View Full Version : Lottery 'Commies' say NO to Vulcan

17th Nov 2002, 17:27
Read an article in the Mail on Sunday that states that the Lottery lot have refused a grant to the Vulcan Restoration Fund!!
I simply can't believe that a worthwhile project to get one of the UK's finest ever aircraft back into the air was seen as a waste of money??

The revenue that the Vulcan would create by being and flying at Airshows around the world would, I'm sure, be huge. I have very fond memories of attending airshows as a child and standing in awe as the Vulcan flew.

The RAF should step in and prehaps drop some of the BoB flight to fund it. Lets face it, we have seen the Spit and Lancaster a million times now and its time for a new attraction.

The most annoying thing of all is seeing some of the stupid projects that ARE given Lottery cash. Its not PC to have a Nuclear bomber funded by the Lottery but its fine to give £20m to help bl**dy immigrants and asylum seekers!!

Its the peoples money and I believe that we should all petition the Government to step in and stop the Vulcan's sale on Ebay!

17th Nov 2002, 18:43
Agree 100% !!!!

I too have strong memories of the Vulcan thundering around the skies of Biggin Hill (used to live directly under the approach for runway 03). What on earth is going on?! I thought that was exactly why the lottery was there, to help fund and preserve treasures like this.

I don't know if this still stands true, but I thought airshows were the 2nd largest spectator event after football. Why then, are the lottery lot not prepared to support this important preservation project.

The Vulcan is a spectacular aircraft. There're something like 52 spits in flying condition now? (may be wrong) High time to channel some money into a unique aircraft that's equally as impressive!

17th Nov 2002, 19:25
-------- Mr Branson ??

(sorry - I meant Sir Richard)

Stan Evil
17th Nov 2002, 19:28
It's easy - just get a lesbian, single-parent tree-hugger to front the Vulcan Restoration Group and the money will come rolling in!

tony draper
17th Nov 2002, 20:59
This is a absolute disgrace, if some arty farty tosser wanted to wrap a Vulcan in brown paper as a artistic statement, they would be falling over their shirt lifting selves to give money.
F*ck em. :mad:

17th Nov 2002, 21:02
Are those the same "Lottery Commies" who recently made a grant of £9million for the redevelopment of Hangar 1, the final stage of the Imperial War Museum's improvements at Duxford? You mean the Mail on Sunday didn't mention that?

Would that be the same Mail on Sunday/Daily Mail that was almost charged with criminal incitement recently, for publishing the address of Lady Brittan's office, encouraging its readership to 'show their anger' that her asylum seekers' charity had gained a modest Lottery grant. The readers duly rallied round and sent a nice collection of sharp objects, excrement and other nasties.

Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday: $hit in, $hit out.

17th Nov 2002, 22:30
The "Commie" comment was OTT, but it's still irritating to see Lottery money being given to an organisation supporting asylum seekers and then refused to a worthy cause trying to preserve part of our own heritage.

Grob Driver
17th Nov 2002, 22:36
Well, I have to say that I both agree and disagree with the comments made so far.

The first thing Grimweasel, There is no way that the RAF should reduce the BOB flight funding to pay for a private venture that is sure to make one individual a LOT of money should it ever happen. It doesn’t matter how many spit’s there are flying in the sky’s today, the RAF has made it it’s business to preserve a handful for them to demonstrate / display to the British public and we must respect them for that. I’d sooner see the Red Arrows funding reduced (And I live at Scampton!) – No, just think that with all the revenue that the Red Arrows bring to Bae, they could help with the funding!

Anyway, if this Vulcan thing is going to be so big, why do you think they are struggling with money issues? It’s just a thought. I remember though where there was a time that all we heard from brunthingthorpe was that there was plenty of money, it was the CAA who were standing in the way. Now it seems like it’s a possibility, there’s no money! The other thing we all heard about was how the Americans were going to help fund it in order to get some flight testing time out of the aircraft… what happened to that? Oh, and then there’s always the story about how if they cant raise the money here, then it will be sold to an American who will fly it over there and it will be lost forever. I think that’s wrong too. The Vulcan was taken to Bruntingthorpe for preservation. If it cant fly, then that’s no reason to sell it. I wonder if it was really bought for preservation, or just as a mechanism to make a lot of money.

And what happened to all the money that was raised from the Air shows that used to be at Bruntingthorpe? Brunthingthorpe was supposed to be the next Duxford…. It’s not looking good so far!

Sorry, just very cynical about it all. Still, I do agree with you on the lottery side! They had out money to some awful seemingly awful plans but wont help others. Still, in their defence, they have helped out with a lot of aviation related things. I’m sure there is something in the grant ‘rules’ that money cant be given to projects to restore ‘working’ vehicles.

18th Nov 2002, 07:43
Grob Driver, you've been listening to far too many silly rumours from the sounds of it.

Brunty have never had plenty of money - CAA approval/BAe back-up was always the problem - though they may not have realised quite how expensive doing things properly would be. Only when Marshalls got behind it all did it look likely that they could get anywhere, and that's when fund-raising seriously began.

Americans helping for flight testing time - this was an entirely scurrilous story dreamt up by a little weasel by the name of Nigel Pierce who started up a club of sorts based around XM655 at Wellesbourne, promising it would soon be flying with American money, doing work for the USN etc. Needless to say he disappeared into the night with everybody's money. It now crops up as a rumour around 558 of course, as no juicy rumour ever dies entirely.

Money raised from air shows at Brunty... wasn't much and went on getting new exhibits and maintaining existing ones. Unfortunately the big hangar is far too valuable as a revenue source for storing things to be given up entirely to putting aircraft in - 558 costs the owner a great deal of money, taking up half the hangar as it does. As for being the next Duxford, one of the driving forces behind that idea was Nick Grace and sadly he is no longer with us - and with him died those plans.

At the end of the day there are plenty of static Vulcans, and if there is a chance of seeing 558 fly in another country, but none here... then it's an easy choice to make, particularly if you are the owner, and it's costing you wads of cash just having her sit there doing nothing.

Personally I'd think it was a bit of a kick in the teeth to those who have donated money over the last 2 years but I can see the reasoning why. I agree with you that no way should the BBMF be cut down to help fund the Vulcan... but get rid of a Red or two, fair enough. Paint the big V red white a white speed stripe and call it Red 9.

Grob Driver
18th Nov 2002, 08:42
Damien B.

Silly rumours aren’t so silly when you know where they come from. Everything I’ve heard about the Vulcan (558) has come from someone VERY close to the project. A dear friend of mine who’s name shall remain blank on an open forum. However, I trust him and what he says far more than I trust pprune! That’s not to say that I don’t trust you all…. My friend is VERY close to the project, and I have the up most respect for him and what he says.

Flying her in another country because it’s costing wads of cash to keep her maintained. Ah, and now the truth comes out! Money, money, money! Like I said, you all go on about its importance in British aviation and engineering (which it most certainly is), so how can you justify loosing it to America? Even still, there’s not that many in this country…. Certainly not ones in as good a condition as 558.

One last thing. CAA/BAe backup was always a problem until ‘Marshals’ came along. Mmm, it’s interesting that isn’t it? Ok, it was originally built by AVRO, but it’s now basically a BAe aircraft. How come they need marshals on the case before it can actually happen? Don’t want to be slanderous, but anyone in the Air force will know about some of their projects! I’m saying no more! Just think that if anyone has the ability to get her in the air, then it would be BAe, NOT Marshals!

Oh, on the subject of rumours… was it just a ‘rumour’ that if she was ever flown again, then she would operate out of Scampton because of Brunthingthorpe’s lack of fire cover and the poor condition of the runway?

Anyway, Good Luck to all involved, I hope it happens… Just don’t try to make a quick buck but selling her to America!

18th Nov 2002, 09:07
I've heard silly rumours from people VERY VERY close to the project, doesn't make them any less silly. TVOC have been so close-mouthed about progress (or lack thereof) that rumours have been inevitable - and when they are from people who work at Brunty, they gain an aura of credibility that they do not deserve. I run the websites for both Bruntingthorpe and Vulcan XM655 so am privy to a fair bit of insider info on the 558 project, but still hear lots of silly info being bandied about by people who should know better.

