iankNo sorry – you missed my point or I didn’t express it clearly enough!!
I’m not blaming the Lottery but blaming it’s (mis)use by government to fund schemes that they don’t want to so that they can spend our tax money on pet projects – ID Cards, new nuclear deterrent, national police force.
Yes, the Lottery does support good causes but for many organisations that have a social/societal element to their work/aspirations they should be tax payer funded and not left to the vagaries of an application system that leaves to chance whether or not they can continue their work! By using taxes to fund, the work is continually funded and not subjected to having money for just 2-3 years work (or less).
By the way (to name a couple) …
York Travellers Trust – The project will establish a residents associations on each three of the travellers sites increase representation of travellers on the organisation’s management committee and other relevant bodies.
Africa Care Organisation – This new group provides advice support and counselling for people with HIV/AIDS immigrants and victims of torture and violent crimes. The award will be used to hold cultural and health promotion activities and workshops.
Source Department of Culture website
iankLighning preservation? Why? They will never be allowed to fly in UK skies and there are loads of them…
What would you rather see? We have a proud heritage. its fast disappearing. Plenty of potentialy ‘flyable’ airframes are out there to be saved if the dosh was there.
Because of the LPGs perserverance – not a particular desire to see their machines fly, the CAA will never allow that.
My concern (at the end of the day) is the ‘heritage’ bit – how many five year olds see the Red Arrows and the Spitfire and think that’s all there is to British Aviation Heritage (sounds like a name for a project!) – they’re told nothing of Battles, Wellingtons, Javelins, Vampires etc. unless they’re taken to a museum or preservation collection.
Yes – we should be trying as much as we can, as enthusiasts to support the diversity of skills and machines in the preservation collections and if you (or I) can’t do the donkey work, lets provide the funding for those amongst us who can (or whingeing at the Lottery et al for not helping!!)
I’m a Man Utd supporter you’re Man City – for an analogy – lets’ just hope that all the teams don’t disappear to be left with Nuneaton Town 2nd team!
iankThe Spitfire needs a rebuild – a very costly exercise indeed. Anybody who has seen Andy Sephtons spitfire display will agree that it has been sadly missed this season ( and will be next I suspect). The ‘up close and personal’ nature of Old Warden lends itself to the display of their fine old machines. The Edwardians – pure magic!…
…Come on guys – stop dreaming about the Vulcan flying again – it ain’t going to happen without a wealthy sponsor. Your money will be much better donated to The Shuttleworth Trust…
…Sorry Vulcan supporters but your money will definately work in this way and not be squandered in a money pit that will only, at the end of the day result on a shinier museum exhibit than all the other Vulcans around. You can achieve that for not a lot ( Check out the Wellesbourne machine).
I understand where you’re coming from and a flying Spitfire is a thing of beauty but I like Vulcans and I want (if it’s possible) to see a Vulcan flying again. If I’m not giving to the Vulcan, my money won’t go to the Shuttleworth Trust but to the Lightning Preservation guys and I think this would be true of many who donated to the Vulcan project.
The real issue here surely is the Lottery – millions play each week so that money can be given to good causes of which aircraft preservation and display must be one. However, look through one of the many regional lottery sites and see money given to travellers awareness schemes, immigrant information schemes, etcetera but not to the schemes the average Lottery player would agree with such as Shuttleworth and the myriad of smaller preservation collections.
Why does this happen? Try as a starter a government intent on using Lottery money to fund schemes it should, so that MPs can have a pension & second houses, bigger better hospitals & so on – you get my drift.
I have a choice at the moment what I do with my spare cash (as do you) – I choose the Vulcan, you choose Shuttleworth enjoy the choice before Gordon decides he knows better!!
Politicking over – I’ll take cover too!!
iankAnd now things might get interesting – 44 Sqn have just lodged a pledge with the 558 Club. The club aren’t giving details yet but have laid down a challenge to the other ex-Vulcan squadrons to match or better it!
iankLike that’s going to amount to a piddle in the required ocean of cash!
…but I’d rather have £20 in my pocket than nothing (and there have been months when that’s been the case!).
How does the old saying go “look after the pennies and the pounds look after themselves”? Tell the guys from the Lightning Preservation Group that the £1500 from their QRA day doesn’t help towards the £30000 for the concrete for the QRA shed floor!! They may be small amounts, but it’s money you don’t have to borrow or beg from folk and it may pay a small bill but it’s a bill paid.
With all these folk with commercial ‘expertise’ looking in here and offering opinions on the ‘right way to run things’ it’s a wonder that any preservation project has problems raising cash!!! :confused:
iankSo I presume all the contracts guaranteeing such income are now in place?
Until then, as with the ever-growing shortfall (now up to £1.2m), it remains ‘pie-in-the-sky’ and wishful thinking.
So we can take it then that you have seen the business plan and know the figures for operation you quote to be true? If you haven’t, then you are indulging in the same ‘pie in the sky’ thinking that you accuse everyone else of doing! All that we know for certain is that there is a shortfall which could be as much as £1.2m but as yet the final figure is undetermined. We also know that there will be operating costs ‘year on year’ along with revenue coming in from as yet undetermined sources.
Your argument – if it were to be graced with calling it that – is degenerating into a very similar vein to “we know there are WMD in Iraq we just don’t know where they are”.
