PDA

View Full Version : Did You Fly The Vulcan?? (Merged)


Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9

GlosMikeP
4th Sep 2006, 13:42
[quote=Pontius Navigator;2823468]There was a small matter or airworthiness and money.

Post-war aircraft were not designed to 'fail-safe' principles. That entails building in such a level of redundancy that a spar break is obvious but the aircraft can be landed safely (well that's the theory). As fail-safe was not built in an alternative safety polcy called 'safe-life' was adopted.

In safe-life the fatigue usage was calculated and each aircraft given a fatigue index. As it flew its activity was recorded on a data recorder and also by the crew. After each flight its remaining fatigue index was recalculated. Once it reached its calculated fatigue limit it would be withdrawn from service.

In the event, the Bruntingthorpe servicing, IIRC, found that the aircraft was in much better condition than expected but whether that was simply its fabric condition or its component condition I don't know.

As safe-life was a crude but safe calculation it was not unreasonable that some aircraft would have been less fatigued than expected.quote]

Couple of extra ditties here:

Aircraft are only metal and wires, so with the right attention can be kept flying for ever, in theory. Look at the B52, which is on its n-th upgrade and may well be the first aircraft to stay in service for 100 years. Not there yet but quite feasible. New wings, replaced wiring looms, new hydraulic pipes and fuel lines, new engines...lots of spares!

These were the sorts of options I believe were considered for the Vulcan fleet, too, though at this range downwind my memory might not be quite on spec.

Secondly, fatigue is only one element of lifing; simple age is another, leading to wear-out and corrosion, which also have to be factored in to maintenence and inspections.

Finally, if I recall my aircraft design lectures at uni properly, the Vulcan wing was one of the strongest and most redundant structures ever put into an aircraft. Oddly, quite unlike the Canberra which was a mono-spar design!

allan907
4th Sep 2006, 14:19
The B52s in service now (and expected to be at end of service life) are NOT the B52s which came off the line in the beginning. G and H comes a long while after A and B. although I grant you the ones at the end of the B52s useful life will likely be very old.

GlosMikeP
4th Sep 2006, 14:29
The B52s in service now (and expected to be at end of service life) are NOT the B52s which came off the line in the beginning. G and H comes a long while after A and B. although I grant you the ones at the end of the B52s useful life will likely be very old.

Yes I'm aware of that. I think the ones in service now came in from about 63/64, which would give them a good 40 years to date plus a forecast of another 25-30 years foreseeable, and hence the outside chance of making the century.

Want to bet a barrel of beer on it?:p

GeeRam
4th Sep 2006, 15:08
Yes I'm aware of that. I think the ones in service now came in from about 63/64,

Hmmm.....I wouldn't bet against them not making a century, suspect the oil reserves for AVTUR will run out before the a/c does:}

Only H models are left in service, first H was delivered in Spring 1961, last one in Autumn 1962.

GlosMikeP
4th Sep 2006, 15:38
Hmmm.....I wouldn't bet against them not making a century, suspect the oil reserves for AVTUR will run out before the a/c does:} .

They're looking at using fuel extracted from coal instead of oil. Old technology with new impetus caused by oil price, availability and security of supply.

Shackman
4th Sep 2006, 16:00
Cue new trade - Stoker (and Chief Stoker).

Green Meat
4th Sep 2006, 16:48
Finally the moniker of "coal-hole" may apply in its literal form to the back seats of the Vulcan :ok:

GlosMikeP
4th Sep 2006, 17:19
Finally the moniker of "coal-hole" may apply in its literal form to the back seats of the Vulcan :ok:

Oh come now, it can't have been all that bad! certainly a luxurious suite compared to the Shackleton - aka the Elephant's Ar:mad: e Hole: Grey and wrinkled on the outside and you can but imagine what it was like on the inside!;)

Pontius Navigator
4th Sep 2006, 17:40
Coal hole it was.

The Shack was sheer luxury. Properly upholstered leather seats and windows with a view. The Vulcan and Victor had suede-type leather on the dinghy pack and a ratpack carefully angled upward to use the spare space between one's buttocks.

GlosMikeP
4th Sep 2006, 17:55
Coal hole it was.

The Shack was sheer luxury. Properly upholstered leather seats and windows with a view. The Vulcan and Victor had suede-type leather on the dinghy pack and a ratpack carefully angled upward to use the spare space between one's buttocks.

Well I have to say I'd rather sit in a coal hole than inside an elephant's .... hole - but I concede the point, that you may have bizarre counter preferences! Let's face it there are those who even prefer software and bangers to either:p

ChristiaanJ
4th Sep 2006, 19:14
Quoting myself, first....
..."don't you agree there is some logic in "keep the beast flying, damn it"? "
Call it a "cri de coeur"....
I readily admit I did/do not know how many hours "safe life" XH558 had left after her last flight.
-
Pontius and GlosMikeP,
I'm an aeronautical engineer (admittedly an oldie), so those issues are familiar. As said, I had no info on the remaining life.
Aircraft are only metal and wiresAren't you forgetting plastic and rubber? Both can get brittle or deteriorate in the wrong places. As to wiring, if you're "in the business", you know what worries and trouble that can cause.

GlosMikeP
4th Sep 2006, 20:01
Absolutely right CJ, but thought I'd cut it down for brevity rather than extend to fetishes as well. Pacemaker won't take it these days!:D

Wires and tubes can be fixed and wings replaced. I'm also an oldie aeronautical engineer (plus other bits and bobs), long past sell by date. Happy days.

And I can't wait to see the old flatiron flying again. Magnificent beast!

ChristiaanJ
4th Sep 2006, 20:12
And I can't wait to see the old flatiron flying againNever had that privilege.... but at least seen the East Fortune and Duxford Vulcans recently. Seeing her fly would really be the cherry on the cake.

Commsman
6th Sep 2006, 20:52
I am not a pilot or aircrew but was present when XJ781 did the crash landing at Shiraz Airfield in 1973. I was in fact a Telegraphist on Support of the exercise from 12 SU Episkopi in Cyprus. I was a member of the Communications support of the exercise. We were accommodated in the Shiraz Inn (nice place with a pool and beers). XJ781 flew over the Inn to show there was a problem with a main undercarriage leg. Not being engineers we thought he was just showing off and never noticed the undercarriage problem.

We were soon alerted to the fact he had crashed on one of the parallel runways at Shiraz and the aircraft had sustained cat 5 (writeoff) with components. The components ie all the secret stuff was stored securely overnight until it could be recovered safely. It was a textbook crash landing by all accounts but the Pilot (who I engaged in conversation on the way back to Akrotiri on a C130) told me a few problems he encountered.
1. He was not aware of a massive ditch between the two parallel runways at Shiraz. (otherwise he would have landed on the other one).

2. It was a textbook undercarriage hang up landing.

3. Sadly as the Aircraft slewed to the port it was on a hiding to nothing. Big ditch, still a lot of speed, remainder of undercarriage ready for impact and iranian observer ready for a surprise.

4. The ditch actually broke the back of the aircraft hence cat 5.

5. On the recovery back to Cyprus I was sitting next to the Vulcan Captain who told me he had tried to evacuate the aircraft after jettisoning the canopy but when he stood on his ejector seat it rocked forward a few degrees so he sat down again. He mentioned also the ingress of sand and dust,l which stung just a little.

He also told me on the complete evacuation of the aircraft most of the crew approached him and shook his hand. The Iranian observer asked what the congratualations were for and Someone in the crew said Quote well it's a better landing then we ususally get Unquote.

We all guessed it would be housing or something soon but the chances of it becoming a military asset were nil as the sqn had recovered all the best bits.

only one of three accidents I was witness too sadly. Gladly all aircrew survived.

Alan

Commsman
6th Sep 2006, 21:07
XJ781 - damaged during landing, Shiraz, Iran 23.5.73. Struck off charge 27.5.73. Port undercarriage locked up?

i was present on this incident a young SAC with telecomms support but saw the a/c overhead with problem and on the ground the next day. Best thing no casualties.

Pontius Navigator
6th Sep 2006, 21:16
The Iranian observer should have had a written safety brief in farsi. I had identified a need to ensure that they actually understood the brief rather than just nodding - one item was no smoking. The brief was sent to the embassy for translation and this was the first sortie where I believe it was used.

Although all the crew got out it was not without drama. The bomb aimers window broke and acted as a dust scoop. The cabin was completely fogged out in dust.

The nav table was part of the aircraft structure and collapsed trapping the two navigators by the knees. The AEO, St*f E******o heaved the whole thing up to free the other two.

Conan the Librarian
6th Sep 2006, 23:56
Somewhere, I have a picture of the aftermath. Time permitting, I will try to find,fix and post it.

Conan

forget
7th Sep 2006, 09:11
XJ-781 provided me with one of lifeís great surprises - :eek: you know the feeling. One morning in í73 I was aboard an Iran Air 737, Tehran to the Gulf via Shiraz. I woke up on landing at Shiraz and we were bumping along the peri-track for the terminal. Iíd left Waddington 4 years earlier and the sight of a dead Vulcan lying on an Iranian airport wasnít the first thing Iíd expected to see - and I do remember it took a while to get the early morning brain cells re-connected.

The two Navs were lucky. Their heavy equipment could easily have left its mountings and made a helluva mess. As it was, the Navís tables both distorted and the AEO (whose systems were nowhere near as heavy) was the only one mobile in the back end after the dust settled - plus a Iranian observer, so the first point still stands.

Brian Abraham
7th Sep 2006, 09:27
Just been reading an interview with Tony Blackman who in answer to the question "What is your favourite aircraft?" replied "The Vulcan, a wonderful aircraft, it was such an interesting aircraft to land". Anyone care to elaborate on the "interesting to land" bit?

possel
7th Sep 2006, 11:52
Aircraft are only metal and wires, so with the right attention can be kept flying for ever, in theory.....
...
Secondly, fatigue is only one element of lifing; simple age is another, leading to wear-out and corrosion, which also have to be factored in to maintenence and inspections.
...


Yes, given enough money you can keep on repairing things, but I dread to think what will happen if they discover something nasty on 558.

As someone who had the job of doing minors on Vulcans 1980-1982, I can recall just how many things there were that could be found wrong with them. Despite what you say, they could develop cracks in annoying places (Rib 162.5 outboard of the engines was a common one), and corrosion was another hazard.

Equally, there were always problems in operation - every week there was a Vulcan circling overhead to burn fuel before landing with an undercarriage problem. Then there were those airbrakes which often seemed to get themselves in the wrong position and could act as a guillotine on the upper wing.

possel
7th Sep 2006, 11:53
Aircraft are only metal and wires, so with the right attention can be kept flying for ever, in theory.....
...
Secondly, fatigue is only one element of lifing; simple age is another, leading to wear-out and corrosion, which also have to be factored in to maintenence and inspections.
...


Yes, given enough money you can keep on repairing things, but I dread to think what will happen if they discover something nasty on 558.

As someone who had the job of doing minors on Vulcans 1980-1982, I can recall just how many things there were that could be found wrong with them. Despite what you say, they could develop cracks in annoying places (Rib 162.5 outboard of the engines was a common one), and corrosion was another hazard.

Equally, there were always problems in operation - every week there was a Vulcan circling overhead to burn fuel before landing with an undercarriage problem. Then there were those airbrakes which often seemed to get themselves in the wrong position and act as a guillotine on the upper wing.

iank
7th Sep 2006, 13:27
XH558 is (according to the engineers working on her) in better than expected conditon - if you want a run down of what they found as the strip down and inspection was done try

http://www.tvoc.co.uk/engineering.php

ChristiaanJ
7th Sep 2006, 13:33
... I dread to think what will happen if they discover something nasty on 558.I think by now they would have found it. They pretty well took her completely apart and then put her back together again.

Also, the avionics have been updated, and the "military hardware" has been disconnected and removed. Another source of problems less.

PPRuNeUser0139
7th Sep 2006, 17:08
Coal hole it was.
The Shack was sheer luxury. Properly upholstered leather seats and windows with a view.
It must be me but I'm sorry, your understanding of the term 'sheer luxury' is clearly waaay different to my memory of it.
I always thought the Shack experience was somewhat akin to getting airborne in an uninsulated potting shed with a broken window in a howling gale in winter, with a 1.2kw bar heater..
Fold in the constant maddening growl of the Griffon, an occasional icy blast up one's right leg when the bomb doors were opened to throw stores in the oggin, an atmosphere composed of Erinmore Ready Rubbed, ungodly fumes from the Elsan and the galley, and yes - only 5 and a half hours to go...
You mention the view.. I'm afraid that once you've seen the North Sea from 2000', the experience is not enhanced by endless hours of repetition!
Without being sat in a comfortable leather armchair, I concede that all of the above could otherwise have been construed as a violation of one's human rights. What would be the opposite of sensory deprivation..? We used to suffer from sensory overload - noise, cold, heat, vibration & smells.
There was only one area that suffered from sensory deprivation and that was the 7" radar screen..!
Now back to our regular programming...
sv

Pontius Navigator
7th Sep 2006, 17:35
It must be me but I'm sorry, your understanding of the term 'sheer luxury' is clearly waaay different to my memory of it.


Oh, so easy, like fish in a barrel.

All things are relative. I hated the bloody thing. I thought the tube was a massive 6 inch.

But the ability to take aim at the lion bar floating in the elsan rather than trying to not drop the pee tube was something else.

I remember one day looking in the can. The liquid was vibrating in a square pattern such was the sublime movement of the grey lady.

Or 'tail' coming out when the female pax was behind the curtain :}

Or the night stops, usually unplanned, in some exotic part of the country.

Now at least the Vulcan often landed away after a mere 5 hours and often in places hot - Malta, Libyia, Cyprus, Offutt, or cold like Cyprus, Norway, Offutt, Goose. For a nav the only point in flying was to land somewhere you had not taken off from.

Final point, you got 2 to 3 times the flying pay on the Vulcan although the mileage rate was cr*p.

PS, the erinmore wasn't B**r* W**r was it?

TheVulcan
7th Sep 2006, 19:12
Could anyone tell me where I can find a complete list of Vulcan accidents?

Pontius Navigator
7th Sep 2006, 19:25
I do have a list but it would be in the one book at work.

I shall try and remember come Monday.

TheVulcan
7th Sep 2006, 19:33
Thanks. I shall look forward to your reply!

forget
8th Sep 2006, 08:25
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/vlosses.jpg

TheVulcan
8th Sep 2006, 08:49
Thanks so much for the list? May I ask where it came from as I would love to get some details on the ones I don't know..

forget
8th Sep 2006, 08:55
'Tribute to the Vulcan', A Lincolnshire Echo Special Publication, March 12 1994. Only a 28 page 'newspaper' but one of the best 'facts and figures' on the Vulcan I've seen.

TheVulcan
8th Sep 2006, 10:16
I'll try and get hold of a copy from them.

