Pontius Navigator

Maximum normal g is +1.75. You can do an impressive display at 1.25 to 1.5. I don't think we did a display in excess of 1.5g. High bank turns at 1.5g and around 190k are impressive enough.

A run in and climb is done at low speed not high speed. At high speed the climb would not be established in front of the crowd. At 200k or so the rotation and climb are in frint of the crowd.

Usual disclaimers, it was a long time ago.

BEagle

I certainly don't want to see a return to the fatiguing type of display we used to see from '558. Those stupid wing-rocking reversals inflicted on the aircraft were cringeworthy in the extreme.

High angle wingovers and gentle attitude changes, fine. But abrupt manoeuvres and harsh roll reversals - no thanks!

By the way, Tim, have you any idea how much it would cost to try to fly the aircraft to the US so that your oh-so-benevolent FAA could keep an eye on it, given that the aircraft cannot even be pressurised?

PPRuNe Pop

I really try to avoid deleting posts, issuing warnings about thread abuse and such on this forum, but this is one time I will.

There are some great posts on here about a highly emotive subject but for some reason one or two seem to think that it is their prerogative to shake the tree. It is obvious that most do not see it that way and neither do I.

What seems to be lost on some at least, is that this thread is inhabited by former Vulcan pilots, who know what they are talking about concerning the aircraft. Some who work at TVOC and have an axe to grind, and some who don't, then there are stirrers who are not welcome.

The future of this project is in doubt. There is no question of that. But, ideas and suggestions are running out of control and it must cease. If you have a point please make it but do please refrain from making assertions that are far from fact. Sensible observations are more than welcome.

I do not want to see the regulars leave us and I will be happy to remove the troublemakers in favour of those who make the thread a useful source of info, fun to read and to debate.

When you read this some posts will be gone, and I would be pleased to see the good contributors continue.

But be aware, we will not allow rubbish to spoil this thread.

Pontius Navigator

BEagle, do you agree with the g figures I quoted?

Tim McLelland

Well said Pprune Pop!

Beagle, if you're suggesting that a transatlanic flight would be costly, then surely that's even more reason to do it while some funds remain?

However, I assume from your tone that you don't think the idea is a good one? If so, I have to ask what you think the alternative is? Unless I'm missing something really obvious, I just don't see that there is any alternative which would offer even the slightest glimmer of getting the aircraft back into the air once the funding dries-up (and I agree that even transferring the aircraft to the US doesn't necessarily mean that there would be a successful outcome).

Okay, you evidently think the CAA are not as great a negative influence on the project as I do but we can agree to disagree on that point. But regardless of this, it doesn't affect the project's current status or the project's future. Even with the best will in the world, you know as well as I do that once XH558 stops flying, it would take just a matter of weeks for the aircraft to reach a condition where any remaining funds would have to be used just to keep the aircraft in a potentially flyable condition. Once those funds also begin to dwindle (as they inevitably will) then the aircraft becomes non-airworthy and finding enough money to even return it to a CAA-satisfactory flight status will become too expensive. Hey presto- the aircraft is trapped at Bruntingthorpe forever.

Might sound overly pessimistic but frankly I think it's the inevitable outcome unless TVOC do something about it now. However, I'd love to be proved wrong, but I haven't seen a shred of evidence to suggest that the outcome will be any different?

Yellow Sun

The airframe limitation IIRC was 2.0g >160k and .89M, with a rolling g limit of 1.8g

YS

Flying Signman

@ Tim McLelland,

Tim,

Have you actually been over to the site lately?

www.vulcantothesky.com

According to latest figures I can see on there, nearly £100,000 has been pledged in just over a week to keep XH558 flying in 2009.

At this rate, her supporters will keep her flying, buying more time for sponsorship to come on board and giving less concern for so much wasted energy on this forum.

I can see no reason why a yearly pledge fund (hopefully at much lower levels) can keep her going.

Who needs to take her to the USA ?

Tim McLelland

er... well the obvious response is that Pleming claims he needs a million by January, so he's only one tenth of the way there!

Seriously though, it's all very well coming-up with promises of 100k but that doesn't change the situation at all does it? It's a drop in the proverbial ocean and merely prolongs the agony. As I said some threads back, I'm sure that enough money might be found to fly the aircraft again for a while but I think even the most optimistic observer must conclude that this situation isn't going to last for long? So, given that this is the case, my view is that something should be done to ensure that the aircraft doesn't simply soldier-on for a brief period, only to become a rusting ground exhibit before next year is out. Okay, my view might be somehow wrong (although I really can't see how) but as I keep saying, what is the alternative? Are we seriously suggesting that the project should simply plod-along with the monthly "that's it unless we get some more money" announcements from Pleming until the money runs out, and then we all simply shrug our shoulders and walk away?

Lancasterman

Why not sell parts of the airplane? Not literally but you could say 1 pound for a rivet and so on up to the larger parts.

Tyres O'Flaherty

Quote:
Isn't part of the reason that the display's seemed anaemic, that 558 is g- limited ( + 2 ? ), due at least in part to not having a mainspar replaced during the restoration ?
No that is not correct, we are learning to walk before we will run and next years display will be expanded on.

As for the aicraft excess 'g' limits they are +2.35 and -0.05, if any of these are exceeded then additional checks have to be carried out.



That's good to hear cheers.

Think I heard that wrong info on this thread. Sorry

I really hope the project continues

Tyres

The Real Slim Shady

I reiterate - the people running the show are not businessmen.

Mike Knight has contacts in the military: if some organiser wants the Arrows to display why not put a package together?

They get the Arrows, free, but they pay £100K for the Vulcan.

They do 20 displays per year and instant £2 Mill.

The TVOC people have to look at alternate funding sources and be creative: asking for pledges / donations is not, in the long term, a viable proposition.

