Nimrod MRA4

[richlear]

Come on you BAe folk - tell us the real story - Jez, Drew, Richie - spill the beans

[maniac55]

Story, what story?

BTW PA02 should be making its first flight in the not too distant future. :cool:

[richlear]

There are rumours about problems with the avionics package and acoustics processing. - I do not know any details..

[jindabyne]

Of course there'll be problems - it's a development programme

[Sideshow Bob]

How about telling the story about the flying controls and autopilot then!!

[seand]

Give Nimrod a chance, a lot of very good engineers have and are still working on this aircraft, long hours have been spent by many, the engineers have also worked closer with the customer then anyother platform.

[richlear]

Of course we need to give it a chance, it is just I can't help thinking we have seen all this before.

Would an off the shelf (P3/P7) not have been a better choice technically if not politically?

Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of good memories of Normy Nimrod and I am certainly not knocking those working hard to make it work - but was it the correct choice?

[seand]

richlear

You are right "was it the correct choice", it seems that when it comes to British designed and built aircraft there always seem to be the debate should we have brought American aircraft, but should we be buying old US stock!, is it right that we let our own aerospace industry disappear.

I must admit was the replacement of Nimrod the best use of taxpayers money, do we still need this capability or should it be a nato or European capability paid for and operated by Europe.

I do find it hard to believe that we can send the army, navy and air force out to fix other peoples problems with below standard equipment yet spend a lot of money on projects that may have no modern requirements

[Mad_Mark]

I must admit was the replacement of Nimrod the best use of taxpayers money, do we still need this capability or should it be a nato or European capability paid for and operated by Europe.

I do find it hard to believe that we can send the army, navy and air force out to fix other peoples problems with below standard equipment yet spend a lot of money on projects that may have no modern requirements


Oh dear, here we go again :rolleyes: People with no idea about what the Nimrod can, and indeed does, do, talking out of their ar$es :mad:

What the fleet needs least of all now is a reduction in crews and aircraft. The fleet is working harder, and spending far more time away from home than it ever did back in the 'good old' cold war days. With this Governments ridiculous cuts it can only get worse, leading to even lower morale and even more people wishing to vote with their feet. I see few problems of reducing to the Governments target figures for the Kipper Fleet in the next year or 2, in fact I foresee retention bonuses being needed in just a few years time to keep the figure UP to the manning levels they have quoted!!

MadMark!!! :mad:

[MrEff]

Hi Rich Lear - New to this PPrune malarky Registered to reply to your "come on BAE people". I'm more than happy to answer any questions and debunk B#LL#X of which there seems to be a powerful lot spoken about MRA4. Funny how those that talk the loudest seem to know the least. As a starter.....There is no doubt that MRA4 is now far and away superior to anything else. To have chosen a P3 would have been to settle for something inferior to the MK2 which makes no sense. The Boeing MMA is laughable and will be a big dissappointment to all the US Navy operators who visited the MRA4 Integration Rig and declared that they would give their eye teeth for it. The MRA4 Mission System (which is working very well indeed thankyou) will enable its aircrew to fully utilise their tactical skills and produce world beating results in the many new and varied theatres now and in the future. (Mark is spot on here, of course). There have been problems with the project caused by both sides. However the empty vessels that bang on about them would do well to find out whether or not a solution has been engineered before they preach doom. I expect comments like "well you would say that wouldn't you" -- Those of you who know me know different! My one regret at leaving the airforce is that I won't get the chance to fight this excellent platform but the lads who do will have an aeroplane they can be proud of for years to come. Happy Christmas to all my readers.

[kippermate]

Visited Warton recently and had a look round the MRA4 stuff. The boys there seemed very happy. It was always going to be the case that if there was no limit on finances then they would have asked for more. However, that was never going to happen. 'Blue jobs' and civvies seemed to work and, more importantly, talk to each other with the same aim: to get a good bit of kit to the FL.

I'm looking forward to it.

:confused:

[richlear]

Mr Eff,

My comment was more of a question....I am ex nimrod, now involved in military projects from the civvy side...I know how these things go.

