We’re just re-covering old ground. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve explained my points on Pprune and on here

but you dont seem to be able to address any those objections or arguments against your proposals, and explain the viability behind them.

* What is the sponsorship proposition that would have American enthusiasts, philanthropists or Corporates funding a British V Bomber in UK military markings? surely far less likely than curent UK sponsorship?

* -Who do you think will sponsor it?

* – What research tasks is the Vulcan the most economic choice for?

Flying it to the USA to “see” if there are any sponsorship or research opportunities, to use up the last of TVOC funds before they run out and have to ground it in the UK, would clearly only strand it in the USA without any funds, volunteers, spares, engineering, pilots, and with TVOC then wound up through lack of funds it would simply rot there

* – how do you plan to address those support issues?

Once again, people are quick to chime-in with comments about how HLF cannot help further but as I keep saying, that’s rubbish. They could help if they wanted to, or if they were made to.

* The HLF has funds, but why “should” they provide any further funding?

* and for how long, how much?, should the HLF provide additional funding?

Anyway, as I’ve said, all the points you seek answers to have been answered on the Pprune thread many times. Likewise, as I also keep saying, if my view is so bizarre, then I have to say I’m still waiting for so much as one alternative proposal to try and keep the aircraft in the air. Not one has emerged, so perhaps it’s slightly comical to dismiss one practical idea (two in fact, if you include the HLF option) when there clearly isn’t any alternative on the table?

(I dont read Pprune so I can only judge and respond to your proposals as presented here.)

I think the crux of the issue is that most of us re now convinced there is no practical idea to keep the aircraft in the air, if the 60,000UK pounds per month is realistic and unavoidable costs, it would seem it was never commercially viable.

Unless a major benefactor, Branson,HLF, BBHF step in, it will not survive as a flying project, those supporters are most likely to befound in the UK not the USA.

The project only ever envisioned flying the Vulcan for 10 years, it was always going to be retired in the UK to some ground based outcome.

If it is not financially viable then the efforts should now go into that retirement strategy.

Mark Pilkington

Surely, it’s got to be worth a try when there is absolutely no other option? There is only one other option and that’s HLF, but TVOC evidently don’t have any appetite for a fight over this matter, so what is the alternative to simply getting the aircraft out of the UK while it’s still possible? There isn’t one!

Chox,

Neither the HLF or USA are likely saviours for this project.

The realistic alternative is to simply bring forward the aircraft’s retirement from flight and lock in some ongoing return on $6M pound investment by the British public as a ground runner/static display under cover.

Sending it to the USA to be stranded and grounded where it is unlikely to have any interest or support is not a credible option, alternative or otherwise.

You seem to be the only person in the forum seeing any merit in this idea, but I dont think thats because of a desire by others to oppose it leaving the uK, its simply not viable to support it with spares, engineering and aircrew, let alone to expect any better net fundraising abilities for it in the USA.

But lets see what the attitude “on the ground” in the USA really is? with a post and poll in WIX?

http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=28109

Regards

Mark Pilkington

.

The share value is clearly not representative of the remaining costs to rebuild the aircraft or its value overall, the advertisement indicates only a few shares are on offer, but does not infer these shares represent the total ownership or shareholdings.

The logic of the offer makes sense, its a aeronautical version of “time-share”, whereby you have a fractional ownership that gives you some level of usage rights?, the share value is a tiny fraction of the assets total worth, but thats because there are many many shares, effectively allowing the fractional use of the asset to be sold many times over.

Such an arrangement can be fair and above board if the arrangements are legally deliverable, and legally binding on the vender.

However there is usually more to that than just putting up an ad? There would either need to be “title” to the “property” that share owners can registered in, or a company or trust structure that the shareholdings can be taken in, and recorded against.

I would have thought that financial regulations in the UK would require such an arrangement to have a formal prospectus detailing the total number of shares,(ie indicating the level of ownership 1 share represents, as well as a report on the business plan and progress of the asset construction or operation.

Those regulations usually require a prospectus to be detailed and definate on project and business delivery, and the proponents can be sued if they are misleading and manifestly unachieveable or fraudulent?

