Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - sickbag_andy

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 43
31
Well it's about funds so I thought this would be the best place to post this. some food for thought (and discussion). I thought that as it's a different topic than any of the others it's better to start a new one rather than drag an existing one 'off topic'

There’s been some discussion on the 2016 accounts of late and I’ve had a bit of a look through them and have found a few points which puzzle me a bit…..
On the income and expenditure statement (page 15) I’ve picked out a few things that concern me a bit for the years ahead:
There is a marked drop in the donations/legacies and charitable activities incomes – around 40% on each, I think we all realised that donations would drop significantly once flying stopped but bear in mind the final flights were at the end of October 2015 so this account probably picked up a fair amount of income in the last months of 2015 with the euphoria that was generated during those final few months of flying so those figures will surely drop significantly in the next year’s accounts as people cancelled their direct debits etc.

I do find it alarming how much the income v expenditure has swung in 12 months from a £223k profit to a £198k loss i.e. a swing of £421k and funds carried forward to the 2017 trading year of £1036k. That leaves just over 5 years before it runs out at that loss rate however they redundancy axe hit around the end of March(?) 2017, 5 months after the accounts date when the other cost savings measures were also introduced so there is likely to be a continued loss of around £83k up to that time based on a pro rata figure from the 2016 accounts.

BUT returning to that 5 years before it runs out that assumes that all assets could be realised and on page 16 it splits fixed and current assets and the current assets value is £450k so the time scale could be far less if losses continue even at a lower rate unless of course they dig into their fixed assets and sell one Vulcan bomber (purchaser to arrange collection?)
Now that loss does concern me, it is slightly confusing because the income is divided into donations and legacies, charitable activities, other trading activities and the mysterious ‘other’ in all totalling £1240k. Expenditure is broken down into raising funds (£1376k), charitable activities and a bit of tax, in all totalling £2598k and thus bringing about the £198k loss. Assuming that donations are mainly standing orders which surely need minimal administration (otherwise they aren’t worth doing) and legacies need an equally small amount of expenditure so lets assume that the majority of those costs went on the charitable activities, other trading activities and ‘other’ that’s a cost of £2598k to raise £1355k errr? Okay there’s a small bit attributable to the donations and legacies but that’s a heck of a loss and one has to ask why so much was spent to raise funds and ‘others’ for an essentially static airframe.

So why operate at such a loss in an attempt to raise funds when existing funds theoretically will be needed to equip a new hangar in a few months? I’ve heard of speculate to accumulate but this seems more like speculate to degenerate.
Donations (and legacies) are broken down on p.23 and shows a significant drop in percentage terms on most items, 2015 figures in brackets):
 Regular donations 184,026 (250,848) -26%
One off donations 73,792 (419,753) -83%
Corporate donations and sponsorship 200,000 (246,994) -19%
Other donations 258,435 (315,128) -18%
Gift aid recovered 31,795 (148,726) -79%
Legacies 297045 (nil)
So it would appear that a substantial number of standing orders were cancelled once flying ceased, something I think everybody expected (I hope my ‘everybody’ included the Trust), I wonder how many more have gone in the last 10 months with all the uncertainty over the project. I don’t suppose they have increased and as the chances of taxi runs and general enthusiasm diminished I anticipate that the next accounts will show a similar significant drop. Again with the one off donations, how many came in the first few months post flying, that’s a big drop over the year and I will stick my neck out and say it will be down to a trickle in the next account especially with the hangar appeal – people may have given to that and only that this year. I won’t discuss corporate, I don’t understand it apart from the fact that without Eddie F’s support it would never have got this far (thanks Eddie), ‘other’ donations dropped around 18%  - I don’t know what ‘other’ includes so what will happen to that this year I’ve no idea but can’t see the figure going back up. There’s a massive drop in gift aid presumably because in 2015  a lot of that was from Operation 2015 and it’s a bit harder to collect it from the one offs and others. One plus in 2016 was a large legacy sum (or several smaller but significant ones) from nothing the previous year but can we really expect that to continue year on year? I really do worry that these figures will drop similarly year on year and there will be a rapid dry up of funds. Okay some staff have gone to reduce costs but for a charity there still seems to be an incredible percentage of overheads.
On page 28 one thing that does strike home is raffle income down from £323k in 2015 to £109k in 2016 – approx. 2/3 down. That really does hit home, all those raffle tickets sent out but so many not returned, that is (to me) a big sign that even in early 2016 people were starting to forget the Vulcan  - out of sight, out of mind and surely those big raffle windfalls will rapidly dwindle away to become hardly worthwhile and that funding stream will soon dry up. Hands up – I admit I haven’t bought any this year and don’t remember if I bought many if any at all last year, in the flying era I always bought all that were mailed out - maybe I’m just another joe public now.

