andrewmcharlton

Boys can we have a bit of collective winding in of one's necks.

There is no mileage in simply restating everything over and over again Tim. Point is made, well; move on.

If something new happens great but this is just churning the same chod that's already ben flung.

Come on lads (and lasses).

bubblesuk

Tim

The hlf said LAST YEAR that they had no requests from T.V.O.C. Pleming among others said the latest request was made w/c 3rd of FEBUARY THIS YEAR. now i dont dispute that what the H.L.F. said last year was correct but that was last year Tim around mid year if im not mistaken so that info is about 6 months old. Evan you have to accept that alot can happen in that time and it is a bit far fetched to call pleming and others liers based on a 6 month old F.O.I. request.

Sm is right in what he says and to be honest with you Tim he is in a far better place to comment than yourself as he has dealings on a day to day basis with some of those within T.V.O.C. but i do agree with you in that the changes with need to be hell of alot more visable. but of course you will niether listen nor take any notice of what i say.

Tim McLelland

indeed, some tangible evidence would be nice...

G4136

Winco said "The Vulcan has NOT been grounded by the recession. It has been grounded by greed. The recession might not have helped things I accept, but the countless tens or hundreds of thousands of people who have given their bloody-hard-earned money to this project will be thoroughly disgusted to find that a huge amount of it has gone to pay Pleming and another huge amount has gone to pay Walton."

I understood that Mr Walton was paid a mere £125K for the aero & all of the spares & docs; not a great deal really, considering how much he spent and forgoed over the years keeping her "alive".
He IS owed a very large sum for subsequent hangar rental, but even that is peanuts compared to what he could have earned from the space. Mr Walton is not a villain here imho. Far from it.

Bye

Getting grants from any government etc agency is a nightmare.

You have to do a lot of work up front, with no guarantee of getting the grant.

The grant will allways require matched funding, for example the HLF will expect 25% matched funding.

That 25% can be in the form of volunteer hours etc.

The key is to tailor your application in line with the grant conditions.

So if they say sorry we're not giving you more cash, its probable that you have asked in the wrong way.

For example if the HLF say they only fund capital projects then that is what you have to apply for.

So with the Vulcan they should be applying for a grant to build a new hangar on a new site.

The grant can only be used for that purpose but would certainly reduce the operating costs.

There are plenty of other capital expenditure projects that they could be applying for to reduce the operating costs.

Forgot to say, one condition of a HLF grant is evidence has to be provided of the viability of the project going beyond the grant and to show its sustainability.

i would love to see the business plan for TVOC

Geoff

Tim McLelland

I agree entirely Bye - it's absolute folly to write-off HLF either by claiming to have asked for more money but having failed to do so or (if Pleming is telling the truth and has repeatedly asked) by simply taking no for an answer. It's the only way that money could be found easily and it's the only source where TVOC have a legitimate claim to more money, simply because the money they've already been given will be wasted if they don't get some more. A child could see the logic of this point. Rather than waste their time doing heaven-knows what, they should be pressurising HLF (or pressurising MP's to pressurise HLF for them), to make an exception, change their rules, or do whatever it takes to use some of our money to prevent the money we've already spent, being wasted. There can not be a definitive "no" from the HLF - it's our money and if they claim their rules prohibit giving TVOC more cash then TVOC should be demanding that the rules are changed. We have a perfect right to see our money spent however we like and TVOC have a golden opportunity to portray HLF as a bunch of money-wasting fools, but will they take the opportunity? Nah, somehow I doubt it. They'll stick to monthly press releases asking for more donations.

andrewmcharlton

Tim,

"We" are not demanding that HLF give them the money. I for one, as a member of "we" would not want to see them give another penny UNLESS it was clear that the plan, assuming such a thing exists, is sustainable.

I recall the same issues a year ago. Scrape enough money to make it fly just one season and it will be ok, we've come this far etc etc.

If there is not a systematic change in transparency, leadership, commercial approach et al it is, I am afraid, like p*ssing in the breeze.

If it is demonstrated that changes have been made, will be made etc and there is a sustainable option then "we" are happy to pay more cash over. Otherwise "we" will be back in the same boat next year after another season of crying wolf. Mark my words.

Tim McLelland

Well true, that's the trouble, nobody is demanding anything. It seems pretty clear that everybody has a different view so there's never going to be a collective view that anyone will take seriously.

Personally I'd settle for another million or so from HLF to fly the aircraft this year. I think a couple of years on the display circuit is a fair return on their investment but after this year then I think it's a non-starter whatever happens, but then I always thought that. I never thought enough interest would be sustained to support the aircraft for more than a couple of years or so.

Winco

G4136

How much do you think Walton is owed then?

If you would care to take yourself back a few pages, and have a good read of the accounts, then you will see what I mean. Pleming and Walton between them, have taken a huge chunk of money that was donated by the public to get this aircraft back into the air. The public did not know or appreciate that they would be paying these 2 individuals an outrageous amount of money for the 'storage' of the aircraft or for 'consultancy' work, and that is appalling.

