BEagle

Could you confirm then, in terms for a simpleton like me, that this means the hangar rent is £15000 per month - so in the 31 months since 31 July 2005, some £465000 will have gone in rent alone?

Next question:

• Who owns the hangar and receives these rental payments?

forget

As I read it, £180K per annum hangar rent. Also;

BEagle

In other words then, the Waltons sold the aircraft to the Trust in Mar 2005 and must therefore, since then, have received some £180000 x (35/12) = £525000 in hangar and office rent alone?

All of which has come from public contributions and the HLF?

forget

Whilst the contract for the purchase of Avro Vulcan XH558 and related assets from C. Walton Ltd was relatively simple,

Not sure. Is that one seller, or two? I can only produce very indirect links to the pdf on the Charities Web Site. I'll see if I can improve on that - or could someone host a pdf.

BEagle

The 'Thunder and Lightnings' website has a good summary of the project, leading up to the first flight.

Last updated 27 Oct 2007.....

Edit - PPRuNe software won't allow a direct link.....

forget

Try this for latest filed accounts-

http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/...050731_E_C.PDF

andrewmcharlton

Here's a sobering thought.....

If you look at TVOC's website you will see that last week's e-donations were a little over £7,000.

Let's call it an average of £30,000 a month.

Of that, £15,000 goes to Mr Walton's company (landlords and previous owners of the Vulcan). Assume the good Dr is making the same money as was being charged out previously (assumptions I know) then his company is taking around £7,000 a month.

That gives us around £22,000 a month outlays BEFORE any staff get paid.

No wonder there is little hope of them ever getting out of the cycle of doom based "bail us out" donations.

Of course we don't know this to be the case because they haven't filed any accounts or publicised any figures.

With the year end at 31 July, if the Trustees do not file their accounts and annual returns before 31 May, the Charity could be struck off the register.

BEagle

Those accounts are from July 2005....

However, I note the following:



Note the words 'for each financial year'.

Additionally, the figures for 'consultancy' do seem rather high......

forget

On the positive side the Board of Trustees includes some very reputable people. The Accounts were 'Approved by the Board of Trustees on 7/7/06 and signed on its behalf by Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Knight KCB AFC FRAeS. Chairman'. This 1960's ex Vulcan fairy believes that Air Chief Marshals don't get caught by any shonky business as a) they're too smart, and b) that's one reason they're Air Chief Marshals. Let's hope!

deltapapa

Sir Michael Knight is no longer Chairman of the Board of Trustees & has not been since last August due to personal reasons

Lancasterman

Hmm makes one wonder if even if she was to go to another field to be based at then how much more in rent would it cost? Does she really need to be kept inside 24/7? Will be interesting to see where this story ends up as for me and this is my own opinion, that if she doesn't get a sponsor which seems highly unlikely then she will forever remain ground bound. Have they looked at gaining contracts for research flights or even to work alongside the RAF or MOD for testing or fighter interception flights with the typhoon?

forget

Whey hey! A thinking man! These guys rely on a 146, which rather limits their 'upper atmosphere'.

http://www.ncas.ac.uk/news/stories/trex_june06.htm

And it's been there before!

Wiki. Only five of the B.2(MRR)s were capable of the air sampling role, those that were included XH537, XH558 and XH560. These aircraft could be distinguished by the additional hard points outside of the Skybolt points. These additional points sometimes carried redundant Sea Vixen drop tanks that had the nose section replaced by a newer section of a larger diameter. Another external, but much smaller, piece of equipment was carried just outboard of the port undercarriage main door.

Andy Leitch.

forget

GeeRam

Hanger rental is the one expense along with actual restorations costs that are not an issue in my view, and is not something that the Walton family should have any critism aimed at....I've heard from Brunty sources that he's personally out of pocket to a six figure sum regarding '558.

As I understand it, '558 lived in that hangar along while it was being used for Walton business purposes that they got a good income from, so as it wasn't possible to move the a/c to another location, and the hangar was required to be upgraded for H&S etc reasons that meant sole occupancy for the hangar, and therefore a loss of earning from the hangar's use up to that time. I see it only fair that TVOC reimburse that loss of earning.

