Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 411

Thread: VTTS Hard Facts Finally Coming Home To Roost?

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Grantown on Spey
    Posts
    2,307
    cherry ripe,thats a shocking amount to loose,no wonder flying complex aircraft in the uk is a rare thing.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chester Le Street, Co Durham
    Posts
    932
    Quote Originally Posted by Creaking Door View Post

    My question is why should the Vulcan project, for example, be made to jump through these hoops, even for a relatively modest, and certainly short-term period of public funding?
    All lottery grants come with conditions. The lottery is supposed to have a long term benefit and this drives the grant conditions.

    Without the lottery grant it would have never happened. Without the support of the OEM's I would never have happened. Without the support of public and private donations it would have never happened.

    I have been hands on involved with the preservation of historic aeroplanes in the UK for 35 years and have respect for what VTTS achieved but ting there is a world of difference once it becomes a plane in a tin shed on a commercial airfield site. The Wales Aircraft Museum learned the problems of being on an active airfield many years go.

    We at NELSAM know what can happen as over over 30 years ago we had to move to make way or Nissan.

    Time to stop bemoaning VTTS ad leave them to manage the future of XH558. Many people questioned the wisdom of museums acquiring Vulcans in 1983 and thought they would last 10 years in the open. Most of these airframes celebrate there35th anniversary at the start of 2018.

    Rather than sitting at a keyboard and moaning come and get invloved
    Dave Charles
    Historian 607 (County of Durham) Squadron
    Vice Chair North East Land Sea Air Museums (NELSAM)

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Lincoln
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by David Burke View Post
    ...... 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

    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
    Last edited by plough; 12th January 2017 at 19:05.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    cambridge uk
    Posts
    6,255
    Quote Originally Posted by waco View Post
    The whole thing has been the biggest waist of money I have ever seen.
    .
    So you saw it then along with many hundreds of thousands that turned up to watch her fly since she returned to the air.Strange how the attendances went up at air displays where she was flying,strange how tickets sold out completely and the public told by the police etc to stay away when she and the 2 Lancs were about .I think you do a disservice to all those who did enjoy seeing her fly.
    So you would rather something stay in a hangar and not see the air ,oh well .Oh ,your comment about it not falling out of the sky ---really . Oh ,P.S You don't have to play the lottery,you didn't have to contribute either so it's not really wasting your money is it.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    9,904
    Do you write leaders for the Mail?

    To suggest, as you do in your last sentence, on two occasions, that the aircraft was somehow unsafe is grossly unfair to the operators.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,398
    Quote Originally Posted by waco View Post
    ...just leave it in retirement in the interests of safety.
    Yes, of course, safety...

    ...the byword for those that want to destroy something that they have no interest in anyway!

    Who are you actually concerned about when you question the safety of flying this, and presumably, every other aircraft flying unnecessarily about in our skies? Presumably, not yourself, since you didn't see XH558 fly...

    ...or, at least, you didn't pay to see XH558 fly! (Ooh, cheap shot! - Bear with me, I'm going for a new record! )

    So, what do you care if XH558 falls out of the sky onto some complete stranger? (Cheap shot? Yep, I'm gonna count that one!) Anyway flying aircraft at, or between, airshows in the United Kingdom has a staggeringly good safety-record when it comes to killing or injuring spectators or bystanders!

    So if you feel you really must worry about an aircraft falling out of the sky, worry about the hundreds of thousands of commercial aircraft that overfly London every year! And, yes, many of those flights are essential to the commerce of the United Kingdom...

    ...but a goodly proportion are filled with teenagers off for a week of drunken debauchery in Sunny Beach!
    WA$.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,603
    Hi All,
    Could it be a fair assumption that the main consideration for Marshall's pulling the plug was mainly financial bearing in mid how much they wrote off
    according to the post by Cherry Ripe ?

    Could that in turn have lead to a domino effect ? i.e. Seeing Mrashall's withdraw support from XH558 they in turn thought along the lines of :- "Well if Marshalls are not supporting why should we ?"

    Geoff.

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,398
    Just read this on Wikipedia:

    "With XH558 now permanently grounded, the Trust intends to remain at Robin Hood airport, and make the Vulcan the focus of a new educational and heritage facility. This is in part due to the Trust's ongoing commitment to keep XH558 in good condition and use it for educational purposes, which they committed to do for 80 years as a condition of the 2005 Lottery funding..."
    Eighty years.....DREAM BIG!
    WA$.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,336
    As someone who has had a great deal of involvement with Design/Engineering Authority inputs and Complex aircraft I find it exasperating that those with self-evidently little or no knowledge of the subject are happy to cast aspersions.

