Vulcan to the Sky Trust to return Canberra WK163 to display flight
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
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.
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.
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
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.
Interesting parallel ... thanks for that snippet.
Originally Posted by Valiantone
Thanks GeeRam
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
World War Two fanatic puts Worcestershire hoard up for auction - BBC News
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
Last edited by wonderboysteve; 26th May 2016 at 11:42. Reason: too many quotes
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.
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.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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.
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.
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.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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?
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?
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
EAP