhaul task was initially based upon the RAF’s Major Servicing Schedule – costed by the RAF at around 15000 manhours – but enhanced by:

a. The need to create an engineering facility at Bruntingthorpe.

b. A requirement to carry out a complete structural inspection.

c. A policy of refurbishment, instead of on-condition maintenance, for many system components.

d. A more stringent approach to the conditioning of cable looms.

e. Modification of Military Flight System and Rear Spar

Measurement of Progress

The general sequence of any aircraft maintenance task remains:

· Gaining access usually by removal of components,
· Inspection of structure and system components,
· Assessment of the results;
· Where needed, rectification or replacement.
· Refit,
· Functional testing and systems integration

Each task is, of course, fully documented and controlled through a work card system. As at 10th August 06, Marshall Aerospace’s records showed that 4549 work cards had been raised; of these 1408, or 31%, were logged as fully complete.

However, it is important to realise that this is a gross understatement of progress, as many of the open cards have the manhour intensive elements completed and awaiting lower-cost tasks such as availability of spares and refit.

Unusually, a narrative gives a more accurate impression and suggests that the overhaul is about 70% complete.

Review

Structure: Before the Major started, the uncertain condition of the structure was seen as a primary technical risk for two reasons:

a. The alloys used are known to be susceptible to SCC (Stress Corrosion Cracking) and exfoliation corrosion. Visual and radiographic inspection revealed only superficial corrosion; a few bolt-hole inspections (for cracks) need completion, but the only known cracking is in a longeron end fitting bracket in the pressure cabin; this can be repaired or replaced.

b. The structural fatigue life had nearly expired at the end of RAF service; extensive preparation has taken us to the point where Mod 2222 is fully mastered and ready for embodiment. This will release enough fatigue life for the immediate and mid-term flying programmes. If necessary, there is adequate technical information for another modification extending the cleared fatigue life yet further.

Undercarriage: The undercarriage legs now fitted are to provide mobility, as the three primary legs are finishing full overhaul at the approved repair agency. Again, we had been concerned as there was a history of SCC, but they have passed scrutiny.

Hot Air Ducts: These supply very hot air from the ECUs to wing de-icing and cabin pressurisation; unusually, these ducts had also been a structural integrity issue, but ours passed inspection and await re-installation.

ECUs: The eight ECUs remain in their preservative cocoons; they are yet to be run on aircraft but we have good reason to be confident about their condition.

AAPU: An overhauled, low hour unit is ready for installation.

Fuel System: The tank bays are inspected and in good condition; the flexible fuel tanks are to be re-manufactured; the OEM is contracted. Fuel system pumps, filters, valves etc are being serviced.

Cable Looms: where protected, the cable insulation is in good order but exposed runs in undercarriage bays have suffered. Looms supplying vital systems or showing visible damage, have substantially been replaced, but that task is not yet fully complete.

Flying Controls: The nine control surfaces are at their repair agencies for reskinning and the PFCUs with their OEM for servicing.

Cabin: The inspection of the complex cable looms in the cabin is 50% complete; the individual instruments are serviceable, but the panel has yet to be re-designed to accommodate the revised (but not yet finalised) Nav fit. The O2 system is rebuilt, the AVS sub-system removed and the combined pressurisation and heating system awaits testing.

Summary

The processes of overhaul are substantially more than half complete. It is important to acknowledge that virtual completion of the inspection process has shown the aircraft to be in overall good condition, and with knowledge we have come to realise that the risk of technical shock is now very low.

Our major project focus remains the OEMs who are servicing systems and components at no charge: we need to ensure that they meet the planned component need-by dates – we have little leverage over them.

I would encourage all of you to buy the excellent DVD documentary on the Restoration Project to date, published by Primetime Video.
See: http://www.ptvideo.com/videos/Aviation/VulcRest1.html

The Financial Status is this:

As at the end of June 2006 we had spent £2,751,900 since February 2005, split down in the following way:

A/C Purchase £125,000
Hangar rent £278,200
VOC costs £617,200
Marshall Aerospace costs £1,336,800
Education Proj £14000
Non-HLF costs £380700

Of the £2,751,900, the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) has funded £2,142,600

VOC costs include everything on the engineering project that is not Marshall Aerospace. Non-HLF costs include everything that we cannot claim from the HLF, including fund-raising and marketing costs, insurance, expenses, accountants, auditors salaries of non-HLF people (including me).

At this point, before anyone asks, I would like to point out that whilst I now receive a salary from VTST via my own consulting company, I have financially sacrificed more than any other individual (except possible David Walton) on this project, having voluntarily given up a £150,000pa job as a director at Cisco in 2000 and led the project full-time for no comparable compensation for 3 and a half years.)

