Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 411

Thread: VTTS Hard Facts Finally Coming Home To Roost?

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Black Six
    Posts
    20,186
    The fact is that he delivered a flying Vulcan. You can argue that now his rewards should be reduced, but if he can deliver a secure, undercover future for the airframe I'd suggest he's worth every penny.

    A cheaper administrator could well raise less money. Better the devil....?

    Moggy
    "What you must remember" Flip said "is that nine-tenths of Cattermole's charm lies beneath the surface." Many agreed.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Stamford Lincs
    Posts
    9,654
    They are an aircraft museum with three aircraft ! As many people have pointed out there are other static Vulcans to look at and I cannot see why any visitors would want to pay a premium to see her when there are other V bombers within a stones throw which already are well established in collections and need support.

    Any idea that they can continue to pay salaries when there are people doing it for free in volunteer run museums smacks of having your head deeply embedded in the sand!

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    9,904
    Depends how fast things are moving, which of course we don't know. However the most recent plea for funds is of concern.

    Time will tell.

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Stamford Lincs
    Posts
    9,654
    I cannot see how financially you can give a secure undercover future to an aircraft on an airfield that is a commercial site and where you will be leasing land forever.

    Other museums in the area need hangars - they should be getting any money that is available.

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    9,904
    The full press release is worth a read.

    They have indeed taken the difficult decisions as is made clear within:

    http://www.vulcantothesky.org/upload...0PR%20copy.pdf

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,245
    I do feel they are now living in cuckoo land and failed to see the writing on the wall when she retired from flying, the Canberra seemed to be a futile attempt to keep the cash cow generating, something it hasn't done, it simply does not command the same presence in the air.
    The Vulcans main draw in my eyes was it brought to a new generation brought up on the sanitised, quiet and to be honest bland types we have today, a large unusual shaped, noisy howling dinosaur, that they had never seen in their lives and probably never will again.

    Interesting the Just Give In page appears to be down..

    Shame, I was going to donate a penny for my thoughts and give them.

    https://www.justgiving.com/campaigns...8ssurvivalplan

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    212
    It also crashed last night with the amount of people logging into it but it's working for me now, with over £15K raised since 5.00pm last night.

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Kandahar
    Posts
    161
    On this forum (and others) there have been repeated mentions of a one off ferry flight. Given that this idea was fairly soundly slapped down the last time it was talked about (and hasn't been this time) other than money (and getting paperwork in place etc) is there anything that would actually stop it happening?

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    67
    Somebody did talk to Duxford. They seemed interested in the idea at the time.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Lincoln
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce View Post
    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

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Lincoln
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by rutley View Post
    Somebody did talk to Duxford. They seemed interested in the idea at the time.
    Really??

    After all, VTTS stated at the outset of the restoration that it would end up at Duxford (without having asked Duxford first apparently), and one of the reasons that has always been cited for 558 not going to Duxford at the end of her flying life was that Duxford had said either that they didn't want it, or that they were unable to accommodate it.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Stamford Lincs
    Posts
    9,654
    Is there any evidence that proves that people who donate to XH558 would only donate to that project ?

    Maybe it relates more to the high profile campaining every few months that its at 'risk' and a failure to understand that its going to cost a lot of money if you rent land forever !

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,245
    I for one find the thing interesting, they have spent monies on the hangar no doubt getting it up to a standard then are having to vacate to the other hangar, which will again cost monies to bring up to what they want, It does make you wonder why the airport expansion couldn't have taken place in the vacant hangar, but then I do not know the access they have to it etc. If it is the standard RAF three sheds in a row I wouldn't have thought access was a problem.

    The thing that raises concern to me is this new Hangar on land provided by the airport, the one I know of, the people who built it on land provided by the airport and paid for the hangar themselves, after a period of time ( 5 years rings a bell ) the ownership of the building passed to the Airport and the occupants then became rent paying tenants. Again in a case I know, you pay for your electricity, gas etc to the airport who apply a mark up on the cost to them, and as a tennant on an Airport you are pretty much stuck with that.

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    9,904
    Quote Originally Posted by plough View Post
    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
    Spot on - I actually read a Facebook message earlier on that basically said that the poster couldn't read the press release as it would upset him too much, but he would comment on the situation anyway.

    Post truth is real...

  15. #135
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Aerospace Valley
    Posts
    4,265
    Even though Dx have said they don't want it/don't have room for it, why not hand it all over to the IWM & have them run things? Wasn't there an "IWM North" or something? At least then they wouldn't be begging for expenses amounting to £500/week to keep Pleming in petrol & pies.
    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.

  16. #136
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,245
    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? If so, is that legal?
    It certainly feels like being duped, as all the advertising is aimed fairly and squarely at the Vulcan with only a little hint that it will be spent elsewhere, look at the Just giving page title..





    ..
    Last edited by TonyT; 20th January 2017 at 10:03.

  17. #137
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    9,399
    Not a comment on his leadership but who within VTTS has the power to 'keep' (or let go) Dr Pleming?
    WA$.

  18. #138
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Stamford Lincs
    Posts
    9,654
    The trustees

  19. #139
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    9,904
    Dr Pleming is now part time with the project. Staff have been drastically cut. They are in survival mode.

  20. #140
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Lincoln
    Posts
    209
    Quote Originally Posted by David Burke View Post
    Is there any evidence that proves that people who donate to XH558 would only donate to that project ?
    Quote Originally Posted by TonyT View Post
    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).
    Last edited by plough; 20th January 2017 at 13:23.