I have never accused Walton of being a villain at all, but you have to ask yourself why such huge amounts have been paid out to these two guys? You claim that he could have made even more money by using the hangar to store his potatoes. Really? Are you absolutely certain about that? If it is true, then I'll take a hit, but I seriously doubt that you can earn that amount of money from storing spuds frankly!

As for the debate on the aircraft going to the US, I have no doubts that the Americans would love to get their hands on it. They would pay whatever it costs to get her over there, where she would go probably on the 'experimental' register and fly her heart out!!

I hope she does go to be honest with you, and we can put an end to all this rubbish with Pleming and TVOC. The project has become a farce.

LookingNorth

You certainly are painting David as some sort of money-grubbing villain.

As far as I'm aware, albeit from second-hand info, he is owed a great deal of money by the Vulcan mob and has already written off a large amount of it, and would be one of the major creditors if it all fails. This on top of all of his personal money that he poured into keeping the aircraft going before VTST purchased it make him a hero, not a villain. I'm not sure why their accounts says so much has been spent on hangarage when I've heard from more than one source that they haven't actually paid it yet - do you declare debts as money that's effectively been spent already?

I've also seen the figures that the hangar can earn for storage (not of potatoes!), and they are far beyond any reasonable hangarage fees for an aircraft.

Without David Walton 558 would have been scrapped in 1993 and none of us would have been able to enjoy a second chance at seeing her fly. If it all goes tits up now, I wouldn't be surprised to see him becoming more directly involved again.

andrewmcharlton

What Walton and Pleming have done historically is of no importance whatsoever. The future lies in not being in hock to these two gentlemen in any way shape or form.

Credit to them for past achievements which are not insignificant but the whole business model is utterly unsustainable in its current guise.

JEM60

Winco. The Americans at Airshows I attend there are not at all interested in aircraft that are 'non-American.' They are, as we all know, a fiercely patriotic race, and restoring their B.29 Superfortress, which is far more important than a Vulcan to them would be much more of a priority to them.It
it is proving extremely difficult to finance this aircraft, so not much chance with the Vulcan. Whilst the piston engined Warbird movement is very healthy, their postwar jet movement [apart from hordes of L.39s in Thunderbird colours [????] is not in good health at all. Restored F.86s would take precedence over anything from us Brits. Tim will probably dispute this, as he has before, but the only twin-engined military jets in private hands shown flying at Airshows are an F.4 [Collings Foundation] appearances are rare to say the least, and Rick Sugdens T.2 Buckeye.!!.
If money existed for more aircraft, I suggest it wouldn't be a British one. Yes, I know about Art Nalls and his Sea Harrier, but it's cost is minimal to operate compared with the 'Tin Triangle' There are more American twin engined jets that are supposedly airworthy and in private hands, but when it comes to shows, but neither I, nor my friends, who 'Airshow' much more than I, have ever seen them!!! Not a lot of chance for a four engined one,though I would like to think it was possible, but I fear this is extremely unlikely.

Tim McLelland

It would be a tad unfair to criticise David Walton in any way. He bought the aircraft in the first place so without him there would have been no aircraft (or spares) to fly. The fact that he's taken a lot of money for hangarage is another matter entirely. Hangarage was free until the saga with dear Felicity which ultimately resulted in Walton charging for hangar space - and frankly if I'd been treated like that I would have done the same. If TVOC wanted to save all that money they should have re-negotiated their relationship with Walton or moved the aircraft elsewhere - and before all the usual smart alecs say "where", that hardly matters - point is, they didn't move elsewhere nor did they ever attempt to as far as I can determine.

Responsibility for the whole saga rests with Pleming -he's the head honcho and has been paid accordingly, therefore the buck stops with him. He's been congratulated on getting the aircraft back into the air and whilst I agree that was an achievement, I don't think he did anything that anyone else couldn't have done, but fair enough, he did it and that's fine. Point is, it's everything that's happened (or not happened) since then which has been so ridiculous and for which he receives a great deal or criticism - and quite rightly so.

saracenman

it seems all but impossible to successfully draw a line under anything on here!

whilst it has taken taken many months, TVOC management do now realise that mistakes have been made and that some things could've been done a lot differently; there really is very little purpose in going over the same old things time and time again.

what is important, i feel, is that 558 does represent a hugely valuable heritage and educational asset to our Nation. the proof of this is not difficult to see, and can be summed up astonishingly easily - the HLF grant!