Talk to David Walton rather than listening to rumours, no matter how highly placed you might think your source is. I've heard so much nonsense about 558 now that I only believe things when I hear them from David - the aircraft's owner.

Not many Vulcans in this country?

Excluding 558, there are 3 others in taxiable condition and 12 complete static examples (2 of which are hangared) plus assorted nose sections.

Complete listing here:


Believe me nobody is after a quick buck. If you think operating an old jet is an easy way to a profit... for gawd's sake show the rest of us the secret!

Edit - BBC story here:


18th Nov 2002, 09:29
Great pity, things do not appear to have improved since this article appeared in the DT(15/1/2001):

"THE last of Britain's Vulcan nuclear bombers has been saved from sale to American buyers, thanks largely to support from Daily Telegraph readers.

More than 3,000 gave money following an article warning that the project to restore the aircraft was in danger of foundering because of lack of money. They sent £30,000 - an average of £10 each - to the Vulcan Restoration Trust Appeal, based at Bruntingthorpe airfield near Leicester.

David Walton, who bought the aircraft from the RAF in 1995, said: "We're still a long way short of our target but the money we have received from the public since the Telegraph article appeared means that the Vulcan will definitely stay in Britain. Public interest has been phenomenal. When we get the aircraft flying next year there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that it will be a stunner at air shows and events across the country."

The project's members decided to appeal to the public for the £1.5 million needed to save the aircraft following a lack of interest from commercial sponsors. A minimum donation of £1 enrolled donors as Friends of the Vulcan, providing them with information about its progress. The donors will also have entry to a ballot for a personalised fly-past next year.

About £700,000 has already been spent on getting the aircraft to the state where major engineering work has official approval to proceed. About £1 million still needs to be raised."

There are 16 airframes left in this country, and about 5 worldwide out of the 136 built. Needless to say, they are in varying condition. See http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/mongsoft/vrt.htm

Grob Driver
18th Nov 2002, 09:35
You only believe things that you hear from David…. Interesting… I’ve heard him say a lot of things too over the past few years, Er, none of which have yet to come into fruit! Still Mr Walton, if you’re reading this, I must thank you once again for allowing me to sit on one of the ‘fast taxi runs’ in the Vulcan (And victor!) (And so many thanks to my friend who arranged it!)

But to be honest with you Damien, I wouldn’t say that 15 complete airframes is a massive amount, and like you said, not many of them are in hangars. It has to be said, that many of the existing Vulcan’s are starting to fall into a poor state of repair. Call me an old grouch, but unless someone spends a lot of money over the next 10 years, I think we’ll see a large reduction in the number of surviving Vulcan’s. You can’t just leave a machine like exposed to the elements and expect it to last forever… It just wont happen.

Anyway, if you’re privy to a fair bit of info… Please tell us all… what is the latest situation with the aircraft?

Oh god… Just read your link to the BBC news page… Auctioned on the internet! You’ve got to be joking! Why cant Mr Walton, keep the aircraft in a taxable condition and be happy with that rather than threaten us with a sale to the Americans?

18th Nov 2002, 09:46
Well I've had a good look round most of the surviving Vs and only the one at Blackpool is in dire straits, the rest aren't doing too badly at all. I agree none will last forever but then what does. As long as Duxford and Hendon are around we'll have a pair in excellent nick, and our lot at Wellesbourne don't intend allowing 655 to deterioriate any - nor do the Southend mob with 426. The Midland Air Museum are currently repainting theirs and treating any corrosion - it's very sound considering its long stay outdoors.

Current info? Try the 558 club's site, which has the latest TVOC press release on it:


It would be rather silly for me to blab anything I hear that has been told to me in confidence, would it not?

Grob Driver
18th Nov 2002, 10:07
Paint can hide a lot! When did you last look around 607? She leaks like crazy and while the paint tells one story, the rust tells another. This is repeated at most of the Vulcan’s I’ve seen over the years. My old man was Vulcan aircrew so there is a ‘family interest’. I think I’ve seen most of the UK survivors, if not all.

Like I said to Dr Plenning… You need a few million pounds for this project yet I very rarely see people collecting money at air shows. The various Vulcan charities all have a donation pot, but how about coming up with some agreement where major air show organisers give you £1 for each ticket, and in return, you offer their first Vulcan display at a '‘reduced rate'? It’s just a thought.

As for the TVOC press release…. Doesn’t really tell you much though does it. I’m not interested in vacancies, or badge designs. Where’s the nitty gritty info about 558, the condition she’s in and what the plans are? Is it literally a case on no money from the lottery = sell her, or are there ‘contingency plans’? I’ll keep my eyes open on Ebay!
:eek: :eek: :eek:

adrian mole
18th Nov 2002, 10:43

Afraid I can't agree with you concerning the state of the remaining Vulcans. Sadly the one at Sunderland is falling into a sad state with all the jetpipes rusted through. What worries me more is that was the open air museum which had an aircraft (Varsity/Viking?) destroyed by fire by vandals some years ago. Fair comment about the Imp War Museum as long as they don't repeat what the RAF Museum Hendon did to the penultimate Beverley some years ago - now there's one...

18th Nov 2002, 12:44
Just to pop back to the Lottery 'Commies' - the constitution of the National Lottery specifically forbids the donation of money to certain projects. One of the forbidden objectives is the preservation of old aeroplanes, so the 'commies' have no option but to deny funding.

On the subject of getting the old girl flying again and keeping her in the air on a sustained basis, I well remember how difficult it was to keep the Vulcans flying back in the sixties when we not only had all the spares imaginable but also the luxury of the "VOG" system that forced the aircraft industry to drop whatever it was doing and turn out whatever we needed, whenever we needed it. The idea of flying a Vulcan without all the technical support, spares and other resources available to the "V" force always was a non-starter - a mere pipe dream. I'd love to see a Vulcan flying again but as a hard headed engineer I just know that it can never happen. Sad but thats the way it is... :(

Through difficulties to the cinema

18th Nov 2002, 17:45
Blacksheep - are you sure about lottery funding/aircraft restoration. I think there's an old airliner in one of the Duxford hangars under restoration with the help of NLF; could be mistaken, but -----------

Flatus Veteranus
18th Nov 2002, 18:08

I do appreciate your timely reminder about the difficulties of keeping Vulcans flying back in the sixties. But I seem to remember that most of the problems were to do with the NBS and other warlike bits of electronic gear. Would it be THAT difficult to maintain the airframe, engines, electrics, flight control system, instruments, some basic comms and a "pocket GPS"? We would only be interested in day/VMC.

18th Nov 2002, 18:40
sorry to intrude

very damaging the lottery no vote

but hardly surprising

just look at the lightning, shackelton and buccaneer to name but a few

aviation history in this country has gone down the toilet in the last twentey years

i hope for a change in this culture but not going to hope for that long

18th Nov 2002, 21:27
Let's get a few facts straightened out.

The CAA IS behind the project. The CAA multi test pilot has been aboard and taxyed the mighty beast around Bruntingthorpe and is optimistic about the project.

Someone has to do the major and Marshalls volunteered at a very reasonable price (you can't expect a business to spend such large sums of money for no return).

BAE is giving the project 'manufacturer's support'.

David Walton has spent a great deal of his own money and time on the project.

All in all it has a lot going for it, but it depends on fundraising. The best comment so far on this thread is -

'-------- Mr Branson ??

(sorry - I meant Sir Richard)'

Now there is a man with vision and guts who could make it happen.

Grob Driver
18th Nov 2002, 23:37
As I said in an earlier post… The Lottery doesn’t have a problem in aiding the restoration of aircraft, so long as the restoration isn’t to an airworthy status. Don’t know why, but that’s the rules!

As for Sir Branson… Don’t think it’s going to happen. I’m sure that he’s have come forward by now if he was interested. Would be nice to read a comment on here from TVOC… hear what they have to say!

I’m still interested to know what the plans are for the aircraft given the failure of the lottery appeal.

Is it simply a case of sell it to the highest bidder, or are there more sustainable plans in place?