Those of us who have supported this project since 1993 knew it was wishful thinking but like the other folk that renovate and fly heritage aircraft we thought it could be done. We don’t need ‘experts’ who (with the benefit of hindsight) turn around and say “well that was a waste wasn’t it, why did you even bother?” and not have anything constructive (or supportive of our endeavour) to say!! 😡
iankIf you want to donate some money or even some time, donate it to one of the numerous projects that need help to stay in the air, not waste it on something which is now little more than a pipe dream.
It’s my money – and like many I don’t have a lot – so I’ll donate it to whoever and whatever I choose by whatever criteria I decide to use. If we start doing otherwise we might just as well hand all our money (after paying the essentials) to Blair and let him pick our good causes – Olympic stadium to match Wembley anyone?
iank£1.2m to finish the rebuild, then around £1.2m plus inflation per year for 10-15 years to operate it (as they have no income stream other than a few quid from airshow appearance fees). Say a minumum of £15m.
I think not!
not forgetting the rights to the image on film and video, merchandise, continued donations, possibly sponsorship. I presume you’ve seen the business plan, analysed it and it still doesn’t work for you?
Perhaps, Moggy, a Moderator at least might refrain from adding to the “irony” (is that what it is?) and sarcasm which have brought this thread to point where the regulars just endlessly repeat themselves and anyone with something new to say just gets flamed.
Well he did explain somewhere that when he posts with one name he’s moderating and with another he’s expressing personal opinion – guess I forget which way round that works too!!!
iankSo is the pledge appeal closed now? I tried to contribute and have repeatedly got the following message-
>Sorry but the form was not sent due to the following errors:
>
>Invalid referer: ‘http://www.vulcantotheskyclub.co.uk‘.
Don’t think so – it might just be a glitch, the email pledge feature was added over the weekend so it might be temperemental. You should be able to print the pledge form and ‘snail mail’ it to the club!!
iankHaving been involved in a lottery funded project before (not an aircraft I hasten to add) it appears to be the case that a clause is written into the ‘contract’ between the lottery body and the recipient that if the project fails or items bid for are unused, then money has to be paid back to the lottery. Whether this is the full amount of the grant or a proportion, I don’t know but it could be that the only tangible asset of the Trust i.e. the airframe and the spares/equipment holding would need to be sold to someone at a price that would allow the lottery to be repaid.
The questions are then, if it goes horribly wrong:
A. Would the scrap values alone recoup the original purchase price of the airframe and spares?
or
B. Could another organisation/individual raise the finances to purchase, given the problems we’ve seen over the last couple of years?
Perhaps the club would make an offer and leave ‘558 at Bruntingthorpe and slowly put her back into taxiable state (if it’s not there on Aug 31st)?
I’ll duck now so I don’t get caught by any debris!!!
iankIn the July Flypast article (appropriately) with Dave Thomas and Dr Pleming, it is quoted that Waddington and Fairford felt that XH558 being there would increase attendance by 20 – 30%.
Going on the minimum figure and using RIATs 160,000 attendees this year thats an extra 32,000 heads! So more ticket money for the organisers, more bodies to buy Vulcan merchandise from the club/Trust – extra income to help running costs. I think it’s feasible but we need to get it flying condition first hence the urgency of the deadline for end of this month.
iankStill, it’s all likely to be an academic question in a couple of weeks, as the whole shebang seems to be teetering on the brink of insolvency. According to the Vulcan558club website, their pledge campaign has reached a total of £7,232 against the required £250,000.
But to be ‘fair’ thats corporate pledges – there is no figure shown on that site for pledges from private individuals. As a club of likeminded enthusiasts, I would expect that the number above might be at least doubled!
iank5 years on £150,000 per annum, and I would be able to give up my job for another with “no comparable compensation” but doing something I loved all the same. This project has consumed money voraciously, and if the hangar rent currentlyat £278,200 is ongoing, then any donations will be eaten up as fast as they are given, just keeping the thing under cover,and yet the minute it’s wheeled out unfinished that is how it will stay.
…and your point is (and please not “I think the money could have been better spent on etc. etc)?
iankNicely done – I’ve spent too many open days wondering whether we’d ever see your Bucc taxi with everything else – your smug grin is very well deserved!! Hope your success continues.
iankThere is only a ‘X’ amount of places to display a Vulcan within the UK. 100 hours hours would cover the summer display and winter currency flights. Costs will remain high though due to operational requirments, one such if memory serves me right is that the engines have to be dropped and checked every 20 flying hours.
I’m quite happy to be proven wrong but I think the 20 hours is a bit shy of the mark – Rolls Royce built a jet engine for a bomber & Concorde that turned out so unreliable it needed inspecting every 20 hours just in case?
The Falklands flights must have been more of an endurance than we knew – fly, refuel, fly, refuel, drop a bomb, stop somewhere to drop the engines, refuel, fly home (add ‘refuel’ to suit I suppose).
I can believe that a rigorous inspection regime might be required if the engines are dragging full bomb loads around at military power settings and variations of altitude but I don’t think a display life would overtax the engines too much!
But as I say, I’m happy to bow to an Olympus maintenance engineeers experience
Sign In