Staff costs – pages 27 and 28 show staff costs, p.27 shows activities carried out directly costs and p.28 support staff costs .
Direct costs in 2016 were £698239 (£831020 in 2015)  and Support costs 2016 were £246600 (£38134 in 2015). Add those together and the total for 2016 was £854839 and for 2015 £869154, for an aircraft that basically sat in the hangar and occasionally went out for a brief engine run – to me that’s an awful lot of money for very little return. Okay with the redundancies we should see those costs drop on the 2017 accounts but isn’t that shutting the stable door once the horse has bolted (with a fat bag of cash tied to it’s saddle)? Sorry but for that sort of money I really think we could/should have expected slightly more. Yes we can point the finger at the airport operators being stringent about operating procedures IF taxi runs were to be allowed, procedures which would have been far more relaxed at a non commercial airport but surely that should have been foreseen such that for a wage bill only £150k short of £1 million we saw nothing in the way of taxi runs in return, I said a while back that Doncaster was the correct choice while the aircraft was flying but not once it ceased and I think those figures bear that out AND don’t say hindsight is a wonderful thing – it was bleedin’ obvious from well before the final flight.
Staff numbers – the report gives the average for the year but we all know that there were large scale redundancies in March, the report gives the following figures:
The average monthly number of employees during the year was (2015 in brackets):
 Management and administration 22 (14) , Aircraft crew 14 (20);  total 36 (34)  so a reduction in aircrew (understandable really as it doesn’t fly now) by 6 persons and an increase in management / admin of 8 persons i.e. a nett increase of 2. Okay that has been addressed now but WHY do you need more staff for a non flying aircraft that has an aversion to sunlight such that it spends most of it’s time in a hangar or more latterly it’s shooting the breeze coming off the sewage works with a tarpaulin to keep the sun off it’s cockpit.  Sorry but unless somebody can explain the rationale behind this then it appears that one of those many mangers made a monumental cock up that has made an enormous hole in the funds. I really would like an explanation of the thinking behind that.

The trust spent in excess of £50k on the Canberra and after questions were raised when I donated I understood that I was contributing to the upkeep of the Vulcan and that all raised funds were ring fenced for the upkeep of ‘558 as restricted funds. When I look through the accounts I see that the only restricted funds are £60 as a left over from ’Operation 2015’ (see page 37) and this £60 seems to be the figure that crops up every time restricted funds are mentioned.
SO – answers please:
1: were there ever any other restricted funds?
2: What happened to them i.e. did they fund the Canberra purchase?
3: And why aren’t the remaining funds restricted in such a way? A good proportion of the money was raised on the back of ‘558 with donators assuming they were supporting that aircraft surely the public (those that still care) should expect to be assured that their donations went to where they intended them to go i.e. to the upkeep of Vulcan XH558.

Page 39 states a loss on operating activities of £328204 – for what? As far as I can make out there were virtually no operating activities in that year, just the last 3 flights and then stuck in a hangar with the occasional venture into the open for a private engine run with the sounding of an e-fanfare in the twice weekly newsletter AND why did we still have 2 per week for so long and why do we even need one per week now – just send one out when there is something significant to report, that way it will gain more attention and save on production costs (yes I know it’s e-mailed but someone must get paid for writing it).
The money that is being spent here on an aircraft that can’t fly, can barely move without all sorts of procedures and controls in place and is hidden away from the public for the foreseeable future (yes I know, we keep being told that plans are in for a hangar but with the level of funds available I don’t see it as sustainable for very long) defies all logic, that budget probably equates to virtually all the funds spent on all the other preserved aircraft in the country. Surely it’s time to throw in the towel and run it solely on a volunteer basis as per all other grounded preserved aircraft. Carrying on at this level of expenditure is simply a recipe for disaster.

