How is tthe Vulcan funded?

[agripper]

Having been a supporter of the Vulcan and being like most a little put out by the fact that it was not flying at Waddington . As far as I could find out the reason was down to work not being done which they had plenty of time to get sorted and I was not supprised that the CCA would not budge on the permit.

 

But to teh question, the money being collected, how much is going to keep the aircraft flying and how much is being spent on wadges, I would guess the engineering side has to be paid for but what of the exectutives of the trust. are they taking minamum wadge or is it for teh love of it or are the wadges like most executives? The prices quoted for keeping the vulcan flying are high but is there not a way to keep her going for less and to find a way to stop bleeding the good will dry. :confused:

[agripper]

Should also put that this is not ment as a snipe at the Vulcan to the sky trust , I am interested to find out what goes where. I have heard tomany rumours about high saleries paid to executives of the trust , but then you also have the droves of people who do it all for the love.

[David Ives]

try this as a charity it still has to list accounts

http://www.avrovulcan.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=101&Itemid=51

[agripper]

I wish I lived closer to southend , My self and my father would be down most of the time. My father used to work on the vulcans at finningley and this is one he used to work on. Its good to see how the VRT shows how it money is spent. Will be sending them a donation. I know running and maintianing these aircraft is expensive but how expensive is it? I remember talking to the crew of a JPlast year and they where telling me that the runing cost is cheaper on a hawk than a JP. Dred to think how much a lightning would be.:cool2:

[simonsfotos]

Thing to remember though is that the Vulcan Restoration Trust is a totally different entity to Vulcan To The Sky. VRT looks after XL426 at Southend and NOT XH558, the flyer. Therefore to use those accounts as a basis of what the people looking after the one seen flying at airshows would be a bit of a no no.

 

My own personal thing on the funding of '558' is that I did support it, via membership and donations, for several years. I have now come to the opinion (and as I say it is only my personal opinion) that with so much money having been pumped into it, and the begging bowl being constantly thrust out with statements of "without your money you won't see it fly" and "if we don't get £xxmillion by such and such date then you won't see it fly", I have actually stopped. The reson for this is that, great though it is to see the Vulcan in the air - when it is servicable that is for one reason or another! - for me an airshow is the sum of a total display and not just one aircraft. Everyone who operates historic warbirds needs money for that to happen and for millions upon millions to be constantly pumped into one aircraft can only harm the rest of the warbird world, if only through 'charity burn out' from the public.

 

To return to your question and according to the VTST website:

http://www.vulcantothesky.org/default.asp

 

there are twleve full time members of staff. The one thing it doesn't appear possible to access from the website is the accounts to find out ho9w much goes on wages etc!

[agripper]

I have come to the same opinion abouts its funding. I would rather spend money to see a mosquito fly . But do think that the airshows are much better with the vulcan flying even if it is a rather subdude display from what it was like in service displays. £1.6 million a year they have down to keep it flying. IS it me or is this a lot for one aircraft?

[paulob1]

for me the biggest issue is that this bird only has some 5000 hours of airframe time left...or whatever it is these days, its not many years of air shows, less than 10 years...what happens then...its a really tricky issue. I ADMIRE THE BOYS FOR TRYING AND GETTING SO FAR. I just cant believe they have done it.

 

As regards people and salaries, the good need paying if they do not they go elsewhere and nothing happens...those that donate their time, are likely retired and are doing a good deal of the work for fun...i would if i was anywhere near and of any useful skills...but then i have other income...I would just love to work on it...I do still give, not enough but some...

 

I still believe the government should offer a bit more help...we will regret not doing it in 50 years...but anyway...keep her going boys, tough I know but keep her up there...cant wait to see her at farnborough...missed all shows this year so far...but I have seen them many times before and they are part of the reason why I never became an aircraft designer after university...long story...

 

Keep her flying is all I can say...crazy as it seems...just leep her up there..

[Adrian Barrell]

for me the biggest issue is that this bird only has some 5000 hours of airframe time left...or whatever it is these days, its not many years of air shows, less than 10 years...

 

 

5000 hrs will last them years! They would be lucky to put more than 25 hrs a year on it.

[Jon8910]

I agree with Adrian, it can fly for years on 5000 airframe hours, the BBMF try to limit the Lancaster to about 100 - 125 hours a season and it flies all over the country most weekends May to September.

[antarmike]

I thought the Vulcan had much much less hours left on it than that. the figure of 500 seems more likely...but I think it is as low as 300

[H1HU]

The Huey is kept to around 50 hours a years thus allowing it to fly for several years without any major components requiring replacement. The knock on affect of the Vulcan to the warbird world is most definately felt. Air Shows have been putting all their money in one basket at the expense of other aircraft being booked, and when Cinderella doesn't display they have a problem. Taken from another forum:

 

'Trust accounts show annual staff costs for the financial year ending in March 2009 are likely to be £620,000, while engineering and maintenance costs are estimated at £320,000'

 

That's alot of donations even taking into account Gift Aid.

