Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Vulcan to the Sky Trust to return Canberra WK163 to display flight

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.

Vulcan to the Sky Trust to return Canberra WK163 to display flight

Old 24th May 2016, 19:34
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Royal Berkshire
Posts: 1,725
Received 76 Likes on 38 Posts
Valiantone
Possibly to the mob whose name escapes me that operated the other ex RAE pair. WT327 and XH567
Air Platforms Inc of Lakeport, California.
GeeRam is offline  
Old 25th May 2016, 03:39
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: A better place.
Posts: 2,318
Received 23 Likes on 15 Posts
That article about the altitude record is a very interesting read.
Only 10k short of a U2.
What would it have taken to get the Canberra to FL80?
Lengthened wings - even moreso than the RB-57D?
Or would the airframe need to have been completely redesigned due to coffin corner restrictions?

EDIT - my question answered:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin...Specifications

Last edited by tartare; 25th May 2016 at 05:20.
tartare is offline  
Old 25th May 2016, 09:45
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: France
Age: 80
Posts: 6,379
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Would not want to have a EFATO on that beast - bad enough on lower powered models
Wander00 is offline  
Old 25th May 2016, 10:19
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,786
Received 129 Likes on 58 Posts
We had a RB-57F operating out of Tengah in the late 60s ... take-off was always conducted on "partial power", and full power only applied at about 300' agl or so. At that point it then went up rather steeply!

Originally Posted by Wikipedia
and if an engine failed during takeoff, TF33 main engine thrust was limited to 70% power to maintain directional control.

Last edited by MPN11; 25th May 2016 at 10:59.
MPN11 is offline  
Old 25th May 2016, 14:13
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Age: 78
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
reduced power take off

It was normal practice on the 9 to set 85% for take off and only apply full power once airborne above safety speed with the gear up. 85% RPM gave about half thrust
Tinribs is offline  
Old 25th May 2016, 18:43
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,786
Received 129 Likes on 58 Posts
Ah, those big over-powered gliders, eh?

Interesting parallel ... thanks for that snippet.
MPN11 is offline  
Old 25th May 2016, 20:00
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Deepest darkest London
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks GeeRam

V1
Valiantone is offline  
Old 25th May 2016, 20:56
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Royal Berkshire
Posts: 1,725
Received 76 Likes on 38 Posts
Originally Posted by Valiantone
Thanks GeeRam
Air Platforms Inc went bust a good many years ago, and both Canberra's are now registered to High Altitude Mapping Missions Inc. of Spokane, WA, and both have still current FAA certs., valid until 2018 according to the FAA Registry, so both could still be airworthy..??
GeeRam is offline  
Old 26th May 2016, 04:41
  #69 (permalink)  
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,369
Received 86 Likes on 60 Posts
So that's the spares source sorted then.......

World War Two fanatic puts Worcestershire hoard up for auction - BBC News
Krystal n chips is offline  
Old 26th May 2016, 06:46
  #70 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 80
Posts: 16,777
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Usual editorial accuracy from the beeb.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 26th May 2016, 11:14
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Midlands
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
POST EDITED - To prevent stupid rumours I heard getting spread.

Last edited by Wannabeupthere; 26th May 2016 at 13:04. Reason: stupidity of original post
Wannabeupthere is offline  
Old 26th May 2016, 11:35
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Royal Berkshire
Posts: 1,725
Received 76 Likes on 38 Posts
Originally Posted by Wannabeupthere
I may be wide of mark
Very.....
GeeRam is offline  
Old 26th May 2016, 11:42
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Im still under the impression from sources un-named that the VTTS lot could have had more engines and carried on flying to the planned end date IF they had stumped up the cash to RR
Unfortunately there is no truth in this at all. VTTST had the last eight Olympus 202 engines that were acceptable to RR; it was the lack of willingness of the latter to support them post 2015 (due they said to a lack of sufficient competence within the company) that grounded the Vulcan.

Last edited by wonderboysteve; 26th May 2016 at 11:42. Reason: too many quotes
wonderboysteve is offline  
Old 26th May 2016, 11:58
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Midlands
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Fair enough, I will hold hands up and say I was stupid enough to believe a mate of a mate story.
Wannabeupthere is offline  
Old 26th May 2016, 15:55
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
wonderboysteve, this is actually only partly true. Martin Withers was asked the exact reason for ceasing flying in an event I attended and this is what he said as I recall.

It was Marshalls who were unwilling to continue OEM support beyond 2015. VTTS did find an alternative company (Cranfield) who were willing to assume the role, but Cranfield were not acceptable to RR. So you could argue it was Marshall's that pulled the plug rather than RR, as RR were willing to continue further if Marshalls had not withdrawn. The remaining engines, through careful management, had sufficient life for a few more seasons.
Gsxr600 is offline  
Old 26th May 2016, 17:06
  #76 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 80
Posts: 16,777
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
What was the mtbf on the engines at the end of their Service life or VTTS? In early days IIRC it was well below 1000hrs.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 26th May 2016, 17:52
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
It depends, whether with or without added silica gel
Mike51 is offline  
Old 26th May 2016, 17:56
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The engines hours were irrelevant as RR insisted VTTS operated their engines up to a maximum number of cycles. A cycle being going from throttle fully closed to fully open and back again - or incrementes thereof.

In the early years VTTS were using engine cycles at an unsustainable rate due to the sort of flying they were doing, but adapted how they flew transit flights and even displays to essentially try and leave the throttles alone and in the same position as much as possible. To this end they were managing to get a lot more "hours" from the engines and had sufficient cycles remaining for a few more seasons beyond 2015.

The engines destroyed by the silica gell were reportedly very nearly at their end of their allowed cycles anyway. Even if they were not it turned out this error wasn't to cause the end of flying. Of course this is just the official line VTTS have reported.
Gsxr600 is offline  
Old 26th May 2016, 18:12
  #79 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 80
Posts: 16,777
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Gsxr, if you were answering my question it was not what I was asking.

IIRC the expected time between failures resulting in a shut down and engine change was 1000 hrs. However I know many cases where the engines got nowhere near that with 300 hours, perhaps one year's use before an unscheduled change.

Did this improve over the following 15 years?
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 30th May 2016, 08:41
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: upstairs
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I believe that the silica gel practice came about as a result of VTTS failing to prevent corrosion on turbine discs by proper storage. RR's first reaction to the degree of corrosion was to scrap them. I think they did get around to some form of recovery eventually. While I wasn't involved, I believe RR was not too happy about the competence of VTTS which may have coloured their view of the change from Marshalls. I believe the CAA would have also had to approve the change to Cranfield; did they have any issues?

EAP
EAP86 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.