Lucy Lastic

... we have put money into the upkeep of the Vulcan. Like many we have been disappointed not to see it at the events it was scheduled to appear at for any number of reasons.

The reality is though that pledges such as ours are only short-term fixes until a major sponsor can be found. TVOC cannot expect us to keep putting our hands in our pockets year after year whilst big business or the government don't stand their corner.

TVOC have been struggling for so long and it is a tribute to many who have worked so hard over the years to get her flying again despite the many problems.

But a hand to mouth existence depending on small amounts from members of the public is not a strategy that can last and there will have to be some hard decisions taken next year.

GrumpyOldFart

I seem to recall a number of requests in the early days of these threads for financial information on this project. Has anyone ever seen an audited financial statement? Is there a link to such an animal? Is there a professionally prepared forecast or budget in existence? Is all the statutory reporting up to date?

People have asked what kind of salaries are being paid, to how many people, but the answer is always along the lines of "Well, that would mean divulging personal information." So why not just reveal the salary amounts, without names or any other personal details? There's just so much secrecy surrounding the project that one has to wonder exactly what is being concealed, and why? It's not as if there's a need to protect commercial information - after all, how many competing Vulcan To The Sky businesses are there?

People might be more inclined to reach for their cheque books if they knew where their money was going.

sedburgh

That information is freely available on the Charity Commision web site here: Charity overview

SpringHeeledJack

As far as I can see accounts for 2006 showed wages consisting of ±£500K and consultancy fees of ±£120K and a note that no one person earned more than £50,000 in that year. The hangarage was £222,000, a fair chunk of change from the budget. The annual return for 2007 is overdue and 195 days late and the accounts for 2007 were submitted 152 days late.....

Without wishing to be pedantic, seeing as how this is a charitable company wholly supported and financed by contributions, both directly and indirectly through The Lottery Commission, would it not be best practice to have a crystal clear view of the financial situation for those who are financing this emotive hunk of metal ?

I'm not at all clear as to why there seems to be an internal culture of 'need to know' and woefully innefective public relations. The more those who would support feel included, rather than excluded, the more they would be inclined to continue their support. The direct contributions are sourced from people's discretionary spending and they might think twice about where they spend it if things don't change. There are many who want to keep the Vulcan flying, it would be wise to include them.


regards


SHJ

andrewmcharlton

If if helps, I would refer the honourable gentlemen to the remarks I made some time ago.

I spoke with Dr Bob some 8 months or so ago having collated a number of comments from similiarly minded individuals who all sought then what we seek now; financial transparency and clarity.

The response I received explained a sound legal reason for not disclosing it , at that time. Having come from a legal background it was clear that the advice they had received at that time was sound and the reasons justified.

That said, I cannot imagine that there is an ongoing reason why accounts should not be fully made up and publicised, annual returns completed and submitted and even beyond the statutory obligations that a formal business plan and fundraising plan be disclosed in the interests of doing the best for the project, whatever that might be.

The continually poor PR is going to bite them on the arse soon because they surely will get to say, "That was the last flight of the Vulcan". Sooner rather than later I suspect.

The project has had some seriously committed supporters for a long time but as said in one of the recent posts, people cannot afford to keep digging deep without some assurances. A disclosed plan and all statutory declarations and obligations fulfilled would surely be the starting point, anything less just continues the fire fighting fund raising efforts.

It's hard to see how all this will happen with the current incumbents running the entire show. There seems to be a disconnect between the information / attitude shown to non-club members or "insiders" to the general public, and there should be no difference.

Things MUST change if they are to succeed,

Vive la revolution !

Tim McLelland

As I said previously, I'd love to highlight some of the things I know about but I can't, in fairness to the people who told me. But it is true that that expenses are handled very badly and it's clear (when you see how some of the money is actually being spent) that some people are taking ridiculous amounts of money out of the project, considering that it is supposed to be a charity. There are other factors too - the hangar fees are another matter which, when explained fully, shows that an awful lot of money could have been saved in that respect, had the people running the project not been so unprofessional. Doubtless it will all come out in the proverbial wash one day but I've certainly been appaled by the way that things have been handled. But one has to work on the basis that they did at least get the aircraft into the air despite everything. The frustrating aspect is that you can't help thinking that other people might have been able to do it rather sooner and more cheaply, had they not been more concerned with their own personal interests.

I doubt if anything will change but who knows. I hope very much that the aircraft flies again next year but I'm convinced that unless there's either a miracle or a drastic change in the way that TVOC operates, it's going to be a short-lived affair which ultimately results in nothing more than another permanently-grounded Vulcan rusting away on a cold airfield. After so much time and so much money, I think that would be not only sad, but a complete disgrace.

nacluv

I would, as an avid supporter, like to know a lot more about the finances of VTST/TVOC before committing any more hard-earned money to the project.

The charity overview page was an interesting read. The credit ratings of VTST and TVOC also make for interesting reading, as do the credit ratings of other companies operated by the directors.

Unless they open up fully, and immediately, then I see no positive outcome in sight. As I believe someone here has said previously, maybe this whole thing has to collapse in order for someone else more competent to pick up the pieces and operate it properly.

I guess we'll soon see...

Blacksheep

Indeed. The only way the aircraft could ever have been made to continue a long-term display-flying career is if the general public could be induced to pay to see it. I long suspected that the project was being run by people who are more interested in taking advantage of some genuine enthusiasts in order to line their own pockets. Though I'm an aviation enthusiastic ex-RAF Vulcan techie, I'm not gullible: which is why I never parted with any money.

BS
Aviation Professional, Aviation Enthusiast
& dedicated Friend of Duxford.

Smiler558

Just thought you'd like to know that last years accounts are now published.

http://www.vulcantothesky.org/news/a...ed%20FINAL.pdf