My thoughts are more orientated towards the political situation of ordering an aircraft purely to maintain a british aircraft industry - I was not knocking the aircraft or the team - merely asking the question.

cheers

rich

[I was Lucky_B*]

A little birdy has told me that the RAF will be looking for a new replacement aircraft soon!

BAe have done a sterling job getting the airframe to fly and save embarrasment all round but we aren't going to get much more!:uhoh:

[richlear]

What???

That sounds like a flame to me!

[moggiee]

In defence of BAE, when the project commenced we (I was at BAE at the time) told the MoD that it would be cheaper, quicker and easier to build new airframes from scratch rather than try to integrate the old fuselage to new wings.

"oh no, we want to save money by reusing the old fuselage".

"but that will cost more!"

"ah, but it's what we, the customers, want".

Seems like we've heard that one before.

[MrEff]

Quite right. The customer insisted on Rolls Royce engines rather than the ones in the bid. This forced the design and build of the new wing causing extra cost and significant delay.

Quote "A little birdy has told me that the RAF will be looking for a new replacement aircraft soon!" - I wonder at the value of unsubstantiated comments like this. I could say that the same little birdy told me that the MOD had finally wised up and decided to go ahead with eighteen of these superb aircraft but unless I name the 'little bird' it's all just so much tosh!

Hi Rich Lear - sorry I came out all guns blazing. We know each other well, so I hope you'll understand. I really believe it was worth the Government buying British. Having experienced the way Boeing work, you get exactly what you specified. Ie if you didn't say you wanted seats, you don't get any seats. The way BAE and the RAF have worked together has really been an inspiration. Together they have always sought out the best solution and not just the one in the spec. All the best, Ritchie.

[plt_aeroeng]

As a Canadian ex-maritime patrol pilot and aerospace engineer who had some peripheral involvement with RMPA and BAe during the solicitation of interest phase, I wish MRA4 the best.

I also agree that reducing the fleet is a bad decision, just when the project appears to be emerging from its cloud. MPA still have great generalized capability for surveillance, whether subsurface, water surface, or overland in controlled threat environments.

During that early time, i.e. 93-94, the BAe systems engineers I dealt with were quite nervous that MOD would drive them to a new wing, which they believed would blow up the risk, cost and schedule. Clearly they were right.

On the other hand, I don't understand the scathing comment about MMA. The 737 is a good aircraft with reasonable payload/range for the role and reportedly excellent handling. The mission system presumably will take into account lessons learned during MRA4, for which Boeing also produced the mission system.

Bomb bay capacity (an area where Nimrod has no peer) may be one weakness on a 737 solution, but otherwise I believe it would be at least competitive with the MRA4 airframe/engines and in some respect superior. It also has the advantage of starting from newer internal systems (fuel/hydraulics/services etc.) than Nimrod.

A P3 would have been a lower capability solution. The P3 is derived from the '50s Electra, i.e. contemporary with Comet, and is not a modern design. It also has a very stiff and short wing, with consequent poor low altitude ride and limited manoeuvrability. It doesn't even have anti-skid! Canadian Aurora pilots generally try not to use the brakes on landing on slippery runways due to the risk of blown tires. Good thing those large Hamilton Standard paddles are good tools for slowing down.

The two P3 variants proposed for RMPA were:

1. Used/refurbished P3Bs with a new mission system - clearly less capable than MRA4, and
2. New P3s with mission system derived from USN standard. USN standard at that time was an only paritially integrated system with an outmoded architecture and which had limitations in the mission computer. Not nearly as advanced as MRA4.

If either P3 option had been chosen, the RAF would perhaps have had a solution by now, but one with significant shortfalls compared to MMA.

MRA4 has taken too long and cost too much, but there is no point in dwelling on the reasons for that now: It has the potential to be a superior platform.

[richlear]

Ritchie - check your PM

[Charlie Luncher]

MR EFF
would you also at one time been known as "Paddle Switch"
if so hope the strumming fingers are still agile, and you are slowly transferring the collection to DVD:8 .
regards to Mrs eff - my bruising has healed:oh:
Charlie sends

[Siggie]

I can certainly vouch for the P3's rough ride at low level, Mr Luncher's felt proper poorly once or twice.

Mr EFF, keep up the good work.