Personally, I think that Mr Walton should put his hand in his pocket, and find that last million!! Or, accept that it just wasn’t feasible, and be happy with being the proud owner of one of the world’s most famous aircraft.

19th Nov 2002, 03:53
I'd love to see more public funds devoted to our aviation heritage, but there is a problem when the aircraft is privately owned.
The majority of warbird owners have restored warbirds either at their own expense or by finding investors who then become owners or part owners of a particular aircraft. eg Ray Hanna (Old Flying Machine Company) and Stephen Gray (Fighter Collection), Robs Lamplough and others. They own the aircraft and are entitled to the profit when it's sold.
If the restoration project is a public venture or a charity, I'm always happy to make a donation, but not to the pockets of a private owner.
The 'Save the Blenheim' project is a case in point. I always thought Graham Warner who owns the Blenheim had a nerve asking members of the public at Duxford airshows for donations. I doubt if many of those who gave realised they were giving money to a wealthy businessman's private project which when finished was worth a fortune.

19th Nov 2002, 04:23
Flatus Veteranus,

While the electronics certainly gave the "Fairies" a load of trouble, on the aeroplane side we were plagued with system problems. Bag tanks leaked and needed replacements, fuel quantity indication system amplifiers packed in with monotonous regularity - does anyone still manufacture the vacuum tube valves that are used in them? PFCUs were notoriously unreliable and how about those terrible FireTec engine fire detection systems? I suppose there are plenty of old Post Office pattern relays lying around to keep the refuelling and fuel transfer systems working but think about all the obsolete seals and gaskets used all over the aircraft. How about serviceable windscreens for example? I know there are plenty of spare parts about on non-flying Vulcans but someone has to put them through test and inspection then recertify them for civil use. Not impossible by any means, but certainly very expensive. Meanwhile many seals and other parts have shelf lives and will need to be manufactured to order. Very expensive in small lots. The CAA could give approval for substitution but certification still costs lots of money. The project is possible from a simple engineering point of view but assuming the money is found to restore the aircraft to airworthiness, the cost of maintaining that airworthiness could never be supported by mere airshow appearances. I wish it weren't so, but thats what makes me think the scheme is financially unviable I'm afraid...

Through difficulties to the cinema

19th Nov 2002, 08:00
Glad to see that the old bird still creates a vivid interest!!
The sad thing is that if the V never flies again then generations of kids are going to miss out on a true aviation spectacle!

Seeing the Vulcan tear off the runway into a near vertical climb while the engines turn Mildenhall into an earthquake zone has been one of my fondest childhood memories. I'd just love for todays kids to have the same sight and feeling.

Surely if we can have old warbirds still flying like Vampires and Hunters that come from the same era, then we must be able to get the Vulcan flying too?

Has anyone approached the richest, keenest aviator of them all? John Travolta has a keen interest in aircraft. Prehaps he would like to become a shareholder/owner/pilot?

Prehaps the 'Commies' thing was a bit OTT, but it fails me to see how some art projects such as a bin liner filled with air can achieve a grant for the artist and great British engineering can be so cruely denied?

The Daily Telegraph should follow their old story up and generate new interest. Even 130 MP's were quoted as saying it was a disgrace!! They must have the power to make things happen? If not then why are they in Westminster???

19th Nov 2002, 09:08
Imagine if the lottery people gave lots of lottery player's money to get the Vulcan flying again, only for it to hit a geese formation on take off and bury itself in the runway overrun. Every lottery player in the land would be out in protest at their money being lost, not good publicity for el lotto corporationo.

Training Risky
19th Nov 2002, 09:35
I wouldn't say the fine people at the lottery board were Communists. Communism was a fine idea of collectively using land and state resources for the common good. The idea of Communism was turned into the bogeyman by the USA's fear and hatred of the USSR, fear that was justified.
Stalin's oppressive regime of Totalitarianism/Facism was NOT Leon Trotsky's idea of Socialism/Communism in the true sense.

I know I may have wandered down tangent boulevard slightly, but the lottery board aren't Commies in the true sense.

They could be more accurately described as politically correct, liberal, lefty, shirtlifting, arty-farty, Islamic/asylum-seeker loving, conservative hating, Guardian-reading, HM Forces hating, despotic Bliarites, playing with OTHER people's money, and more concerned about funding terrorist support groups than Britains' military aviation heritage.mad:

B*gger the cost, invest the cash.

(Sorry, back to my padded cell...)

19th Nov 2002, 14:41
Did anyone else notice the wave of Vulcan/Lottery-related calls to Radio 5 this morning? Hmmm...never cross the PPRuNers!

A Civilian
19th Nov 2002, 21:16

"Democracy. What For?" :)

As for the lottery board I thought they were all tory voting, fox hunting, oxford graduates who seem to fund nothing but eastend plays. Which are only ever frequented by tory voting, fox hunting....

I have to say that the Vulcan bomber isnt really one of the things that i would want to take my kid to see. It doesnt really have a broad appeal. Now if they would buy the ex RN light carrier that the indians are getting rid of, that would be cool.

19th Nov 2002, 21:55
...heard a tale that the E-Bay storyline was just a wheeze to gain more publicity for the fund-raising efforts. If true, let's hope it has worked!

On a note of moderation - I know, I know, it will never catch on - while wholeheartedly condemning the Lotto for doling out vast sums of dosh to the aforementioned tree-hugging etc's, I wonder how the non-aviation (ie most of the rest of the country) fraternity would feel about the venerable Vulcan vs youth clubs/sport centres/parks and open spaces and all the 1001 other community projects which the lotto currently funds. It can't all be non-pink lesbian encounter group theatre workshops - can it?

Good luck to the TVOC - think I'll send them a tenner!

Grob Driver
20th Nov 2002, 00:02

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head… The e-bay line was just another story to make us panic and give more money.

I personally think it’s time the TVOC started telling people what the situation is. They want people to help with donations etc…. fair enough, but come clean, tell us the plans, the situation, and what’s required. The web site doesn’t really tell us a lot does it. Fair enough that they need to recruit someone to fill a vacancy… And a wonderful press release about the new logo… But come on… Facts, facts, facts! That’s what people want… get them excited about the project, make then want to give a donation. At the minute it’s all a bit flat. Only my opinion, and I’m sure there will be lots of other views out there. I just think that they need a major change of image. What they are asking for is by no means beyond possibility, Resources and plans just have to be directed correctly.

20th Nov 2002, 07:57

Couldn't agree more re-the web site - if that's the best that can be done to fire enthusiasm for the cause, then they quickly need a new PR/Marketing person -------------

swinging monkey
20th Nov 2002, 08:30

I have read with considerable interest the comments made by many regarding the lack of lottery money for the Vulcan project. As someone who has spent many many hours in the back of these aircraft, I too am disappointed that the project has failed to attract lottery cash, however…….
What we all seem to be forgetting is that this aircraft is now owned by a member of the public, and we must therefore ask why should he get lottery money for his own gain? I am not convinced that he should! Why should he?
I accept that the aircraft is a valuable piece of ‘British Aviation heritage’ and all that, but so what? It now belongs to a civilian, and therefore NOT the country.
Of course I would much rarther see lottery cash go towards the Vulcan than say to asylum seekers, or all of the other naf ‘good causes’ but seriously gentlemen, why should our lottery money be given to private individual for his own gain?
I believe that the fault lies with the government (who else?) and maybe we should make a concerted effort to lobby MPs to establish a ‘real’ British Aviation heritage group, owned by the country for the country. Any takers?
My other concern is for all those thousands of people who, like myself, have sent in their £10 and other money, and are now faced with the prospect of the aircraft going to the States. Shameful on Mr Walton if it does. Is he going to refund us all our money? I remember the saga not that long ago, when someone did something along the same lines, and ‘run off’ with all the money!
I do need to respond to just a couple of individual points also…..
DamienB…... I have read Grob drivers comments and must inform you that he is much closer to the truth than you are!
Why do you poo poo him on one hand, and then make the comment about it being an easy decision to let the aircraft go to another country because it’s costing you wads of of cash, on the other? Seems a bit of a contradiction there old boy!
Your comments about the condition of the static Vulcans around the country is nothing short of utter rubbish. Take a look at Blackpool, Sunderland, East Midlands, Newark and Waddo’s even – good condition? – No Sir, take another look!
When Mr Walton purchased the aircraft in 1995, he said a great many things about what will happen to the aircraft, sadly none of them have come to fruition. More recently it was claimed the £1.5 million was needed. Now its £1.7 million, why? You are obviously ‘in the know’ Damien, so why not tell us exactly what is happening to the aircraft and to ‘our’ money
Lastly Damien, if all these rumours are so false, why not ask Mr Walton to go public about his intentions for the aircraft? Why not put an end to all these ‘silly rumours’ as you call them? I fear that the reason they are not dismissed is because there is a greater element of truth in them than you care to believe or accept.
Gentlemen, I have ranted long enough. The Vulcan was not an easy aircraft to fly, and I know FACT that 558 almost came to grief during its last season with the RAF on more than one occasion. I have a passionate desire to see this aircraft fly once again, and let millions of people experience what I was fortunate to have in the 70s and 80s, However, I am much more passionate about seeing it remain in one piece on the ground, and not in a million pieces in a hole in the ground.

