Discussion
It was always going to be like this.
I have felt from day 1 of this project that it probably was a restoration too far. It probably counts as the most ambitious aircraft restoration project ever undertaken - outside the USA at least. They have done brilliantly to get it where it is - but the problem was always going to be continuity of funding.
I have felt from day 1 of this project that it probably was a restoration too far. It probably counts as the most ambitious aircraft restoration project ever undertaken - outside the USA at least. They have done brilliantly to get it where it is - but the problem was always going to be continuity of funding.
B Oeuf said:
Ledaig said:
Elroy Blue said:
I love the Vulcan, but another £800'000 by march. The management of this project have got a lot of explaining to do. No chance of more money from me.
It's very simple to explain, these are the real world costs of keeping an aircraft like this in the air. Did you honestly believe that after the last appeal it would only take a few hundred quid per week?To keep this flying will cost hundreds of thou on an ongoing basis.
The only real hope as I see it is for corporate sponsorship to pitch in.
this is the real failure, not nailing a proper sponsor, maybe the present economic climate hasn't helped eitherRichard Branson is not interested in sponsoring 558. Many famous people we approach find that a nuclear deterrant does not fit in with their personal or company values, which is fine.
We do need a corporate sponsor, but the current economic climate has made this impossible, something which could not have been predicted.
We now need to rely on the generosity of the millions of people who enjoyed seeing 558 fly over the last two years - only a fraction of whom made a donation. If each person who saw 558 gave £1, we'd be fine.
This aircraft IS expensive to run - just like any other aircraft.
For example - a sortie to an airshow costs us something in the region of £16k, but the most we can charge for an appearance at a major airshow is £5k.
I know it seems we're constantly pleading for money, but that's not down to mismanagement of the project - that's because she needs a lot of money to keep going, and we think she's worth it.
I would ask that, whatever your personal opinions of the way the fundraising is managed, that you give whatever you can spare, because once this British icon is gone, she's gone.
Thanks
Aggy
Vulcan To The Sky volunteer and 156-wielding maniac
We do need a corporate sponsor, but the current economic climate has made this impossible, something which could not have been predicted.
We now need to rely on the generosity of the millions of people who enjoyed seeing 558 fly over the last two years - only a fraction of whom made a donation. If each person who saw 558 gave £1, we'd be fine.
This aircraft IS expensive to run - just like any other aircraft.
For example - a sortie to an airshow costs us something in the region of £16k, but the most we can charge for an appearance at a major airshow is £5k.
I know it seems we're constantly pleading for money, but that's not down to mismanagement of the project - that's because she needs a lot of money to keep going, and we think she's worth it.
I would ask that, whatever your personal opinions of the way the fundraising is managed, that you give whatever you can spare, because once this British icon is gone, she's gone.
Thanks
Aggy
Vulcan To The Sky volunteer and 156-wielding maniac
Squeaky558 said:
I know it seems we're constantly pleading for money, but that's not down to mismanagement of the project -
I thinkk you've done a fantastic job in getting her airworthy. But I think you'll find many who disagree with the above comment.I hope she stays flying. But how many appeals can you make?
Elroy Blue said:
Squeaky558 said:
I know it seems we're constantly pleading for money, but that's not down to mismanagement of the project -
I thinkk you've done a fantastic job in getting her airworthy. But I think you'll find many who disagree with the above comment.I hope she stays flying. But how many appeals can you make?
There are a number of reasons the engineering work has been brought forwards, mainly being that the Permit To Fly requires a modification to be carried out on a spar, this needs doing to extend the fatigue life of the airframe which has been used up at higher than expected rates due to the flight level 558 has to fly at, she is restricted to V.F.R. flying which keeps her flying below any cloud cover and thus experiences high degrees of buffeting, another reason the work has been brought forwards is funding, about 1.8 million or so has been sourced for next season but this is on condition that 558 is fully servicable and able to display through the season so we have no choice but to do the work.
Other engineering work includes the undercarrieg leg and ejector seats which are lifed items and have to be either replaced or overhauled, no choice in that it simply has to be done.
What people should realise is the restoration to flight of 558 is the most complex and biggest return to flight project undertaken, there are no other ex-military or civilion complex aircraft operating in civilion hands, getting a spitfire from scrap metal to airworthy is cheap and easy by comparison to the amount of work, money and paper work required to return 558 to the air. I noticed in a previous post one fellow saying we should have restored a Shack rather than a Vulcan, well prior to 558 being sorted there was'nt a chance in hell of that happening but its the success of the Vulcan To The Sky project that has opend the door to the possibility of other complex areoplanes being returned to airworthness.
