Probably a daft question but are the basic core components changeable with the core components of the Marine Olympus which power various frigates & destroyers?
This was asked over on TVOC forums a while ago, and 'if' I recall correctly, they're not interchangeable due to being made up of different materials.
Aircraft engines need to be made as light as possible whereas the marine ones don't, so the metals used are different. (AFAIK)
The marine engines also have significantly larger main bearings, because they have to withstand sea-level internal thrust at all times
Quote:
Gainsey, I was on the Ark a couple of weeks ago, I believe she has 500 series Olympus, ie Concorde, not Vulcan. Don't know about the rest.
Unless there has been a major upgrade since she was built, the Ark has four TM3B units, each fitted with a 2017 marine olympus, similar to 558's 200 series aero units. There was no marine or industrial varient of the 593 Concorde engines
quote...
Hmm, I seem to remember a number of rear turbine bearing failures on the -200s, some of which resulted in total loss of the aircraft due to damage from the subsequent uncontained turbine disk failures. The Vulcan's achilles heel in fact.
Wasn't this in the aircraft fitted with the 300series engines not the 200??
Sat Sun
well well lets not get our hopes up yet for the weekend I HAVE IT FROM THE HORSES MOUTH SO TO SPEAK SHE'S TECH AT BRIZE CEASED BRAKE MAXARET HOPE THEY HAVE SPARES.
No doubt the MA guys will be making the 3rd trip of the week down to try to get her ready but who knows it may depend on spares,funding and availability of key people needed to to release her..... daddy flm
daddy flm.......why do you have to be such a Bl***y misery guts...... can't you be happy they have done the impossible and got her in the air..... even, God forbid, if it's only for this year...... or is there another agenda hidden away in Cambridge?
Wasn't this in the aircraft fitted with the 300series engines not the 200??
All of them. 100, 200 and 300. One of the early B1A's actually came back and landed 'cos the crew weren't aware of how bad the damage was.
After that the AEO could use his periscope to take a butcher's and assess the damage.
Incidentally, after Rolls royce took over Bristol Siddeley they wouldn't touch the Olympus engines and we were much bemused by a brass plate attached next to the data plate stating "Overhauled by the Standard Motor Co. Ltd." when they came back from overhaul. I wonder if any of the TVOC engines have that plate fitted?
(Standard Motor Co. was the company that built the RAF's favourite staff car of the 50's and 60's - the Vanguard).
Come on Sooty, get in there and put it right! That's how Wiki works. In the meantime, what's the most glaring error?
Quote:
Well have you "corrected" it yet? Shame on you if you do not.
Yes, I know it's easy to correct Wikipedia, if you have the inclination. The point I was trying to make is that all info obtained from Wiki has to be treated as suspect unless it can be confirmed from other sources.
Since you ask, and at great risk of accusations of thread drift, my comments on the Wiki article are -
On the marine side, there is no mention of the TM2 variant of the engine, or of many of the navies (Iran, Libya, Malaysia) who used it.
There is no mention at all of the many industrial (electrical generation) units installed in 17.5MW, 20MW and massive multi-engined 70MW sets at various power stations in UK and overseas.
On the aero side, the differences between the 100 and 200 series seems to be under-stated, and the differences between 200 and 300 series over-stated. The 200 was significantly bigger than the 100 in all directions, and the B2 was a very different airframe to accommodate it. The 300 is only larger than the 200 in terms of length at the intake end, and this is accommodated with a shorter adaptor between engine and airframe. The remainder of the 300 dimensions (bulkheads, trunnions, etc) are the same as the 200.
Sooty
Last edited by sooty655 : 25th September 2008 at 21:41.
Reason: spelling
Would love to know what prestigious out side event this country has to offer us in the last few months of this year"
"The Autumn Airshow at the Imperial War Museum at Duxford, which this year is taking place on Sunday 5th October, traditionally brings down the curtain on the season. It is always a joyous and celebratory occasion and Vulcan to the Sky had hoped to make it even more special this year by bringing XH558 to the party. Unfortunately this will not now be possible due to technical problems with her No 2 engine.
This year Vulcan to the Sky have succeeded in fulfilling their promise to bring XH558 back to the people. Making her long awaited return at Waddington in July the aircraft has toured the country; as far South as Jersey, North West to Southport, North to Leuchars in Scotland and East to Lowestoft; which was the jewel in the crown of the aircraft’s displays, with two days of glorious sunshine and record crowds. Eight days at Farnborough also gave both the aviation trade and the world’s media the opportunity to see the ‘Vulcan Effect’ at first hand. It is estimated that well over 1 million people have seen XH558 this summer and, as a result, attendances at airshows have increased in anticipation of seeing this icon of the skies by at least 20%, and that does not include all of those who parked by the roadside and looked skyward in awe and emotion.
Andrew Edmondson, Director of Engineering at Vulcan to the Sky said
“It has been absolutely terrific to see the reaction of the crowds watching the Vulcan flying at airshows. The sheer numbers of people who have turned up to see this much-loved and admired aircraft just shows how much XH558 is valued and remembered as a true hero of British aviation. The public seems to be taking the Vulcan to their hearts in the same way as Concorde was. Without the generosity of the public, and support from sponsors and the Heritage Lottery Fund, the Vulcan would certainly have remained in early retirement. “
However, the dream of the Vulcan to the Sky team of continuing to showcase XH558 for the next decade is in real danger as Andrew explains:
“I just hope that now we will be able to continue to bring the aircraft to many more shows and enable the younger generation to see not only a superb example of British engineering but a living part of our history. XH558 is the only Vulcan in the world that can fly. But there is a big barrier that may prevent us from achieving our objective; without the support of commercial sponsorship, millions of people may be denied the experience of seeing this awesome aircraft in the air again!”
“After all of the hard work, dedication, commitment and effort that has been put in by all of the team, this would be devastating. By returning XH558 to flight after years of painstaking restoration, negotiation and fundraising, we have already achieved what was widely considered to be impossible and we have proved that we can fly and operate XH558 successfully. For this amazing project to falter due to a lack of funding would be agonising for all the team and our supporters. However we do hope that it will at least prove possible to display XH558 at one more prestigious event before she settles back into her hangar for winter servicing.”
Having just caught back up with the posts, it seems that many of the questions that were asked have already been answered, however, I can hopefully clear up a couple of other issues.
Pontius Nav,
The engines are in a state of basic undress, that is to say that they require all ancilliary equipment to be moved across from the old engine to the new engine. Regardless of the state of the ancilliary equipment, the engines are always referred to as ECUs. New engines will always require some dressing items to be fitted from the old ECU, as not all engines in the airframe are fitted with the same ancilliary equipment or require 'handed' fittings dependant on installation location, for instance, the #4 engine on the Vulcan is not fitted with a Hydraulic pump. There are a total of four 'Zero Hour' replacement engines owned by TVOC, and these were last overhauled in 1981, and have remained in their WVR bags since that date.
Blacksheep,
You do indeed recall correctly, however, this was not so much the Vulcan's Achilles Heel, as the Olympus's Achilles Heel. Rear bearing problems dogged the Olympus engine from start to finish in different guises, but occurences could be found in every model. XA909 with 104 engines became an early victim of this, losing its LP turbine over Anglesey in 1964, due to rear bearing failure. There were several instances of rear bearing failure on the 200 series, with the 300 series suffering even worse, with a number of aircraft lost to this, the 300 series also having its own unique blade resonance issues due to the extra compressor stage. The 300 series development was also set back considerably due to unique rear bearing lubrication issues at high level. As the Olympus design had yet more performance wrung out of the design, these issues became more prominent, with the Olympus 22R fitted to the TSR2 having its own "Rear Bearing Overtemp" lamps fitted to the console, to give warning of imminent failure. The issues were resolved to a degree in the 593 fitted to Concorde, but remained an issue until the retirement of the type, consequently, the 200 series is regarded as the more rugged of the type.
Regards the "Standard Motors" engine plate, unfortunately, all of the stored engines are fitted with Rolls Royce data plates, which read "Rolls Royce Bristol Olympus 20201" with the Bristol part of the designation painted out. Standard were one of several companied amalgamated to form Bristol Siddeley, including De Havilland Engines, Blackburn Engines, Napier Engines, Metropolitan Vickers and Bristol Engines. When Rolls Royce absorbed Bristol in 1966, they had already been heavily involved with the Olympus 22R for the TSR2 and were then deeply involved with the Olympus 593 for Concorde, so to suggest that they 'wouldn't touch the Olympus' is erroneous.
Sooty655,
Some great points you raise there, however despite being completely seperate engines, the 100 and 200 series are not enormously different, with the 200 being only marginally larger than the 100 series, but encompassing all of the 100 series Mods to produce a more powerful engine from the off. A 200 series engine was able to fit into a Vulcan B1 engine bay, and this was done so with XA891, in order to carry out flight testing. Unfortunately, a 300 series engine will not fit into a 200 series Vulcan without airframe structural modification, such is the size difference. You are totally correct, however, that the 300 is basically an upgraded 200, and was designed so that existing 200 series engines in production could be converted. An extra stage was fitted to the LP compressor, along with an enlarged delivery casing, and the 4th and 5th LP comp stages were constructed from stainless steel as opposed to aluminium, other than that, and a slightly different fuel schedule, they are the same engine.
As you know yourself, an engine change does not take that long at all to carry out and could easily be done before Duxford, so it is fairly obvious that there are more problems behind the scenes than meets the eye. The fact that an engine has not yet arrived from Bruntingthorpe could possibly have a deeper meaning, however, as I'm not in reciept of the current state of play within TVOC, I wouldn't like to speculate further.
Sad to say but the image at TVOC is flawed for a potential backer to get on board
It started when threats were made in the media, in the early days of the restoration for the AC to be exported to the states for Delta wing R and D work if funds were not raised in time
Ever since, there has been a nervous air given off about the whole project coupled with all the other negative aspects, it is not hard to see why no CEO will touch TVOC with a barge pole, and none of the entrepreneurs seem interested and those that are don't have that kind of loose change
sad to say but war conotations and large CO2 outputs coupled with a very large credit crunch and advertising spend cut back (long before the crunch ask ITV) have not surprisingly doomed the project and I would be amazed if it survives the year
It is only the good will of MA and the RAF thats holding it together
Expect to see more projects in this area fail in fact i would be amazed if only a few airshows are left in 5 years time
I hope i am proved wrong, and have paid my way to help the cause and watched her all the way.
As a point, just look at the jetman stunt today
major tv coverage but did you know any of the sponsors
where was coke / redbull etc etc!
No, it was a swiss watch maker, but would it make you go and buy one?
Advertising and sponsorship is going through a major seachange and it will impact on every part of life.
Sadly I can only agree with Robins comments, I traveled to Scotland to see it flying, a journey of over 300 miles, only to be disappointed. I sincerely hope that I will one day be able to see this great aircraft flying.
I recently looked over a Vulcan on static display (not in flying condition), and only with a look in the bomb bay, seeing the amount of electrical equipment and systems made me realize what an enormous task it has been to get 558 back into flying condition. I am amazed that this has been achieved and is a credit to all involved.
Linear Mode