I would have thought corporations and consumer law would require a shareholding offering rights to ride, to specify when, and how often you can ride and under what arrangements that will occur. If the aircraft is not rebuilt and operating yet, the prospectus would needto detail it restoration plan and expected date to commence rides. There would need to be details of how often the aircraft was to fly, how rides would be allocated to shareholders etc, how many rides a shareholder was entitled to perannum, and details of other costs the shareholder would be exposed to? (fuel/maintenance, and on what fractional arrangement?

Otherwise the vendor could simply fund the entire restoration with other peoples money but retain majority ownership and control, with no formal structure for shareholders to access their “rights”

It seems to be a very strange proposal that I part with money, but I cant see, inspect, or photograph my/our asset?

It may be above board, but the lack of “free” information doesnt encourage the investment of 5 pounds to find out if the shareholders rights are legally protected?

regards

Mark Pilkington

Yes, I can see the pattern now

Attack Fighter
Beaufighter (Duke of Queensbury)
Mosquito (Count Dracula of Transalvania)

smiles and grabs my coat

regards

Mark Pilkington

I think you are right, but I will be looking never-the-less.

At the moment I’m leaning towards the Douglas Aircraft KOmercial TAransport story. As the name Dakota is far too obscure to find its way into British aircraft designations in 1940 (at least I find it obscure).

Were the British Dakota I specially produced for the British, or was it just a number of aircraft shipped?

I recall asking this same question here at KP some years ago, and raising the ‘D A “Co” T A’ story at that time, but I am very sure that story is a wives tale, and the name is derived from a US State name in line with the RAF naming policy, with it being shortened to Dakota without the North or South attachment.

The British Purchasing Commission had been in the USA since 1938 when it purchased Hudsons or the RAF and RAAF, and later Yales and Harvards.

The BPC went on to purhase the Catalina, Mustang and of course the Dakota, given the RAF Name policy, I suspect the US aircraft were named, or at least recommended by the BPC.

In February of 1938, Lockheed undertook a preliminary study of a military version of the Model 14 Super Electra airliner. It was envisaged as an armed general reconnaissance aircraft with a secondary bombing capability. Work on a wooden mockup as well as preliminary engineering data had already begun when the British Purchasing Commission arrived in the USA in the spring of 1938 looking for combat aircraft. It just so happened that the Commission was looking for a general reconnaissance aircraft for the Royal Air Force, just the type that the Lockheed company was working on. Lockheed worked frantically to get the mockup and the engineering report ready, and the British Purchasing Commission was sufficiently impressed that Lockheed was invited to send a delegation to London for further negotiations with the Air Ministry………

The first C-47 was not ordered by the USAAC until September 1940, or delivered until January 1942, while the first C-53 Skytrooper was delivered in September 1941.

However the BPC had already purchased 10 second hand DC-2’s for the RAAF in August 1940, (which are referred to as Dakota’s in an Australian wartime newsreel),and apparantly 5 other DC2/C39’s were ordered for England, and obviously orders of C-47’s as Dakota I’s were ordered for the RAF sometime after the USAAC order.

By this time in 1940 changes in the delivery arrangements for the Hudsons already being purchased by the BPC had introduced BPC staff to North Dakota in very real way.

In September of 1939, following the outbreak of war in Europe, the US Congress had passed the Neutrality Act, which specifically prohibited US citizens from delivering arms to the warring parties. This immediately halted the delivery of combat aircraft and other arms to Britain and France. However, since the loss of European business threatened to reduce funding and research for new US aircraft, the Neutrality Act was amended in November of 1939 to permit arms sales on a cash-and-carry basis. Since the British and French were paying for their planes in gold, the deliveries could resume.

In order to follow the strict letter of the Neutrality Act law, some rather farcial measures had to be employed. For example, combat aircraft sold to foreign air forces could not actually be physically transferred to their buyers on American soil. Consequently, Lockheed flew many of its newly-built Hudsons to an airfield at Pembina on the US-Canadian border with North Dakota. The Hudsons were landed on the American side of the airstrip, which extended into Canada. Once the ownership paperwork was completed, the aircraft were then towed across the border to Canada.