[MrEff]

Regarding the 737, I agree it's a fine aeroplane but believe it just is not suited to the rough and tumble of the Nimrods many and varied operating areas. A famous engineer once said "Count the number of engines on your aircraft and divide by two. If your answer is two or less, don't try to cross the Atlantic in it!!!" Also those massive underslung engines would cause all sorts of other problems manoevring at 200ft. I think the 737 would be okay if your concept of ops was to co-ordinate with a UAV and just get involved at high level in a benign environment, but that places severe limitations on role. Current thinking seems to be suggesting that UAVs are a long way short of the answer to a politicians prayer that was initially believed.
The huge advantage that MRA4 has is that it is truely adaptable. It can do high level co-ordination, designate targets and destroy them, get down low and prosecute submarines or perform SAR. The capability is being built into MRA4 to expand into many other areas of operation. ie C4ISR. So whilst the 737 is a perfectly good airliner the MRA4 does exactly what it says on the tin.
Multi Role and Attack! The Americans should have a rethink and buy a couple of hundred of them.

Hi Charlie,
I wasn\'t Paddle Switch but I am the phantom strummer. Mrs Eff is in the pink and misses the correctional taps she used to administer to you. The new band is called "Charlie Don\'t Surf" featuring Drew Steel on drums. DVDs are the way ahead but without SAR the opportunity to view is rare.
I remember Hooters and your pork pie hat and the waitress who objected to being bitten on the ###.
Hope Kerry is fine and you are enjoying life.

Rich Lear - Check your PM

[Rockwell]

PA02 made its maiden flight today 15/12 from Woodford. Landed at BAE Warton after 2 hr flight. Understand that PA03 has FF put back to May/June as additional gadgetry is being installed.

Here's to a successful test programme!

[AndyDRHuddleston]

Anyone know who flew PA02??? Was it JT/BO again?

[Charlie Luncher]

Mr Eff

Halcyon Days, you know I need to be closely supervised at all times and thus hold Cj responsible.:yuk:

As for the band I hope you have O2 and a Mars Bar on tap just in case the old fella gets carried away on a drum solo - I keep getting flashbacks to animal and the Muppets just picture it. As for the group name, point of order, Charlie does now surf, not gracefully as you will appreciate.:cool:

Now then for those who think the UK should have bought P3 variants it would have been a step backwards as the airframe does have a few limitations compared to the Norman and it definitely is not as graceful but does leak about the same, either bumping along at 100'or bumping along in the clouds as you cant get above them, combined with the constant drone(not sure if it is the props or siggie:E ) the lunch has risen a few times. It is also a requirement to wear the helmet visor down to pick my nose as I would have had my eye out by now.
The MMA airframe is a fine airliner and Boeing will sell it well to pilots looking for type ratings with BA/Virgin, along with selling the UAV option as politicians will love it as they will not have to face questions when some of their crews are paraded on N.Korean/Chinese/Iranain TV. What the MRA and updated P3s offer can not be replaced by geeks in trailers or enhanced AWACS type platforms but I feel the decision will be outside my paygrade and well advised by the civil serpents, regards to all the freaks and geeks at DLTS you know who you are.:8

Charlie sends
now where's me board luv, what white shark:ooh:

[Strato Q]

Agree with Siggie about the P3's rough ride - threw my guts up on my second tactical trip - only did it twice in 2500 hours on the Nimrod: L1 and after a night out in Nimes.:yuk:

Although able to out perform the Nimrod at low level, the P3 struggles getting anywhere with a decent payload, max bag you would be lucky to make FL 170 and TAS 350 ish.

Charlie - got yourself on Fincastle yet?

[MrEff]

Aircrew on PA02 first flight were, Mark Robinson, Neil Dawson and Frank James. She was ready to fly again today but the weather was out of limits. Flight 2 and 3 now planned for early next week to begin mission system fight test. I am scheduled to be on flight 3. Fingers crossed.

[Mad_Mark]

Excellent news :ok: Please keep us informed in here, MrEff, as we tend to hear sweet Fanny Adams at work :(

MadMark!!!

[Radar Riser]

Great news and congrats to all at Warton.

How long before one comes up to Kinloss for us all to have a look see?