Future Plans

We need to reach first flight, for everyone agrees that the project’s world will change when that is achieved. It is also the moment when the aircraft is no longer at risk – we will be able to reposition it, and if necessary have a breathing space before anything else happens. I cannot stress enough how important it is that we make this milestone, which is now on our plan expected in March/April next year.

However, with our current known commitments, the Trust runs out of money at the end of August, and urgently needs an injection of £250k cash before the end of the month to keep us going though September. We are making some progress towards this, but not fast enough.

– Given that the Trust is a limited company and so governed by the laws covering insolvency, the Trustees (= Directors) have had no option but to give all employees one month’s notice, with the hope that something will happen to avoid shutdown. It really is down to the wire this time. I know that the Trustees are trying their best to find additional funding as I type.

– The 20-month time delay between the original HLF decision in December 2003 and the actual start of work on the aircraft in August 2005 ate up a fair amount of the funds we had raised. This delay came from all sorts of different reasons, but mainly for contractual, legal and insurance reasons. For example, ensuring that our insurers, Marshall Aerospace’s insurers and those of the key critical systems OEMs were all in agreement took some time.

– We have suffered additional costs, mainly from our prime contractor Marshall Aerospace, which on their own have already swallowed all but the entire £695k contingency budget that was in the business plan agreed with the HLF in 2004. That this is happened is a matter of deep regret, because we set expectations with MA from day one that the project was in essence a fixed price one. However MA has been and is taking a strongly commercial view, albeit helping us with a line of credit.

– Lastly, despite the efforts of the Trust’s fund-raising arm, we have failed so far to attract a commercial sponsor. Our business plan assumed that we would have attracted sponsorship of at least £500k by now, but so far this has failed to materialise. My own view is that we won’t get a commercial sponsor until we demonstrate the aircraft flying, such is the risk-averse nature of modern commerce.

All of our donors and supporters have been absolutely great and very generous, but the Trust’s fund-raising arm thinks we may exhausted the existing donor base’s resources now. We need rapidly to expand our supporter base.

We also know that we need funding at an average rate of about £125k/month to reach the end of March, by which time we should have made our first flight. My current estimated remaining net cash needed by month to reach first flight are these:

October £159,000
November £234,000
December £239,000
January £150,000
February £93,000
March £81,000

As you can see, we still have challenges ahead, but it is vital that we move from month-on-month uncertainty to some assurancethat we can at least reach first flight – hence the campaign for £1million.

5. Please ask him to explain why he is so confident that the rest of the money will be forthcoming. It may give us some encouragement to pledge more money.

I am not sure that I am totally confident that we will find the rest of the money, but I am confident that if we overcome the current crisis, the momentum that it will give us will be sustainable. The press and media coverage over the past few weeks has been substantial – the people who know about us want us to succeed. We need to turn enthusiasm that into funds, which is what the team is focused on.

One of the reasons why I am confident is the current emphasis on engineering skills. There is a potentially massive problem for the UK with the lack of the young choosing engineering as a career. James Dyson is opening a Technical College to “excite the young in engineering”, and I believe fervently the XH558 can make a substantial contribution to making the young think about engineering. A whole generation of youngsters have never seen the aircraft: we can provide them with an unforgettable experience that should start some of them thinking “I want to be part of that”.

6. Finally, will you explain to him that very many people like myself WILL NO LONGER give more money to this project until we get some answers to the position of exactly where this project is at, and exactly what is happening?

I do hope the above information provides answers to your questions.

In passing, I would like to point out that the project has been very closely monitored by the HLF since February 2005, who have held very detailed monthly reviews of both engineering and financial status. I cannot fault the HLF’s support for this project. Both at a project level and higher in their organisation, the HLF remain in total support, but due to the policies under which they are operate, apparently unlikely to provide any further financial assistance.

I therefore hope that you will feel able to make a donation or a pledge, and, just as importantly, to spread the word far and wide so that others will also donate or pledge. I remain amazed that despite all our efforts, so many are still unaware of what we are trying to do But when these people are informed, they are totally supportive.

See:
http://www.tvoc.co.uk/edonate.php
http://www.vulcan558club.com/Pledge%20form.pdf

The readers of this thread could I believe make the difference.

Unfortunately I am going into hospital tomorrow morning for a potentially serious matter, and will not be surfacing for a number of days. In the meantime please send any questions to the email address at the bottom of this post, which will be answered by the team at Bruntingthorpe.

I also invite you to visit Bruntingthorpe and talk to the team face-to-face. Please call the number below and ask for Denis Parker.

Dr Robert Pleming
Project Director
Vulcan Operating Company division
Vulcan To the Sky Trust – a Registered Charity
0116 247 8145