A quote from the report:
 Heritage The aircraft has developed a loyal following of many thousands of supporters. She is and will remain the best preserved all-British four-engined jet aircraft anywhere in the world still capable of powered ground runs. XH558 has to be maintained in the current working state, albeit not flying, under the terms of the Trust’s contract with the National Heritage Memorial Fund (NHMF) until 6 February 2085.
I think ‘has’ can be deleted from the first line as that loyal following has largely dissipated. She may well be the best preserved aircraft but what is the point if she is never allowed to do taxi runs, there is always a reason why not, you could have a bingo card game with the excuses on it and cross them off until you fill a line there are so many of them (watch out here comes another fund raiser now I’ve opened my e-mouth). The two other running Vulcans in the uk / world are maintained to a sufficient standard to enable them to actually taxi and at a fraction of the cost and in the case of ‘655 in front of a watching crowd in close proximity so maybe the Trust need to look at them and consider if they are ever going to meet all the conditions and if so is a volyuntary team the way foreward. If it’s not because the airport want a ‘professional’ team to maintain the aircraft then that has already failed and the Trust must hold their hands up and say that post flying, Doncaster was the wrong choice.

Re the 2085 date – with all the sell offs of spares surely there won’t be any left to maintain it until 2025 let alone 2085 and being realistic how could she ever be, all those with the necessary expertise will have been pushing up the daisies for many years come 2085. And anyway, even if they want to run her, fossil fuels will have run out way before then so there will be nothing to run the engines with unless of course the sewage farm is still there and they can manufacture a biofuel!  But really, expecting to still be doing engine runs in 68 years time is just not realistic and surely the heritage fund will realise that so surely that condition can be bargained out.

Final thoughts:
My personal analysis of the last year is that far from the eviction from hangar 3 being a disaster for the aircraft it more likely actually prevented a disaster as it brought the Trust to it’s senses and realised that the draining of funds at that rate was unsustainable even in the short term let alone 85 years and forced their hand into doing something, sadly involving making a tribe of Indians redundant although a disproportionate number of chiefs remained. Whether that was a large enough reduction will remain to be seen but I personally just can’t see it being enough. Eventually the Trust will have to face the inevitable and make it a wholly voluntary operation.

Andy

32
Engineering / Re: How would you feel?
« on: September 07, 2017, 09:36:02 AM »
Despite all the PR bluster, WHAT MUSEUM??????

Well the museum could currently be called BITS. Bomber In The..... well you can guess the rest :D

33
Aviation Waffle / Re: Our Wonderful Media
« on: August 17, 2017, 06:59:20 PM »
I heard Mr. O'Hagan being interviewed on BBC radio this afternoon re the grounding. It's amazing how polite he can be when he wants/needs to be.

On UKAR he's having his usual digs but on the Beeb he spoke politely and glowingly about the BBMF and in a most informed manner, such a contrast in attitude. If only he could be like that on UKAR then I'm sure he would get far more respect and people like me would still be posting there. Such a shame.

34
Engineering / Re: So that's it then?
« on: August 16, 2017, 09:23:18 PM »
better hurry, there's sure to be a bit of a scrum for the free gift ;D

35
Engineering / Re: So that's it then?
« on: August 16, 2017, 09:04:10 PM »
If it's that exclusive I'm surprised there's a need to include a free rugby ball. £90 is extremely steep even for a 'limited edition' but I wonder where they expect to find 558 punters anyway.

so is the merchandise now being priced to be aimed at the rich minority, justthe same as the tours?

36
Engineering / Re: How would you feel?
« on: August 12, 2017, 11:21:03 AM »

Like Rob, I've seen what happens to a Vulcan and other aircraft which haven't been properly looked after at an airport ( XM569 at Cardiff ) and it would be a depressing waste if the same were to happen to XH558, especially given the many £millions which have been donated to the various appeals over the years.


well that was a very worthwhile post Clive, thanks for coming out of hibernation if only temporarily.  The last line (which I've quoted)  really sums up my feelings and dare I say all of us here and I think that is probably the bottom line for us all.

There always was a worry re what would happen once flying ended and although in an ideal world we would like to have seen her continue flying we have I think accepted that can never happen so safe preservation for a long future is what we must wish for (taxying or not).  I just want some words from the trust that give me full confidence that it will happen.  At the moment there is a perception for me at least that they cannot do that.  i'm sure I am not alone in feeling that and maybe that's why this discussion has snowballed (both here and UKAR for that matter), not to deliberately have a dig at the trust but more out of concern for 558.
FWIW I still think a commercial airport was the right base for flying but not once that finished and I feel that is becoming more apparent as time goes on.

37
Engineering / Re: How would you feel?
« on: August 11, 2017, 07:14:59 PM »
I wonder how long incarnation 5 will last? I bet neverfuel posts some thoughts to get things going later!