 

H1HU

[agripper]

figures the engineers are always the best value for money.

[agripper]

Spoke with an ex vulcan engineer and aircraft engineer of 40 years who has told me that after the major teh vulcan had it should have around 3000 hours on teh airframe. So should last a few more years to come.

 

Also heard that teh Southend vulcan is in a condition that is airworthy but the onlything holding them off flying is the good old CAA. Can anyone confirm this?

[rgb]

 

Also heard that the Southend vulcan is in a condition that is airworthy but the onlything holding them off flying is the good old CAA. Can anyone confirm this?

 

I can sort of deny it My neighbour works at Southend Airport as an avionics engineer. He reckons that the salt air has 'knackered it', and it is 'only good for burning defective fuel confiscated from 3rd world cargo airlines'.

 

Richard

[antarmike]

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-1671.html

 

The general feeling is that XH588 has a relatively short airframe fatigue life left and that, prior to its many years standing at Sothend, the "other" potential Vulcan was a much better bet to get back into the Air.

 

I cannot see if the issues are with the fatigue life of the Airframe itself, that having had a major overhaul will have altered this. This actual structure of XH588 is towards the end of its fatigue life and working on it's SYSTEMS (in a major overhaul) will not change the fact that the Airframe itself is coming to the end of its FATIGUE life and as such this particular Vulcan will not fly for much longer, or so I am lead to believe.

 

Those in the relative trusts seem to have very little to say about the fatigue life of this plane, and perhaps if there was a bit more realism (honesty) about how long the airframe can be kept in the sky before bits start to fail, maybe more people would concider it to be a waste of money.

 

It is probaly the risk of loosing funding, that is keeping the truth about the Airframes fatigue life being more widely discussed.

 

I still believe the figue of only 300 hours to be the one I was told by a "Vulcan to the sky" fundraiser.

 

I cannot get any sort of answer to the truth of the situation by any search of the Web I have yet tried.

 

We have to remember that the BBMF Lanc is extensively rebuilt, and is actual fact running with major units such as wing spars, and elements of the tail actually being from later Avro types, and the "Lancaster" has a good measure of Shackleton in it. There is no such donor type to keep the Vulcan in the sky. (and the cost of pulling apart the structure of the Vulcan and rebuilding it, with newly manufactured parts, as nescessary, would be astronomocally expensive, and is never, never going to happen) As it is, every flight takes time off a ticking clock, and when the Airframe Fatigue life is reached, XH588 becomes an unflyable static exhibit.

Edited July 26, 2009 by antarmike

[simonsfotos]

I may be wrong but I seem to remember hearing that the original plan was that 558 would display for 5 years and then be retired to Duxford - why Duxford I don;t know as they already have a good example of the Vulcan in Airspace!

[antarmike]

I though it had a three to five year flying future (then it would have to be grounded as out of Airframe fatigue hours) and this was one of my reservations about ever funding the project. It just seemed a shame to use up its life in a last flurry of flying, and then no more Vulcan. I remember the Vulcans in service, they were always impressive. It seems a shame that future generations will not be able to witness this.

 

I would much prefer to see it flown a lot less and for it to be around for 15 or 20 years, but it is a business, and businessmen want a return.

 

That apeears to mean fly it as much as possible and earn as much as you can from it, as quickly as you can, and sod the future generations

Edited July 23, 2009 by antarmike

[antarmike]

Without any prompting my wife told me that we were told the Vulcan only had 300 hours airframe fatigue life left. We were told this by a member of the Vulcan to the sky team who was fundraising at the 2006 Waddington Airshow. She says she vividly remembers the conversation, because until then she had been giving help to the fund, but that conversation changed her decision about the value of the scheme to return the Vulcan to flight and she decided, (like me) that there were better ways of spending money than this scheme.

Edited July 24, 2009 by antarmike

[Adam Elsdon]

I remember when i was a lad, watching the Vulcan landing at Sunderland Airport, (Formerly RAF Usworth) sometime in the early eighties, and not long after the Falklands, this went to the North East Air Museum and it became quite a draw for the museum for quite a while, i remember seeing them running up the APU and powering the aircraft systems on one visit.

I stopped by a couple of years ago, and it has deteriorated somewhat, which i thought was a shame, but then if it was in flying condition it really would be frustrating, as the airfield was bought by Nissan and turned into a car factory!

[antarmike]

Having been critical about the project, I had a pleasant surprise yesterday when the Vulcan flew over the showground, at Winterton (just north of Brigg and Scunthorpe.) It came over at 5.30pm on Saturday, heading out towards the Humber Bridge. I don't know where it was going, but to see it when you don't expect it is quite a thrill!

Edited July 26, 2009 by antarmike

[antarmike]

The reason the Vulcan did not fly at Waddington was that bolts in the tail structure had been identified as a possible area where fatigue might lead to failure. They needed to be examined before the permit to fly would be renewed. It was impossible to get to the bolts in XH588 without major dissasembly, risking accidental damage to other parts of the structure. A plan was agreed with the issuing authority to cut away enough of the structure of a fatigue life expired Vulcan to get out the same bolts to assess their condition. The rationale was that both aircraft were about the same time in their fatigue life, One now expired, one nearly expired, and that XH588 bolts were likely to be in a simailar condition to those extracted from the scrap plane.