Rant over, back to swinging!!
Regards to all
Swinging Monkey
More rope Caruthers!

20th Nov 2002, 11:40
Swinging Monkey says - "...we should make a concerted effort to lobby MPs to establish a ‘real’ British Aviation heritage group, owned by the country for the country"

Isn't that the RAF?:D :D

Grob Driver
20th Nov 2002, 12:34
Well newswatcher, I think it’s time you started watching a bit more news to try and establish what the role of the RAF is! I accept that it may have a bit of out dated equipment, but it’s certainly no Aviation heritage group. It’s a fighting force (and a whole load more). I think that the swinging monkey has a very valid point, both in his views about the Vulcan, and in the formation of a heritage group. I’m with you monkey man…. With you all the way!:D :cool: :cool: :D :D :cool: :mad:

20th Nov 2002, 12:52
Grob Driver, I totally agree with you that the RAF is a fighting force not a heritage group HOWEVER the BBMF is still part of the RAF. Maybe its the reasoning behind backing the Flight which needs to addressed rather than assuming the RAF can't play a part in getting the Vulcan to fly again.

20th Nov 2002, 13:25
You can guarantee that someone will fall for it. Thanks Grob Driver for restoring my faith! As another thread stresses, the word is "banter"!!

But seriously, with this year being 50 years since the Vulcan first flew, it is a concern that the RAF are still forced to rely on aircraft of a type which first flew at around this time - Canberra(1949), Nimrod(1949- well Comet anyway!), Hercules(1954), plus Harrier(1967), and Jaguar(1969).

Apart from the C-17A Globemaster, there is not a "front-line" aircraft, of a type which did not fly first more than 20 years ago.

There seems little interest in keeping some of the "less interesting" aircraft which used to be in RAF service. How many of the following are left in working order - Valetta, Hastings, Hermes, or Britannia?

Grob Driver
20th Nov 2002, 14:25
A bit of banter… it’s my pleasure! Always one to take up the offer. Like fishing isn’t it… just cast out and see what takes the bait! Newswatcher....Looks like you just caught yourself a grob driver!:D

swinging monkey
20th Nov 2002, 15:40
With the help of hindsight, I think that your comment about the RAF being a heritage group may well have some mileage to it! On aserious note, I have been the blunt end of defence cuts year-in and year-out. It is no fun believe me, especially when we cannot even get flying kit from stores! I kid you not!
With no money for front-line chaps like me, it is little wonder that there is not a hope-in-hell of getting any money and/or support for the Delta Lady, irrespective of who owns her.
Thanks for your support Grob Driver, its good to know that someone else ses my point. I like your comment about fishing - well done!
Damien seems to have gone 'deep & silent' don't you think chaps?
Damien....are you out there?? come on old bean, fill us in on the latest on 558.
Regards to all

Swinging Monkey
left & right, front & back

20th Nov 2002, 17:18
Why do you poo poo him on one hand, and then make the comment about it being an easy decision to let the aircraft go to another country because it’s costing you wads of of cash, on the other? Seems a bit of a contradiction there old boy!

Everybody here wants the Vulcan to fly, you would agree? So if it's a choice between it sitting on the ground doing nothing because nobody in the UK will stump up the required cash, or letting it go overseas where it could fly - that's what I call an easy decision - particularly if by sitting doing nothing it's costing the owner hundreds of thousands a pounds a year in lost income from using the hangar as storage.

The only flying Buccaneers and Lightnings are flying overseas. Would you rather they were still here in the UK and limited to fast taxi runs?

I was responding to comments alleging that 558's owner was simply out to make a fast buck. Well if that's the case why has he bankrolled so much of the project to this point out of his own pocket, and why has he spent almost a decade trying to get her back in the air? Vulcans don't increase in value the more they sit there - this isn't a bloody flat in London we're talking about!

Your comments about the condition of the static Vulcans around the country is nothing short of utter rubbish. Take a look at Blackpool, Sunderland, East Midlands, Newark and Waddo’s even – good condition? – No Sir, take another look!

As I said, only the one at Blackpool is in really poor condition - it has no hope whatsoever. The remainder are suffering, I never said they aren't - but the situation is nowhere near as grim as you seem to think. Sunderland's one was under active restoration until last year when the force behind that restoration moved away from the area. Newark's was looking tatty but sound when I last visited. Waddo's example is just a Vulcan shaped bit of tin, so much has been stripped out of it, but unless something has radically changed in the last few months - or I was lied to about its structural condition - it isn't about to fall to bits. If it was in such poor nick how come so many bits from it turned out to be so useful on other Vulcans? Most of the ones you mention have considerable areas of deterioration - I doubt a single Vulcan doesn't, including the four taxiable ones. However unless they're genuinely abandoned to their fate, looking at an airframe at any particular time can hardly indicate it's future. If you'd looked at XM655 at Wellesbourne ten years ago you'd have been convinced it was due a visit from the scrap man - corrosion all over the place, cockpit trashed, wingtips damaged, flat tires, paint all faded... and how look at her - www.xm655.co.uk (feel free to pop up to Wellesbourne and have a chat with the guys and see how far the airframe has come in the last 5 years).

When Mr Walton purchased the aircraft in 1995, he said a great many things about what will happen to the aircraft, sadly none of them have come to fruition. More recently it was claimed the £1.5 million was needed. Now its £1.7 million, why? You are obviously ‘in the know’ Damien, so why not tell us exactly what is happening to the aircraft and to ‘our’ money

I am not David Walton. If you have genuine questions to ask, phone him and ask. I realise you probably prefer second-hand, or third-hand, or fortieth-hand information, but it's soooo much more interesting to talk to the chap himself.

Lastly Damien, if all these rumours are so false, why not ask Mr Walton to go public about his intentions for the aircraft? Why not put an end to all these ‘silly rumours’ as you call them? I fear that the reason they are not dismissed is because there is a greater element of truth in them than you care to believe or accept.

David's intentions for the aircraft are quite clearly stated on the TVOC web site: www.tvoc.co.uk

Would you really have the poor chap stand up from time to time to deny each and every ever-more-silly rumour that is heard about the project and dignify such nonsense with a response? You want him to deny the USN are going to use the Vulcan to fly over water at wave top height to investigate ground effect flying? You want him to deny that Coca Cola are going to paint the aircraft red and white in their logo and fly it over sporting events? You want him to deny that the RAF want to use her for high altitude recon based out of Boscombe Down? They get ever more ludicrous, but always - but always - they've come from 'someone in the know'. Don't all rumours?

Still, I congratulate you on joining the British tradition of mudslinging and shouting down those who have actually tried to get something done. I'm sure David and TVOC are delighted with the level of 'support' being shown here.

Edit to add a PS - I fully agree expecting the HLF to provide money to a private company seems on the face of it to be a bit strange, but that does not appear to be one of the reasons they stated in their rejection. The HLF do after all give money to many other private companies and charities, and the VRT - a charity - did much of the front work for the application if I recall correctly. I like the idea about placing the aircraft in some sort of public trust; I'd also like to see TVOC be a little more open in their communications with everybody, but unlike some here I understand that a lot of deals are very delicate, and you do need a bit of secrecy to get things done sometimes.