558 broke the mould in terms of securing any funding from the HLF; they didn't give £2.7m out of the kindness of their hearts, but realised from the outset just how important 558 herself is to the education of British children. of course, the one important factor was that 558 should be a flying example of the type; it was on the basis of this that the grant was secured in the first place!

to my mind, nothing in this respect has changed one single bit - 558 still represents everything that she did when the HLF signed that cheque all that time ago.

for anyone to suddenly throw in the towel and be content that 558 could become just another museum exhibit is little more than an insult to some very eminent people who have made all this possible, particularly those within the HLF.

so, can we please leave the issues about what Mr. Walton did, whether Dr.Pleming did a bad job, how various managers have made mistakes, etc firmly in the past, and focus on the here and now?

as an extremely vocal TVOC critic in the past, i can see just how different the project is from this time last year; in February 2008, 558 hadn't even flown a second Test Flight, let alone secured a PtoF! we now have a management team who are much more aware than at any time before, with a defined focus on what needs to be achieved for the future, and an aeroplane ready and waiting to fly.

if anyone has any respect for the HLF and their appreciation of what 558 represents for our Nation, let's just knuckle down to ensure that all this effort is not in vain!

sm

PPRuNe Pop

And........people's beware.

We have noticed that naming names is becoming too commonplace. As you have anonimity so do they and without their permission it goes against PPRuNe's rules. It may be some names are familiar and are in the public domain. That does not mean that a willy nilly use can be made of names.

In recent posts some references to names also contain suggestions of disrepute in which case we would be very careful in deciding whether a post goes or stays.

One particular rule in PPRuNe is that if anyone makes strong accusations against anyone, they must be prepared to give their OWN personal details to those who might want them in the event that PPRuNe faces litigation.

saracenman

to the contrary TM!

I'm not sure what it will take to get you to realise this but...

Winco

sm

I do understand what you are saying, and I would even accept your comments that things are changing within the management side at Brunters. But what you are forgetting is that a great many people HAVE been saying this and raising concerns for a very long time, with no responce from Dr P at all to their concerns.

The public I fear, are now thoroughly fed up with hearing the same old pleading requests from Plemming, crying wolf whilst seeing how much money he has, and continues to take out of the project, and therebye lies the problem.

I think there is now a general lack of trust in him by the public. I'm not calling him a crook or even suggesting that he has done anything illegal, but I am saying that, IMHO the project has been managed poorly from the outset, and he has been paid a huge amount of money.

How do you convince the public that things have changed (for the better) and that things will improve? I would suggest that one of the first things you should do is get Plemming to come onto forums like this, own up and accept his shortcomings and failings and give us a 'no-nonesence' state-of-the-union address as to what is going to happen. No BS, just straight honest facts. Then we will all have it from the horses mouth and can make our own an informed judgement, instead of individual speculation.

But does anyone hear anything from the man? Do you think there is even the remotest chance of him 'going public' ? I don't think so. Not a hope in fact is there? That is why so many people, including myself, are so determined not to give anymore money to the project.

The Winco

saracenman

yes Winco - I've been one of the most vocal ones!

so-much-so that my name has been, at best, 'mud' for a very long time!

I'm not expecting anyone to simply believe everything i say as gospel, but when the likes of TM make sweeping statements like "...nobody has seen a shred of evidence.." it makes my blood boil.

unless of course TM thinks that i am simply 'nobody'!

there is a tremendous effort going on at the moment, and i am grown-up enough to try and demonstrate all the good things that are going on.

sm

bubblesuk

I had to laugh at Tims suggestion of printing this thread off and aproaching T.V.O.C. and demanding the questions be answerd. i showed this thread to my father today who was astonished to read it, i wont repeat what he said but put it this way it wasnt complimentary.


SM is right about there being change within T.V.O.C. and i have seen it as well, though to a lesser extent than he has, both of us at one point were persona non gratis due to our critisim at times and i can assure you that if SM says something you cant ake it as gospal, i would be very carefull about calling him a lier or implying he is a lier lol, the last one to do that seriously regretted it.

Bye

i'm just an ordinary member of the public.

i have no involvement with the Vulcan in any capacity.

i have donated my hard earned cash over the years to help get it flying again and keep it flying.

i never saw it fly last year as my few trips to see it were affected by weather and its no shows.

i dearly would love to see it keep flying in the UK.

the problem is that as an ordinary member of the public, the only information i get is second hand rumour etc.

i'm sure that SM is correct in that changes are being made but i don't see them. All i see is the same face saying we need 1.2 million for this year.

Do you need 1.2 million or do you want 1.2 million.

what do you really need. and to do what.

show us the figures for the coming years projection.

proper figures, not just 4 big numbers that add up to 1.2 million.

the business model must be fundamentally flawed in my humble outsiders view.

the only accounts we can see are 2007, 2008 being overdue.

hangarage costs should be about £6 per square foot with a T2 costing about £40K per year plus rates.

as an outsider all we see is a business lurching from one crisis to another with no obvious plan for a sustainable future.

i am reluctant to put my hand into my pocket continuously untill i know what my money is going to be spent on.

is it a business or is it a charity.

if the trust is a charity ( airframe owners ), then the operations that are contracted to TVOC ( a business ) should be offered for tender.

The whole structure seems wrong to me from a sustainability point of view.

just my outsiders view.

Geoff