Wed Jun 10, 2009 3:31 pm
retroaviation wrote: ...The only thing that should be added, was that when the airplane was donated, so was the funding to make it airworthy. It was decided to use that money "elsewhere" and just make the airplane into a static display...
Gary
Wed Jun 10, 2009 4:53 pm
Well, Ya just got to love it when you get home from work, check the WIX and your innocent question has caused the Merde to hit the Oscillator.
I would be willing to bet that the great folks at the shuttleworth collection or Duxford would have that beast on a fast track to flying condition in no time.
What prompted the interest in the first place was I just read "To war in a stringbag" By Commander Charles Lamb, RN. Highly recommended, a great read.
I would be willing to bet that the great folks at the shuttleworth collection or Duxford would have that beast on a fast track to flying condition in no time.
What prompted the interest in the first place was I just read "To war in a stringbag" By Commander Charles Lamb, RN. Highly recommended, a great read.
Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:04 pm
It's definitely a cool old airplane, and I must say that it is a great addition to the static displays in the CAF main hangar. And as mentioned before.....its B-I-G!!! 
Gary
Gary
Wed Jun 10, 2009 6:04 pm
Hmmmm... Usually a cash donation accepted with specific directions as to application must be followed by the non profit organization. Otherwise, I think it's called diversion of funds or something like that... oh, and I don't think that's legal.
You lawyers can jump in anytime now !
You lawyers can jump in anytime now !
Wed Jun 10, 2009 6:08 pm
Oh heck Gary just send the helicopters down here to the secret bunker and I'll take care of em for you. As for doing things as directed by the donor all you have to do is keep it secret, don't tell the membership, just feed em mushrooms and it will be all right. By the way does it have a big honkin decal on it yet?
Thu Jun 11, 2009 2:34 pm
No tattoo yet? I think they are for flying aircraft??
Dave
Dave
Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:23 pm
RickH-
Our auditors go through our books once a year for a complete audit, and separate funds into "restricted" and "unrestricted." For our purposes, the main difference is that funds raised as part of a capital fund but unused must be used for a future capital project, whether it's a renovation, acquisition or new construction. The original donor can remove the restriction at his/her discretion if they choose. That, however, is the extent of my knowledge on the subject. I think part of it is just good donor relations- when I raise money for a project, they expect that it is spent on that project. And an attentive donor (almost all foundations) will require after-action reports within one year that report not only on how the money was spent, but whether the goals for its expenditure were met.
kevin
Our auditors go through our books once a year for a complete audit, and separate funds into "restricted" and "unrestricted." For our purposes, the main difference is that funds raised as part of a capital fund but unused must be used for a future capital project, whether it's a renovation, acquisition or new construction. The original donor can remove the restriction at his/her discretion if they choose. That, however, is the extent of my knowledge on the subject. I think part of it is just good donor relations- when I raise money for a project, they expect that it is spent on that project. And an attentive donor (almost all foundations) will require after-action reports within one year that report not only on how the money was spent, but whether the goals for its expenditure were met.
kevin
Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:43 pm
B29B24crewchief wrote:No tattoo yet? I think they are for flying aircraft??
Dave
I did not realize there was a charge for the tattoos or how spendy they are....
Small $77.50/pair + S&H
Medium $160.88/pair + S&H
Large $192.70/pair + S&H
Thu Jun 11, 2009 4:01 pm
B29B24crewchief wrote:No tattoo yet? I think they are for flying aircraft??
Dave
There was one on the Twin Mustang. So there goes that theory.
My guess is that there may be some resistance from the museum staff not wanting to put a tramp stamp on "their" airplanes. Notice the I-16 doesn't have one either.
Gary