I am personally confident the British name for the C-47 is based on the US State “North Dakota’ with the north simply deleted, in line with the raf Naming Orders, and that BPC Archives recommending or seeking approval for new aircraft orders would most likely confirm and shed light on the naming arrangements and recommendations.

(In regards to the “re-naming” of US aircraft with “English” names this may have simply been wartime attempts to hide the real identity of the type from the enemy prior to its intoduction into combat, in a similar way to the RAAF Spitfires being called Capstans prior to their deployment over Darwin in an attempt to surpise the attacking Japanese)

Regards

Mark Pilkington

The ‘policy’ is in fact the terms under which lottery funding was provided to pay for a large chunk of the restoration.

This is public money. Any suggestion that this had been used to contribute towards commercial goals, effectively subsidising that advertisers publicity vehicle would have people demanding repayment within days.

Moggy, thanks for that, I was’nt sure if it was a TVOC internal policy or externally imposed, or aware of it being imposed by HLF.

However in the end even the HLF are left in a dilemma, they poured $6M pounds into a 10 year project that has struggled to survive for one, it doesnt reflect well on the HLF either if the TVOC business plan was unviable or poorly researched?

The HLF and Government might be willing to waiver the limit on corporate signage/advertising to give the project a 12 month lifeline etc?, its something I would be seeking if I was TVOC? no harm in trying?

However in anycase, I still feel without some brand advertising it would be very difficult to get significant and sustained corporate sponsorship on an ongoing basis for the next 10 years.

Corporates give to charities, but they tend not to do it anonomously, or without public recognition or acknowledgement, and the voice over at an airshow is a quickly forgotten record of your contribution to 1 month, or even 12 months of operation. Why donate to a Vulcan over many other more deserving causes, health, poverty, the enviroment etc

Again, I’m puzzled – why do people commenting on this thread think that the bearded one should feel any inclination to put his hand in his pocket to keep the tin-triangle in the air?… Let’s face it – it’s a noisy, polluting cold war BOMBER that has little or no interest to the masses – what connection does it have and what are the public relations benefits in any way, shape or form in aligning it with a modern day progressive airline?

I think the answer is that he obviously has some support for the project to speak on its behalf, but what he spends hisown money onis up to him (and who would know if he had donated anonomously at some previous time – its his business), and obviously as you quite rightly point out any corporate sponsorship “by anyone” would need to get a public relations benefit-or return on investment.

I simply used Branson as an example whereby signage or corporate logo/branding of the Vulcan would give a corporate sponsor repeated exposure in photos, tv coverage, where-as having a voice over at an airshow that the Vulcan is brought to you today by “Mr Sheen” is not really going to be a lasting return on the $60k per month sponsorship.

Perhaps an airline can successfully sponsor a military aircraft?, its up to their marketeers to assess, it seems successful for Red Bull , a energy drink, as I said earlier, Corporates either advertise for a clear return in sales etc, or donate for corporate “citizenship” and “positioning” benefits, but both usually require brand recognition and exposure, and there are so many more “deserving” causes than old aeroplanes despite all our interests in them here, so the TVOC business plan, and HLF assessment should have had some hard evidence of that support, not simply spent $6M pounds on a “if you re-build it, they will come” basis?

That should have been tested and identified in the original business plan asking for $6M pounds and expecting to generate $600k pounds sponsorship for 10 consecutive years?- ie some market research of what corporate’s would intend to associate with operation of an ex-Military aircraft such as the Vulcan, at what level, and for what exposure or method of recognition.

I do agree with you that it really is all conjecture and a mute point by us all.

If TVOC havent got a few tentative and serious sponsors already close to being over the line by now, it really is a lost cause, and I seriously cant see the Government and Heritage Lottery lining up to pick up the tab for 6 or 12 months, and then be saddled with it ongoing.

I wish TVOC and their supporters luck with their pledge and petition campaigns, but I dont hold much hope for either succeeding in the long term.

Regards

Mark Pilkington