Grob Driver
20th Nov 2002, 22:40

That’s a very comprehensive reply there… thanks!

However, I still have to disagree with a few (quite a few!) of the points you’ve made.

1) I don’t agree that people would rather see her go overseas to fly than ‘sit around doing nothing’ – She doesn’t need to sit around doing nothing… She’s a working example and can therefore be displayed as such. Oh she’s costing Mr Walton a lot of money. Well, I’m sure he knew what he was letting himself in for when he decided to buy here.

2) Why has the owner (Mr Walton) bankrolled so much of the project out of his own pocket…? Oh Damien, that ones a really easy question… IT’S HIS BLOODY AIRCRAFT!… THAT’S WHY!!!!! I need some new tyres on my car but I wouldn’t expect you lot to pay for it!

3) You say only the one at Blackpool is in really poor condition. NO, NO, NO, you’re wrong. I’m sorry, but the majority of the ones outside are in a poor state of repair, and like I said, unless a lot of money is spent quickly, I think we’ll see the numbers reduce quite dramatically over the next 10 years.

4) Bit’s of 607 at Wado have been used on other Vulcan’s… I hope not 558! If so, I REALLY don’t want to see her take to the sky’s again! Despite what you might think… all these remaining Vulcan’s are in no where near the condition, you’d like to think they are in.

5) Asking Mr Walton questions. I have contacted TVOC (Dr Pleming in particular) with issues about the Vulcan, and suggestions on how they can raise money, NO ONE has ever got back to me. As for the ‘poor chap’ standing up every time a silly rumour is spouted o say if it’s true or not. No, I don’t want that. I would just like some information as to what the plans are. They keep asking for money, but no one knows what’s going to happen with their money. I think there will be a LOT of very unhappy people though if they’ve all donated £10 to let the Americans fly it.

Maybe next time you talk to the good Mr Walton, you can ask him to come on PPRuNe and answer our questions!

20th Nov 2002, 23:22
Blacksheep has it about right. I flew them in the 70's and even with hangars full of spares and barrack blocks full of moles it was very difficult to keep them going. Flatus has a point, but don't forget lots of big parts failed as well; it was unusual to have just a single engine failure!

Nothing matters very much, most things don't matter at all.

swinging monkey
21st Nov 2002, 07:43

The grob driver has hit the nail right on the head:rolleyes:
It costs Mr Walton a lot of money 'cos its his baby!!!:p
My point is this though
Tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of people have given money OUT OF THEIR POCKET to this project, because they believed Mr Walton when he announced that the aircraft would stay in this country, and the talks were of it flying again.
How utterly shameful is it, that the talk is now of him selling it to the Americans? Surely you do not condone that do you? Whats going to happen to our money?
Yes, we all want to see her fly, but more importantly WE ALL WANT TO SEE HER, in one way or another and that means in this country, even if its on the ground doing high-speed taxi runs.
And lastly, don't hide behind Mr Walton Damien when the going gets tough!!! If you are NOT his spokesman then SHUT UP, if you are SPEAK UP:D
By the way, I need an extension building to my factory, do you think the lottery could help, or maybe I should put ads in the aviation press pleading for the money eh??

Let 'em swing Baby!!

Swinging Monkey

21st Nov 2002, 08:09
Seems to me as though some of the public got tunnel vision and worked on the assumption that the more money you throw at the airframe the more likely it was to defy gravity.

21st Nov 2002, 08:17
I really don't get this.

You accuse David of wanting to make a fast buck. I have merely pointed out pouring hundreds of thousands of pounds of his own money into the aircraft isn't the act of someone wanting to make a fast buck. And then you reply "Well it's his aircraft"... well, duh. Did anybody ever say it wasn't?

I guess I can take it this is the nearest I'll get to an admission that the 'fast buck' accusation is nonsense.

Bits of 607 no doubt are being used on 558 - with CAA/BAe approval of course. There have been plenty of serviceable parts recovered from 607 (and other static examples), and these have gone on to be used on the runnable ones. I know we have fully serviceable PFCUs on 655 that have been put together (by the OEM) using multiple PFCUs taken from static Vulcans. 558 has had rather less need of such cannibalisation as David bought up a huge spares holding too (which goes so far as to include major airframe components e.g. a complete tail fin).

As for contacting TVOC with no reply - that is surprising. Did you send an email or actually speak to a human? While it's hardly excusable I doubt emails are treated with the same importance bearing in mind the amount of kids and spotters who must email them with Really Good Ideas [tm].

Monkey - no, I am not David's spokesman, never said I was. But if all you want is someone to type 'Hear hear' to your comments, you're in the wrong place. Construct straw men to further your argument if you wish, I shall ignore each one.

I too am interested as to what will happen to the money that has been donated (some of it, after all, came from me) though I rather suspect it's been used to pay the wages of the engineers working on the project for this last two years.

Busta - a more valid comparison would be with how hard it was to keep 558 flying when she was with the VDF in her last few years, with far fewer hangars full of spares and far fewer personnel. Don't think they missed any shows though, did they? I know it was hard - I remember there were regular intake cracks for instance, but do you really think TVOC would have taken things this far if they weren't confident they could keep her flying?

Grob Driver
21st Nov 2002, 09:07

Ok, using parts from other static Vulcan’s. Ye, I can go along with that. Of course they will all be checked for serviceability bla bla bla before they are used. I was just trying to highlight that fact the MOST of the Vulcan’s in this country are in a poor state of repair, and examples like 558, 655 and 426 should remain in this country, in working order pleasing the British public.

However, going back to funding the project. I firmly believe that Mr Walton, is trying to hold the British public to some form of ransom. If you give us money for the project, it might fly again… If you don’t, it will be sold to the highest bidder (which we all know would be the Americans). I just think it’s very wrong. You say it costs him money in lost revenue, but he must have known that when he bought her. And again, it’s his aircraft, and while I don’t object to people giving donations, they really shouldn’t have to. His toy… he pays for it… My toy… I’ll pay for it!

As for contacting TVOC. Ok, it was mainly by e-mail, BUT that’s not the point. I made the effort to do what they said. Contact us with queries, questions and suggestions… Nothing, no one has ever got back to me, and that’s a BAD thing. Even if I was just a spotter (which I’m not!), they need to have that contact with the outside world. Maybe if you see Mr Walton, you can put forward my suggestion of arranging for major airshow organisers to donate £1 from every ticket sold to go to the Vulcan in return for a reduced rate display. Or how about getting someone like ‘flypast’, or ‘today’s pilot’ to arrange a major fly in to Bruntingthorpe. £10 landing fees will go a long way if you get enough people. It would have to be a major event, but there’s no reason why it can’t happen. I think this is all about marketing…. It will take a lot more that asking readers of the aviation press to donate £1.

21st Nov 2002, 09:16
I agree, no response is a bad thing.

At 10 quid a pop we'd need 250,000 aircraft to fly in :D Brunty does hold open days, and the money goes not only to the upkeep of the BAH collection but also to 558. Sadly the locals are a right bunch of whinging nimbys and even running the Lightnings a handful of times a year gets them up in arms - a full-on airshow sadly isn't possible any more for this and other reasons (past shows did not make that much money and as the organisers of the Coventry and Biggin shows now know, a drop of rain ends up making the show cost you money to put on).

21st Nov 2002, 09:43
This is a disgrace, the lotto fund should be used to keep examples of fine British aviation flying! I know for a fact that this year the lotto commission will be using the money to help asylum seekers! ( know of a children's playgroup who was refused money and the reason was the funding of the asylum seekers...).

I am sure that if this money is used to bail the goverment out of a hole that they created Joe Public will soon lose interest in the whole game..