XH536
10th Sep 2006, 15:12
[I think XM 536 should read XH 536 to be keep the record straight!

cheers

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/vlosses.jpg

TheVulcan
10th Sep 2006, 15:18
Very useful. Another mistake in list is XA891 should be XA893 if you've read my book!

Pontius Navigator
11th Sep 2006, 07:27
[I think XM 536 should read XH 536 to be keep the record straight!

cheers

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/vlosses.jpg

XM601 crashed on overshooting from assymetric approach.
XH477 Hills of St Coln (?) hit ground on saddle of a mountain during low level training. Aircraft entered shallow layer of hill fog.

XA908 cascade failure where an electrical short caused all generators that were brought online to the defective circuit to fail. Limited battery life and IIRC the actual life was about 5 minutes against a stated life of 20-30.

XM536 as stated, not a TFR trial but routine training

XM645 the explosion followed the crash. The aircraft impacted in the undershoot and the pilot recovered and got airborne again. The damage however led to fuel leaks, fire and subsequent explosion.

forget
11th Sep 2006, 08:26
We'e been through this before - I was on the line at Cottesmore the night that 536 was lost and I'm pretty sure, from memory, that it was a TFR trial. Also see;

http://www.gpswalker.cwc.net/volcan.htm

BEagle
11th Sep 2006, 08:38
I was told that XM600 was lost during a routine RAT/AAPP exercise. RAT well outside limits, but AEO brought it on line anyway. Which caused the fire.....

After which a RAT field switch was incorporated which would effectively kill an out-of-limits RAT; this had previously been impossible as, once the RAT was on the synch busbar, it could not be disconnected.

Another of those rather odd design quirks - like the battery which, if the voltage dropped below a certain value, could not be switched off as the control relay could not be activated.

TheVulcan
11th Sep 2006, 08:58
Thanks to all respondees. Doing some research which hopefully will appear on paper.

50+Ray
11th Sep 2006, 10:30
XM 600 crash. The RAT was out of limits, but once dropped it came on line like it or not. There was nothing at that time an AEO could do to stop it over-volting, and sadly it was sparking across to an already pitted fuel line. The BOI had to eat their initial report, and the crew were exonerated, because sadly once the routine RAT/AAPP drill was started the airframe was doomed. The somewhat untidy exit and subsequent confusion were another story.
But just for a taste - when Captain Bob rang Waddo Ops from the farm of the aquaintance who had picked him up in a Land Rover he told them he had seen 4 parachutes. Ops did not twig he had been on the fifth and had something of a panic about who may not have survived. Send thre and fourpence we're going to a dance....

Blacksheep
11th Sep 2006, 10:50
The BMk1/1As had a 112V dc power supply system. The main battery consisted of four 28V batteries connected in series to provide a 96V (nominal) emergency supply. After the loss of XA908, a preflight load test was included into the BF servicing. We would start a specific group of loads - PFCUs, Rotary Transformers and fuel pumps then turn off the ground power and monitor the discharge. After the prescribed test interval, we checked the battery voltage (using a test meter, not the aircraft voltmeter) to ensure the battery was holding the load, then turn the ground power back on and monitor the charge time to full terminal voltage. The battery was capable of providing emergency power for 30 minutes but there was no AAPU or RAT on a Mk1/1A, so quite what you might do about a total power failure if you couldn't restore main power was rather a moot point.

(The Mk1A did also have a bleed air turbine (BAT), but that only provided primary 200V 400Hz ac power for the ECM equipment.)

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU
11th Sep 2006, 11:07
Very useful. Another mistake in list is XA891 should be XA893 if you've read my book!
Not read your book but Bob Pogson (AVRO's AEO from Flight Sheds, Woodford) was very sure that 891 was the one he happily escaped from.

forget
11th Sep 2006, 12:05
Perhaps these guys need to read your book (Exclamation Mark):rolleyes:

http://www.avrovulcan.org.uk/bae/891_under.htm

TheVulcan
11th Sep 2006, 14:56
Though I love Bob Pogson I still believe it was 893 that crashed. I was flying 891 all though June on structural strain gauge measurements. Unfortunately I never flew either aircraft again to settle the discussion. Am going to investigate further, thank you.

forget
11th Sep 2006, 15:59
This would seem to settle it.:) The nose-section of XA893 is at Cosford museum.
http://www.avrovulcan.org.uk/misc/893_cockpit.htm

TheVulcan
11th Sep 2006, 16:24
If 893 is in the museum then that does settle it. Please tender my apologies to Bob.

richlear
11th Sep 2006, 22:18
There used to be an airframe close to the infamous Gatehouse area at Finningley in the early 80's. Anyone know what happened to that one?

Memories of happy hour in the No2 mess then climbing into the cockpit & playing pilots whilst going through the siggie course! (sad I know...but that is the effect of cheap beer on a young brain...)

Cheers

rich

TheVulcan
12th Sep 2006, 07:23
Another simple question! Did RAF Vulcan Squadrons use the tail parachute?

BEagle
12th Sep 2006, 07:26
Only if we had to! Normally avoided having to do so if at all possible.

Highly unlikely 'down route' as we would have been expected to repack the damn thing and re-stow it. A total pain in the bum!

Pontius Navigator
12th Sep 2006, 07:37
Another simple question! Did RAF Vulcan Squadrons use the tail parachute?

And the short answer is Yes. The longer answer is only when they had to and there was some other poor sod there to repack the thing.

There was a requirement to service the chute periodically so rather than struggle to unpack it and then break it open it was usual for a crew to be tasked to stream on landing.

We also (well Biggles in fact) had a requirement to stream every so often (BEagle?).

The rules also required a TBC stream on landing on airfields with 6000 feet or less. With skillful use of aerodynamic braking (and all pilots were very skilled) it was possible to stop in 4000 feet or so. Still rules were rules and El Adem was only 6000 or 6500 of so.

There was an exception and that was in cross-wind conditions. Can't recall what that meant as we almost invariably landed in over-TBC-limit cross-winds on rangers (If you see what I mean).

Streaming overseas could create all sorts of problems. MFS at Gan once had to stream as he landed on a strange airfield in a tropical downpour. We never got the chute dry in 3 weeks.

At Goose my skipper streamed on an 11000 feet runway. To this day we don't know why. Several things happened at once. We berated him; they realised it hadn't deployed; ATC hit the tit and said:

"Hey limey, your bird just crapped on my runway."

We collapsed. Talk about quick lip. That was a 3-4 days while the aircraft was checked out.

'nother chute incident. We streamed but the chute flew off. It was secured with a sheer pin designed to break if the chute was streamed in flight - over 190 kts IIRC. In this case it had sheered at about 140 kts (Was that the upper stream stream BEags?) The pin was bent not broken.

Pontius Navigator
12th Sep 2006, 07:41
Only if we had to! Normally avoided having to do so if at all possible.
Highly unlikely 'down route' as we would have been expected to repack the damn thing and re-stow it. A total pain in the bum!

The total authentic truth from two generations of Vulcan crews. What BEags forbore to point out, we was the copilot and the AEO. The Navs had far more important things to do.

Mind you, experienced copilots had one edge. They carried the imprest. "You no helper da workers you no getta tha dosh."

BEagle
12th Sep 2006, 07:49
Can't remember what the shear link was supposed to operate at - but it was quite a low speed.

A Vulcan was tasked to land and stream at sunny Scampton one fine day - for the benefit of some meeja luvvies filming it. Land, stream....nothing. OK, roll and have another go. Airborne.......then it decided to stream itself at about 1000ft before the shear link operated. Took ages for the thing to reach the ground again.

I belive it was the OCU CFI who was flying; we mere squadron rabble thought it was most amusing!

Pontius Navigator
12th Sep 2006, 07:54
Just shows that the 'advertised' sheer speed was so much tosh.

Can you remember the official cross-wind limit for streaming?

As far as in-flight streaming we used to watch the B47s in the Fairford circuit with a chute streamed in flight. They needed to create the drag to keep the engines spooled up and out of a dead response zone. Spectacular and quite spooky in a way.

Now the B47 was a magic aircraft - so large, 3 man crew and a LABS attack. And 1600 of them. Awesome.

BEagle
12th Sep 2006, 08:50
Sorry - don't remember the cross-wind limits.

Stream at 135KIAS or below, jettison at 55-60 to stop the shackle damaging the ECM cone.

Pontius Navigator
12th Sep 2006, 09:20
I have an idea the X-wind limit was 20 kts so anything that was not steady above 15 kts was ample justification for not streaming. Above 20 kts there was a danger of weather cocking.

Incidentally, remember the VTTS TV with them wearing safety harnesses on the wing. I never saw anyone with any safety gear although I believe some harnesses where available. The problem was the lack of sky hooks to hang from. Anyway a rigger was killed reloading a TBC.

Accepted practise was to sit on th eback of the cone, facing forwards, and closing the door using the turnscrew until it latched (not sure the right terms there). Anyway it failed to latch or the latch failed and the door sprang open flipping the rigger off the tail to land head-first on the concrete. I think everyone was a bit more cautious after that fatal but I still do not recall seeing any safety gear.

forget
12th Sep 2006, 09:32
From Vulcans in Camera.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/388stream.jpg

jindabyne
12th Sep 2006, 09:33
Or in oils - sorry BEagle,couldn't resist!

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c192/jindabyne/27-2.jpg

50+Ray
12th Sep 2006, 09:39
TBC stream above 135kts, meant inspection before repack, above 145kts meant scrap as I recall. Almost the only times I used it were after the Chief on crew in requested it because a repack was due. I never used it abroad, though there was a squadron detachment to Malta on the old short runway with the traditional crosswind when several sets of hot brakes might have been avoided. For those that have not been there that runway looked even shorter because of the hump in the middle.
Crosswind limit for the TBC was 20kts, with the expectation you might have to rapidly jettison after the initial almighty tug of deceleration because the beast was likely to weathercock in a big way and head for the grass.
Only time I used it in anger, 185,000lbs + after an engine wind down as I got airborne it stopped us very well, lots of runway left with very little need for brakes.

TheVulcan
12th Sep 2006, 12:37
Just what I need to know for a talk I'm giving to-night! Thank you all for such rapid replies.

flipflopman RB199
12th Sep 2006, 19:25
Pontius,

Yes, the safety harnesses are very fetching, are they not? :yuk: Sadly neccessary to comply with modern H&S guidelines and all part of the conditions for the CAA issuing a permit.

As for the brake para, as 50+ Ray correctly states that maximum stream speed is 135kts with anything up to 145tks requiring an inspection, chutes streamed above 145kts being scrap. As to the shear pin speeds, the pin was not designed to break at a specific speed, but upon being subject to a load of 103,000 lbs +/- 5%. Perhaps this explains why exact figures are hazy.

The death of the rigger, was apparently discovered to be a failure of the 'wind down' tool, which snapped, allowing the door to spring open and throw the unfortunate chap to his death. This led to the 'wind down' tools being quickly removed from service, with the door being pulled closed from below via cabling through the rearmost area of the ECM bay.


Flipflopman

forget
12th Sep 2006, 20:41
Wind down tool. Vulcans in Camera- again.

http://www.avrovulcan.org.uk/vulcan_people/chute_darwin.htm

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/chute.jpg

FJJP
12th Sep 2006, 22:22
Just to clarify, the normal stream limit was 135KIAS. However, in an emergency landing (ie high AUW) then you streamed at 145KIAS. Correct to say that streamed between 135 and 145 called for extensive checks, and stream above 145 was a scrap.

I'm still using brake para tape from a scrapped chute begged from the brake para section at Scampton in the late 70s! Makes a fantastic tow-rope and useful for anything else that needs a high breaking strain rope!

Incidentally, Jindabyne, who did the painting and can you get prints? Mike Rondot did a fabulous Vulcan and Victor set - limited edition prints...

Pontius Navigator
13th Sep 2006, 08:13
Isn't it amazing how much corporate memory can be 'instantly' retrieved here in Prune and probably better than official service sources where there is a high turnover (relatively) and limited (in comparison) experience.

Forget, great photo. Now if you had asked me to do a scale drawing I would have made it much smaller.

jindabyne
14th Sep 2006, 11:49
FJJP

The painting was done by myself earlier this year. It is still in my possession.
I offered it free of charge to the Vulcan 558 project for auction, with all proceeds going to the restoration. I also suggested a print run to them, with the majority of proceeds again going to the project. They felt unable to organise such a proposal, saying that it was easier to sell mugs, T-shirts etc. So in answer to your second question: there are presently no prints available, and without a sponsor/publisher, it is just too expensive to go it alone. Sorry.

forget
14th Sep 2006, 11:58
Cracking job jindabyne:ok: :ok:

What size is your painting? Not that it matters much for a re-sizeable print run. I'll have one. Anyone else?

PS. Can you make the radome black? Like proper Vulcans.

PPS. And the roundels red white and blue.

BEagle
14th Sep 2006, 12:31
...presumably you'll want it without a TFR pod...

...and with a Mark 1 wing...

..oh, and why not make it white whilst you're at it?

NO!! It's totally authentic as it is and is a superb work of art.

forget
14th Sep 2006, 12:47
Oh dear, a bollocking from Mr B:uhoh: I'm all for authenticity, and red white and blue roundels, Mk 2 wings, black radome with a TFR pod.

Before your time perhaps:)

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/392goose3.jpg

jindabyne
14th Sep 2006, 13:15
Too late for a re-paint I'm afraid - has already been scanned in anticipation of possible printing. Size of image is 30x20" approx.

Wader2
14th Sep 2006, 13:20
Forget, that's no good for you then with 301 cans and skybolt mount.

rodthesod
14th Sep 2006, 15:05
I remember a 'priceless' F700 deferred defect entry at Waddo, in 1968 I believe. "Tail Brake Chute shackle cracked - use TBC in emergency only!" Got it un-deferred while we forced ourselves to partake of another 'delay meal'.

ChristiaanJ
14th Sep 2006, 15:16
Too late for a re-paint I'm afraid - has already been scanned in anticipation of possible printing. Size of image is 30x20" approx.I think somebody was slightly taking the mickey..... just look at the photo just above the painting.....

Maybe you should go into business... everybody obviously wants a pic of his "own" Vulcan :)

Blacksheep
14th Sep 2006, 15:32
Anyway it failed to latch or the latch failed and the door sprang open flipping the rigger off the tail to land head-first on the concrete.Waddington, around 1967. The latch attachment bracket rivets sheared and the latch broke free.

Poor chap was a safety equipper actually, not long married and his wife was pregnant. He wasn't wearing a safety harness. I watched the demonstration of the correct way to do the job for the BOI. One chap dropped a tool on purpose, then descended from the safety raiser while still wearing the safety harness - to show how useless it was. Didn't make any difference though, the widow didn't get any compensation. We had a whip round in Engineering Wing, but on the wages we got in those days it wouldn't have amounted to much...:(

We lost a young rigger the following year, pressure testing the escape trainer. Lord only knows why they'd want us to do that, it was a scrap cockpit section for goodness sake! His fiancee was one of the group who received the body at SHQ, but she didn't know it was him until the paperwork came along. What an awful thing to happen.

forget
14th Sep 2006, 15:50
We lost a young rigger the following year, pressure testing the escape trainer. Lord only knows why they'd want us to do that, it was a scrap cockpit section for goodness sake!