This project is not a failure by any means, the very fact she flew out of Bruntingthorpe on the 18 of october 2007 is a huge success, not to mention the times the project has been days from folding only to be brought back from the edge, don't write us off just yet!
Other engineering work includes the undercarrieg leg and ejector seats which are lifed items and have to be either replaced or overhauled, no choice in that it simply has to be done.
What people should realise is the restoration to flight of 558 is the most complex and biggest return to flight project undertaken, there are no other ex-military or civilion complex aircraft operating in civilion hands, getting a spitfire from scrap metal to airworthy is cheap and easy by comparison to the amount of work, money and paper work required to return 558 to the air. I noticed in a previous post one fellow saying we should have restored a Shack rather than a Vulcan, well prior to 558 being sorted there was'nt a chance in hell of that happening but its the success of the Vulcan To The Sky project that has opend the door to the possibility of other complex areoplanes being returned to airworthness.
This project is not a failure by any means, the very fact she flew out of Bruntingthorpe on the 18 of october 2007 is a huge success, not to mention the times the project has been days from folding only to be brought back from the edge, don't write us off just yet!
Edited by Winchy on Friday 20th November 23:16
Winchy said:
What people should realise is the restoration to flight of 558 is the most complex and biggest return to flight project undertaken, there are no ther ex-military or civilion aircraft operating in civilion hands, getting a spitfire from scrap metal to airworthy is cheap and easy by comparison to the amount of work, money and paper work required to return 558 to the air. I noticed in a previous post one fellow saying we should have restored a Shack rather than a Vulcan, well prior to 558 being sorted there was'nt a chance in hell of that happening but its the success of the Vulcan To The Sky project that has opend the door to the possibility of other complex areoplanes being returned to airworthness.
This project is not a failure by any means, the very fact she flew out of Bruntingthorpe on the 18 of october 2007 is a huge success, not to mention the times the project has been days from folding only to be brought back from the edge, don't write us off just yet!
Good point, well made. Hope it all comes together for youThis project is not a failure by any means, the very fact she flew out of Bruntingthorpe on the 18 of october 2007 is a huge success, not to mention the times the project has been days from folding only to be brought back from the edge, don't write us off just yet!
Whilst I really hope the project doesnt die I am tired of the constant pleading for money , i have donated in the past and to see it fly again was something i was willing to contribute to but it is a bottomless pit and in the cold light of day there are better things to spend that kind of money on it is unsustainable, the project wont fail becuase of lack of public support but for lack of a corporate sponsor and that really should have been given a bigger priority from day one
Also saying the chances of another restoration of this kind of level ie Shack happening because of the 558 project may well have been possible 12-18 months ago but joe public is tired of the constant demands for funding so i feel there is even less chance of anything like this happening again
Naive as I may have been but I felt the plan was to raise funds from the public to return 558 to the air and then the project would be self funded through air show fees and sponsorship, it is clearly unrealistic to expect the whole project to be constantly funded by the public , it just wont happen.
Also saying the chances of another restoration of this kind of level ie Shack happening because of the 558 project may well have been possible 12-18 months ago but joe public is tired of the constant demands for funding so i feel there is even less chance of anything like this happening again
Naive as I may have been but I felt the plan was to raise funds from the public to return 558 to the air and then the project would be self funded through air show fees and sponsorship, it is clearly unrealistic to expect the whole project to be constantly funded by the public , it just wont happen.
The moaning here is a typical UK thing , sadly. Moaning when the Vulcan stopped flying, moaning when it went u/s at an airshow you planned to go to, moaning that operating a V bomber is very expensive and just more general moaning.
The fact that a small team did what was a monumental task and then went on to display for past couple of years, seems to be forgotten almost. Sadly it's probably the same people who moan that Concorde is no longer up there and call for it to be returned. Can't see that ever happening, but then the same was said about the Vulcan, but then a group of people went and did the impossible. Don't forget that please.
The fact that a small team did what was a monumental task and then went on to display for past couple of years, seems to be forgotten almost. Sadly it's probably the same people who moan that Concorde is no longer up there and call for it to be returned. Can't see that ever happening, but then the same was said about the Vulcan, but then a group of people went and did the impossible. Don't forget that please.
Or the tpical English thing of slagging off people whose view you don't agree with.
Returning the Vulcan to the air was a fantastic achievement. The engineers and others who have worked so hard deserve all the praise they get. The people who have managed the financial aspects of the programme need looking at under a fine tooth comb.
Returning the Vulcan to the air was a fantastic achievement. The engineers and others who have worked so hard deserve all the praise they get. The people who have managed the financial aspects of the programme need looking at under a fine tooth comb.