I'm surprised the mods agreed to dump it so quickly after Dan B's dummy throw or was it his decision alone?

your chance to have a guess: http://www.vulcantothesky.org/smf/index.php?topic=7848.0

38
Engineering / Re: How would you feel?
« on: August 11, 2017, 09:24:26 AM »
Having lived in Blackpool for 21 years, I know only too well what can happen to Vulcans left outside Airports.

Any chance to save her, GO FOR IT!
Crikey, you just come out of hibernation! Is Blackpool that bad ;-)

blimey , a voice from the past!  Duxfordian will re-appear on UKAR*E next.

Welcome back Rob.

BTW our old friend Clive (WCG) still one of our all time highest posters is still alive and active on UKAR where he goes under the name of Brevet Cable, he still reads what he can on here apparently. - best wishes clive!

39
Engineering / Re: How would you feel?
« on: August 10, 2017, 10:01:58 AM »
I'd be sad to leave these shores but if it ensured a safe future then that would be a good thing.

I agree that the current situation is sad and worrying, these things have a habit of just dragging on with less and less interest as time goes by and she could easily end up basically abandoned there if money dries up.

I think the problems to be overcome in flying her out to the USA are probably too much but if there were a way of flying her out then why not a short ferry flight to a suitable location in this country, I assume that even if the aircraft were registered in the USA the CAA would still have a say on whether or not she could fly in the UK to allow a departure.

I hoped she would be able to taxi at some point but fear that may never happen for the reasons already discussed on here. I feel the safest way to ensure she is preserved well is a move to an established museum in this country even if it means dismantling her and moving here by road so that she can never be powered up again. Gregg said it couldn't happen but I'm not sure why unless he was thinking that it would see a great loss of face by the Trust and that would stop it.
Concorde G-BBDG was moved from Filton to Brooklands in a similar exercise and more recently VC.10 XV808 to Cosford likewise so it is feasible if the will is there, the will may be the biggest obstacle at present.  Second may be money but are the Club funds still waiting to be handed over - in which case could they be assigned to such a plan rather than just going into the wage pot.

The Trust say that 2017 was to be a hibernation year but will there soon be another big appeal to bring her out of hibernation for 2018, I just worry that this 'we need money urgently' scenario will just keep repeating itself whilst she's at a commercial airport because of the pressures of cost for keeping her both hangared and in ground running condition to meet their requirement on the pipedream of a fast taxi which let's face it will only be available to the chosen few and those with deep pockets - not a good way to use valuable money.

If I had a choice I'd rather donate money to see her dismantled and moved somewhere accessible although I wish that had been thought about before flying ceased. I said previously that I thought Doncaster was a good choice whilst she was flying but wrong for once she stopped. She had to be in airworthy condition to fly anyway so there was no extra maintenance costs involved, now she has to be kept close to flying condition if she is allowed anywhere near the runway. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, foresight should have realised that anyway.

40
Engineering / Re: So that's it then?
« on: August 08, 2017, 01:13:03 PM »
is that NOPE to getting her out by air or NOPE to getting her out at all? I agree that a flight is impossible but if the Trust saw a sensible plan and funds to move her by road even if it meant never ground running again surely that is worthwhile.

If the club funds have not been passed to the trust (and I hope not because I don't see them being used sensibly in the current situation) then could these be designated for a 'by road' move? Yes a destination needs to be identified, ideally with other aircraft but I don't see that as insurmountable. The only thing that might stop it is peoples' pride.

As I said somewhere on here I believe Doncaster was the right solution during the flying era but an alternative was needed one flying ceased due to the need to slot in with airport operations, running a non-airworthy aircraft on a commercial runway was never going to be feasable to any extent.

we can't turn back the clock but IF those remaining funds could be used (or put towards) roading out to a museum then I'm sure that plan would gain more support as needed to make it happen and effectively meet the HLF promise of preserving it in an existing national museum where it could be easily visitable on a regular basis rather than on it's own visited only by those with deep pockets and on occasional days only.