As I remember it, it wasn't a scrap cockpit but a compete aircraft in the AES hangar after a check. His name was Steve, good guy, and he was doing a leak check of the door seals. The two aft door pins were mis-rigged and let loose when he was stood, unfortunately, under the door. He wouldn't have seen it coming.

Pontius Navigator
14th Sep 2006, 16:14
Forget, yes I remember that incident with the pressurisation check but not as clearly as the earlier one.

Pontius Navigator
14th Sep 2006, 16:32
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/vlosses.jpg

I found my book. It was, as I thought, Robert Jackson, Avro Vulcan, Patrick Stephens, 1984, ISBN 0-85059-630-0. This is his later book only covering the Vulcan rather than the V-Bomber Modern Combat Aircraft by Ian Allen Pub.

Of XH536 for instance he says Delivered 16 Dec 1959 9/12/35 Sqns Conngsby Wg. Flew into high ground at Fan-Bwlchchwtyth Heddi Senni, 20 miles NE Swansea during low level navigation exercise.

Jackson lists the date delivered and final disposal of every Vulcan.

The second aircraft was VX777 which was delivered in Sep 1953 and later converted in to a Mark 2 prototype when it made its first flight on 31 Aug 1957.

The other aircraft we have been talking about was delivered on 1 Jul 1960 and was the first Mk 2 delivered to the RAF. It was leter converted to a K2 tanker before ultimate disposal to Bruntingthorpe.

Some of the fine detail may be questioned as he attributes the last Mk 2, XM657 to delivery Dec 1964 to 35 Sqn when in fact the aircraft were part of a centralised wing. It ended its days at Manston in 1982, before the Falklands, for fire-fighting practice.

FJJP
15th Sep 2006, 08:16
Jindabyne, pity about a print run. However, if you do manage it sometime, I will definitely have a copy. Brilliant work.

Forget, have you a date for 392 photo at the Goose?

forget
15th Sep 2006, 08:23
Andy Leitch's site says only "Vulcan B2 XL392 of No 617 Squadron at Goose Bay circa 1974" - given the paint job this seems a bit late for me :confused:

Andy took the photograph so he may have something to say.

PS. Come to think of it - if he took the photograph he's probably right.

Pontius Navigator
15th Sep 2006, 08:31
IIRC the tail art did not come in until about 1973-74. I have an etching, 1977, of a 35 Sqn Vulcan. In 1973 in Akrotiri we were still in a wing structure.

This suggests 1974 is about right.

forget
15th Sep 2006, 08:49
This is what was bothering me. It must have been '74 when the (proper) roundels were being changed.

http://www.avrovulcan.org.uk/1_group_presentation/653gv74.htm

Blurb says - Avro Vulcan B2 XM653 of the Waddington Wing after the 1974 SAC Giant Voice bombing and navigation competition with the three trophies won by Vulcan crews. Though the picture is somewhat soft, the Union Jack can be seen on the fin and the 1 Group panther's head between the roundel and the engine intake. 653's markings are unusual in that it has gloss green/light sea grey topsides and white underside with red and blue roundels.

Midwinter
24th Sep 2006, 20:31
There are now some useful additions that could be pulled into any book. There are two relevant articles in Air Power, one by the MA student into survivability of the V-force really from an air staff perspective. It is quite revealling what she found out from their airships papers and what Bomber Command actually did and didn;t tell them.


Does Air Power have a website? I tried searching for one but couldn't find it.

The reason I ask is that in 2004 I also did an MA dissertation on the V-Bomber force and I'd like to read the article mentioned above. Wonder how you go about submitting for publication as well. :lol:

Mine was titled, 'The Unsteady Sword: The RAF's Strategic Nuclear Deterrent and its Role in the Cold War World, 1947 - 1969'. Don't worry, despite the headline I gave it a positive review. ;)

Just wish I'd known about this thread and this forum when I was writing it...

Have to add that I'm another certain customer when that new book on the Vulcan that's being discussed is released.

Archimedes
24th Sep 2006, 22:14
Midwinter, plse check your PMs....

EL_BOW
24th Sep 2006, 23:14
I've been reading this staggering thread for some hours now and have finally reached the end. My own experiences of the plane come from my earliest memories, so bear with me if I'm off a little.

My father is Flt Ltnt 'Taff' Williams who flew Vulcans at the height of the Cold War era (late 50's to '64) on 101 and 44 Sqns. We were at Waddington and lived on Tedder Drive. I was born in '58 and my earliest memories were of the landrovers driving around the OMQ's in the middle of the night and my Dad running down the stairs...

A particular memory that sticks in my mind as well is that a Waddington Battle of Britain display one year ended with a 'dummy' bomb being detonated and a 100th scale mushroom cloud rising above the base! As the years have gone by I had started to think I had dreamt this whole thing, however I recently asked my sister (3 years older than me) - she said she remembered it vividly and remembered being absolutely frightened to death by it......

I wonder who decided that was a good wheeze, bearing in mind that the appearance of real thing was a distinct possibility.

Only other thing to add - A while back some references were made to the low level flying in 'Thunderball'.

As I understand it, the pilot on that day was Flight Lieutenant Pat Whitelaw from Waddington. He, Al Shepphard and my Dad were big buddies. Sadly he's no longer with us, though Dad and Al are to be found regularly terrorising other golfers on the courses of West Oxfordshire.

Great thread chaps - your reminiscences make excellent reading from any perspective!

Gainesy
25th Sep 2006, 07:45
I remember NEAF Bomber Wing at Akrotiri changing from red/white/blue roundels to red/blue sometime in about the middle of my tour there (70-73).

forget
25th Sep 2006, 12:16
Speaking of Roundels, not everyone connected with the V Force had an IQ up to the job. One morning at Cottesmore I was heading for QRA to gas up the ECM cans. One aircraft was getting some attention from an unusual group around the front end. It transpired that the previous nights plod guard had armed himself with a Webley air pistol and, having got bored with his dog's conversation, he’d used the Roundel for target practice. Next morning the Crew Chief noticed a few dozen dimples in the centre of the Roundel, and then the bent slugs under his feet. I imagine Mr Plod was fast asleep when he was dragged from his pit and I’d have given anything, anything, to see just how he was woken up.:uhoh: :uhoh:

Pontius Navigator
25th Sep 2006, 16:34
I remember the Cottesmore air gun incident. There was a good one at Scampton too about the same time. RAFP said he needed to be taken off guard as he would shoot the Vulcan.

I believe he eventually convinced the wheels and was taken off guard. I am not sure of subsequent disposal.

windriver
25th Sep 2006, 19:49
Just doing a bit of research for another topic in some old Flight mags and came across an article "Bomex By Vulcan" - Flight 18th July 1958 - Correspondent C.M Lambert went along for the ride in XH749. Crew names and piccies + XA907 pictured next to Flights Gemini.

If anyones interested in a copy PM me and I`ll make a scan/ocr

allan907
26th Sep 2006, 16:11
As I was posting old pics in the "Uniform" thread and as XA 907 has just be mentioned thought that this might be interesting

BCDU (Bomber Command Development Unit), Finningley 1965 or 66

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c92/allan907/IMG_0004.jpg

paf1950
26th Sep 2006, 19:26
The Steve in question at Waddo who sadly died, was engaged to the young lady (Jan) who was on duty medic the evening of the accident. Steves father was serving at Finningley and subsequent to the event presented a painting to the the Raven Club in memory of him.

jindabyne
7th Oct 2006, 09:05
BEagle, FJJP, Forget

Thinking of doing another couple of Vulcans - wrt your previous comments, wonder what paint schemes you might suggest?

forget
7th Oct 2006, 09:18
Good news Jindabyne, and thank you for asking. In my opinion there is only one:ok: :ok:
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/392goose3.jpg

Same colour scheme but without TFR. Taken by me at RAAF Darwin, 1969. The black bits at the top are prop tips of a C-130.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/610_darwin.jpg

Gainesy
7th Oct 2006, 12:11
How about a white B.1?

FJJP
7th Oct 2006, 13:29
Jindabyne, thank you for asking.

I'll go along with Forget in liking the 60's scheme with the anti-flash white underside [with TFR pod]. I guess we'd fight for years to decide the Sqn colours, but if asked, my preference would be as the Goose photo [617] or 27 with the white circle and Disney Dumbo! [I flew XL392 many times in subsequent years]. I think the white B1 is an uninteresting subject.

You could also consider doing one with the Blue Steel missile [of the late 60's] before the deterrent was handed over to the RN.

FJJP

jindabyne
9th Oct 2006, 17:05
Thanks for your views chaps. One will certainly be in the 60's scheme, with TFR pod, but no ECM fin-fairing (sqn TBD!); one will be 558. The last could well be a Blue Steel job, or maybe a white B1 - but I tend to go along with FJJP, white might be a tad uninteresting?

BEagle
9th Oct 2006, 18:17
If you do a white one, Jindabyne, why not make it a white one with either Blue Tool or, to be controversial, a brace of Skybolts.....

BTW - good to see a certain young chap in http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=246616 post no. 4!

forget
9th Oct 2006, 20:07
A white Vulcan with a couple of Skybolts - that would look something like this

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/537_woodford_4.jpg

.....or this

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/537_woodford_3.jpg

..........or;

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/537_woodford_2.jpg

jindabyne
10th Oct 2006, 08:56
BEagle

---- but the limp wrists are a bit worrysome!!

Archimedes
10th Oct 2006, 16:43
Some thread users may recall this at post #127...

Ignoring all principles of never volunteer...
As someone alleged to be an historian and part of the air team [civvie] at the centre for purple learning (the 'alleged' applies only to the historian bit...) if there is an interest in having someone collate this and any other thoughs/recollections/etc on V-Force, I'll do it.

PM me and I'll give you the means of checking out my bona fides. If there's enough interest we can see whether we end up with a small V-Force personal archive arrangement or something in print (and pse bear in mind that to work where I do means that I am alive to some of the concerns expressed in recent postings).
And Happy New Year.
Archie.

If the will is there, the 'in print' bit is now feasible. I have chatted with a publisher, and will be producing something on the subject to appear in 2009. The intent is to trace the history of the V-Force [and if size permits, reference to the B(I)8 and the RN role in the deterrent as well] with personal input from those involved. So if you were, would like to be 'primary source material'/offer advice or suggestions, please do get in touch...

Pontius Navigator
10th Oct 2006, 17:25
Ok, what are those black things under the Skybolt Vulcan wing tips? I see the white marking differ on port and starboard.

I can't make out if the Shrimp aerials are present. There is no L-band aerial as that did not come in until 1965.

forget
10th Oct 2006, 17:49
I'd guess that those 'black things' are cameras. Maybe they wanted to see if anything fluttered in flight.

scorpion63
10th Oct 2006, 17:51
They are cine recording cameras fitted for weapons release recording.

forget
10th Oct 2006, 17:59
Cameras confirmed at
http://www.thevulcancollection.co.uk/xh537skybolt.htm

I hadn't realised that Skybolts had actually been dropped.

ChristiaanJ
10th Oct 2006, 20:15
forget,
Good story.
Pity all the picture and video links have disappeared.

Wunper
10th Oct 2006, 20:35
Couple of pictures from the family album, apologies for the quality
Farnborough 1954 just look at the Fod!
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d107/wunper/Scan10002.jpg
Probably one of the last photos of this machine in flying condition taken at Katunayake Ceylon in 1956 the following day it was wrecked at Heathrow
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d107/wunper/Scan20003.jpg
W

forget
10th Oct 2006, 20:36
Hmm. So much for Skybolt. http://www.masterliness.com/a/Skybolt.ALBM.htm

'By 1961 several test articles were ready for testing from USAF B-52Bs. In England compatibility trials with mockups started on the Vulcan. Powered tests started in April 1962, but the test series was a disaster, with the first five trials ending in failure. The first fully successful flight occurred on December 19th, 1962, but on that same day the whole program was cancelled and the production of the operational GAM-87A stopped'.

jindabyne
13th Oct 2006, 14:39
FJJP

Taking the plunge and having some prints done of my Vulcan painting. Part of the proceeds will go to the 558 project - same goes for the original if I can dispose of that.

FJJP
13th Oct 2006, 20:24
Jindabyne, pse check your messages...

FJJP

Samuel
18th Oct 2006, 13:14
Can anyone gve me a link to that photo of the "Kiwi" RNZAF Vulcan? I think it may have been on this thread, ut some time ago.

forget
18th Oct 2006, 13:22
http://www.avrovulcan.org.uk/vulcan_people/562_kiwi.htm

TheVulcan
18th Oct 2006, 13:34
Cameras confirmed at
http://www.thevulcancollection.co.uk/xh537skybolt.htm
I hadn't realised that Skybolts had actually been dropped.
We dropped several --- dummies of course. But they weighed the correct amount 15,000lb. Taking off with one on was great spport and landing with two.

Rigex
18th Oct 2006, 14:00
Some thread users may recall this at post #127...



If the will is there, the 'in print' bit is now feasible. I have chatted with a publisher, and will be producing something on the subject to appear in 2009. The intent is to trace the history of the V-Force [and if size permits, reference to the B(I)8 and the RN role in the deterrent as well] with personal input from those involved. So if you were, would like to be 'primary source material'/offer advice or suggestions, please do get in touch...


..and B(I)6 please!

Kitbag
18th Oct 2006, 14:09
We dropped several --- dummies of course. But they weighed the correct amount 15,000lb. Taking off with one on was great spport and landing with two.


Must have been interesting fitting the second once you were airborne :}

TheVulcan
18th Oct 2006, 14:39
I'm doing a book right now on flight testing and demonstrating the Vulcan, hopefully out before 558 takes to the air. There is going to be a chapter on technical analysis of accidents in relation to Vulcan handling and systems design. Certain accidents are not in the archives so I may need help. Will know better next month.

TheVulcan
18th Oct 2006, 14:43
Must have been interesting fitting the second once you were airborne :}
No worries. Getting back the one we dropped was harder.

TheVulcan
21st Oct 2006, 18:41
Good news Jindabyne, and thank you for asking. In my opinion there is only one:ok: :ok:
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/392goose3.jpg
Same colour scheme but without TFR. Taken by me at RAAF Darwin, 1969. The black bits at the top are prop tips of a C-130.
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/610_darwin.jpg
Any experts on TFR? When was it fitted to each mark of Vulcan? All the squadrons?

Pontius Navigator
21st Oct 2006, 19:47
IIRC we did not have TFR at Cottesmore in 1966. In 1967 I was at Waddington and we definitely introduced it then. It is a fairly safe bet that it was fitted to the Cottesmore Wing in 1967, canít remember when 12 disbanded. It was then fitted to all the Waddington Wing (Mk 2s only) and also presumably to the Scampton Wing. When Cottesmore moved to Akrotiri Bomber Wing was fully equipped.

Again, IIRC, there were no aircraft on Vulcan sqns between 1964 and 1970. Certainly at Akrotiri up to 1973 the aircraft belonged to the wing an not the sqn. Again I do not remember any special unit markings before Giant Voice and Big Top in the early 70s.

The Darwin picture of 1969 is interesting and would suggest that although the Waddington had TFR before that the fleet was still in transition.

At the time we seemed to wait for ever for small modifications. In retrospect the Vulcan 2 probably had more mods in short order than many other aircraft since.

In 1964 we had just about completed the switch from Gee 3 to Tacan. We still had STR18 HF and twin crystalized VHF boxes; we later got Collins and PTR 175. The rear crew seats were changed to swivel seats - a major mod. We got the HRS, Heading Reference System. The bomb was changed and we got an new panel, ER in place of the earlier EP. The NBS under went various mods, some hidden such as a change of internal relays, other like the Fishpool Mod, change of Calc 3a back to Calc 3, a reversion from Mk 21 to Mk 17 oxygen regulators. New G-meters. A new pitch director for the 2H (YS2) attack). Replacement of one S-band Red Shrimp for L-band. Replacement of Green Palm for the X-band jammer, a crude directional capability on the Blue Saga before it was replaced by the RWI. A dramatic change of Red Steer to Red Steer 2 with a between radar coverage. Addition of Rapid Blooming Window and Infra Red Decoys. Introduction of the 8000lb bomb bay tanks to recover range lost at low level. New fatigue meters. Green Satin replaced by Decca 72M and a new Radio Altimeter. And of course TFR.

As I said, at the time it seemed very slow. Indeed many trips had to be replanned as the aircraft fit was not compatible with the sortie plan. In retrospect, and looking at the battles to get DAS and fuel tank explosion suppression etc we certainly had an OR priority.

forget
21st Oct 2006, 20:35
TFR. I'm sure it was fitted at Cottesmore 1966, at least some aircraft were. I was on the line when XH536 went in, 11th February 1966, and CFIT, or whatever it was called then, was our first thought.

However, two sites below contradict one another.

http://www.clwb-cerdded-ystalyfera.i12.com/pages/xh536.htm

http://www.gpswalker.cwc.net/volcan.htm

TheVulcan
21st Oct 2006, 21:05
TFR. I'm sure it was fitted at Cottesmore 1966, at least some aircraft were. I was on the line when XH536 went in, 11th February 1966, and CFIT, or whatever it was called then, was our first thought.
However, two sites below contradict one another.
http://www.clwb-cerdded-ystalyfera.i...ages/xh536.htm
http://www.gpswalker.cwc.net/volcan.htm

Very useful but can't locate first web site.

TheVulcan
21st Oct 2006, 21:07
IIRC we did not have TFR at Cottesmore in 1966. In 1967 I was at Waddington and we definitely introduced it then. It is a fairly safe bet that it was fitted to the Cottesmore Wing in 1967, canít remember when 12 disbanded. It was then fitted to all the Waddington Wing (Mk 2s only) and also presumably to the Scampton Wing. When Cottesmore moved to Akrotiri Bomber Wing was fully equipped.
Again, IIRC, there were no aircraft on Vulcan sqns between 1964 and 1970. Certainly at Akrotiri up to 1973 the aircraft belonged to the wing an not the sqn. Again I do not remember any special unit markings before Giant Voice and Big Top in the early 70s.
The Darwin picture of 1969 is interesting and would suggest that although the Waddington had TFR before that the fleet was still in transition.
At the time we seemed to wait for ever for small modifications. In retrospect the Vulcan 2 probably had more mods in short order than many other aircraft since.
In 1964 we had just about completed the switch from Gee 3 to Tacan. We still had STR18 HF and twin crystalized VHF boxes; we later got Collins and PTR 175. The rear crew seats were changed to swivel seats - a major mod. We got the HRS, Heading Reference System. The bomb was changed and we got an new panel, ER in place of the earlier EP. The NBS under went various mods, some hidden such as a change of internal relays, other like the Fishpool Mod, change of Calc 3a back to Calc 3, a reversion from Mk 21 to Mk 17 oxygen regulators. New G-meters. A new pitch director for the 2H (YS2) attack). Replacement of one S-band Red Shrimp for L-band. Replacement of Green Palm for the X-band jammer, a crude directional capability on the Blue Saga before it was replaced by the RWI. A dramatic change of Red Steer to Red Steer 2 with a between radar coverage. Addition of Rapid Blooming Window and Infra Red Decoys. Introduction of the 8000lb bomb bay tanks to recover range lost at low level. New fatigue meters. Green Satin replaced by Decca 72M and a new Radio Altimeter. And of course TFR.
As I said, at the time it seemed very slow. Indeed many trips had to be replanned as the aircraft fit was not compatible with the sortie plan. In retrospect, and looking at the battles to get DAS and fuel tank explosion suppression etc we certainly had an OR priority.
Thanks. Exactly what I needed.

ChristiaanJ
21st Oct 2006, 22:09
Question from an outsider who knows what TFR stands for, but never had the chance to have anything to do with the Vulcan....

Is the TFR the pimple on the front of the nose? And what was in there? Looks too small for X-band.

allan907
22nd Oct 2006, 01:49
I remember the torrid time that we had on ECMSDF during the introduction to Red Steer 2 (or it might even have been getting Red Steer 1 to work properly). Anyway, the return springs broke with monotonous regularity. We trawled the country trying to find a manufacturer who could make springs of the right quality that would last more than a few hours.

Each manufacturer would come up with the goods, we'd put them on trial installations, run the kit up and they would go for ever. Contracts were drawn up, springs manufactured and issued and - bingo - bust within very short order.

What was happening was that the manufacturers samples were effectively hand produced and of superb quality. The mass produced ones were crap.

I presume that the problem was sorted. I moved from BCDU to Aden in spring (no pun intended) 67.

Milt
22nd Oct 2006, 05:46
allen907
What was the function of the springs and what would fail when one broke?

India Four Two
22nd Oct 2006, 06:14
Is the TFR the pimple on the front of the nose? And what was in there? Looks too small for X-band.

Apparently the pimple is the TFR. Have a look at Section 2.2 on this page that I found:

http://www.vectorsite.net/avvulcan_2.html
As of 1965, the General Dynamics AN/APN-171 terrain-following radar (TFR) capability was fitted in a thimble radome on the nose. It provided up-down signals to the cockpit to help the machine hug the ground.This site contains an amazing amount of detail on a vast array of aircraft, not just the Vulcan :http://www.vectorsite.net/indexav.html

Pontius Navigator
22nd Oct 2006, 07:49
Without checking that site, I only have a vague recall of some of the TFR detail. It had a fixed 7 degree look angle so could handle aircraft drift angles up to 3.5 deg. This was just about OK in moderate winds at war speeds of 325k or higher. In peacetime training, at 220-240k and drift angles of 5 deg or more it could quite happily fly you into the side of a mountain. That was one reason why we did not TFR at night until some years after its introduction in to service. They were more concerned with confidence building than letting us have unrestricted use. At first, without TFR, we could low fly down to 500 feet. Once TFR trained we were cleared down to 300 feet.

The GSU believed that over a smooth sea it could fly you up to 100 feet low. It was not connected to the autopilot.

The kit worked, I have an idea, in the J-band.

It projected a beam ahead of the aircraft to 9000 feet. The beam depression angle was set by the terrain clearance height required. At 200 feet it would be full up. I don't recall how high you could set it. It had 3 lights. Green ON, Red Low and Amber High I think but BEags or someone will confirm that.

When it got something within range it would issue a flyup command. Once the aircraft climbed andthe beam rode clear the command would be flydown. I believe on problem was a tendency to balloon you over a hill - once, in Greece, we did just that - the Green remained on even though the pilot was actually hand flying and not TFing.

Next day we flew the same route, different pilot, TF at 500 feet and crested the same ridge at 50 feet as he overrode the flyup command.

Another time where the TFR could stuff you was flying across a series of ridge lines and valleys. It could fly you over the first and dive you in to the valley. As you bottomed out you would 'see' the other side of the valley. If the valley was deep enough and also narrow enough you could be going down when you should be going up or going up when you should have gone up sooner :eek: . For that reason the plotter always ran a safety trace too.

BEagle
22nd Oct 2006, 08:17
I'm pretty sure that the TFR used J-band.

The main problem, apart from drift angles at slow UK training speeds, was that people didn't understand the terrain limitations and tried to use it in mountainous terrain for which it was not cleared.

My night TFR check didn't last long. We'd just let down to low level and started the run when a light came on. "Bugger", I thought, "must be the TFR fail light". But no, it was the Main Warning amber lights. Then the captain announced that several PFCU lights were also on and asked the AEO WTF was going on - to be told that the entire no. 3 load busbar had failed. So off we went to Leeming, threw it on the ground, rang home, had a few beers whilst waiting for the bus, then snored our way back to sunny Scampton.

It turned out the jet had recently been serviced and ALL the no. 3 main 200v fuses in the power compartment had been incorrectly refitted.



I do not endorse any goods or services described in any advertising which may have been included in this post without my agreement.

Pontius Navigator
22nd Oct 2006, 08:28
It turned out the jet had recently been serviced and ALL the no. 3 main 200v fuses in the power compartment had been incorrectly refitted.


Which calls to mind a time when the AEO had to check all the fuses annually.

IIRC this was some time about 1966 as I seem to remember an AEO Roy D*sn*y had the task once. Apparently the electric jet had a huge number of fused systems many of which were unused and others which were redundant. It could operate quite happily with u/s fuses. There was an annual check where every fuse was methodically pulled and checked by the AEO. The powers that be never wasted a moment using aircrew instead of engineers - great for morale. U/S jet? Send it away for a ranger, it will count as serviceable on the stats and the crew can fix it.

There was lots of very clever design work on the NBS - every dial and panel light was powered through a different circuit. If, for instance, the radar indicator dial lights were off then that indicated the failure of a particular fuse. If a box did not appear to be working then check a particular light. If the light was OK then the box was probably f*****d. If the light was out, change the fuse.

Pontius Navigator
22nd Oct 2006, 08:35
In 1964 we had just about completed the switch from Gee 3 to Tacan. We still had STR18 HF and twin crystalized VHF boxes; we later got Collins and PTR 175. The rear crew seats were changed to swivel seats - a major mod. We got the HRS, Heading Reference System. The bomb was changed and we got an new panel, ER in place of the earlier EP. The NBS under went various mods, some hidden such as a change of internal relays, other like the Fishpool Mod, change of Calc 3a back to Calc 3, a reversion from Mk 21 to Mk 17 oxygen regulators. New G-meters. A new pitch director for the 2H (YS2) attack). Replacement of one S-band Red Shrimp for L-band. Replacement of Green Palm for the X-band jammer, a crude directional capability on the Blue Saga before it was replaced by the RWI. A dramatic change of Red Steer to Red Steer 2 with a between radar coverage. Addition of Rapid Blooming Window and Infra Red Decoys. Introduction of the 8000lb bomb bay tanks to recover range lost at low level. New fatigue meters. Green Satin replaced by Decca 72M and a new Radio Altimeter. And of course TFR.

I forgot to mention that this all took place between 1964 and 1969, probably 1968 when we were the nuclear deterent.

The aircraft were also painted several times over - the quick, cheap and cheerful dull camo, the high gloss polyurethane, the change to grey underside. The darker and later all over tones came in the 70s.

Three other mods spring to mind - the addition of the tail strike lamps, the change of the pitot heads for Rosemount Heads, and the change of the anti-cols which had been simple on-off whites to the slimline rotating reds.

And in the simulator, from a simple non-visual, non-dynamic to a visual and rumbling one at Waddo.

It was no wonder that crews went back every year to the OCU and BCBS for an annual refresher and reminder of the fleshspots of Rotherham and Donny.

GlosMikeP
22nd Oct 2006, 08:56
I'm pretty sure that the TFR used J-band.
Was it an import from an early TSR2 development or completely different? Same vintage.

Pontius Navigator
22nd Oct 2006, 09:04
The TFR was a UOR buy in from General Dynamics from the F111 programme. The narrow look angle was necessary for the F111 to avoid it being given unnecessary flyup commands if it flew down a valley.

I am not sure about provision for the TSR2. It navigation radar was a side-scan system which would be used to update the nav-attack system after the fix point had been passed. I suspect that terrain avoidance was planned on a mission basis and not a dynamic process. Given that it was planned for weapons release down at 50 feet and mach 1.2 you would have thought it would have needed some form of forward looking system - FLIR based perhaps?

forget
22nd Oct 2006, 09:42
Very useful but can't locate first web site.

Sorry. Try this,
http://www.clwb-cerdded-ystalyfera.i12.com/pages/xh536.htm

Pontius Navigator
22nd Oct 2006, 10:16
Forget, good link, thank you. There is a glaring error in the content though where it it stats that 606 was the 4th Vulcan to be produced.

What about the XH series, XJ series, XL series and finally the XM series. Does it perhaps mean the fourth batch of Vulcan's to be produced?

forget
22nd Oct 2006, 10:25
Milt, You asked, “What was the function of the springs and what would fail when one broke?”

Difficult to describe, but here goes! Red Steer was the fighter intercept warning radar housed in the radome at the back end of the aircraft. The AEO was the operator and had the display/control in front of him. The ‘area of interest’ behind the aircraft was a cone of about 60 degrees, centred rearwards from the centre line. The Mk I simple parabolic scanner sent out a very narrow beam but it needed to (rapidly) investigate every angle of sky within the cone. To do this the scanner started a cycle which began with the beam pointing directly aft then began a spiral to describe larger angled cones out to the limit. Once there it reversed the process to come back to dead astern, then began another cycle. This was a mechanical scanner and all this was done through electric motors, hinges, cams – and springs. The problem was, a complete cycle took under 2 seconds!

You really had to see a scanner operating in the workshop to understand the stresses it was under! The spiral springs, I think, about 4 inches long by a half inch, tried to keep everything ‘tight’ against the cams, and mechanically connected. They didn’t stand a chance! When they broke the scanner simply flopped with gravity - and looked at the ground you’d just flown over.

Pontius Navigator
22nd Oct 2006, 10:37
The Red Steer 2 was actually a modifiaction of the Lightning radar, AI21?. The AI21 had a conical capability of +/- 60 deg. As the Vulcan was not intended to such extreme manouevres the Red Steer sweep was different. It was +/-70 deg horizontally and +/- 20 deg vertically. By and large it meant that it could remain locked on or detect slight better than the AI21.

The rapid scan mode was slightly different. When it was anticipated that the fighter was in the launch bracket the radar could be switched to narrow scan +/- 5 deg. In this mode it could detect an AAM separation from the launch aircraft and fire the appropriate decoys - IR or chaff.

Remembering that this was 40 years ago this is pretty advanced technology.

However, on one exercise, I remember looking at the RS display. It looked like the B17 war films with the 'sky' full of contacts ie out to 20 miles. The AEO had to look for contacts sliding in to the 'static' targets which would be the interceptors doing stern arc conversions. Of course once in behind another target they would be same-way same-day and potentially unnoticed by other AEOs.

BEagle
22nd Oct 2006, 11:14
Are you sure it was ex-Lightning radar? As far as I'm aware, the Ferranti AIRPASS AI-23 was only fitted to the lightning; Red Steer was from an earlier generation of radar systems. We were told it came out of old Meteor night fighters, but I don't know whether that was true.

Can't recall the difference between Red Steer 1 and 2. Was Red Steer 1 based on the old AI-20 and Red Steer 2 the ex-Meat Box kit?

forget
22nd Oct 2006, 11:24
Red Steer Mk II Control/Indicator at AEO's position. Orange screen. The Mk I was a circular green screen, certainly early fifties vintage! Probably the least effective bit of electronics kit on the whole aircraft.

Barry Masefield AEO. From 'Vulcan', Duncan Cubitt and Ken Ellis.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/redsteer.jpg

GlosMikeP
22nd Oct 2006, 11:28
The TFR was a UOR buy in from General Dynamics from the F111 programme. The narrow look angle was necessary for the F111 to avoid it being given unnecessary flyup commands if it flew down a valley.

I am not sure about provision for the TSR2. It navigation radar was a side-scan system which would be used to update the nav-attack system after the fix point had been passed. I suspect that terrain avoidance was planned on a mission basis and not a dynamic process. Given that it was planned for weapons release down at 50 feet and mach 1.2 you would have thought it would have needed some form of forward looking system - FLIR based perhaps?

That's even more interesting than you may realise. DoD people came over to UK in the late 50s making 'buy' noises for TSR2, but were in fact gathering technical info to feed into the F111.

TSR2 did have TFR, incidentally.

allan907
22nd Oct 2006, 11:52
Milt - the reply given by forget is spot on. To see a Red Steer installation on static test whizzing around like a demented mad thing was a sight to behold.

Pontius Navigator
22nd Oct 2006, 12:25
Are you sure it was ex-Lightning radar? As far as I'm aware, the Ferranti AIRPASS AI-23 was only fitted to the lightning; Red Steer was from an earlier generation of radar systems. We were told it came out of old Meteor night fighters, but I don't know whether that was true.
Can't recall the difference between Red Steer 1 and 2. Was Red Steer 1 based on the old AI-20 and Red Steer 2 the ex-Meat Box kit?

I really meant based on as opposed to from the Lightning. Certainly it was far more advanced than anything that might have been fitted to the Meteor or Javelin. It had a good detection range against bombers at about 20 miles.

The Red Steer 1, OTOH, was diabolical and only understandable by AEOs. It used a conical scan technique with display centre being, if I guess correctly, max range and target being displayed in azimuth and elevation displayed as departure from the centre. Min range was at the edge. It was unstabilised. A contact left, high, range 5, would be displayed at 10 o'clock, an inch or so from the centre, provided the aircraft was S&L.

The first ground return would appear at 6 o'clock and aircraft height. As the time base ran out so the ground return would sweep out left and right and as it increased in range so it would sweep in to the centre of the display.

OTOH my description may be arse about face as the only thing I ever recognised was the ground.

forget
22nd Oct 2006, 12:45
OTOH my description may be arse about face as the only thing I ever recognised was the ground.

You were probably interpreting the returns correctly PN. As I suggested, most of the time it was only pointing at the ground. :p

‘Interesting’ snippet at

http://www.skomer.u-net.com/projects/radar.htm

Green Willow. AI.20 X-band AI radar for single seat fighters. Limited capability. Developed as a back up for AI.23. Abandoned due to success of AI.23. Re-emerged as Red Steer. Used X-band.

Also, http://www.vectorsite.net/avvulcan_1.html

ARI 5919 Red Steer tail-warning radar, derived from the radar used on Meteor night-fighters.

Pontius Navigator
22nd Oct 2006, 14:15
ARI 5919 Red Steer tail-warning radar, derived from the radar used on Meteor night-fighters.

Well, if it was a Meteor development they should have put it in the Lightning. Although I didn't use the RS2 it certainly appeared to be the goods. Certainly far greater range and capability than the Javelin. While it could not lock-up - we needed it to keep scanning - its ability to spot an AAM launch was first rate.

Some more mods I remember:

Before Green Satin 2 was changed to D72M, we had the Green Satin Mk 1. The old, fixed, rear crew seats originally had Mk 20 (IIRC) parachutes with an agonising back pad (15% disability thank you Mr Irvine) and these were replaced with an easier to use Mk 46 before the swivel seat came in.

The rearcrew services were also provided through an MSC - multi-services connector. With the advent of the swivel seat this was replaced with a much sexier SSC or swivel seat connector. This meant however that we lost the g-suit connection and the AVS was connected separately.

Pontius Navigator
22nd Oct 2006, 14:19
That's even more interesting than you may realise. DoD people came over to UK in the late 50s making 'buy' noises for TSR2, but were in fact gathering technical info to feed into the F111.

TSR2 did have TFR, incidentally.

Although TSR2 was cancelled in 1965 (?) there were cells at Bomber Command, what would now be IPT I guess, looking at TSR2 and F111. There was intense partisanship between the two cells and, AFAIK, no meeting of minds. Whichever cell you were in had the best aircraft for the job.

forget
22nd Oct 2006, 14:48
TSR2's TFR.

http://www.ausairpower.net/Profile-BAC-TSR.2.html

The TSR.2 employed a dual channel Terrain Following Radar (TFR) conceptually similar to that in the F-111. The TSR.2 system employed a Ferranti monopulse TFR, which fed the dual channel Elliot Automation autopilot/TF computer with terrain profile measurements ahead of the aircraft. A pair of STC radar altimeters complemented the TFR. The system provided not only automated vertical clearance down to 200 ft AGL, but also provided for automatic routing around obstacles. The terrain clearance data was also provided to the pilot as cues on his Rank-Cintel Head Up Display (HUD). Both crewmembers had moving map displays, in addition the navigator had a large radar scope. It was intended that the pilot's station be fitted with three digital cockpit displays (MFDs) in production aircraft. It was intended that the pilot's workload be minimised, to this effect a fully automatic fuel management system was fitted to balance the aircraft's CoG.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
22nd Oct 2006, 14:51
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/redsteer.jpg

Is that long tube in front of him so he can call down to the engine room? :}

forget
22nd Oct 2006, 15:29
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The US of A - sort of
Posts: 33 I got banned for starting a thread called w@nking.
-----------------

Get back to doing what you're good at :p

Safety_Helmut
22nd Oct 2006, 15:58
Hook, line and sinker. :E

Don't get in the way of these old timers reminiscences !

S_H

Yellow Sun
22nd Oct 2006, 19:36
IIRC, Red Steer 2 had a lot in common with the Ekco(sp?) 190 CCWR. I believe that the display units were very similar as was the scanner but there must have been differences in the transmission characteristics. No doubt the truth is out there on Google.

Did anyone actually get to press the "Red Steer Action Button"?, guarded button top right on the control unit.

YS

Pontius Navigator
23rd Oct 2006, 06:50
Did anyone actually get to press the "Red Steer Action Button"?, guarded button top right on the control unit.
YS

Ah, I did not recall the action button but I was no doubt for use when a missile launch was detected. Rather than have eyes on the RS2, see th elaunch, then try and press the right buttons on the X-band jammer and the IRD, RBW, press the action button and get the lot.

allan907
23rd Oct 2006, 07:34
I always thought that if the scanner actually picked up a hostile within lethal range the 'action' switch illuminated the "ABANDON AIRCRAFT" warning panel :E

forget
23rd Oct 2006, 08:22
IIRC, Red Steer 2 had a lot in common with the Ekco(sp?) 190 CCWR. I believe that the display units were very similar as was the scanner but there must have been differences in the transmission characteristics. No doubt the truth is out there on Google. YS

Red Steer and the Ekco 190 came from the same stable and the indicators were very similar. I left Waddington in '69 and went to Heathrow hangars with BEA. Just about all aircraft types used the E-190. Trident below.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/trident-1.jpg

GlosMikeP
23rd Oct 2006, 08:23
TSR2's TFR.

http://www.ausairpower.net/Profile-BAC-TSR.2.html

The TSR.2 employed a dual channel Terrain Following Radar (TFR) conceptually similar to that in the F-111. The TSR.2 system employed a Ferranti monopulse TFR, .....

Thanks for that. All adds to the pot of knowledge. It would be interesting to see what all the spin-outs from TSR2 came to. I know the INS were transferred to the Tornado - I saw them working in a lab at Warton in about 1975.

pmills575
23rd Oct 2006, 08:31
Must have been the most unreliable bit of kit ever fitted to an aircraft. At Akrotiri every trade was an expert on TFR pod changes, lucky to survive a single trip. It has a nasty design fault, the ram air cooling fed air from the outside straight over the electronics. Pass though a nice bit of wet weather and it played havoc with the internals. Many a time have seen a TFR pod tipped on end to get the "excess moisture" out. As I recall no-one really trusted it anyway, always a flown with a good lookout.

Pontius Navigator
23rd Oct 2006, 08:35
The Heading Reference System was, I believe, another spin off.

The HRS used two Master Reference Gyros, MRG, that were used in the F6 to give attitude information and translated in the Vulcan to give azimuth information. The accuracy was IRO 0.25 deg per hour and well up with conventional INs of the time and a lot better than some, like the Nimrod.

I believe components of the HRS were part of the Blue Steel guidance package whose IN only had to run free for a few minutes. I think that was the basis of the IN package for the Nimrod.

What goes round goes round.

Yellow Sun
23rd Oct 2006, 13:34
I believe components of the HRS were part of the Blue Steel guidance package whose IN only had to run free for a few minutes. I think that was the basis of the IN package for the Nimrod.

Risking a bit of thread drift here (we can always "on top" a previous post to get back on track!) and harking back to the days of Runway Alignment with the Nimrod's Elliot 103 platform, I believe it was sometimes unfairly maligned. Whilst there was no doubt that it could wander off with the unwary (not as dramatically as an unmonitored HRS) it was also capable of excellent performance. On one occasion; for a special task; we were fitted with a palletised Litton 72, which at the time was "state of the art". On completion of the business we offered the owners of the Litton $50.00 for it, considerably more than its operational value! The Elliot on the other hand performed superbly.

YS

allan907
23rd Oct 2006, 14:49
It would be fascinating to see how a Vulcan B2 (or even a Victor B2) would have operated with today's electronics and weaponry whizz bangs. Would it have been better than the kit that is being flown today (or even tomorrow)?

GlosMikeP
23rd Oct 2006, 22:30
It would be fascinating to see how a Vulcan B2 (or even a Victor B2) would have operated with today's electronics and weaponry whizz bangs. Would it have been better than the kit that is being flown today (or even tomorrow)?
That same sentiment was mentioned often for the Buccaneer and, in a different way, Phantom.

Pontius Navigator
24th Oct 2006, 07:36
I reckon it would have made a first rate interceptor. Rotary launcher in the bpmbbay with Phoenix or whatever.

Where the Vulcan lacked speed against the F3 it more than made up for it in its ability to fly high. The F3 aimed to use missiles to take out the height gap but no one explained how to do a VID at 50k. True many aircraft could outrun the Vulcan but not for long in the UKADR.

BEagle
24th Oct 2006, 07:52
If the last operational Vulcan flight was in Mar 1984 and the Tornado F3 didn't enter service until Nov 1985, how would the Vulcan/F3 assessment have been conducted....?

The F2 was a dog - underpowered and only capable of meeting the spec if it left 2 'winders off.

Or did you mean Lightning F3? We did a fair number of Warton 'F3 trials' AAR support sorties involving a Lightning and a Torndao - it was often tempting to ask which was fighter and which was target!

The 18228 would not have picked up the F3 radar in most modes until the missile was well on its way. The so-called ability of a Vulcan to defeat a fighter was true ONLY if the fighter was stupid enough to lock early or to try to turn in a high level dog fight. High speed snap up attacks would probably never have been noticed by the Vulcan.

Mind you, with a little knowledge it was often possible to defeat a F3 during 'high flyer' exercises in the Malvinas.....:E

Pontius Navigator
24th Oct 2006, 08:07
No BEags, simply a what if.

We knew the F2 was coming in but the capability could have been developed in the airframe as the role shifted to the Tornado. The plot was clearly to field a superb interceptor in the guise of the F2; its short comings were, apparently, not obvious then. In other words my suggestion is also made with hindsight.

As for the Lightning it was an interceptor of a different ilk. The F3/6 could hold a ground alert against a free-fall bomber whereas the F3 really needed to intercept at long range against a missile carrier. The Vulcan could not have replaced a Lightning in th eformer role but could have been very effective in the latter.

It could also have been a fine airframe for Dale Brown to get his hands on - a load of Paveway, MRAAM, SRAAM and ARM, coul dhave completed the suite.

BEagle
24th Oct 2006, 08:21
Initial target acquisition of an inbound ASM carrier pre-launch in sufficient time would have been extremely difficult. First the target detection by UKADGE, then the comms link to pass information to the 'Vulcan fighter'. Then the manoeuvring required to achieve the head sector launch of a SA missile... It was difficult enough to achieve the geometry in the Phantom, achieving a 180 x 0 in the much slower Vulcan would have been immensely unlikely unless it just happened to be lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time.


However, decent BNS updates and a self-designating TIALD capability could have made GW1 Euphrates bridge-plinking from 40000ft a distinct possibility - one Vulcan or 3 Tornados, 1 Buccaneer and 2 VC10s?

Pontius Navigator
24th Oct 2006, 09:04
Ah, but who mentioned UKADGE?

Had more in mind in the Norwegian Sea well north of UKADGE. Remember the E3 was around in the 70s. Again a long range AAM would have made a big difference. True the BVR issue but could not be too many friendly 4-ships heading south over the ocean.

Taking the Vulcan argument, we thought the same of the Canberra in the 60s. First rate airframe practically undeveloped whereas the USAF was doing route and branch updates on a whole variety of aircraft. We looked with envy as they went from B52C all the way to the G and the H.

Unfortunately, or not, our money went to Polaris and retained only a moderate pitchfork against the US triad.

allan907
24th Oct 2006, 10:49
As Beags says....the Vulcan might have made a significant contribution to stand off attacks during GW1. Makes for interesting speculation - never even considered it as a 'sentry' within UKADGE.

Yellow Sun
24th Oct 2006, 12:11
All sounds reminiscent of the Fiddler/Ash combination.

YS

abeaumont
24th Oct 2006, 15:12
Did I fly a Vulcan? No, but I did sit in one yesterday morning.

I called into the Midlands Aircraft Museum yesterday on the way home from visiting my son at university. If you have never been there I strongly recommend a visit! Malcolm, who frequents this site and is one of the staff there, very kindly opened up the cockpit to the Vulcan XL360 and gave me a tour all on my own. He gave me a lot of his time and we talked a great deal about that wonderful aircraft. A very big thank you to you Malcolm, both for the tour and for letting me take so many pictures.

Adrian

TheVulcan
25th Oct 2006, 20:04
Vulcan Mk.2 XL390 12th August 1978 Glenview, USA
Is there a write up/description of the accident anywhere?

Guiness06
28th Oct 2006, 15:35
I came across this site by accident but have a couple of comments regarding the crash of Vulcan XH535.

My father (Jack Dingley) was Navigator on board the XH535 ... the crash happened on Whit Monday and he actually replaced a friend of his who wanted to spend the Bankholiday away with his family ...

You list that the reason for the crash was "unknown" - in fact the reason given to my mother by the Group Captain who came to the house to give her the news was as follows:-

The aircraft took off from RAF Boscombe Down to conduct a series of tests which they completed successfully, however, the Pilot (a guy from Avro or Hawker Siddley - i don't remember exactly) was due to make further tests the following day and decided to include one (or some) of these tests on the 11th May instead.
One of these tests was to perform a low-fly low-speed test over the Downs approx 10 miles NW of the base. During this test the engines stalled and they were not high enough to enable a restart .... as a result the Vulcan "bellyflopped" and all but the 2 pilots survived (they ejected at low altitude) and the RAF co-pilot was severely disabled and was / is wheelchair bound for life.

If this helps great ..

As a sequel both my brother and I wanted to join the RAF but .... we both wore glasses - and in those days only groundstaff positions were offered so we persued other paths.
Jack Dingleys' widow (Lucienne) my mother, still lives in the UK (at Southampton) and I have been living here in the Cannes area of France for several years.

GeeRam
3rd Nov 2006, 12:26
Short black and white clip from Farnborough for anyone that hasn't seen this......:ok:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xntzPg5x7m0&mode=related&search=

ARLG
4th Nov 2006, 07:59
Can any former Vulcan pilots please confirm whether Vulcans were rolled during other displays when in operational service (not VDF), or was Farnborough a one off?
I may be very wrong, but I believe it did roll at a Duxford show in the late 70s.
However I was very young
Best regards
ARLG

GlosMikeP
4th Nov 2006, 09:19
If a Boeing 707 could do a barrel roll I don't see why a Vulcan couldn't.

Milt
4th Nov 2006, 10:30
All of the aerobatics in the Vulcan Mk1s not involving negative g were readily performed. It had a fighter stick, a good roll rate and handled more like a fighter with fighter stick forces and Q feel. One had to take care with g applications as it could easily be overstressed. There was no hint of wing flexing wheras the Victor seemed to be over flexible.

We did a climbing barrel roll soon after gear retraction on my second Vulcan flight with Tony Blackman at BD. The four Bristol Olympus twin spool engines were a beautiful match to the airframe. The performance and manoeureability made for a delightful aircraft to fly. For these reasons it will long be remembered and reverred by those who were fortunate enough to be a crew member.

Would delight in hearing from someone who was on the aircraft carrier in Lyme Bay for gun firing practice in the late 50s. It shouldn't have been there without restricted area clearance especially as I had just dropped a full load of inert 500 pounders through cloud in its vicinity. My final would be landing approach on to the deck of the carrier followed by a full powered go round and pull up would have surely blown loose items overboard.

Only had a few flights in the Mk2s and cannot comment first hand on its aerobatic handling. It should have been even more capable and as manoeurable as the Mk1s.

ChristiaanJ
4th Nov 2006, 10:43
Another delta with four Olympus engines that rolled very nicely .... Concorde.

Not at airshows, though....

TheVulcan
4th Nov 2006, 11:57
After the accident to VX770 at Syerston we were no longer allowed to do aerobatics by MOD PE as it was called then. I have always assumed the RAF never allowed aerobatics but of course ...... Let's hope 558 doesn't do any! The nose ribs do get damaged.
Still hoping for information on the accident on XL390 at Glenview in the States 12th August 1978. There is no official document in the archives and the 30 year rule applies. Books I've looked at so far don't give any details.

ACW418
4th Nov 2006, 21:27
I grew up about two miles from Woodford and can distinctly remember delta wing aircraft looping over the airfield. Whether they were Vulcans or 707 experimental aircraft I cannot say. Later when flying them there were oft heard tales of aerobatics in the early days but I never met anyone who admitted to more than rolling them.

ACW

TheVulcan
4th Nov 2006, 21:38
We used to do rolls and rolls off the top but we were never brave enough to do loops. I don't know if 707s ever did loops but that was slightly before my time.

jindabyne
4th Nov 2006, 23:21
forget

Prints now available

FJJP
5th Nov 2006, 11:56
TheVulcan

Please leave the Glenview incident alone. It is still very much in the minds of the families - some of those very young ones at the time are now teenagers, and to discuss the accident would be to open old wounds. Let them get on with their lives.

Please.

FJJP

BEagle
5th Nov 2006, 12:04
Agreed. I'm sorry, but you will have to wait for 2008.

Don't bother to PM asking anything about the Glenview accident as I will not reply.

Milt
5th Nov 2006, 16:03
FJJP

This is no place for your type of sentimentality. The family survivors of an aircraft accident eventually need closure on the event just as much as we aviators but for different reasons.

The motives of ALL aviators are very clear particularly amongst the dedicated test pilots and associated crews who so often put their lives on the line for the benefit of their fellows and the millions of passengers who put trust in our careful determinations for optimum flight safety. We TPs have an enormous responsibility particularly when something goes wrong.

I personally need closure on all of the Vulcan mishaps as I once had a heavy responsibiliity for their early flight testing and clearance for their use by the RAF squadons. Did I fail in some way which may have contributed to the loss of an aircraft and crew or did the crew at Glenview make errors of judgement? Knowing the answers is the only way to prevent repeat occurrences.

So forgive us professional aviators if we upset the fringes as we strive to determine the cause of accidents/incidents as soon as possible. It is one of our ways towards prevention and enhanced safety for YOU and yours.

forget
5th Nov 2006, 16:11
I have to agree with Milt. In any case, what is there (known) about Glenview that causes FJJP and Beagle such apparent discomfort?

50+Ray
6th Nov 2006, 07:14
I attended the funeral of two of the crash victims, one of whom I knew well. Can we just leave it as an embarrassing blot on the record?
I well remember being briefed by my Squadron Commander that all four engines were apparently healthy and turning at low RPM at the time of impact, according to the Board's interim report.

FJJP
6th Nov 2006, 17:55
Look, I would ordinarily agree that lessons learned saves future lives. However, the type is no longer in service and at the time operators were fully briefed on the causes. It would serve no purpose in any terms, including flight safety, to have all the detail raked over again.

The Vulcan aerodynamics are hardly applicable in this day and age of computer designed and flown aircraft. There are no big deltas left where the lessons learned could be applied. Even if there was another big delta around, those operators would know of any circumstances that might be applied to their aircraft.

Those 'on the fringes', as Milt puts it, are REAL people who know exactly what happened [fact: I briefed one of the wives, for whom I acted as adviser and effects officer].

So let's just leave it alone - I don't want to see a nice family hurt by raking over the settled coals.

Brian Abraham
7th Nov 2006, 02:35
50+Ray says ďCan we just leave it as an embarrassing blot on the record?Ē There is absolutely nothing embarrassing about an accident, despite what some may feel. People err, if indeed an accident has human error as an enabling act. Relying on human beings not to be human in a safety related business is insanity.

For some one to dip into a subject and not to expect it to be discussed warts and all, if indeed there are warts, is somewhat naÔve. Attempting prohibition only guarantees the very area you wish not discussed is kept alive with rumour, speculation and innuendo, to the detriment of the memory of the very men who lost their lives in the proud service of their country.

Iíve never quite understood the British penchant for secrecy. British Airwaysí commercial Sikorsky S-61 helicopter G-BEON crashed in the southern Celtic Sea when en route from Penzance to the St Maryís, Isles of Scilly in thick fog. The report investigating the incident is held at the National Archives. It is protected under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 until 1 January 2016. Why in the world would a civil accident be subject to such protection?

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU
7th Nov 2006, 12:49
Until the Vulcan asked this question at Srl 930 (an anagram of 390), I'd forgotten all about this Loss. I was working in London at the time on nothing to do with aviation; so when the Press' attention faded from this, so did mine. I recall that the A/C piled in from overhead the town gash tip and that there was speculation about multiple bird strikes. This seemed a reasonable likelihood to me but, from 50+Ray Srl 945 "all four engines were apparently healthy and turning at low RPM at the time of impact, according to the Board's interim report", I re-learn the important lesson of never assuming. Immediately after, at Srl 946, FJJP comments; "I would ordinarily agree that lessons learned saves future lives. However, the type is no longer in service and at the time operators were fully briefed on the causes. It would serve no purpose in any terms, including flight safety, to have all the detail raked over again".

I find myself agreeing with Brian Abraham, though, in that "There is absolutely nothing embarrassing about an accident, despite what some may feel. People err, if indeed an accident has human error as an enabling act. Relying on human beings not to be human in a safety related business is insanity". From the tone of various Posts here, the conclusion to be assumed is that it was "pilot error". I hate that phrase as it attaches instant stigma and often disregards all mitigating and contributory circumstances if hard evidence is unavailable.

Allowing for the understandable sensitivities with regard to the individual crew members concerned, I would suggest that knowledge of any circumstances relating to an accident are worthwhile if the awareness raised prevents an action replay elsewhere in a different Type. If the A/C was a contributor, the observation that "the type is no longer in service " is not now relevant as, next year, 558 should be back in the display circuit. That accident awareness philosophy was, after all, the basis of our long lost Air Clues.

I, like others, have made judgement errors in the air (like misapplication of power in a stall turn; no major drama in a C150K!) and I always hope that I can learn from the experience of others.

Disclaimer

Any adverts appearing against this Post are nothing to do with me.

green granite
7th Nov 2006, 14:27
Please leave the Glenview incident alone

Interestingly FJJP you said the same in the April 2004 thread on this subject.

Pontius Navigator
7th Nov 2006, 19:04
Now, for once, I am stuck for an answer.

We know the 301 series mk 2s were intended to be fitted for Skybolt. Skybolt was cancelled early on and the final batch of Mk 2/301 XM645-657 were delivered from 1963.

Now the question. Did this last batch of Mk 2s have the Skybolt nipples?

forget
7th Nov 2006, 20:30
Yes. XM645 on delivery to Coningsby.

http://www.avrovulcan.org.uk/crown_copyright/645_coningsby.jpg

Pontius Navigator
7th Nov 2006, 20:56
:)






.

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU
7th Nov 2006, 21:00
Probably stating the obvious but the twin points were common to that entire Batch. XM645 completed 10 MAR 64 to XM657 completed 14 JAN 65.

DISCLAIMER

Any adverts showing against this post are nothing to do with me.

ChristiaanJ
7th Nov 2006, 21:36
GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU,
Looks like only the last couple of posts are "adorned" with adverts.
Once your post moves up in the "queue", they disappear. So I wouldn't bother with the disclaimer. Everybody gets tarred a moment with the same brush.

And to be honest, I don't mind. If it pays to keep the site up and running, that's OK with me.

Milt
15th Nov 2006, 12:24
BEagle and FJJP

This is a Professional Pilots' Network within which most members should be concerned with Aviation Development, Aircrew Proficiency and Safety of all aspects of flight.

You are ignoring one of the cardinal rules of flight.
LEARN FROM THE MISTAKES OF OTHERS. YOU WON'T LIVE LONG ENOUGH TO MAKE ALL OF THEM YOURSELF.

Your attempts to cover up the circumstances of the Glenview Vulcan loss arouses suspicion and a reinvigorated determination to learn of the cause/s as soon as possible. If there is a valid lesson for us then you and the RAF should have concerns about the extent and reasons for such a cover up.

The loss of another Vulcan highlighted the difficulty of control recovery from a deep stall and my own test experience confirmed a loss of pitch control at a Mach no. beyond the released flight envelope.

We ageing TPs rapidly developed a mind set directed at flight safety when we recognised our unusually high chop rate. Currently there is an international project to establish and publish detailed safety considerations for all pre flight aspects of flight testing. Fortunately also, developing computer programs are able to almost eliminate the unknowns which the last generation of TPs were so often tasked to investigate.

BEagle
15th Nov 2006, 16:27
Milt - I don't really want to delete this thread, but I will do so if you can't just let this go.

There is NOTHING to be learned and if you are really interested, you can wait until the 30 year rule date comes along in 2008.




PPRuNe comment: This thread is not in any danger of being deleted

FJJP
15th Nov 2006, 16:38
Milt,

There is no cover up - those that could have benefitted from knowledge of the causes did just that; what I am keen to do is to stop re-opening old wounds for the families left behind. Time heals, but to rake over the coals opens the wounds.

There were no lessons to be learned for the flight testing fraternity - they know all about it already.

I don't want Beags to bin this thread because there is some good stuff in it, so please don't push it...

FJJP

ChristiaanJ
15th Nov 2006, 17:16
I don't want Beags to bin this thread because there is some good stuff in it, so please don't push it...
FJJP
I very much go along with FJJP.
There is too much good (and nice!) stuff here to have the whole thread binned.
And I think a lot of people would be mightlily upset having to try and archive 48 pages of a thread (plus the photos) before it disappears into Internet limbo.
I would have thought that....
- issues like this could and should have been settled (or fought out....) through PMs, rather than polluting a valid thread,
- a moderator could and should by now have choked off this futile part of the discussion, not by locking or deleting the thread, but simply by posting a message of explanation, then deleting (or occasionally editing for continuity) the current batch of offending posts.
BTW I'm a moderator on another site so I know it can be done. Not a moderator here, but my fingers were itching..... :ugh: :ugh:

Pontius Navigator
15th Nov 2006, 17:31
I've just pulled my post over from the Nimrod thread. In a way it proves that what goes round goes around.

Someone suggested that AAR training could continue on the Nimrod pending a fix of a potential system fault using a dry proding technique.

I recalled:

Unless the AAR system has been changed since I had my training many moons ago, and indeed I may be talking b*ll*cks, but I believe a dry prod is not exactly dry.

The hose was full of fuel at full trail. When the receiver engaged and pushed forward the fuel in th ehose has to go somewhere. The somewhere used to be in to the receiver. Only a few pounds at a time but several prods later was sufficient to extend the range of the receiver and shorten the pubrise time for the tanker.

This was as taught at the Valiant OCU to us would be Vulcan receivers back in 1964.

This was then partly confirmed by RAF Techie:

I believe the hose of the tanker has to be pressurized with fuel to stop it flapping about in the airflow and keep it vaguely steady. Again, I too may be talking rubbish but that's what I've been led to believe.

and finally confirmed by ORAC:

Correct for the centreline HDU IIRC, which of course is all that is relevant . . .

[I left my last sentence out :)]

Babyfactory
15th Nov 2006, 18:09
Please forgive this intrusion, but it does have some relevance.

I only view this forum as I have family connections to the RAF from my recently-retired husband, through my Father back to his uncle who served on Catalinas - it sometimes seems like the only way that I can understand why the men in my life are the way that they are.

I was very lucky: despite often leaving his family concerned as to whether he would come back while performing his duty, I have a whole and healthy husband. I have a friend whose husband's life and service ended in a smoking hole. While she and her family were helped in their grieving by the support that they received from his service mates and the inquiry process, I am sure that she would not be helped by people raking over the incident unnecessarily, in fact I am convinced that she would find it very hurtful indeed.

I understand that many of you have an abstract professional interest, please be patient, it will be satisfied without the danger of hurting the families of those involved when everyone who needs to know the details is given them in 2008.

BOAC
15th Nov 2006, 19:38
And I think a lot of people would be mightlily upset having to try and archive 48 pages of a thread - fear not - as CJ says, too much good stuff in here to allow it to be 'burnt'. It has been archived. We are not too upset.:)

As for 'moderating' - this forum runs on a loose string. It may be necessary, it may not. The mIl forum has mostly been 'self-moderating' with a few exceptions. I have faith.

ChristiaanJ
15th Nov 2006, 20:04
BOAC,
Tak so mucket. You reassure us.

I hope the people involved in the Glenview discussion can agree to disagree.....

Milt,
I know about "learning from accidents". Remember Eastern Airlines flight 401? We learned from that on Concorde...... within months.
Why can't you accept other people's judgment that in this case there is not really anything more to be learned from the accident, and that you might as well wait until 2008?
It's a bit like dragging out John Derry's crash with the DH110 at Farnborough, or Mike Lithgow and his crew going down in the 1-11 prototype G-ASHG....

Samuel
15th Nov 2006, 20:11
Beautifully put Babyfactory, though if ever there was a misnomer it is that:ok: I don't believe the thread is in any danger, it is far too valuable to be so placed, and far too many admirers and simple observers like myself would feel the loss. It's very overt nature presents an immaculate record in my humble opinion, and it has everything a good book should have. Courage, humour, risk, danger, professionalism and mateship. What more could be added?

Please, for those of us who could merely observe, keep it up.:D

Milt
15th Nov 2006, 21:50
OK Vulcan enthusiasts I quit using this thread in trying to source some detail of the Glenview loss.

I am intrigued as to how the do-gooders will continue the cover up post 2008 which is nigh upon us.

Having been on too many boards of inquiry, some of which were inconclusive, I found there was ALWAYS some lesson/s to be learned.

My own involvement in clearing the Vulcan for RAF service has focussed my attention and concern for all Vulcan misadventures and a pride in the small part I played in its development into one of the most successful designs in its time. I can say the same for the F-111 which almost replaced the Vulcan in the RAF as the F-111K.

I am contributing to the pending publication of a book on Vulcan development which will use with appreciation many contributions to this thread. The intense interest in the thread is a good indication that the book will be a great success.

Keep on posting your fascinating anecdotes which are important historically.

ZH875
16th Nov 2006, 05:43
Surely, if there had been a serious defect in the flying ability of the vulcan, then most of them would have fallen out of the sky, as they didn't, I suggest that Milt has done his previous job correctly,and the Vulcan was a 'safe' aircraft to fly.

As there may soon be a Vulcan flying, there should be no surprises as to what it can and cannot do, so I put it to Milt, that there is nothing to achieve by raking up the past, as the data gained from the early Vulcan aircraft is only applicable to an aircraft that effectively went out of service over 20 years ago (not counting VDF).

John Farley
16th Nov 2006, 07:28
When considering aircraft accidents from the point of view of learing about flying it is useful to try and establish whether the accident is totally type related (the wing bolt was not strong enough) has no type connections (he blacked out very low and for too long) or is a complex mixture (like so many of them)

Brian Abraham
16th Nov 2006, 08:20
should be no surprises as to what it can and cannot do
Off thread. Recall a airforce historic flight that had a fighter the airforce had operated many, many years previously which had a flameout at an airshow. Skillful force landing with no damage onto runway. Not having previous experience on type pilot had studied all the material available but was missing one piece of info which had been passed to all students on course "Dont ever, ever do XXXXXX because you'll flameout". Unfortunately it was a trait not documented. (What the XXX was exactly I dont recall exactly but had something to do with throttle handling in a certain flight regime I think).

Tim McLelland
17th Nov 2006, 15:44
I have to say there seems to be a degree of unnecessary drama contained in the comments on the Glenview incident. I don't quite understand why discussing the technicalities of any crash is judged (by some) to be ill-advised. Surely, information (rather than mis-information) is always a good thing? Likewise, we've already established that all the facts will be avilable in two years, so what's the difference? As for any potential risk of upsetting families associated with the incident, this presupposes that any of them would ever be reading Pprune, doesn't it?!

BEagle
17th Nov 2006, 15:47
Going...






Going...






Your choice, Timmy. Hopefully you'll follow Milt's example.

Tim McLelland
17th Nov 2006, 15:53
er... excuse me? what is that supposed to mean?

Pontius Navigator
17th Nov 2006, 16:09
I have to say there seems to be a degree of unnecessary drama contained in the comments on the Glenview incident. I don't quite understand why discussing the technicalities of any crash is judged (by some) to be ill-advised. Surely, information (rather than mis-information) is always a good thing? Likewise, we've already established that all the facts will be avilable in two years, so what's the difference? As for any potential risk of upsetting families associated with the incident, this presupposes that any of them would ever be reading Pprune, doesn't it?!

Tim, I think BEags is saying that there is one more chance not to dig a hole before the thread disappears. I don't want to take issue with you but I will over two points.

1. Not withstanding that all will be revealed in 2008 the current talk is clearly upsetting people and regardless of the rights or wrongs it is not our place to continue so to do when someone says "stop poking me in the eye."

2. The second issue is the unsubstantiated and demonstrably incorrect assumption that families don't read Prune. I have been contacted by the son of a former crash victim who wanted to know if I knew the father an dif I could throw any light on the incident. That person has made a pilgrimage to the crash site many times in an attempt to understand why the crew died. I shall say no more.

In essence, please drop it.

Pontius Navigator
17th Nov 2006, 16:34
Copied over from the PI thread:

There are, I am sure, many stories of intercepts on the Vulcan and the subsequent evasion. In the one below we could not evade as we were on a flight plan over France but there were plenty of other instances where we could.:E

In days of old when the only RAF 4-jets were Comets or V-bombers we never declared aircraft type except RAF 4-Jet.

One day, over France, 14 Aug 1964, we were asked by the French ATC for our airframe number. "We are a 4 jet we replied".. What sort of 4 jet? "A 4-jet 4-jet" was the quick reply.

Are you a Vulcan? Are you Vulcan Xray Mike 647?

Now that was a tough call. Yes would blow security and No would be a lie.

Just then the co called and reported 2 Mirage on our starboard side. That's nothing said the wg cdr. We have 2 F104 on the other.

Basically we were boxed by the RCAF on one side and the FAF on the other.

Fair Cop.

The Real Slim Shady
17th Nov 2006, 17:05
Pontius

I have no wish to open up what is obviously a tender sore for certain people, however, Beags, who has been quite assertive in his wish to exclude any discussion on the accident was not quite so diplomatic when he posted at #181 or #231 about other accidents.

Pontius Navigator
17th Nov 2006, 17:11
Pontius
I have no wish to open up what is obviously a tender sore for certain people, however, Beags, who has been quite assertive in his wish to exclude any discussion on the accident was not quite so diplomatic when he posted at #181 or #231 about other accidents.

We all have our off moments.

I have lost count of the number of messages that I have written recently but used the back arrow and not sent them. There is probably an equal number that I have edited immediately after posting. There is, to my recollection, only one that I have deleted some time after the event.

PS, although this forum is supposedly anonymous there is a number of posters who are known to each other. The knowledge that you are not as anonymous as you think at first does make you think before posting that supremely witty comment shortly after pubset. It can be embarassing trying to regain a friendship that you stupidly lost. I know several posters on this thread, even if I have not met them in the flesh.

Finally, let me say I disagree with BEags on this one but I respect the request to STFU.

Archimedes
17th Nov 2006, 17:29
RSS, with respect, I think that one could note that both both those accidents have been widely covered (and in some detail) both in print and on the internet. I read the full details of the Syerston incident in a book while I was still at school, and although I always get the book wrong (it's not the one with the photo of the actual accident on the front), I do recall that the author was far less diplomatic than BEags. The XL390 loss, however, hasn't received similar attention.

I thought that there had, in fact, been two queries via Pprune about the tragedy from or on behalf of family members. Speculating on why this might be so is pointless, and since at least two Ppruners who were closely associated with the accident and its aftermath believe that to revisit the incident here would risk causing further pain to the bereaved, I have to agree that I can't see the point in pushing this any further.

Finally, those on here who know won't say and have made clear that they won't. Which again raises the question of why push the matter on this thread when it will achieve nothing?

Pontius Navigator
17th Nov 2006, 17:29
Now returning to the real topic.

Two years after the French bounced us we had a second chance.

This time, on Exercise Coop, our mission was to execute a simulated laydown attack on Juvincourt, an airfield in northern France. At this time we were still equipped with Yellow Sun so did not practice true laydown attacks.

We transitted at high level to southern Germany and entered French airspace, IFF at standby, in the region of Karlsruhr and flew over France at 500 ft 250 kts for the 200 miles to the target. All the way we had our eyes peeled for Franch fighters.

Of course the French air defence did not have our flight plans or targets (oh yeah). Anyway, as we got to the IP, 20 miles south of the target, and turned north we were bounced by a Vatour. Now of course in the ordinary course of events this was no contest. But :}

We were not allowed to drop chaff nor had we any X-band jammer. What the skipper did though was opened the throttles wide and we were soon accelerating through 400 kts. Unusually for the 60s we then strappe din and donned bonedomes. My head kept bouncing off the radar camera head rest and our plotter Dave F***N (no vowels) who did not have the most stanle stomach kept his head down.

The height carriage on the Calc 5 was bouncing and the H2S ranger marker was bouncing in sympathy. As we swept over the target, with the Vatour still trying to get a guns shot, our TAS was 415 kts.

A year or so later, once the laydown trials and low level trials were complete, the RTS limited the maximum speed to 375 kts with a once only wartime dash at 415 kts. But we had been there so that was one little tick in our personal survival kit.:)

PPRuNe Towers
17th Nov 2006, 21:03
The thread will not be deleted. If someone wants to delete their own posts in a hissy fit they can. They ain't taking this thread out with it though.

Crashes get discussed on PPRuNe. Reading any thread or contributing to it is not compulsary. That's the way we do it here. That's how we have run the place for 10 years. That's how it stays.

Don't like it? Avoid the thread or go elsewhere.

Rob

Tim McLelland
17th Nov 2006, 21:34
well done Rob, some common sense at last:)

ChristiaanJ
17th Nov 2006, 21:47
Thanks, Rob.

GlosMikeP
17th Nov 2006, 22:46
I'm glad to see the thread will stay.

Is there any truth, in the rumour I heard long ago. It's of Lightning v Vulcan at 50k+ ft, where the Vulcan, having low wing loading, could still turn on a sixpence, and the Lightning could still go like hell in a straight (and even vertical) line, but couldn't make a turn worth recording.

It's reported the helpful Vulcan could turn in front of the Lightning after being intercepted - perhaps generously to give him a guns opportunity - causing severe wake turbulence that caused the Lightning's Avons to flame-out, leaving it to drift with the grace of a brick to re-light height many thousands of feet below, while the Vulcan sauntered merrily on.

True or urban myth?

XL391
17th Nov 2006, 23:16
Dunno about the flame outs, but the rest is completely true!!!!:}

GlosMikeP
17th Nov 2006, 23:26
Dunno about the flame outs, but the rest is completely true!!!!:}
Hapless victim or witness helpless with laughter as best you can under pressure breathing?:)

BOAC
18th Nov 2006, 07:26
Never mind the pressure jerkin stuff, I had a Vulcan or two at 40'ish turn 180 degrees on me and face me after intercept: I even rang the crews later and heard their story. I could have been 'cold meat'.:)

They were large 'sixpences' but way smaller than mine. Some aircraft!

ORAC
18th Nov 2006, 07:39
But the Vulcan relied a lot on the range calls by GCI to know when to start the turn. hence the exotic briefs by the Lightning pilots before the sortie...

"OK, if he's displaced left, call it on the right and half the range; if he's displaced right, call it on the left and double the range..."

And then got the range/side confused in the air.....

Best tactic was 2 Lightnings in about 4-6 mile trail with calls only to the lead. Vulcan turned for the lead and the trail got the shot...

IIRC there was a Lightning who turned in behind a Vulcan at night during an exercise which started a dive to get away. Something made the Lightning pilot take his head out of the scope and check - he was at M1.3 in a vertical dive. Shut the throttles, popped the airbrake switch, pulled and waited. Eventually blacked out as G started to build - and came too with the aircraft climbing and the altimeter unwinding through -500ft (+/- 700ft error?). Opened the throttles and took home a very very bent airframe.....

BOAC
18th Nov 2006, 07:43
Wot? 2 serviceable a/c..................:)

O2thief
18th Nov 2006, 07:46
Hapless victim or witness helpless with laughter as best you can under pressure breathing?:)
Pressure breathing only as a consequence of depressurising perhaps? :confused:
1975 50 Sqn
Exercise Forearm
Jan 31, XM 654, captain Flt Lt M****n W*****s Akrotiri-Akrotiri , Affil vs 11 Sqn Frightnings. I don't remember them getting anywhere near to a solution in the entire time we were above FL 410. Our tactic was bolleaux though in that we went into a rate 1 turn for a half an hour until he was forced to cut and run for home so no real tactical wizardry; if we had been required to track progress we would have been knackered! Happy Days, confined to the SBA for 7 weeks with only flying and Brandy Sours to concentrate the mind and break up the boredom. :ok:

Pontius Navigator
18th Nov 2006, 07:52
1v2 or against a 2-man crew was what we feared most.

One day we were up against 2 Sea Vixen. Sh*t.

They were about 6 miles displaced on a 180.

We had them both visual and opted for a feint. As we turned towards one for a down the throat the other opened out to roll behind. We reversed. They swapped. We reversed and just rolled through. :)

'nother time, in Cyprus, on a 1v1 we had pre-briefed that they would comply with Russian rules.