    For my part my hat is well-and-truly off to what VTTS managed to do: XH558 will stand as the pinnacle of achievement (in terms of private warbird operations) for some time to come I think. And I am so glad that my sons were able to appreciate this fantastic machine airborne (many times), something they'd have missed if it had not returned to the skies: I'm sure their experiences will remain bold in their memories for many years to come and I imagine that XH558 has done more to nurture an interest in aviation amongst our youth than anything since Concorde.

    I do however have slightly mixed feelings about what has happened since its inevitable grounding. I can only hope that it turns out well, and we can once and for all time forget some of the daft comments made above.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by waco View Post
    ....I most certainly did not pay to watch her fly.

    Once a large aircraft such as the Vulcan has finished its squadron service...just leave it in retirement in the interests of safety.

    The Vulcan has always fascinated me......it still does. I never needed to see it fly again to maintain my fascination.

    Giving the people access to the Vulcan and aircraft like it I consider to be far more important.

    Pop a youngster in the left hand seat of the mighty Avro would I'm sure produce as much interest if not more than simply seeing one pass in the distance.

    Personally I would have much rather seen the money spent on producing replica's of those types no longer with us (Stirling, Manchester etc)
    along with publishing the histories of aviators, maintainers and planners before they all depart their mortal coil.

    Just glad it's back on the ground before anybody got hurt......


    I'm sorry but I disagree.

    Seeing this fantastic machine flying again verses seeing it sitting on the ground is amazing. To sit in a Vulcan would be a marvellous thing for any young person but to say that to sit in the cockpit would produce as much interest as seeing it fly is nonsense.

    I confess that I did not pay to see the Vulcan fly but I did see it at Goodwood Revival and it was awesome! The noise the elegance, the manoeuvrability. How do you get a sense of that by sitting in it?

    There are replicas I would love to see fly - the De Havilland Hornet perhaps or the Westland Whirlwind we all have our own thoughts on that. Would a Stirling or a Manchester fundraising raise any money at all? I have enough difficulty finding anyone at work who has heard of a Spitfire - let alone a Stirling!

    Also I am very disappointed by the comment that "Just glad it's back on the ground before anybody got hurt." What do you mean by that exactly. Are you suggesting that all vintage aircraft by grounded immediately? Or are you suggesting that the VTTS organisation could not be trusted to fly the Vulcan? Explain to me how flying the Vulcan was dangerous. Please point out exactly why you think that comment is justified.

    A lot of nonsense has been placed on this forum regarding the return to the sky of the Vulcan and it seems that all those who wished the project ill and had their hopes dashed when it took to the sky have now returned to snipe once again.

    They achieved something that many thought was impossible. VTTS should be held in high regard.

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,398
    Quote Originally Posted by 34053 View Post
    I have enough difficulty finding anyone at work who has heard of a Spitfire...
    Please tell me you single-handedly run a crèche for pre-school age children...

    ...within a previously undiscovered tribe in the depths of the Amazon rainforest!
    WA$.

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,398
    Quote Originally Posted by 34053 View Post
    VTTS should be held in high regard. They achieved something that many thought was impossible...
    I agree, VTTS should be held in high regard for getting XH558 back into the sky and displaying it effectively, and safely, for seven (?) years. There are others that deserve a mention too: (as has been mentioned) BAE Sytems, Marshall Aerospace and Rolls-Royce, but also the Walton family at Bruntingthorpe that purchased XH558 (plus spares holding) from the RAF in the first place, then stored it in a 'climate-controlled' environment for seven years (?), and always (?) with a view to flying it once again! Plus the government, in the form of the CAA and the Heritage Lottery Fund.

    Not forgetting, of course, those, all over the world, who donated money (and time) voluntarily!

    I think this sums it up very well:

    Quote Originally Posted by Sabrejet View Post
    ...VTTS / XH558 will stand as the pinnacle of achievement (in terms of private warbird operations) for some time to come I think...
    ...probably for all-time anywhere in the world (except, possibly, in the United States)!
    Last edited by Creaking Door; 12th January 2017 at 23:23.
    WA$.