  21. #141
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Stamford Lincs
    Posts
    9,654
    None of which proves that people who donate to XH558 will only donate to that aircraft ! The trust has full time staff who are fundraising - I don't think any other U.K group/museum with a Vulcan has that !

  22. #142
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Lincoln
    Posts
    209
    VTTS have stated clearly and unambiguously, at the outset of fundraising for the Canberra and since, that funds donated for Vulcan 558 will not be used for funding the Canberra restoration. They have made that clear statement again today within a series of Q&As relating to the current situation: http://www.vulcantothesky.org/faq-co...vival-q-a.html.

    I am unsure how they can make it any clearer??

  23. #143
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Stamford Lincs
    Posts
    9,654
    You said that people who donated to XH558 were not likely to donate to any other appeal. There is nothing to back this up.

  24. #144
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Lincoln
    Posts
    209
    I think you are being obtuse. It has been discussed argued about repeatedly every time that there has been an appeal; a lot of the people donating have been attracted to do so by advertising and appeals to the wider public; a lot of these people now feel an affinity to 558. If 558 wasn't there to give money to, it is highly likely that they would not donate money to anything else, and if they did, it would possibly not be aviation related.

    There have always been continual shouting voices trying to make out that the Vulcan appeals were robbing donations from other worthwhile aviation projects, but there isn't any specific evidence to back that argument up either.

    Right; next contrived obstacle/negative argument please

  25. #145
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,245
    Thanks for clearing up the issues on the Canberra funding, on the last comment about not taking funding from other projects, I will reserve judgement, however I have read lots of other people's comments on various forums where fed up with the seemingly stupid wage budgets and incompetence in destroying serviceable engines they have transferred their donations to other aircraft or causes. The fact they are now going to other aircraft appears to contradict what you believe.
    Last edited by TonyT; 20th January 2017 at 23:01.

  26. #146
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Stamford Lincs
    Posts
    9,654
    Plough -its skillful fundraising that is bringing the money in ! The headline 'charity fights to save Britain's most popular aircraft' is a good hook ! - However
    the charity choose to put her in a rented commercial hangar and after fifteen months have reduced the staff from twenty two to eight.

    Its the only preservation organisation that has said they would be forced to scrap a Vulcan if they didn't receive the funding to complete her return to flight and then I guess ten years later be saying she is under threat because they need to fund an expensive building project !

    Everyone else with a Vulcan just seems to get on with preserving them as best as they can without all the drama!

  27. #147
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Posts
    2,449
    In as many words that Q&A implies that they don't deem operating at Bruntingthorpe to be safe, which is something of a slap for all the activities that do safely take place there, and a dangerous comment to make in the current climate, especially with Andrew Edmondson already having made a comment re Shoreham.

    I generally just read the Vulcan threads here and abouts and don't post, but like many, I've more than had enough now- the whole thing has descended to a farce and in my honest opinion, is rooted in one fundamental problem- VttS cannot see (or will not accept) that the moment they grounded XH558, it became just A.N.Other old Vulcan, and their precious 'Vulcan effect' evaporated in a flash.

  28. #148
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Glorious Souffff
    Posts
    4,866
    Just like all projects, this one had to have transition phases. Restoration to flight to grounded. It seems that the last part which will/should be the longest phase was ill thought out. The vast amount of money spent should have seen an exit plan to preservation that was more realistic and sustainable. Going back to the lottery funding initialisation the after flight phase seemed to be better defined. The last flight and ultimate location seemed hurried and doomed to failure. Sad stuff. £200k to move it into temporary storage is huge amount dreamed of by many museums. It's current location is not good for a final destination. Sure the current airport management might be happy, but they would be wouldn't they as the Vulcan would be housed in rented accommodation. But any expansion plans could leave the Vulcan in the cold. What I'm trying to say and failing is that whilst getting the Vulcan flying was great, it's long term future looks bleak. They did not plan retirement well at all. It could be argued that the residual Vulcan effect could have been used to secure a permanent owned home. Which was what I thought the original plan?
    Whilst on lottery grants, how many times have we seen vast amounts of money spent on projects, not just aviation, where the original submission placed great onus on improving public access/benefit/affordability when in reality it did not deliver? Has the vast amount spent on ballet and opera made it cheaper for the public.

    The ultimate sadness would be to see the Vulcan scrapped. Sure they 'delivered' a flying Vulcan, but it would be sad if their project management and leadership failed to deliver a post flight lasting educational exhibition which was the original submission.
    Moving onto another flying project before securing the future of the Vulcan is poor IMHO.

  29. #149
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,245
    In as many words that Q&A implies that they don't deem operating at Bruntingthorpe to be safe, which is something of a slap for all the activities that do safely take place there, and a dangerous comment to make in the current climate, especially with Andrew Edmondson already having made a comment re Shoreham.
    I take anything like that with a pinch of salt coming from an organisation and an engineering director that can destroy two perfectly sound engines when they cannot even put basic good engineering practices in place to prevent it in the first place.
    What I am getting at is they should not have started commenting on any other organisations safety record, when their own has been shown to be at fault in such a spectacular fashion.




    ..
    Last edited by TonyT; 22nd January 2017 at 17:31.

  30. #150
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    29
    *yawn*

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