 

The bolt had not been removed for testing in time for the renewal of the Permit to fly, so it was grounded.

 

My point is if you can't even get to important bolts holding the airframe together, without having to cut holes through the structure to reach them, you are never going to be able to change all the parts that are potentially fatigued. The only way the Vulcan's flying life could be extended would be to pull the whole plane apart and rebuild it.

 

The Lancaster is as far simpler plane, designed to be built up out of interchangable sub-structures. The Lancaster was designed to be repaired by unbolting, for example a section of undamaged fusalage from an otherwise shot up example, and fitting it into another Lanc to replace enemy damage to this area.

 

The Lancaster has been virtually re-manufactured in many areas, including resparring the wings etc, to reset its fatigue life clock back to zero (or near zero) Re-manufacturing the Vulcan in this way is not an option. Whatever the 40 year time served Vulcan fitter may say, the Major overhaul did not reset the Airframe Fatigue clock, that remained unchanged, but the systems of the plane were serviced in a most thorough way to enable the plane to fly on to the end of its fatigue life. After three more years flying, that clock now has much less than 300 hours left on it.

Edited July 26, 2009 by antarmike

[paulob1]

as I have said, you are right, it is only 5 years of air shows, was just being a bit optomisitc in hoping that the hours have been improved and that standards of testing and maintenance would have improved the airframes life...I have no idea how failsafe the vulcan airframe is but you are right once she is done she is done and that means end of the line...

 

Is it really less than 3 years...cant believe it...

 

Anyway where does the funding go from their, the team etc...it has to, in my humble opinion mature into a fundraising, aircraft restoring expert house, one that can take on not just the vulcan, soon to be gone but other aircraft too...

 

One note, if the b52 can have so many life extensions i am sure the vulcan can, I know fatigue is a well known but complex beast I am sure they can do some things that will extend the airframes life...just at what cost i guess......you have to agree the bird is one cracing aircraft the likes of which we are unlikely to see again...well not totally true, aircraft may grow and may go back to the swept delta once we stop worrying over global warming...and we head back into supersonic flight,...who knows what may yet appear...

[antarmike]

I don't think the B52 is comparable , I am not saying it is technically impossible to rebuild the Vulcan Airframe, just that it will be so horrendously expensive , that it will never happen. The B52 is a piece of essential military hardware financed by the biggest (only?) superpower. Work to keep the B52 fleet viable is funded from taxation of every person (exept the illegal immigrants??) in the United States. They get no choice, they have to hand over the money.

 

The vulcan is basically a piece of useless junk ( ie of no military importance) , being funded by a small percentage of the population who (mostly) come from one tiny little country. (national lottery money not included, but playing the lottery is optional, it is not done by everyone, and the money that went to Vulcan is only a percentage of the total)

 

I can't see how a comparison can even be concidered.

 

Basically the RAF shed its Vulcan fleet because it was life expired. If it were possible to keep the Vulcan going longer, I expect the RAF would have tried to achieve this. (after all they could point to the BlackBuck mission(s) without which the Falklands war would not have been won, to justify keeping the only aircraft on the books capable of flying such a mission.) Ther RAF shed its Vulcans as their airframes run out of hours. XH588 still had a few hundred hours left on it but was due a major overhaul. The RAF judged that it made no sense to carry out that major overhaul, because of the lack of hours left on the airframe.

 

They did not think it worth the cost of the major overhaul to gain just 300 hours more use of the plane.

 

The British public has just spend millions to do what the RAF saw as senseless.

Edited July 27, 2009 by antarmike

[agripper]

The information I got from the eningeer about airframe life was that if a major overhaul had been undertaken to the extent that was advertised in service life that any componant reahing or approching the end of its hours would be replaced and this was more so on componants that are deep within the airframe. When there wehre working on the Vulcan for this rebuild I dont think there has been the full disclosure to teh public of what has and has not been done , this woould cover up any cost cutting of failure to replace expensive items .

[Predictable Bob]

:-D

 

I took one of my lads and his girlfriend down to Bournemouth to see XH558 - to be honest I was a tad disappointed as it was very obviously running at low power and the climbs and turns were circumspect to say the least !

 

The blurb said they expected 15 years of flying before it was retired and I suspect they're treating her with kid gloves to stretch the time to the max.

 

Before they bombed Port Stanley they did some dummy runs over an airfield with similar topography - Benbecula in the Outer Hebrides. The first the residents knew about it was when a Vulcan flew over the quarters at deck level around 01:00 - I can confirm that they WEREN'T running at low power as our house shook like the devil and the Boss and I leapt out of bed expecting to find the roof in the garden !

 

As for Bournemouth the star of the show was undoubtedly Typhoon - that is one hell of an impressive plane and well worth going to see

 

:-D