I quite agree that the financial management of the project should be called into question, but if we all withold our cash while we have a moan about it, the only outcome will be the world's only airworthy grounded Vulcan bomber.
The constant appeals for cash are because we need a constant cashflow. This is the same for any project.... I have an Alfa parked outside which needs a constant enormous cashflow, but I am happy to provide that cash because I love my Alfa. 558's exactly the same, she requires an enormous ongoing supply of funds, but in return for those funds, we get a flying Vulcan.
Hands in pockets, boys - or I smack
The constant appeals for cash are because we need a constant cashflow. This is the same for any project.... I have an Alfa parked outside which needs a constant enormous cashflow, but I am happy to provide that cash because I love my Alfa. 558's exactly the same, she requires an enormous ongoing supply of funds, but in return for those funds, we get a flying Vulcan.
Hands in pockets, boys - or I smack
The constant demands for cash with the hand out is wearing thin.
This is particularity tragic due to the OUTSTANDING effort of getting 558 back into the air, an aircraft engineering success which I can honestly say is unparalleled.
As had been said above the financial aspects of this project should be examined minutely.
Perhaps in the current financial climate, putting 558 into storage until a sound financial base can be achieved is the best way forwards?
This is particularity tragic due to the OUTSTANDING effort of getting 558 back into the air, an aircraft engineering success which I can honestly say is unparalleled.
As had been said above the financial aspects of this project should be examined minutely.
Perhaps in the current financial climate, putting 558 into storage until a sound financial base can be achieved is the best way forwards?
It does seem a little short sighted to look purely to donations to keep it going, or is that corporate sponsorship has been sought but just not found?
Unfortunately, I can't help thinking that this failure and constant demands for more cash is only going to make the project less appealing to a future sponsor. It seems to me that this is vital.
Financial woes are what the project is becoming more renowned for, rather than the magnificence of seeing this beauty in flight.
Remember the goosebumps.
Unfortunately, I can't help thinking that this failure and constant demands for more cash is only going to make the project less appealing to a future sponsor. It seems to me that this is vital.
Financial woes are what the project is becoming more renowned for, rather than the magnificence of seeing this beauty in flight.
Remember the goosebumps.
Sorry but they can plaster her all over in Red Bull logos if it means we get to see her fly into the future.
The precious "oh dearie me no, lets keep her like a museum piece" attitude IS NOT WORKING.
Maybe they should have "bucket walkers" everywhere she was flying and people who were watching her might feel the extra urge to bung a little more into the closest bucket
I only saw her in the distance as she flew past Silverstone to a display oop north in July but at that moment (I exist on a very meagre pension) I would have bunged half my petrol money for the ride home in a bucket and taken a very frugal drive, simply because of the "lift" seeing her gave me.
I can't make pledges, or give donations, I'm perpetually skint, but there has to be a way of persuading large corporate sponsors to give some more.
But a mothballing until the recession eases a tad could be the next best thing
The precious "oh dearie me no, lets keep her like a museum piece" attitude IS NOT WORKING.
Maybe they should have "bucket walkers" everywhere she was flying and people who were watching her might feel the extra urge to bung a little more into the closest bucket
I only saw her in the distance as she flew past Silverstone to a display oop north in July but at that moment (I exist on a very meagre pension) I would have bunged half my petrol money for the ride home in a bucket and taken a very frugal drive, simply because of the "lift" seeing her gave me.
I can't make pledges, or give donations, I'm perpetually skint, but there has to be a way of persuading large corporate sponsors to give some more.
But a mothballing until the recession eases a tad could be the next best thing
I don't think there is any liklehood of her wearing any corporate logo colours (apart from the odd sticker on an undercarriage door). One of the stipulations of the lottery funding she received was that she wore an authentic period colour scheme.
I have to say, I am not keen on old warbirds being dolled up as fizzy drink cans or chewing gum wrappers/ciggie boxes etc. If there are a number of examples still flying, then having the odd unauthentic colour scheme flying around is tolerable - but if the aircraft is the ONLY one of its type left airworthy it is rather demeaning to its memory and the memory of those who faught (and sometimes died in her sisters) to be advertising some trivial consumer product.
I have to say, I am not keen on old warbirds being dolled up as fizzy drink cans or chewing gum wrappers/ciggie boxes etc. If there are a number of examples still flying, then having the odd unauthentic colour scheme flying around is tolerable - but if the aircraft is the ONLY one of its type left airworthy it is rather demeaning to its memory and the memory of those who faught (and sometimes died in her sisters) to be advertising some trivial consumer product.
Edited by Eric Mc on Sunday 22 November 15:13
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff