PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Nimrod MR4 vs P8
View Single Post
Old 1st May 2017, 17:41
  #43 (permalink)  
AQAfive
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: North West
Age: 73
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I was told many years ago by a person involved with a Shackleton replacement trial, that several airframes were trialed. Among them was the Vanguard, two rigid in the wings, I think the Viscount was considered too old but cannot be sure, also the Brittania and the VC10. The VC10 came out the best but they could not get enough fuel on board to give the required endurance. (Pre 73 so lots of cheap petrol). Iv'e no idea whether the engine location was an issue. No decision was made. There is a book about maritime ac development, I must dig it out and read again.

Interestingly, the Comet did not feature in the trial. I was told that during a ministerial visit to de Havilland (that may of course be Hawker Siddeley) that some spare wings were spotted, (made for a cancelled order I believe), and the suggestion for a new MPA surfaced from that visit. How true that is I have no idea.

As for the MRA4; during my time on maritime I looked with envy at the P3. Not because of it's sensors or performance, for in those areas I considered it inferior. But the fact that the seats placed you in front of the kit. You had an APU that did more than start the engines, if you were quick. An air conditioner that kept the aircraft cool on the ground with only a GPU connected and of course air stairs, simple facilities that made life so much easier. Many times we would wait for a promised GPU to turn up, and then watch a P3 land, taxi in reverse into a parking space, shut down and unload the crew and put the aircraft to bed as we waited. Fitting an usable APU to the Nimrod was considered too expensive to consider, read that as no one wanted to do it.

When the MRA4 was penned, all these facilities were included, we looked forward to a more usable ac until we lost the air stairs, too heavy. (in fact they were such a poor design they were less than useful). The APU was OK when it worked.

I still think the P8 is not the aircraft needed, there's a good reason the MAD was removed and I don't think it was because of the way the US intends to use the ac. And dropping sonobuoys from height can only be a choice made by boffins, no maritime wettie would ever consider it. Knowing where a sonobuoy is is one thing, but if its not where you intended it to be, it's just another lump of junk in the ocean.

Would the MRA4 have made the grade? I think so, although it still needed a lot of work in my opinion, but at around 15 hrs endurance it would have been quite useful. The question of build standards is way beyond my pay grade so I won't comment. Except to say I had a lot of time for the engineers, but none for the management

Last edited by AQAfive; 1st May 2017 at 17:47. Reason: Remembered Hawker Siddeley
AQAfive is offline