RR

[richlear]

Ritchie - did you fly this week??

rich

[covec]

Heard nothing about PA02 up here at ISK.

Perhaps I should be looking at Waddo's news pages....

OK, that was a naughty comment, I retract it. Sorry.

[Charlie Luncher]

Mr eff
Hope you are taking your bit of string and protractor(?) with you, or have you gone all technical on us now.:8
Charlie sends

[MrEff]

PA02 flew her 2nd trip on Tuesday with Yostie on board. She's tucked up for Christmas now. I'm on 1st flight of the new year ( I Hope). PA03 had 'power on' this week - ahead of schedule. Its all getting very real!
Charlie - I'll still be using whatever comes to hand as long as you keep rattling those chicken bones.

[ANW]

For anyone interested photos of MRA4s at Warton and Woodford can be found here:
http://www.edendale.co.uk/ANW/WTN.801.1.html

[BEagle]

Very good - the stupid secure protection ensures that the images won't load properly....

[polyglory]

I agree Beagle, would have thought a good PR slot went amiss.

[Ian Corrigible]

Beags,

Works fine for me, just make sure you don't have your cursor over the 'protected' image, or it won't show. (Did someone say "Print Screen" ?)

:E

I/C

[jindabyne]

Maybe the fun police know of your thumb print?

[rivetjoint]

I can't get the photos to load either, why not post them normally like everyone else on this planet does?!?! :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Lost_luggage34]

Great photos - one hell of an ugly aircraft though.

Looks like it's had an argument with someones garden fence !

[Caledonian]

am l missing something, first flight, l thought these were old frames refitted not totally new???

any able to help me on that

[MrEff]

Quote from Caledonian - "am l missing something, first flight, l thought these were old frames refitted not totally new???"

This is a popular misconception. There is very little left of the doner aircraft by the time they become an MRA4. In fact it is about 95% new build. Inside it is very 21st century with a totally different operating concept.

Personally I think the MRA4 looks the business. The MK2 always looked menacing when compared to the P3 and the new aeroplane looks even more so. Some of the lumps and bumps you see in the photos are for flight test and won't appear on the production aircraft.

[Yeller_Gait]

Mr Eff,


the doner aircraft

Are you planning on opening a kebab shop using one of the leftover aircraft ??? It would look good at the main gate of ISK, and I am sure that it would be a good profitable business.

Merry Christmas one and all.

YG

[ANW]

> Very good - the stupid secure protection ensures that the images won't load properly....

This is a user setting problem affecting those with the latest Microsoft SP upgrades.
Open the above link again and read the text on accessing the larger photos.
MS cocks it up again :{

IanC - mum's the word :E

rivetjoint - hear what you say and totally agree, but read the bottom section of the above mentioned 'notes' page for the reason.

Merry Christmas everyone.

[surely not]

What great photos, and I agree that it really does look the business, very mean and nasty :ok:

[richlear]

Although i can't download them - a couple of questions:

are those vertical strakes just inboard of the Loral pods?

Surprised to see the Arar/Arax antenna housing on the fin...still filled with concrete?

thanks

rich

[MrEff]

Rich - The pod on the fin is now home to the SHF Satcom antenna.

[winston's cigar]

So Rich, who exactly do you work for?

[Mikehegland]

Quote.... Good photo's....it looks mean and nasty...????? Its a NIMROD for gawds sake.... how can an MPA look mean and nasty?

[BEagle]

Well, I still can't open the larger photos thanks to the daft encryption used. The 'having difficulties' link just goes to some site which appears to be a bitch fight between "I hate Bill Gatres" nerds and others...

Chaps, if the vast majority (apart from geeks) use Windows - and probably WinXPSP2 - doesn't it make sense to make your pictures compatible if you want them to be seen?

[buoy15]

Caledonian

No - to keep the fuselage helped with certification. The existing tubes are only about 1600 hours old and have CAA authority which carry about 32 certificates. A brand new ac requires 50+ and takes longer to get into service. Certification for wings, engines, and ancilliaries require much less; so, NDT the tubes, strap on the bits, pass the test and get flying. Also keeps the costs down. This is what was done and is proven.

The Arax/Arar canoe was never filled with concrete - it was, and still is, retained for aerodynamic purposes. It was intended to house an earlier SatNav, but that's now fitted to the upper rear fuselage because present day aerials are not as clumsy and don't need fairings.

On an engineering point - it's very expensive to modify an ac due to equipement rendundancy, particularly when it affects the external airframe - best heave out the old kit and use the existing space for future developments.

Love many, Trust a few, no cement in my canoe:ok:

[Compass Call]

What are the small vertical fins on the wingtips, just inboard of the pods?

Just curious :ok:

CC

[bluetail]

Mr Eff

Quote
"There is very little left of the doner aircraft by the time they become an MRA4. In fact it is about 95% new build ".

That is except the complete Pressure shell (which must surely add up to more than 5%) I have the pictures, and flying controls (more than a couple of a percent), PA01 (ZJ516) had about 14,000 hrs on it in its previous life as XV247 I reckon thats an awful lot of Pressurisations which must surely still have an impact on the remaining metal.

Thinks !!!! I wonder if they have fixed "47,s lousy plain flaps, we never did get them fixed properly when she was at ISK, infact looking at the pictures its not got them anymore.

PA01 had a previous life.................it will time.... count !


BT

[Vage Rot]

Richlear

Long time no see - ex of 201 days in the late 80's!!

Can't be arsed reading the thread to see if anyone else has said this - MRA4 vs P3/P7 etc - right choice? given the development timescale either way - 50/50. Course the P7 would have been the safer option as the C130-J avionics are proven right?............er.........er..............oh no they're not. Even now after 10 years from first flight the J is only just coming up t scratch. Don't knock the MRA4. A lot has been achieved in a very short time. Of course there will be problems but the other option was no less risky.

[M609]

PIC 1 (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/758423/L/)

PIC 2 (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/758422/L/)

[Nignog]

Bluetail - the flying controls are all new as are the wings and flaps.

[BEagle]

What an unbelievably ugly brute the Nimrod Y2K is!

Whatever happened to "If it looks right, it'll fly right!"....??

[bigflyingrob]

What happened to the AEW airframes when the project was scrapped. I thought they were low hours/best knick of the fleet.

[BEagle]

They were all dismanteld or scrapped at various locations including RAF Abingdon.

[Neil Porter]

Beagle; Your are correct sir - in fact two thirds of the Nimrod AEW3 s flew into Abingdon which then sat there for ages, slwly being robbed of spares before most being given the cutters torch!
One i believe re-flew out to Kinloss just before the 89 Airday....

[bluetail]

Beagle.........was nearly right

The AEW3 leet were all broken up at Abingdon except XV263 which went to Finningley for baby Flight Engineers to play with, apparently they were even allowed to drive it around occasionally, I certainly know that it was ground run quite alot.

Also XZ282 had the distinction of carrying out the last ever AEW3 flight when it was delivered to Kinloss in 1989,

This aircraft was used as a ground trials aircraft for the remainder of its existance, a none ground runner she was towed all over the place, and eventually ended up outside the MU and was slowly reduced to produce.

When Kinloss finally got bored with her in the mid 90,s Williamson's the local scrappy bought the hulk for a couple of grand and commenced the job, that was until they got to the wings.

They still had fuel in.............

Imagine the site, local scrappy with very big husqvarnar.... chop chop.. spark spark.. whats that funny smell.............err .........fuel.

Sh&t....and off they ran and came back when they got brave. '82 ended her days in Elgin.

£2.000 for £75 Million pound aircraft... (Project binned when it hit £750 Million) good deal that, the scrappy probably got at least £2000 for each of its jet pipes

I did a bit of research on the AEW fleet for an article some years later, I found that of the fleet of 10 built at least 2 had less than 100 Flying Hours, with the lowest about 85

What a waste...............a classic goal posts job

The only bits of AEW3 remaining I know of are as follows


Carlisle Airport Cockpit of XV259
Warton Nose of XV263
RAF Stafford Fuselage of XZ287

BT



BT

[christof]

The fuselage of XV263 (minus nose and tail section) is located at Woodford, it is/will be used for stress testing purposes.