I can't see why the Waltons' should have been further out of pocket for an unknown length of time for something that they no longer had a responsiblity for and had already done financially more than there bit to help with already.

Surely, if this was suich an issue, there was even more of a case for getting her moved and flight tested as soon as possible after that first flight last year..?

I think there are far more serious issues than the hangar rental costs....

Like the financial viability of ever operating a cash consumption machine such as a Vulcan in private hands in the first place......

Tyres O'Flaherty

As has been mentioned before ( on this thread I believe ? ), 558 has only a few ( or even maybe only one ) pressurisation cycle available left on the cockpit seal, think the idea was to keep it below fl10

flipflopman RB199

Tyres,

That's quite correct. This is one of the major limiting factors of 558, as once those pressurisation cycles are used up (Around 8, I believe) the airframe is effectively scrap, as this area cannot be repaired/replaced without enormous cost. To this end, XH558 is now limited to FL150, with the pressurisation system permanently disabled.


Flipflopman

andrewmcharlton

Flipflopman,

Are there any other limiting factors (in laymans speak apologies) that would preclude any particular type of ops, e.g. G Limitations that would restrict display maneouvres or say major replacements / repairs that have been discovered since all the fine work you and your colleagues have done that weren't contemplated or originally planned for.

If a major sponsor was found / funding of one sort or another became available are there any mega expenses that weren't originally forseen that now need to be factored in ?

flipflopman RB199

Andrewmcharlton,

Forgive my ignorance, but I'm not entirely sure what you are asking me there. As goes physical limitation of the aircraft, as you are probably aware, there is an Altitude limitation of FL150 on the aircraft now, due to pressurisation issues, and there are new speed restrictions on the aircraft, with a Vne of 330kts, and a normal max operating speed of 300kts. This is due in no small part to the addition of aerials for the new avionics fit.

I believe, that the intention is to operate the aircraft to a gentler extent than previously, however, this is not strictly an airframe limitation, more a desire to ensure that the FI usage is kept to a minimum.

As far as I am aware, and I must stress that I no longer work for TVOC, there are no new major expenses that need to be factored in to any new appeal for cash. So far, the aircraft has been very well behaved, however, bear in mind that it has only flown once, so there may well yet be problems with serviceability, only time will tell.

Hope that clears a few questions up.

Cheers,


Flipflopman

andrewmcharlton

Thanks, spot on Flipflopman.

I wasn't aware you weren't at TVOC, apologies, no offence intended.

Andrew

vickyv

Hi Guys,

I have been watching the forums and listening to people i have met at the airfield and i have some questions.

1. As a regular donator over the last few years both at airshows and while visiting the airfield at unrelated events i was horrified to find out that recently a member of staff was fired for stealing a large amount of money from the project. This info was given to me by someone in the canteen at the airfield.
Has appropriate legal action been taken against the individual and has the money been returned?
What controls are in place within the company to stop this from happening again and how could it happen in the first place?

2. We were on the airfield recently for an open day and in the canteen a group of people were talking and they said that during that day the engineers had done things with the aircrfat they should not have done.
Does this explain the recent "lock-down" i have heard about where the engineers were prohibited from doing any work on the aircraft at all?
If it is the case then surely the vulcan deserves to be maintained to the highest standard and not be treated as a toy.

3.Why is it that when ever i have been to the airfield and have discussed the Vulcan, all i hear is that the management of the project are always alienating people and are not willing to admit their shortcomings and tend to try to blame people around them for any problems.
Why are they always struggling to raise money or even pay off current hangerage bills etc?
I applaud the fact that several millions of pounds have been raised over the last few years BUT we are now hopefully going in to the flying life of the aircraft and people cannot rest on their laurels for ever.

4.It also worries me that the general public are not allowed to ask probing questions about a project that is at the end of the day being financed by the public. I appreciate there are people who don't want it to succeed but when you hear that the official TVOC website's forum is apparently vetted by the management and any entries they do not like the sound of are taken off, it gets abit big brotherish.

I really want the Vulcan to fly as much as anyone but things i hear worry me.
Any body else know about these things?
If so why is nothing done to sort the project out?
It is OUR project so we should start asking awkward questions!