41
Engineering / Re: So that's it then?
« on: August 05, 2017, 08:45:11 AM »
Or a piece of scrap Vulcan for a price.

hopefully it will never come to that.

now, back to my working life....
regular readers may remember that i worked in the water industry as a project manager on construction projects, some 'clean/drinking water projects' the term 'clean' used to differentiate it from the other 'dirty' water projects that involved treatment of sewage. I expect you wonder what all this has to do with a Vulcan especially early on a Saturday morning - read on.
With 558 parked next to a sewage works which apparently has several large tanks has anyone looked in detail at what those tanks are? Well in the sewage treatment process we had the water to treat and also the solids which we termed sludge (if you saw it you'd understand why). At this point apologies to anybody reading this over breakfast ;). The water which was separated out was quite easy to treat as long as there wasn't a high element of industrial waste in it but the sludge was the bain of our lives, expensive to treat and expensive to transport around, One way of treating sludge was to heat it up in a big tank called a digester and 'cook it' - still enjoying your breakfast?, which killed off the nasty bugs etc and at the same time generated methane (as I do after a curry but without the heat) and as a result these tanks had to be classified exclusion zones with only permit entry and anything capable of generating a spark left outside, even mobile phones, all to prevent exclusion becoming explosion. If and I don't know for sure if there is or not there is one of these on the site then I'm surprised that running up a hot jet engine very close by is considered a good idea with concentrations of methane around, I suppose the lack of reheat does reduce the risk but this still doesn't seem a good location for doing this sort of thing.

as an aside some of those gasses the process produces (hydrogen sulphide in particular) are quite corrosive in the right concentrations but I'll leave that for another day.

42
Engineering / Re: So that's it then?
« on: August 03, 2017, 02:32:43 PM »

And why have they dumped 558 in the middle of a sh1t farm for pitys sake?  >:( >:(

may I confidently predict that the next special offer from the trust newsletter with be Vulcan endorsed compost?

43
Engineering / Re: So that's it then?
« on: August 03, 2017, 08:51:49 AM »
I always worried that the funding wouldn't last to finance the grand ETNA scheme and that it would all end in tears. There were discussions re the sustainability of future funding here back in 2015: http://www.vulcantothesky.org/smf/index.php?topic=7439.15

PA28 wrote the following: Before such monies are granted, the various backers have to be convinced that the team running it is right and that the business plan is achievable - ensuring success on many fronts.

The Trust is part-way along that road and is aiming high.  Good luck I say
.

I posted the following reply: I would have rather hoped that with 558 now unable to leave Doncaster that the Trust would be all or virtually all of the way along that road otherwise there would be some doubt as to whether the aims can be achieved.

Cast your minds back 8 years or so and all the talk was of simply obtaining a major sponsor (and the thought appeared to be that it would be easy) and all would be rosy and the annual scratching for funds from the public would not be needed, history shows different and the BIG question is, what if those backers cannot be convinced? I hope the Trust's final act is not to sell of 1" squares of 558's wings to settle the debts. I'm afraid I still feel a lower risk option for the final resting place should have been sought.


it really does seem that all those chickens are now coming home to roost, with those sad pics of 558 parked next to the sewage works, having worked in the water industry for 40 years I know what a nice environment they are (some are actually okay but they always smell) so it's almost a case of that old phrase 'always in the s*1t, just the depth that varies - it seems that 558 is now in the deeper extremes.
The fact that the Trust gambled on grounding 558 at Finningley when flying ceased without guaranteed funding for sustainable plans is lamentable, it was obvious that direct debits would soon dry up, the goodwill of the former club membership lost in a new but floundering guardian scheme, yes many of the ex. club members signed up as founder guardians on the basis of promises of special benefits but how many will re-join now those promises have failed AND how is it ever likely to now draw new members to the guardian scheme. It's now out of sight and out of mind except for those few who really care.

As was pointed out earlier in this topic, the heritage document document stated it's aims as:
At the end of its flying life, to retire the aircraft to a National Museum in perpetuity, surely an established sustainable museum would have been a far safer option than a pipedream that is looking more and more of a remote possibility
it also stated:
To provide access to the aircraft for the widest audience; to involve the public in experiencing the aircraft, okay it has been available for the public but only at a very high price for the experience days, - far beyond the pocket of the average joe public, the prices charged all have an extra nought or two on the end compared to other establishments. An easily accessible location NOT on a working commercial airport had far more chance of ever achieving that. Even if taxi runs were ever achieved then they too would not be in the same price bracket as the CWJ days or Wellesbourne wings and wheels but priced as an exclusive day out for the prawn sandwich brigade as that type have often been described. Far from the stated aims in the heritage document 'Summary Information Return 2012', and now totally unachievable as there is no way out of Doncaster (at least not a palatable one), sadly it's best chance of survival is to be dis-assembled and moved to another, sorry a museum albeit with the acceptance that it will only ever be a static exhibit otherwise it could end up rotting it's days away unseen by anyone except those with very deep pockets and a lacking sense of smell.
The further away it is from the public eye the less likely it is that people will continue to support it financially when they see nothing in return, as I said earlier the guardians will slowly stop re-newing  (the take up on the first renewal demands will be interesting but no doubt a glossy spin will be put on it) and all that core support will gradually ebb away. People will simply look for a similar project with better access at a much lower price and possibly closer to their homes - the Vulcan doesn't come to then any more, it can't, they have to go to it and for some that journey even when it's in a hangar on show is just too far. The only thing that is different is the number on the tail and the memories - the Trust can't rely on that for ever.
do I feel let down - yes, do I feel disappointed - partly yes (because of all those memories) but almost no because I feared this could be the outcome without funds in the bank whether or not the hangar remained available.

Just brighten things up a bit here's a memory of far happier days:
0721 plan view vulcan by Andrew Goldsmith, on Flickr

(ignore the date on the watermark, I had to re-do everything when PB decided it didn't like me anymore) ;)


44
Engineering / Re: So that's it then?
« on: July 31, 2017, 10:07:24 AM »
Not likely,  for what it's worth I don't think Brunty was the right place for her either

I noticed this comment Sam and back in 2012 there was a long topic discussing it, I had one or two doubts about Brunty then because of the commercial growth there. It's pretty packed with stored airliners nowadays.

I ran a poll on that thread (I expect some of our remaining visitors conrtibuted votes) and my choice at that time was Yeovilton, these were my reasons:
1: It already has a museum open to the public
2: It has an annual air show which would provide an opportunity for fast taxi runs without extra costs of setting up for a unique event
3: It is in the south west which is totally void of Vulcans at present - the nearest are either Hendon or Wellesbourne so there would be a uniqueness factor missing elsewhere in the country
4: with all the defence cuts there is probably spare hangarage there which could be used to develop the VE3 and get 558 under cover at the lowest cost (i.e. not building something new)
5: not a commercial airport so would not interfere with commercial operations

for me this would be my choice if Bruntingthorpe was ruled out , I think it comes nearer to ticking all the boxes and in some ways the options make it better than Brunty - discuss? I hope so and I hope the powers that be will be taking note of the poll and comments.


the poll was done at a time when the Trust were after feedback and not surprisingly Bruntingthorpe was top but Yeovilton 2nd with over 100 votes cast in total.

here's a link to the topic and poll: http://www.vulcantothesky.org/smf/index.php?topic=4915.0

so where did you feel was right then Sam (reply here or on the poll topic)

- there were some very constructive comments and arguments for all 10 sites on the poll which were picked from a previous topic that had numerous ideas, I did rationalise it down to what seemed to be the most popular and realistic options but I think it was a good reflection of feeling.

45
Engineering / Re: So that's it then?
« on: July 12, 2017, 09:44:48 AM »
The latest I have heard is that all three aircraft will be moved outside at the end of the month....

There is a plan to cover them up with tarpaulins - I can think of no reason to do this other than to try and hide the fact that they are outside.  It certainly will not give them any protection from the weather and judging by the state of the VC 10's when they left Abingdon will only serve to promote the corrosion and degradation.

It seems there is a problem with the planning permission for the land for the new hangar so Iguess they won't be moving in by the end of 2017.

I have heard that there was another secret engine run last week.

I have also heard that 558 has been dinked and is need of some paint repair - if the paint needs to be repaired what has happened to the structure?

It's all looking very like the group that "took over" the Shackleton at Coventry, they then spent all of the money which had been donated having fun trying carrying out runs to train up people who had never been near an aircraft in their lives.

Sam - are you aware that this (and other posts of your's) are being copied and pasted on UKARSE verbatim, this is quoted in full on page 223 of their Vulcan topic by their most un-charming aggressive poster of them all (Dano'Hating if you weren't aware) followed of course by his usual standard of vitriol in reply. There are other smaller quotes elsewhere too, I do hope (but doubt) they have asked your permission to reproduce your statements!

Even by their standards it had become most aggressive and un-savoury on there in the last few days, quite surprised when I looked this morning, hopefully RIAT will prove a temporary distraction over the next day or two for those of them who are above school age although the way they behave I doubt it!

It does make me wonder whether this topic should be moved into a more private section of the forum?

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 43