[seand]

Bit of info, A guy in Guildford has got the nose section of the prototype, last I herd was that he was looking for bits to bring it up to spec, which was a shame as I remember seeing skips loaded with bits he could have used at Hurn, all I believe heading to the scrap man.

Although the main fuselage was kept a lot of work still has to be done to bring it up to spec.

[buoy15]

Bluetail

Read my previous threads

That lovely man at Warton in those early days knew what Nimrod was about to do and built the beast well over spec. Where it should be 8mm it was 10 - where it was 12 it was 14 etc. etc.

XV247 is a rogue ac; it's numbers add up to 13 (unlucky for some)

On the 13Sep83, No 2 engine sucked in and killed a Cpl engine fitter during a ground run on Bay 13 at ISK.

Later, during a major servicing - 13Nov84 - a Sgt Airframe Fitter was paralysed for life when his head was trapped in the air- brakes.

I'm not superstsious like, but I never took a Life-Jacket whose numbers add up to 13.

Love many, Trust a few, Always paddle your own canoe:ok:

[MAD Boom]

B 15

I was always told it was 229 for those accidents. Spookily adding up to 13 also, and ghost sightings have been seen since. Aren't rumours great!!

[bluetail]

B 15

Not wanting to change the thread, but you are correct about both 29 and 47, the latter was a nasty beast indeed.

There were many a liney in my time at ISK who refused to go onto 29 at night alone. A particular good buddy of mine (rigger) swore blind he saw someone/something in the galley of 29 one night and after that refused point blank to go onto it alone in the dark.

I remember one girly engine fitter doing a refuel actually talking to something which vanished, again on 29 she was completly mortified for the rest of the night.

There are 4 nimrods that add up to 13

29, 38, 47, & 83

And dont mention 666

[Ray Dahvectac]

XV256 was somewhat unluckier. :(

[bluetail]

Ray

Ah.... I Forgot about 56,

In the early 90,s ISK started painting a nice badge by the Port back door with a Sqn crews name above and Crew Chief,s name below, I was told mine would be put on 29, which I promptly declined, much because of the aircrafts spooky reputation.

I finally got my name on '30, a much better jet, 'cos being a bit of a Harry Potter, 30 was the first Nimrod delivered to the RAF for sqn service. (OCU St Mawgan 1969), which appealed to me much more.

BT

[buoy15]

NFTC had a very lucky escape with 29 on Rum Punch some years ago

Started with a flying control restriction - did the changeover drills and headed for Nassau. By the time they reached the end of the runway the whole system locked up.

A sequence valve in the cracking strut servodyne thingy in the Aeileron bay had been fitted upside down at birth - amazingly it functioned properly all those years

They even traced the fitter from AVRO at Warton, long since retired, who recalled exactly how he assembled it - upside down!

Great bit of detective work by the BOI and engineers

My crew flew it back from Florida - I remember it well - it was one of the quietest transits I have ever done

That's the only claim to fame I know of regarding 29 - never heard of the ghosty things - strange?

[bluetail]

Buoy 15

I was there too.......

it got named "The Bahama Mama"

Wasn,t there a couple of Green Endorsements dished out, didn,t the Eng get one.

If I recall it was a complete sod of a job to fix it, took a crew from ISK 2 weeks in Nassau to sort it out.

BT

[bluetail]

Back to the MRA4..........and sorry if I,ve missed it

Why haven't the beasts been painted properly yet. are they keeping the weight down, which I can,t believe

I thought the grey paint job was approved already

They look poxy in primer

BT

[Ray Dahvectac]

They even traced the fitter from AVRO at Warton...

Very odd, cos I seem to remember them being built by Hawker Siddeley at Woodford! ;)

Unless those many nights out at Bredbury Hall got rid of more brain cells than I thought at the time! :ooh:

[Charlie Luncher]

229 First started mis-behaving in Nordholtz having her now famous uncontrolled flying control movements. Something spooky about a beast that wants to dive into the sea, it was not new to us as we did have Skippy as a Co-pilot, dont mention the windsurfers!!:sad:

Now then Mr eff you back at work yet and got your sorry ass into the air, it makes your ears go pop! and of course :yuk:
Heard rumours (DQI 2) a decision could be soon it is a rumour network after all.

