Several of you have expressed moral indignation directed at the few posters, including myself, who chose to use as an example of misallocation of lottery funds our concern that the sum of

>I merely wanted to set the record straight as I saw it. FWIW, I am an American citizen living in northwest Indiana (at the tip of Lake Michigan), yet I found your brief interesting.Unfortunately, we too suffer such things here in the U.S., so certainly the U.K. doesn't have an exclusive franchise on questionable practices.I do hope that the Vulcan Restoration will find the funding somewhere. What is the position of the British chapters of the C.A.F. (Confederate Air Force)? I'd certainly like to know where they came up with such a short life expectancy for a fully restored Vulcan! The C.A.F has much older a/c than that in perfectly fine working order! :)

Hi Bill,>FWIW, I am an American citizen living in northwest Indiana (at the tip of Lake Michigan), yet I found your brief interesting........ Thank you!>I'd certainly like to know where they came up with such a short life expectancy for a fully restored Vulcan!....... I too would like to know the answer to that one. Have they taken into consideration the fact that the aircraft will likely only be flown for display purposes? That alone must help to extend the life expectancy of the airframe.Mike

This is the Statement on Heritage Lottery Fund Rejection of Grant Application Direct from Vulcan To The Sky Limited--------------------------------------------------------------------The Heritage Lottery Fund Trustees state: that the rejection was "on value for money grounds in terms of the relatively short flying life which would be available against a very substantial investment of Lottery money". Vulcan To the Sky position:At no stage during the assessment of our application was the number of years that the aircraft would be flying identified as a concern by the HLF. Our stated plan for operating the aircraft was based on the program of flight operations carried out every year by the RAF's Vulcan Display Flight. There is no reason whatsoever why this level of flight activity could not be changed, extending the number of flying years accordingly. The aircraft has at the very least six hundred flying hours available, which can be consumed at whatever annual rate is most equitable. Indeed we have already verified that, by reducing the number of public display flights by half, to twenty per year, a 15-year flying life is feasible, which itself could quite possibly be extended yet further. The significant access by hundreds of thousands of the public annually to this important heritage asset would therefore be available over a far longer period. Over a 15-year flying life, we estimate that at least 5 million individuals in the UK will see the Vulcan in the air, significantly more if television coverage is included. Further, at the end of the aircraft's flying life, it is destined to become a unique and very valuable ground exhibit at a national aviation museum. The Lottery grant should therefore also be seen as providing a significant long-term conservation benefit, by enabling the best-preserved British aircraft of its era to be kept in perpetuity for the public. The aircraft of the 1950s-60s were made of materials that are prone to significant corrosion unless continuously re-protected in the way that XH558 has been and will be before, during and after her flying life. Those aircraft that are not the subject of ongoing in-depth preventative maintenance - especially if kept outdoors as are fourteen of the seventeen extant Vulcan airframes in the UK - will suffer such structural deterioration over the next thirty years that they will be rendered unfit to remain on public display. The Vulcan To the Sky Trust is committed to provide a substantial Trust Fund, raised during the aircraft's flying life, to pay for the asset's upkeep during retirement. Our business plan currently shows this Trust Fund amounting to at least

Hi Graham,Well, after that all I can say is that I hope sincerely that ALL the above is included as part of the appeal.The fact that to date there has been "no precedent for funding the restoration of an historic aircraft to flying order" is hardly a valid argument for refusing this grant from the HLF. Surely every other project that has been fortunate enough to receive support was itself a precedent when first an award was made in the category to which the applicant belonged.In any case, the fact that the funding of the 'Vulcan to the Sky' would establish a new precedent does not preclude other similar projects being judged on their own merits.As you have stated it must now be evident that the HLF need help in understanding fully why their initial decision is wrong. Such contributions from yourself, as represented by your very comprehensive and factual post, can only help achieve this end.Mike

Bump.... as I do feel more who may be interested should be given the opportunity to read Graham's last post (No 5 by phoenix 1) before it slides out of sight down the pages.Mike

bump again

well..call me a simple dude...a su##er...or whatever...but uhm...i don

Mike,I too share your feelings regarding getting the Avro Vulcan airborne again. My sightings of this magnificent aircraft in the past have been a close range view of a museum exhibit (somewhere between Lincoln and Nottingham, I think), and a distant view of one flying low over Morecambe Bay in the north of England, many years ago. I would LOVE to see a Vulcan in flight from CLOSE RANGE. It is a unique aircraft, and that massive delta wing makes it look very impressive indeed. In my opinion, it should be treated with the same respect and affection that is afforded to Concorde.Chris Low,ENGLAND.