:mad: :mad: :mad: and very :mad:

Grob Driver
21st Nov 2002, 09:58

Can’t disagree with you. Money from the lottery should be used “to keep examples of fine British aviation flying”. HOWEVER, it shouldn’t be used to finance private individuals plans. Maybe this is where the swinging monkeys ‘British Aviation heritage group’ could be formed. That way, the aircraft would belong to the public, or at least to a charity / organization, not Jo Bloggs who wants to blast about in a Vulcan or Lightning!

As for giving lottery money to asylum seekers
:mad: :mad: :mad:

swinging monkey
21st Nov 2002, 10:22

'construct straw men to shout 'here here' hum, don't quite understand that but still.........
Listen, my comments about you being Mr Waltons spokesman were made following your comments 'poo pooing' every word on this forum that has been said against him. If you are not his spokeman, then you are going to great lengths to promote that opinion.
Anyway, that is not my point.
I am 100% behind getting her into the sky, although I do have a few reservations - remember, I flew these things for 8 years, so I do have just an 'incy wincy' bit of an idea of what I'm talking about. The problem is however this:
The aircraft is owned outright by an individual
That individual did NOT have to by her
That individual made it abundantly clear that his intention was TO FLY HER
That individual has made numerous appeals for money, spares blah
That individual has received a great deal of money from Joe Public
That individual is now saying (according to you, and you agree with him)
‘Listen chaps, its all costing a wad of cash, I’m going to flog it!’
Please Damien, explain the morale justification for that to me please.
ZH844, as for Asylum seekers getting lottery funds, nothing makes my blood boil more, but 2 wrongs do not make a right, and I equally believe that lottery funding should not be given to AN INDIVIDUAL, simply because he could use a bit more cash for his own PRIVATE ends. Sorry.
Nevertheless, I wish the project all the luck in the world, and desperately hope that the old girl stays in this country, where her benefactors can at least reap some reward for their valuable donations.
As for this British Aviation Heritage thing, anyone interested in seeing if we can't get something started? I'm happy to speak to my MP if you think there is any mileage in it. Let me know
Regards to all
The Swinging Monkey
Tighter on that rope Jonesy!

21st Nov 2002, 10:51
Yes, I've defended the man because the comments are on here were pretty atrocious - slinging all sorts of mud against somebody not here to defend themselves.

Justification to sell the aircraft? Because if he can't get enough money together to FLY THE AIRCRAFT then perhaps SOMEBODY ELSE COULD? Again, we all want to see it fly. If it cannot do so in David's ownership, I can't see anyone else in the UK managing it. I didn't see anybody else stepping up to buy her in 93 except scrap merchants. But if somebody in the US wants to pay for it... then why stop them? Why stop the aircraft flying? Face realities - if they'd got the lottery money then you'd be happily applauding their efforts and looking forward to seeing her fly. All those public donations have got them as far as knowing it IS technically feasible... unfortunately that's where the money has now run out.

How are they his PRIVATE ends when the intention is to fly the aircraft at PUBLIC events for the PUBLIC's enjoyment?

swinging monkey
21st Nov 2002, 11:15
you are patently blind to my remarks over our money (yours, mine and thousands of others) being wasted on a private venture, that may well fizzel out if we don't cough up a bit more, but nevertheless, just two little points:

Firstly, Was the lottery going in 1993? I don't think so, so how was it ever going to be funded?

Secondly, did he intend to fly her at displays for free then?? I very much doubt it. Of course the public would have enjoyed seeing her fly, but do you honestly expect me to believe that he would do it for free or even at cost? Come come Damien, even I am not that silly, and I'm sure the majority of the British public arn't either.

As someone who has had a major involvement in one of this countys biggest airshows for several years, I know how much private aircraft charge to come to shows, and they are not cheap. But good luck to them, its their livelihood, and I for one see nothing wrong with making money - after all, we all do it! But my point, which you clearly fail to see, is that when things go wrong, or when the money runs out, why should the lottery bail them out? I for one don't think it should - sorry!

KEEP 558 IN ENGLAND, AT ALL COSTS!!! thats what I say
:D :D :D


The Swinging Monkey
'Winch me up Roberts!'

21st Nov 2002, 11:23
You think those private aircraft make a profit out of airshow appearances, once all the maintenance needed to keep them in the air is taken into consideration? Blimey. Try speaking to somebody other than the Utterly Butterly team!

If David had wanted a profit from 558, he'd have cut her up and sold the bits to spotters in 1993.

If all you have to say is limited to casting aspersions on a chap who's done his very best to get this aircraft back in the sky and entertaining people, then you really don't have very much to say at all, do you?

swinging monkey
21st Nov 2002, 11:38

OK I give up:confused:
You just don't get it do you? You cannot see or even acknowledge other peoples views.
You completely refuse to discuss the points in question and prefer instead to berate people whose view are not 100% in line with yours. Never mind.
So, you win, I simply can't be ar**ed to waste any more of my valuable time talking to such a narrow-minded chap like you.
Best wishes

The Swinging Monkey
'Lets get out of here Smithers!'

21st Nov 2002, 12:17
Well said swinging monkey!

Grob Driver
21st Nov 2002, 13:33
Here here Monkey man… I’m with you all the way!

Unfortunately, it seems that Damien cant see past his own nose! Damien I think a lot of the comments you make are utter cr*p. They are my views there’s one area you’ll struggle to argue with! Sorry, but these private ventures do make money… That’s how they are about to run them as a business. Just look at them (not going to mention names), they must be making money if they re able to fly some of the aircraft that are now on the display circuit…. More hunters that the RAF has Tornado’s (Well, serviceable ones anyway!). And it’s not only hunters… you don’t need me to list them all to you, but there’s no shortage of ex military hardware on the display circuit these days. Would be nice if a Vulcan could join them. At the end of the day, your good friend Mr Walton must have plenty of money (after all, he’s a farmer isn’t he!!!?) – Sorry,. Little dig there! Let him pay for it out of his own pocket.

21st Nov 2002, 15:59
Oooh... it must be so annoying for your opinions, based on mad rumours and hearsay, to be challenged by somebody who has a passing acquaintance with some of those annoying fact things.

You really think 558 would be funded by airshow fees alone, and still make a handsome profit on top, better than the hundreds of thousands a pounds a year David is losing by not having all of the hangar available for storage purposes? Airshow fees are a nice addition but no way do they, on their own, make a viable economic proposition to operate an ex-mil jet. Look at how many Hunters Delta operate, for instance, and look at how many airshow appearances are carried out by them. I have a rough idea what they charge, and do you think that amount (less fuel) multiplied by appearances really pays for their operation? You must be having a laugh - either that or this is really, really crap banter.

Grob Driver
21st Nov 2002, 16:13
Poor Mr Walton loosing all that money… my hear bleeds for the guy….. Get him to plant a few more spuds!

He needs to decide what he wants to do… Go for it…. If he wants to store things in his hangar, sell her. It’s his choice. Funny thing that is that that’s exactly what hangars are for… storing things…. Only it’s normally aircraft that they store, not aluminium cans! (and damien, dont come back telling me that it's not cans he stores... that was just an example!)

Good job you’re here Damien, or Mr Walton would be taking a right battering wouldn’t he! Still, you’re doing a good job in his defence! Shame Mr W cant join in though isn’t it… after all, that would stop all these rumours you keep talking about wouldn’t it!
:D :D

21st Nov 2002, 18:13
I'll take that as an admission you haven't a clue about running costs of ex-mil jets on the civvy register - why not just say that instead of banging on with your tiresome anti-farmer jibes.

As you aren't interested in the realities of the situation I see no further point in taking part in this 'discussion'. Have fun.

swinging monkey
21st Nov 2002, 20:17
I know I said I wouldn't waste any more time on you, but I am compelled to keep up this banter against your nonesence:D
I don't know the grob drivers background, but I can tell you that I DO KNOW how much it costs to keep these dear old birds flying, and I would even agree with you that it IS NOT a cheap game, but...and it is a very BIG BUT.....the charges made for appearances at airshows are even bigger. I know, believe me!
How on earth do all of these warbird owners such as OFMC et al turn it into a thriving business?? Where does their money come from?? maybe they have won the lottery!
You keep harping on that keeping 558 is costing Mr walton 100's of thousands of pounds a year. Why is it? and if it is, where is he getting all of his money from? Why isn't his accountant saying 'hey Dave, that bloody tin triangle is costing you a mint, best got shot'??
The facts are simple, but I will inform you of them once again.
Dave walton has got and has received, from the public, a great deal of money. It is grossly unfair and immoral of him to now hold the British public to ransom by saying that unless they cough up some more, the bird goes to the States.
That Damien is disgraceful and shameful (assuming it is the truth of course)
You keep telling us not to listen to mad rumours, and yet looking back, you appear to have been defending Mr walton over these 'mad rumours' - me thinks they are not so mad after all maybe
:p :D

Sorry Damien, I'm sure your a nice guy, with your heart in the right place. But do try to look at the argument from the other side of the fence. Perhaps then you will see why many of us, aviators or not, are asking difficult questions about 558.

Keep Swinging damien.

The Swinging Monkey
'Jefferson, pass me another Scotch old boy'

21st Nov 2002, 20:35
One final swing for you my simian friend... OFMC make most of their money from film work (advertising, feature films, TV etc.). Airshow appearances would not fund the operation on their own. You think airshow fees are high - you should the ones for filming!

Toodle pip

Grob Driver
21st Nov 2002, 21:23
Damien, you say that you’re not taking part in this discussion any more, but I’d bet my last £1 that you’re still reading this… you have to be. After all… you have a vested interest in the Vulcan.

First – You have got no idea what I know about the costs involved in running ex-military jets on the civil register… I know one thing for sure. It is a viable proposition. Don’t give me some crap how it’s not…. IT IS.

Please, just try and see this argument from the other side of the fence. Of all the points I have made, the only one you agree with is that it’s bad of TVOC not to respond when I’ve contacted them, although you’ve gone on to defend them because I didn’t phone… I used e-mail! You blatantly deny that the majority of Vulcan’s are in bad condition despite the fact that they are. Both The Swinging Monkey and Adrian mole have confirmed this. I’m happy to listen to your comments, but you must consider others too… there are people out there who do know more than you!

All I’ve asked from you over the past few days is some info from Mr Walton regarding the plans for the Vulcan… an official point of view. All you keep saying is look at the web site. You sound like a bloody politician! I don’t want to look at the site any more. I can find ****** all on there about the plans for the jet now that the lottery bid has failed. Given your role in the Vulcan web site, I’m sure you must be in regular contact with Mr Walton / TVOC. How about asking them for a quote that you can put on here as the ‘official line’ so that we all know what’s going on?

In fact… come to think of it… Are you Mr Walton!? One has to wonder in view of some of your comments! Oh, and sorry about the farmer joke – I didn’t expect you to have a sense of humour failure. Although how you can say they are tiresome… there’s only been one!

21st Nov 2002, 22:37

" In fact? come to think of it? Are you Mr Walton!? One has to wonder in view of some of your comments! Oh, and sorry about the farmer joke ? I didn?t expect you to have a sense of humour failure. Although how you can say they are tiresome? there?s only been one!"

I can tell you that DamienB is definitely not Dave Walton. I know you were in "banter" mode GrobD but that is the way malicious rumours start.

Anyway, if the Vulc is a no-go for lotto geld because it's (a) private, and (b) possibly a flyer, how about the RAF Museum applying for funds to bring B(I)8 Canberra WT346 back home from its tardy exile in New Zealand. That is after Hendon's new "hangar" is finished of course. ;) ;)

21st Nov 2002, 23:07
If I may intrude again in this relatively closed debate. I have no insight into the commercial intrigue involved in display matters involving old aeroplanes; all I can offer is dated practical experience.

You may know that its a comletely electric aeroplane, a lot of it is triple phase, triple fed and the wiring is uniquely airframe specific. I can recall a last minute no-go problem which only revealed itself after over 100 fuses had blown; the wiring was 30 years younger then.

I'm not a damp squib by nature but I think this enterprise is fraught with danger and should be left to lie fallow; we've all been shaving with the Ark Royal for 30 years, this is no different let's just preserve the static diplay airframes properly and have done with it.

Nothing matters very much, most things don't matter at all.

Grob Driver
21st Nov 2002, 23:42

It would only be a malicious rumour if I said Damien was Mr Walton… I didn’t I, only asked a question. But like you said… it was banter! Anyway, not to worry about that!

Sorry, excuse my ignorance but I’m not sure what point you are tying to make about bringing Canberra WT346 back from New Zealand. Sorry… Please can you explain? I’m assuming that they have applied for lottery funding?

22nd Nov 2002, 15:57

Sorry, excuse my ignorance but I?m not sure what point you are tying to make about bringing Canberra WT346 back from New Zealand. Sorry? Please can you explain? I?m assuming that they have applied for lottery funding?

'Twas a bit off-topic in this thread I agree. This particular Cranberry was under discussion here a couple of threads back though, so I thought I'd drop it in the disussion here (maybe wrongly) as an example of something the lotto "could" possibly sanction - but don't hold your breath.

Point was, If the Vulc isn't getting lotto funding because, as said, private owner and complex/potential flyer etc, what would be the chances of the lotto shelling out to the RAF Museum in an effort to return another "heritage" aircraft to the UK. There is, unhappily, no current national or private interest group involved in such a project, it was just a thought. Will never happen though, why? because, as with most preservation projects (including 558) they generally come about through the "vision/determination" of a single individual. If, as time goes by, such a project matures into a trust, or group, or charity, this is a good thing - with 558 it hasn't. . . yet. A lot of preserved airframes in the UK have achieved this stage though, but I doubt many, if any, have received a single penny from the lottery funds.

If Air Atlantique can't get their Shackleton back into the UK with all their resources, what REAL chance has TVOC got?

Anyway, 'nuff of this, carry on that man.

Troy Tempest
22nd Nov 2002, 23:02
Just came to this thread quite late on and must comment about the Vulcan in Sunderland - it is not in "quite a state" - it is still structurally very sound and is currently undergoing a repaint. I know that a lot of work is planned to ensure this aircraft remains in a relatively good state of repair.
Most corrsoion is superficial and is capable of being treated so shouldn't be written off! Don't think what you see on the surface
is all you get!!

Must say that approaches for funding to get the aircraft undercover seem to come to nothing. It seems that as we already have 2 under cover in the uk the finances are not available to preserve any more.......

22nd Nov 2002, 23:28
As many have pointed out, the reason the Vulcan did not get a grant has more to do with the quality of the request and less to do with the imagined political bias of those who make the grants.

The Lottery Fund has made many grants for aviation heritage projects and for the preservation of specific historic aircraft. The RAF and those with an interest in military aviation have a good deal to thank the Lottery Fund for. In addition to the previously mentioned £9million grant for the Imperial War Museum at Duxford, the Fund has made the following grants:

Title: Royal Air Force Museum, Hendon - Development
Region: LONDON
Local Authority: Barnet
Grant Amount: £4772000

The RAF Museum is pre-eminent in the field of aviation museums in the UK and is the national repository for military aircraft. Its collection of over 200 aircraft is the largest in the UK. The collection includes some of the rarest and earliest machines in the world. The museum will create a new landmark building at RAF Hendon, to increase the number of aircraft on view and allow them to be displayed in a new and exciting manner.

Title: Wellington Hangar Refurbishment
Region: SE
Local Authority: Elmbridge
Grant Amount: £994000

A grant of £994,000 has been awarded to Brooklands Museum, near Weybridge, Surrey, towards improvements for its unique collection dedicated to aviation and motorsport. Repairs will be made to restore its Grade II listed Bellman hangar - the Wellington Hangar - back to its wartime appearance, creating a better home for the aircraft and associated memorabilia. Some items will be displayed for the first time, with improved interpretation.

Title: Duxford Civil Airliners, Restoration and Preservation
Region: EE
Town: Duxford
Local Authority: South Cambridgeshire
Grant Amount: £314500

Duxford Aviation Society will restore five British civil airliners dating from 1945-1974 listed by the British Aircraft Preservation Council National Aviation Heritage Register as being of national and operational significance. The five are: the Handley Page Hermes constructed in 1945 and in use until 1962; the Avro York 1946-1964; the Airspeed Ambassador 1952-1971; the de Havilland Comet 4 1958-1973; and the Concorde 1974-7. All the work will take place in public view and will serve to raise public awareness of the importance of historic preservation and interest in participating in it.

Title: 1903 Wright Flier Replica - Acquisition
Region: YH
Town: YORK
Local Authority: York
Grant Amount: £10000

This grant will fund the acquisition of one of only three replicas in Europe of the 1903 Wright Flier for the Yorkshire Air Museum. The museum is the largest World War II Bomber Command Station open to the public in the country and is a living memorial to the Allied Air Forces who served in Yorkshire during the war. The acquisition is of significant importance, primarily for educational value, and will greatly contribute to the museum`s development on aviation history. The aircraft will remain in Yorkshire where it was constructed and made its first flight. Local volunteers will be encouraged to get involved in the care and interpretation of the aircraft.

Title: Aviation And Heritage Centre
Region: WMID
Town: Shifnal
Local Authority: Bridgnorth
Grant Amount: £1520222

The Aerospace Museum at Cosford is one of the most important and popular museums in the West Midlands, attracting some 117,000 visitors each year to see its collections. Over 80 aircraft, 50 aeroengines, 40 missiles and military vehicles are exhibited at Cosford, which is situated on an airfield site surrounded by parkland in rural Shropshire. The museum is renowned for its national collection of Research and Development Aircraft, wartime and post-war military aircraft, including captured enemy aircraft, the British Airways Museum Collection and a collection of rockets and missiles, reputed to be the finest in the world. In Phase I of the Development Plan, the Museum upgraded its exhibition halls. Phase II will concentrate on improving facilities for visitors. The grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund will enable the Museum to build an aviation Heritage and Training Centre which will incorporate visitor reception facilities including modern toilets and amenities for people with disabilities, a restaurant, museum shop, offices and a conference centre. The new building will release space in the exhibition halls for artefacts currently in store, for a temporary exhibition gallery, an education centre and for the conservation of exhibits. It will also provide accommodation for the Museum`s growing number of volunteers.

Title: Royal Air Force Museum, Hendon - Development
Region: LONDON
Local Authority: Barnet
Grant Amount: £79200

The RAF museum in Hendon is the national repository for military aircraft and is one of the five great air museums in the world. The grant will be used as development funding towards the projected construction of a new landmark building for the display of the collections.

Title: Royal Wessex
Region: SW
Local Authority: North Somerset
Grant Amount: £89955

The Helicopter Museum has acquired the Queen`s helicopter for its collection. the helicopter, a customised Westland Wessex HCC.4, was built at Yeovil in Somerset in 1969, serving with the Royal Flight until the unit was privatised and handed over to a civil contractor in 1998. Since then the Wessex has been in storage at RAF Shawbury in Shropshire.

I could go on...........

23rd Nov 2002, 09:44

Out of the seven items on your non-exhaustive list only three concerned actual aircraft! Of those three, the airliners are hardly military and ex-Royal Flight's Wessex is not really "representative". Your short list shows that from the £7.7 million listed only £414.5K was for actual aircraft, the rest, £7.3 million, was for buildings, amenities and suchlike - not a very good balance is it? I realise that such enterprises must have infrastructure but surely these huge grants can only add to the value of the site itself not it's aircraft.

Maybe, then, TVOC have taken the wrong approach as you say. Maybe they should have applied for a grant to build a new hangar (like, say, Duxford's US mushroom), facilities for volunteers, carparks, etc. Then as part of their bid, written in that their Vulc would be used to fly in the bricks and girders and stuff but it need making servicable first.

Troy Tempest
23rd Nov 2002, 11:26
The other interesting point to note about the previous list is that the bulk of the money goes to those large organisations that already are extremely well funded. Those trying to preserve our military heritage with fewer resources (or with a single aircraft like the Vulcan) generally don't seem to get a look in. I think we are in danger of having preservation based in Hendon, Duxford and Cosford and if you don't live near there - tough!

23rd Nov 2002, 13:06
My point was to counter some of the more hysterical rantings against the Lottery Fund by the ill-informed and gullible Daily Mail reading element herein, rather than to prove the Fund is the patron saint of military aircraft restorers.

23rd Nov 2002, 13:33
Unless Sir Ricky can get at least 50 Upper Class on board for a VIP route to BVI, I doubt if he would be interrested.

Oscar Duece
23rd Nov 2002, 15:14
Richard Branson = Avoid like the plague if at all possible.

He may be seen by joe public as a kind, generous callenger to all things. But thats just an image. Take a closer look at the man and what he does, then you will see the true picture.
All these challenges (boats, ballons etc.) he is involved in, he takes control and turns them in to a virgin brand publicity drive. Forcing out all other involved. Just have a chat to Chay Blythe about the atlantic crossing project he started. That turned in to a virgin only thing and he wasn't even allowed to promote his own boat company in the end....
Don't open that can of worms.

Anyway. I hope the big V takes to the Uk skies again. I put my money were my mouth was last year and gave them £ 50-00.

E & OE

24th Nov 2002, 18:19
Iouldnt be Ar4ed reading all this thread, but I remember watching a Vulc at woodford many yrs ago and wondering how it stayed airborne. I swear it was only doing 30mph in some of those turns.

I dont think I have ever been more impressed at an airshow
-except for the young thai lady at Blackpool when I was about 13, who was wearing a black string vest and no bra.

Whatever happened to Lusty Lindy, that Victor thingy. Do they still blat that up and down the runway?

10th Dec 2002, 20:28
Firstly, I must apologise for not reading this thread first and starting another off in the Nostalgia section.

I would agree that the info coming out of TVOC or Bruntingthorpe is pretty awful. I am an associate member (£250 for that), and have received 3 emails in about 2 years despite being promised a lot of other things. However, I don't really care about that, I would love to see her return to the skies.

As I mentioned on the other thread, my father was involved in the flights trials of the Vulcan and I accompanied him to a lecture by Dr Fleming (ph, sorry its a few years ago) at the Royal Aeronautical Society lecture in London. My father raised various points of safety, mainly surrounding the fact that flying the Vulcan would be hard on the old parts, but displaying it is going to test everything to the maximum. (My father has had many experiences of the pfc's going dead including an interesting one where one half of them went U/S in flight and decided to go fully down (not that it was supposed to happen). Only relatively stable conditions allowed for a safe landing to be made.) Mr Fleming dismissed all of his points as "not a concern" as all the parts would be overhauled etc.

Anyway, I am not sure what input the ex-VDF gave/are giving to Mr Walton in terms of what the main challenges are, hopefully a lot. I would be most interested to hear of some of the big-issues 558 had during her last season as I have many a fond memory of her.

Finally, Damien, if you want to get her in the air again, organise a professional campaign to get it done. I know you have employed so called professionals before and they just took your money. She will never fly unless you find a proper project leader, somebody with a bit of go.

Good luck in any case

swinging monkey
11th Dec 2002, 09:41

Enjoyed reading your posting, particularly the bit about how you have received very little from the VOC, despite your most generous donation. I fear Sir, you are not alone.
Regretably this forum seems to have faded into obscurity, but I hope that this brings it back to the 'for, and we can elicit some form of 'official' response from the club.
It is, however, desperately sad that none of the questions and points raised by myself and The Grob Driver have received any form of 'official' responce whatsoever.
Based on the fact that Damien has gone to extreme lengths to defend Mr Walton to the hilt, and dismiss every negative comment ever made against him, particularly these 'scurilous rumours!' I do find it all rather surprising and a little dissapointing, don't you?

So come on Damien, you've had plenty of time to draft some kind of official comment/press release to answer the questions posed, where are you??

Maybe you could specifically answer the previous subscribers comment about three e-mails, two years and £250.00 Hum, £83.33 per e-mail, that's not bad going that! And you wonder why people like me a sceptical eh??

The swinging Monkey
'Forward 10 and Right, that's better Jonesy!'

11th Dec 2002, 11:04
Rather surprised the unscrupulous one hasn't got involved in this

Come on Jacko, ain't there some column inches to be had here? :D