Charlie sends

[richlear]

Does Bredbury Hall still exist???? Happy memories of 2 weeks there on the YG course....

[Strato Q]

Charlie,

that would be Skippy "I've lost it, I've lost it" when flying at 200' losing the sound from his headset, unfortunately for the rest of the brown trousered crew his mic was still working.

Or "All I have to do is push forward and I will take you all with me" - did not stay at ISK very long after that.

[Ray Dahvectac]

Does Bredbury Hall still exist????

It does, as I drove up to it the other week as I was in the area. Nostalgia and all that..... Probably the first time I have seen the place in daylight too! :oh:

But as to whether or not it is still the same Bredbury Hall that we know and love..... :confused:

[kippermate]

You can't talk about Skippy like that........................

His granny will come looking for you!

:ok:

[Charlie Luncher]

Have Shotgun and a couple of loads of Buckshot for skippy and his granny, best fetch me a couple of reloads:E

Charlie sends

[SKWEEKY]

Charlie - G'day little dude, hows the Colonies ?;)

So they let you in with the shotguns hey ?

Get in touch mate - Skweeky sends............

[aerodesigner]

It is fair to say the avionics and various other systems on the MRA4 are still in the development stage therefore we have to expect to suffer some teething problems. But having the upmost confidence in the BAE engineers, i'm sure thiese will be overcome.

When the MOD decided to use the old airframes from the Mk2 aircraft, what wasn't taken into account was the fact that these airframes were practically hand built compared with todays manufacturing processes (i.e. use of close tolerance jigs, fixture and CAD packages). This resulted in a Mk2 fleet with structural variations of up to a 2" between the aircraft.

However, the new built assemblies such as wings, tailplane finlets etc, for the MRA4 were designed and built using close tolerance CAD packages, jigs and fixtures. and so all new built assemblies were identical.

Major structural problems therefore arose when trying to mate the new and old assemblies. The same effect you would get fitting the same dia bolt into varying hole sizes.

Perhaps the plan is to prove the MRA4 sytems on board PA01 to PA03, then look at various other platforms???

It is fair to say the avionics and various other systems on the MRA4 are still in the development stage therefore we have to expect to suffer some teething problems. But having the upmost confidence in the BAE engineers, i\'m sure thiese will be overcome.

When the MOD decided to use the old airframes from the Mk2 aircraft, what wasn\'t taken into account was the fact that these airframes were practically hand built compared with todays manufacturing processes (i.e. use of close tolerance jigs, fixture and CAD packages). This resulted in a Mk2 fleet with structural variations of up to a 2" between the aircraft.

However, the new built assemblies such as wings, tailplane finlets etc, for the MRA4 were designed and built using close tolerance CAD packages, jigs and fixtures. and so all new built assemblies were identical.

Major structural problems therefore arose when trying to mate the new and old assemblies. The same effect you would get fitting the same dia bolt into varying hole sizes.

Perhaps the plan is to prove the MRA4 sytems on board PA01 to PA03, then look at various other platforms???

[buoy15]

aerodesigner

You keep repeating yourself mate

Hope the CADAM team don't do the same

By the way, only the outboard leading edges and the wing boxes were hand built.

Hello, is that Bredbury Hall, ah yes, about my liver transplant.
Thank you Mr Sykes, see you tonight on the chanderlier!

Happy days!

[where2next]

As this is a rumour network:

Apparently a decision on the future of the project is very close to being reached (possibly within the next few weeks).

Future MPA has been forecast to 2035. MR2 until 2011/12 followed by MRA4 and MR2 until ??? followed by MMA. The MRA4 option is the cheapest (5.5bn) but more cash is needed earlier than the MMA option (6.5bn).

Of course, I only heard this via a rumour, so can anyone shed any light?

[My T Hunter]

Don't know if it's significant or not, but the MP for Woodford asked for clarification of the Government's position on the MRA4 during business questions in the house this morning.

[Charlie Luncher]

Any word yet??
I know these things are slower than a fairy with a replacement LRU when there is a good movie on Sky:rolleyes: , but thought there were to be meetings on the beast soon.
Good luck

Charlie sends:bored: