RAF Rivet Joint
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BUCCANEER SCAMP, thanks for the link. I was told that the plan originally was that the RAF was going to strip out all the sneaky beak stuff because of concerns about latent signals data still being left in the cabling and avionics(?) However when it came round to it, the aeropark were told 'we don't want the gubbins, keep em...'(or words to that effect) May be an apocryphal tale, but who knows..?
-RP
-RP
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Yellowbelly country
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Burnswannabe, As I said nearly complete!
I took Mrs Scamp to look round 664 in the summer and they were telling us the Raf were thinking about buying it back earlier this year.
I took Mrs Scamp to look round 664 in the summer and they were telling us the Raf were thinking about buying it back earlier this year.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
...latent signals data still being left in the cabling...
Last edited by ORAC; 29th Dec 2012 at 06:41.
Well if the information isn't that important it probably just crawls along the wires and lets more important information overtake. So of course some messages just got stuck when the plane was switched off.
How many rivets are there in the actual airframe construction?
@ Willard, you can't call it Senior Citizen
unless the four lovely CFM-56 mysteriously be replaced by 4 sorry make that 8 Pegasus 
and then requires the full load of the Voyager to keep it afloat (ahem ) in the sky after take off 
Forget the old saying about Black and White at least its theres some white and some grey or maybe
Fifty Shades of Grey - E L James
@ Willard, you can't call it Senior Citizen
unless the four lovely CFM-56 mysteriously be replaced by 4 sorry make that 8 Pegasus and then requires the full load of the Voyager to keep it afloat (ahem ) in the sky after take off Forget the old saying about Black and White at least its theres some white and some grey or maybe
Fifty Shades of Grey - E L James
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm fairly sure the OP's photo is real, not a Photoshop job. If it is a PS job, it's well done, by someone who knows the airplane. The "AIR FORCE" sits further aft than on USAF examples, because the word "ROYAL" is longer than "U.S.". Also, note the piles of brown craft paper and tape on the floor - this is a paint hangar. The fact that there is no sort of tail number or other ID on it tells me this is just after the major paint work was done, but before any detail stuff was done. I strongly suspect this is the scheme - at least to start with - that the RAF will be using.
Here's what she might look like in full 51 Squadron colors...
Here's what she might look like in full 51 Squadron colors...
Love the retro roundel lol 
Last edited by chopper2004; 30th Dec 2012 at 18:41.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the link to the pictures
Thanks for the link to Scottys pics on Flickr. Just as I remember it with a few post Starwindow changes. It was all super secret in my day. no pictures ever left 4H or 86A. suprised to see all the LRUs in situe. who pinched all the cup holders?!
And yes Tuc we did have some good people in spite of what BGG says! however there was only a few who should have not been let loose near aircraft.
I too remain in touch with one or two folks from the era.
Oh and all you photo shoppers- I think the "Royal Air Foce" should be on the white top side! How are the Formation Eating Team going to get through that small crew door and up the stairs?
And yes Tuc we did have some good people in spite of what BGG says! however there was only a few who should have not been let loose near aircraft.
I too remain in touch with one or two folks from the era.
Oh and all you photo shoppers- I think the "Royal Air Foce" should be on the white top side! How are the Formation Eating Team going to get through that small crew door and up the stairs?
So what was wrong with using the brand new Nimrods which were trashed?
1964 airframes? I've just sold a 16yo Merc which I loved because it was going to be too expensive to maintain.
If the Nimrods were unsuitable did we consider an A340 airframe?
1964 airframes? I've just sold a 16yo Merc which I loved because it was going to be too expensive to maintain.
If the Nimrods were unsuitable did we consider an A340 airframe?
It's called "buying off the shelf", something which many people here say we should do more often, and avoids all those very, very, expensive development costs, especially for a 3 aircraft buy!
Unfortunately the only thing available on the shelf was a 1960s vintage airframe, albeit undoubtedly with some fairly modern avionics down the back.
Unfortunately the only thing available on the shelf was a 1960s vintage airframe, albeit undoubtedly with some fairly modern avionics down the back.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Great Britain
Age: 51
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
5 Posts
...and an extended holiday in the dry air in the 'boneyard'...
...and a brand new set of CFM-56 engines...
...and new metal let in with a thorough rivet-level inspection...
...and none of those robbing g!ts from WOS involved...
..."off the shelf" sounds like the logical choice to me
CPL Clott
...and a brand new set of CFM-56 engines...
...and new metal let in with a thorough rivet-level inspection...
...and none of those robbing g!ts from WOS involved...
..."off the shelf" sounds like the logical choice to me
CPL Clott
Last edited by Corporal Clott; 1st Jan 2013 at 19:12.
Fatigue life? I suspect we might run out of AVTUR first...
Here is the data for the KC-135R from which ours will be based. This should be worst case.
Source
KC-135R Stratotanker
Here is the data for the KC-135R from which ours will be based. This should be worst case.
The March 2004 Defense Science Board Task Force Report on Aerial Refueling Requirements found that "Usage, which induces material fatigue, is not the driving problem. Total flying hours are relatively low for the KC-135s: the current airframe average is about 17,000 hours. Fatigue life is estimated to be 36,000 hours for the E, 39,000 hours for the R. Cycles are commensurately low on average (3800 for the R and 4500 for the E). Thus, the airframes should be capable to the year 2040 based on current usage rates."
KC-135R Stratotanker
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steering clear of the vital paint job discussion, might I be so bold as to offer that this particular purchase is perhaps the most important RAF procurement since C17?
Milo has a real talent for creating that impression on others for some reason.