PPRuNe Forums

Go Back   PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Forgotten your Username/Password?

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 28th Dec 2012, 15:10   #61 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 2,115
BGG

We each form our opinions based on experiences. Mine are based, primarily, on the period 90-93 and I have nothing but good memories of EWAD and SRB. They never let me down which automatically puts them in the top 5% in my book. Iím sorry your own experience is a little tainted.
tucumseh is offline   Reply
Old 28th Dec 2012, 19:20   #62 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Yellowbelly country
Posts: 10
RP, XW664 is nearly complete pictures can be found here.
Nimrod - a set on Flickr
BUCCANEER SCAMP is offline   Reply
Old 28th Dec 2012, 22:05   #63 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 414
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
Rhino power is online now   Reply
Old 28th Dec 2012, 22:17   #64 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: in the zone
Age: 14
Posts: 301
Quote:
...latent signals data still being left in the cabling...
Brilliant!

BGG
BigGreenGilbert is offline   Reply
Old 28th Dec 2012, 23:21   #65 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Yellowbelly country
Posts: 10
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.
BUCCANEER SCAMP is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 06:07   #66 (permalink)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 6,721
Quote:
...latent signals data still being left in the cabling...
Till someone told them it wasn't current?

Last edited by ORAC; 29th Dec 2012 at 06:41.
ORAC is online now   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 06:33   #67 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 47
Posts: 1,247
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.
Load Toad is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 06:42   #68 (permalink)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 6,721
If someone broke in to steal it, would it be classed as a ram raid?
ORAC is online now   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 08:13   #69 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 934
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

chopper2004 is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 10:26   #70 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Devon
Posts: 2,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by ORAC
Till someone told them it wasn't current?
So funny it Hertz!
WE Branch Fanatic is offline   Reply
Old 29th Dec 2012, 12:37   #71 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Just down the road from RAF Finmere
Age: 71
Posts: 197
Neptune

OHM my goodness, PH
zetec2 is offline   Reply
Old 30th Dec 2012, 02:56   #72 (permalink)


Probationary PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4
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...

JRHeilig is offline   Reply
Old 30th Dec 2012, 10:30   #73 (permalink)


Probationary PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,184
Ah, so they ARE getting refuelling probes.......
Milo Minderbinder is offline   Reply
Old 30th Dec 2012, 18:40   #74 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 934
Love the retro roundel lol

Last edited by chopper2004; 30th Dec 2012 at 18:41.
chopper2004 is offline   Reply
Old 1st Jan 2013, 14:43   #75 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 56
Posts: 356
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?
dragartist is online now   Reply
Old 1st Jan 2013, 17:07   #76 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,793
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?
Basil is online now   Reply
Old 1st Jan 2013, 17:27   #77 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The Roman Empire
Posts: 2,054
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.
Biggus is offline   Reply
Old 1st Jan 2013, 19:11   #78 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Great Britain
Age: 48
Posts: 179
...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

Last edited by Corporal Clott; 1st Jan 2013 at 19:12.
Corporal Clott is offline   Reply
Old 1st Jan 2013, 19:24   #79 (permalink)


Probationary PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,184
whats the fatigue life of the finished aircraft?
is it "as new"?
Milo Minderbinder is offline   Reply
Old 1st Jan 2013, 20:06   #80 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Age: 44
Posts: 370
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.

Quote:
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."
Source
KC-135R Stratotanker
iRaven is offline   Reply
Reply
 
 
 


Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 21:54.


vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network