  13. #103
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Henlow, England
    Posts
    660
    Quote Originally Posted by waco View Post
    The whole thing has been the biggest waist of money I have ever seen.

    At least it didn't fall out of the sky and hurt people which is something to be grateful for.
    Albeit we all have bigger waists post Christmas, suspect you mean "waste"....

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,398
    Edit: this post makes little sense now that the proceeding posts have been deleted by 'waco'.

    [The Vulcan didn't have that good a safety record when operated in 'squadron service' and people were killed on the ground by crashing aircraft; and I'd be willing to bet, at the start of its operational career, the Vulcan was sometimes maintained and flown by people with a good deal less experience than those that maintained and flew it when it was operated by VTTS.]

    Moot point anyway; XH558 didn't crash, nobody was killed or injured, and I doubt anything remotely as 'complex' will be flown, privately on the airshow circuit, in the United Kingdom ever again!
    Last edited by Creaking Door; 13th January 2017 at 21:20.
    WA$.

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    575
    The skill and dedication of all those involved with the return to flight and the continued operation of the Vulcan is not in doubt. Sadly the blindly optimistic plan to form some kind of training establishment at Doncaster Airport in order to provide a safe, ground running future was a major concern. As was said at the time a non flying Vulcan, all be it one as well know and appreciated as XH558, is still just one of half dozen other Vulcans dotted around the country, and as a stand alone exhibit with limited public access it was going to be hard to survive. Other solutions were promoted but as usual the only way was the Phemling way and I think common sense went out the window.

  16. #106
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Aerospace Valley
    Posts
    4,262
    VTTS appear to be in full panic mode on FB today.
    If anybody ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me: It's all balls. RJM.

  17. #107
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Stamford Lincs
    Posts
    9,652
    Even eight staff seems a lot! Anyone with any spare cash should throw it in the direction of museums who have been looking after Vulcans for years rather than an organisation that wants to build on land they don't own!

  18. #108
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Hawera (NZHA)
    Posts
    903
    I'm not sure when it went up but the VTTS website now has a "Survival Plan" crowdfunding campaign: https://www.justgiving.com/campaigns...8ssurvivalplan

    Vulcan XH558'sSurvival Plan

    Vulcan to the Sky Trust, which operates Vulcan XH558, Britain’s most popular aircraft, has to leave the hangar where the Vulcan and record-breaking Canberra WK163 are based. In the short term, there is no choice but to move them into storage. This campaign is to raise the funds needed for this move, and to look after the aircraft while a new hangar can be constructed. This will allow resumption of the popular tours and events around the aircraft and new income opportunities for the future.

    Philanthropists double public donations

    To hibernate the existing hangar operations and secure Vulcan XH558, Canberra WK163 and other assets in storage is expected to cost around £200,000 more than the Trust can afford given the cessation of hangar businesses. Half of this has been promised as matched-funding by a group of philanthropists against donations from XH558’s supporters.

    Thanks to the generosity of these individuals, every pound you give will be doubled.
    70 days remaining
    EDIT: I think this is the Facebook panic ZRX61 alluded to earlier.
    Last edited by K5054NZ; 18th January 2017 at 19:47.
    "those who know keep quiet, and those who don't are frowned upon for asking." - snafu

  19. #109
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Lincoln
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by ZRX61 View Post
    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

  20. #110
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Kandahar
    Posts
    161
    If anyone would care to work out how much hangar space they need then we've recently priced up a build for a guy who wanted to house two Kingairs. It came out at £75 a square foot plus the cost of the land.

  21. #111
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Stamford Lincs
    Posts
    9,652
    I don't believe the CAA or any of the design authorities for her have been approached about the posibility of a ferry flight so I don't know on what basis you can say it cannot happen.

  22. #112
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Aerospace Valley
    Posts
    4,262
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockhopper View Post
    If anyone would care to work out how much hangar space they need then we've recently priced up a build for a guy who wanted to house two Kingairs. It came out at £75 a square foot plus the cost of the land.
    Around here it would be closer to $15sq/ft..... Guy I know recently got a quote of $120k for 8000sq ft.
    If anybody ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me: It's all balls. RJM.

  23. #113
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Aerospace Valley
    Posts
    4,262
    Quote Originally Posted by plough View Post
    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.
    The people who infest facebook? That would be just about every aircraft manufacturer, museum & restoration shop on the planet.
    If anybody ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me: It's all balls. RJM.