As the Lightning came in on a 180 we got the I-band direction and turned towards. When we got visual we went down the throat with a vertical separation of about 500 feet and closure at about mach 2.

As he passed underneath he feinted one way then rolled the other. We went the opposite way and about 30 seconds later we completed the scissors with a somewhat lower vertical separation and closure just under mach 2.

The next call was knock it off.

It was about this time that the US DID had an article which included the quote "One 360 deg orbit, thrown sufficiently far out, will abort the average Mig 21 GCI."

Pontius Navigator
18th Nov 2006, 07:55
But the Vulcan relied a lot on the range calls by GCI to know when to start the turn. .....

ORAC very true, but when I did a quick survey of Vulcan crews in the late 60s there were about 20-25% that had a Russian speaker on board. Given that there were only 4 GCI freqs this was not necessarily rocket science.

During WW2 the Luftwaffe used a call Emil Emil. The Y-service soon deduced that this was exactly the same as Tally and later Judy.

BEagle
18th Nov 2006, 07:55
ORAC, that was one very chastened Lightning pilot who was a good mate back then.

The Lightning had some form of airbrake protection system which prevented extension at 650? KIAS (I'm sure a WIWOL will confirm). So when...let's call him John...saw the nadir star slowly rotating in the centre of a sea of black the Attitude Indicator, he knew he was going vertically downwards at over the airbrake limit. Or "It was getting a bit noisy, the AI was all black and the little star was going round and round" as he put it.

He closed the throttles, selected the airbrakes and pulled as hard as he could to the nearest horizon..... The next thing he remembered was seeing the AI winding up through about 700 ft with the IAS falling through 200 KIAS with both at idle (ish) and the airbrakes now out. So, both burners in, airbrakes in and home cautiously to Binbrook.

It later transpired that he'd pulled to over 10 g (13 g was rumoured) and the aircraft had held together - somewhat paradoxically this later allowed BWoS to re-examine the Lightning fatigue life and to extend it!

Wizzard
18th Nov 2006, 16:29
Not sure if this is off thread as I can't be arrsed to read the whole thing.
Just finished reading Vulcan 607. What a great team effort that was - respec!
:ok: :ok: :D

ChristiaanJ
18th Nov 2006, 19:43
Not sure either whether it was because of a recommendation here. But I also bought Vulcan 607, and wolfed through it. Recommended, as they say!!!

Pontius Navigator
18th Nov 2006, 19:52
A miss Sir, a palpable miss.

Out of curiousity I clicked on the link to Air Ministry.

Every sort of ministry from priestly to sound but no air.


Sorry, that was based on th elink at th ebottom of CJ's message and now gone.

ChristiaanJ
18th Nov 2006, 20:14
Pontius Navigator,
To paraphrase an earlier quote:
"Any adverts appearing against this Post are nothing to do with me, whether in the left panel or on the bottom."
And if they help keeping PPRuNe going, I can live with them. :)
Don't tell me you actually read any of the spam coming in on your email ??? :ugh:

Pontius Navigator
18th Nov 2006, 20:21
CJ, I was not suggesting that you endorsed the advert. Clearly the text caused Air Ministry to be highlighted. This was not of course spam email but, as Danny requested, I had a quick look at the link.

What I was saying was that the Air Ministry pickup had no connection with the links.

50+Ray
21st Nov 2006, 08:25
Despite the numerous extra handcuffs applied during Exercises reducing what we could do I always enjoyed Fighter - Bomber Affiliation. We undoubtedly embarrassed a few new Fighter Jocks, and some senior ones had the decency to admit that they had failed to get a missile solution. Single F4 or Lightning at height - no problem, ditto F104, but then along came the F16 and it was us being effortlessly out-turned.
I have a complimentary letter in my logbook from the RCAF team running their QWI course about the value we gave them at Bagotville. 2 x Fighters would get you in the end. Shame it took until the Falklands to get an Aim 9 fitted - could have claimed lots of Fox2s.

Pontius Navigator
21st Nov 2006, 08:36
Mig15,

I can't comment on this apparent event as I was not at Scampton at the time. There was the odd HTTP off-load and cooking of the missile. That might have been a reason.

The other one where the crew was whisked off in a crew bus without a debrief was a regular occurrence at Cottesmore.

After a Group Exercise, with aircraft recovering every 20 minutes or so, crews were collected and driven straight to ops for a combined Eng/Ops debrief. As you went in to Ops the brains trust was lined up behind the coffee bar in the hall.

First the Eng Debrief followed by the Ops. Each sub-specialisation would then debrief with the appropriate wing specialist. On one particular occasion I fielded a call from 1 Gp Ops 1a who had a question either that the AOC had asked or might ask.

Can't recall the details just now but it may have been to explain a 'long bomb' (big score). Whilst it smacked of Big Brother it also made you aware of the importance of a 'simple' 5 hours exercise sortie.

Dendmar
21st Nov 2006, 11:57
Hi there JG. if you recall I was the Co on XM654 31 January 1975. According to my Log Book, we did 4x28 as well; don't remember the scores though. I trust the wardrobes are now dry and the windows closed!!

BEagle
21st Nov 2006, 20:12
Mig15, I was once told that someone with a Yellow Sun on board nearly dropped the thing on York Minster due to carrying out a simulated Type 2 attack as far as selecting bomb doors auto...

Not sure whether it was a real one, or a 'shape'....

Time would be about right.

GeeRam
21st Nov 2006, 20:24
ORAC, that was one very chastened Lightning pilot who was a good mate back then.
The Lightning had some form of airbrake protection system which prevented extension at 650? KIAS (I'm sure a WIWOL will confirm). So when...let's call him John...saw the nadir star slowly rotating in the centre of a sea of black the Attitude Indicator, he knew he was going vertically downwards at over the airbrake limit. Or "It was getting a bit noisy, the AI was all black and the little star was going round and round" as he put it.
He closed the throttles, selected the airbrakes and pulled as hard as he could to the nearest horizon..... The next thing he remembered was seeing the AI winding up through about 700 ft with the IAS falling through 200 KIAS with both at idle (ish) and the airbrakes now out. So, both burners in, airbrakes in and home cautiously to Binbrook.
It later transpired that he'd pulled to over 10 g (13 g was rumoured) and the aircraft had held together - somewhat paradoxically this later allowed BWoS to re-examine the Lightning fatigue life and to extend it!

And this very Lightning (XS898) ended up being one of the pair that was destined to fly the very last RAF Lightning sortie, when it and, IIRC, XS923, were the last 2 x a/c to take off from Binners to be delivered to Cranfield some 8 years almost after the above incident.

BEagle
21st Nov 2006, 20:50
IIRC, wasn't Jake J****n one of the pilots on that last flight?

Some years earlier, we did a bit of affil with him when he was on exchange on the CF-101. They got us with a simulated Genie, but we got into their six in the post-merge doggers session! Much to the chagrin of his WSO..."How didya' let something that big get behind us, Jake?"

GeeRam
21st Nov 2006, 22:25
IIRC, wasn't Jake J****n one of the pilots on that last flight?


Eeek:eek:
Can't remember for definate, I'm pretty sure he wasn't though.......my aging memory cells seem to recall it was B.J. Al******n and Paul Co***r.

Archimedes
21st Nov 2006, 22:29
GR - according to my 'Anorak's guide to the mighty Lightning', your memory is correct. (assuming that I've filled the asterisks in correctly!)

GeeRam
21st Nov 2006, 22:44
GR - according to my 'Anorak's guide to the mighty Lightning', your memory is correct. (assuming that I've filled the asterisks in correctly!)
:D ........crikey might have to go and have a lie down now, dragging that out of the depths of the dormant grey matter after 18 years has now taken it's toll.:\
Don't recall seeing it mentioned in print anywhere......not anything I've got in print on the Frightning anyway.

Archimedes
21st Nov 2006, 22:52
Jackonicko did a piece on the mighty beast in the now-defunct journal Wings of Fame which mentions them, and I thought, perhaps wrongly, that Last of the Lightnings makes reference to the two chaps also.

XL391
22nd Nov 2006, 10:15
Who is the photographer in this sad scene? It's RAF Scampton in November 1982 as XM595 succumbs to the Scrapman's JCB. It is taken from underneath XL359 and if you look behind '595 you can see a very sad looking XJ780. Obviously, after '595 had succumbed '359 was next. There is a picture in Tim Lamings books V-bombers and Avro Vulcan 1952-2002 of this scene taken from the rear but who took this picture and do any more survive of this event? Were any ex Scampton men there at the time?:{

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=148175

Chairborne 09.00hrs
22nd Nov 2006, 12:38
a very sad looking XJ780.


Sad 'photo indeed, '391.

Here's a piccie of '780 in happier days:

http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q217/John_txic666/XJ780Scn3.jpg

Sorry it's a bit pants - I'm new to this scanning game, and have yet to acquire any photo-manipulating software.

pilotgriff
22nd Nov 2006, 13:52
Sorry to disagree chaps - IMHO it's all a waste of money


why do you feel this way about it?

Pontius Navigator
24th Nov 2006, 07:16
Chairborne,

For a free and very simple image editor use Google's Picasa2. Should do a bit of colour correction for you.

XH536
25th Nov 2006, 05:15
The thread will not be deleted. If someone wants to delete their own posts in a hissy fit they can. They ain't taking this thread out with it though.

Crashes get discussed on PPRuNe. Reading any thread or contributing to it is not compulsary. That's the way we do it here. That's how we have run the place for 10 years. That's how it stays.

Don't like it? Avoid the thread or go elsewhere.

Rob


Sorry for the late post have just returned from holiday, I was watching the posts on the Glenview inicident and had no wish to have the thread deleted. Now I'm back and Rob has confirmed non deletion I will give my opinion on releasing information, and as Rob said either read it or skip it, it's your choice.

Thanks Pontius Navigator for your comments and thoughts,

my father was killed in Xh536 when I was 7 and to wait 30 years for information was difficult in the extreme. (Now this only applies to me as I will not assume on anyones behalf) I needed this information a lot sooner than it was available, the rumour mill was rife with theories on the reasons for the accident which subsequently clouded our families thoughts for many years of cover ups, failed parts,TFR testing, poor workmanship etc etc etc.

I had to sit back and wait till I was 37 to get a very simple answer - pilot error - poor decison making - whatever you wish to call it, the pilot made an error - was that so hard to say? That 30 year wait was painful, the mental anguish as child thinking your father the Navigator got it wrong and smacked a mountain and killed 4 other men was not a pleasant experience and one I would not wish on anyone.
However as we grow older and wiser!! (ha ha) in my late 20's I found it easier to blame the RAF for their obvious cover ups etc I just got angrier. It was easier to make pilgramages to the crashsite and the gravesite and vow to bring someone to justice- naaive but true - I admit.

It's taken me a long time to come to terms with the loss of my dad and the reason for it.

When it came time to obtain copies of the accident reports it was a real let down - no state secrets or dodgy flight engineers, no wings falling off, engine flame outs, no secret TFR trial testing - just poor old pilot error.

So on one hand I have metally apologised for all my wrong thinking to my dad, the Air force and all the crews associated with the aircraft and WingCo "Polly" for making them fly. On the flipside the Pilots family have my deepest sympathy it must have been agony for them to find out the reason, they will have gone through those 30 years like we did. Would it have been easier to let them and us know then? we could have taken some time to repair our lives without the dredging of info and the rumours for 30 years - tough call but for me there is only 1 answer.

My own difficulties have lain in not being able to piece together the kind of man my father was,I only have 3 distinct memories of him and each of those is vague due to my age (both then and now) and his always being in Tengah, Ghan, Butterworth etc etc. When aircrew are killed in these circumstances, the initial response from other crew and families is fantastic but after a while it's too close to home and they all gradually drift away, it's not deliberate or planned it's self preservation, when you could be next, it's better not to dwell on it. So it got more difficult to get information as we drifted from the forces and camp life into civilian life.

The reason I scour the airwaves for info is that it's so hard to get and you guys are the best source, some of you are actually from the same era!! man you must be gettin' on!!!

So a huge thank you for contributing to the threads, they are a form of history that not many people are aware of or are actually interested in, but to those who are, it's our bible......

I am sure there are many families that have no desire to keep being prodded for information and if they feel that way I am fairly sure they will not be reading these forums.


I love to read all your comments, and we all have to remember to repsect the opinions of others (it's also why you can email other members privatley if you have something to say and have no wish to "air" it)

Stay upright

John

threeputt
26th Nov 2006, 09:32
Check your PMs

TheVulcan
7th Dec 2006, 18:52
Dunno about the flame outs, but the rest is completely true!!!!:}
This is really a new thread but I don't know how to start one! Has any one got some good close pictures of Mk1 and Mk2 instrument panels. Particularly interested in Control Surface Indicator, fuel panel, flying control controls on left side etc. Need them in a hurry, preferably high res but would be very happy to scan pictures and return.

ChristiaanJ
7th Dec 2006, 19:59
Before anybody feels an instant urge to shoot TheVulcan down,
check his profile first.
At least he's got a serious background, not your typical anorak.
Haven't read his books yet, though. But will do.

Pontius Navigator
7th Dec 2006, 21:31
The Vulcan,

I don't know where you are but there are plenty of Mk 2s around that you caan photograph. Not sure about Mk 1s maybe the RAF Museum for photos.

ChristiaanJ
7th Dec 2006, 21:42
The Hendon RAF museum one is a B2, XL318.

So for the Mk1 sounds as if you have to go to the photo archives.....

Tim McLelland
9th Dec 2006, 00:16
er... what archives? :)

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU
9th Dec 2006, 00:55
The nose of the MK1 at Cosford may still exist and I believe the one from 903 is still around (http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/vulcan/survivors.html). Being a trials A/C, though, I would imagine that 903 may not be representative. I have e-mailed 903's last owner for advice and I wll report soonest. I owe the Vulcan a favour from many years ago.

Pontius Navigator
9th Dec 2006, 09:21
Tim, I think CJ was using the expression 'archives' in a loose form.

For archives read a general concept of museums, national archives etc, just a question of latteral thought.

I don't know what the RAF Museum has in the way of Aircrew Manuals etc except that there was no Aircrew Manual for the Vulcan until the 1970s. There would have been pilot's notes for the Mk 1 however.

Then Avro's - aka HS - aka BA Systems - aka BAE may have them squirrelled away somewhere too.

Tim McLelland
9th Dec 2006, 10:09
I know, I was just being sarcastic - life would be so much fun if there was some great archive somewhere that housed all the documents, photos and drawings for aircraft like the Vulcan. Of course the tragic reality is that you just have to find scraps here and there. This is why there's never "anything new" whenever a "new" book comes along (and I admit I'm as guilty as anyone else when it comes to churning-out old information!) but what can you do?! There's quite a lot of stuff tucked away in the Public Records Office which is worth looking through, but if anyboy has ever actually tried to get information from Kew, you'll know what a tedious and soul-destroying job that can be!