Just a couple of comments on Firebird's response.
Firebird wrote:
No the current economy is a bit of a red herring IMHO.
Complete red herring.
There were two major cash injections I was aware of, the Lottery Fund original and a donation by a private British millionaire. In both cases there were not donations to guarantee any operation, just to move the restoration project forward.
At no stage has there been either a realistic sniff of a genuine sponsor for a period of operation, and no likely business plan seen to catch one.
Quote:
The engineering isn't the achievement, it was effectively just a Vulcan major with a few extras, which they have had to pay an external certified engineering company to do and sign off as the criteria to get BAe/CAA approval.
Tricky point. On a quantifiable basis, it is the most expensive, complex and advanced type to have been restored to fly in the UK. For that, the engineers and engineering management deserve plaudits, IMHO. I don't think restoring a grounded (arguably servicable) four engine nuclear bomber isn't 'an achievement'.
Coupled with that was on excellent pitch that got Heritage Lottery Funding (HLF) and BAe and the CAA to agree to the project. In all three cases this was an unprecedented success, in an area where all three had said a big 'no' to previous, less challenging requests.
That's three major achievements that have pushed the boundaries of what is possible in the UK.
However, their (inevitable looking) failure is not a good precedent. Both BAe and the CAA are likely to see the bigger aviation picture as the project hasn't failed technically. But the HLF will note and remember a flying project that failed to deliver against the education (etc.) mandate they got the money for. This may (or may not) count against future projects, but it's a poor start by the flying aviation preservation community in getting funding from Britain's biggest cash-pot.
Quote:
If the 'business model' wasn't sound in terms of a guaranteed budget to fly it, what was the point of spending the money to rebuild it? Just on the hope that some rich benefactor might come along and spend £1.5m per year to keep it in the air?
Exactly. The element of Dickensian 'something will turn up' implicit in the business plan throughout was one reason my hands stayed in my pockets. And it was never going to fly on pocket money.
Quote:
The engine life issue has also meant that it's displays have been very 'tame' compared to it's RAF service days which everyone remembers, and there was always going to be the possiblity that, because of this interest was going to wane very quickly, because of people that have never seen it before getting a huge anti-climax and wonder what all the fuss is about.
"Have you seen the Vulcan?" Yes, I did thanks, back when the RAF threw it around the sky, and I quickly learnt that this wasn't going to be anything like that was.
There are some nuggets of achievement in the mix, but, unless there's a post 11th hour reprieve, it's been an expensive failure, throwing a negative light on the preservation movement.
Speaking as a professional manager, I wouldn't trust the current management to clean toilets properly. Their PR, and marketing, and harnessing of enthusiast support also stink.
However the engineers who succeeded and risked livelihoods and sense for a unusual job satisfaction deserve to be recognised for putting their family's income where their hearts are.
Just my opinion.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
I would love to see, hear and smell a Vulcan fly! I can't imagine how much work those fellas had to do to get her in the sky, but out of respect for all of their hard work, heck yeah I would pitch in 50 bucks. For the same reason that I always put something in the boot/bomb or whatever other type of collection device is set-up in front of planes at airshows.