  24. #114
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    9,904
    This is no different to any of the other fund raising 'demands' we have enjoyed over the years...

  25. #115
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Lincoln
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by David Burke View Post
    I don't believe the CAA or any of the design authorities for her have been approached about the posibility of a ferry flight so I don't know on what basis you can say it cannot happen.
    I didn't say it can't happen; I said it isn't going to

  26. #116
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Lincoln
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by ZRX61 View Post
    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.

  27. #117
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Lincoln
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockhopper
    If anyone would care to work out how much hangar space they need then we've recently priced up a build for a guy who wanted to house two Kingairs. It came out at £75 a square foot plus the cost of the land.
    Well, from reading the announcement (carefully) I get the impression that the cost of erecting the building itself is not being paid directly by VTTS - it refers to "......build a new hangar ........, allowing resumption of tours, events, educational visits and engineering activities by the end of 2017. These businesses will then fund the lease of the hangar from the developers....."

  28. #118
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,240
    At the end of 2015, Directions Finningley CIC’s lease on Hangar 3 came to an end. Negotiations for VTST to take over the lease for the whole of Hangar 3 had been carrying on for some time, but as the year-end approached, the Trust came under some pressure to take on the lease for the 2016 calendar year – this it finally agreed to do.
    The Trust, through its trading subsidiary VPMC, endeavoured to maximise the income from the hangar by licensing the available space to current and new tenants, with some but not total success. However events using the hangar space and available conference rooms have also been promoted successfully.
    In August 2016, the Trust was informed that DSA was in need of additional cargo handling space for increased activity, and that as the result, the Trust would need to move its operations from Hangar 3 to Hangar 1. Dependent on current negotiations, this will happen at the end of 2016.
    Not exactly as if they did not know it was going to happen, strange how they held the lease and took it on for year 2016 (will that not be the financial year?) and then they appear to be getting made homeless. But it already states that they have a hangar to go to, one would have thought having no visits which were paying part of the rent must be a death knell for it.

    It smacks of moral blackmail and conveniently seems to avoid mentioning the storage appears to be another hangar.

    the Trust was informed that DSA was in need of additional cargo handling space for increased activity, and that as the result, the Trust would need to move its operations from Hangar 3 to Hangar 1. Dependent on current negotiations, this will happen at the end of 2016
    and that will never really improve, as the airport grows, surely they will continually be shifted from pillar to post. I would love to know how concrete the agreement is for the new Hangar and will it to be subject to the terms that they appear to be under now.
    Last edited by TonyT; 19th January 2017 at 10:10.

  29. #119
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,240
    Well all this woo and Pleming in the current copy of Aeroplane explaining his £70K wage packet away as in line with any other charity boss.


    In the 2015 accounts I believe

    The number of employees whose annual remuneration was £60,000 or more were: One
    Earning

    £70,000 to £80,000

    Top that off with expenses in the 2015 accounts I believe of

    Related parties
    Expenses relating to travel, subsistence and other have been claimed by Andrew Edmondson, director of
    Vulcan to the Sky Enterprises Limited, amounting to £6,341 (2014: £5,312) to which £nil (2014: £454) was
    due to be paid at the year end.
    Expenses relating to travel, subsistence and other have been claimed by Robert Pleming, Chief Executive
    of Vulcan to the Sky Trust, amounting to £26,421 (2014: £16,276) to which £nil (2014: £13,293) was due to
    be paid at the year end.

    Nice little earner.... and a significant dent in their alleged shortfall... and let us not forget there are 8 other paid staff too, yes, they say they have reduced staff blah blah blah, but as the crews were I believe paid, that can be to an extent understood, you do not need to pay crews and the touring staff etc when your "product" is no longer mobile.

  30. #120
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    9,904
    Personally, I think that whilst the aircraft was active, it was reasonable to pay Dr Pleming what he was worth. He kept the project going, and saw it through until the end.

    However, I think the board have a responsibility now to review their operations in light of a declining income, and find another way of running the trust. If their only activity is in running the Vulcan as a museum exhibit, they need to find a different model, and quickly. Right now, the appeal that is being run is to afford to continue to pay the staff, and not in support of the aircraft in their keeping. Clearly, we haven't seen the 2016 accounts, which may show something rather different to Tony's note above, bearing in mind that the aircraft is no longer active.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES