Vulcan B2A - Olympus 301 or Blue Steel [Archive]

forget

7th Jan 2007, 13:28

Relax Tim - no need to stop the presses. From http://www.thevulcancollection.co.uk/xh537skybolt.htm
One external indication of 537s Mk1 inheritance was its narrow air intakes. These were suitable for the mass-flow of the Olympus 201 engines but were considered too small for the 301 development and B2 aircraft from XH557 onwards had wider intakes anticipating the larger engines. A plan to enlarge the intakes and retrofit Olympus 301 engines was rejected on cost.
However, I seem to remember that 'some' of the new aircraft first delivered to Coningsby (1960'ish) were rotated through an engine upgrade 201's to 301's.

Brain's going here - but is it possible that, due to a shortage of 301s, some 301 capable aircraft were delivered with 201's as a stop gap?

Tim McLelland

7th Jan 2007, 13:36

Well as far as any records go, there's no evidence to suggest that any of the B2 fleet was re-engined in such a manner. The documentation I gleaned from Woodford many years ago stated the engine fit when they were delivered and there are no records (at least none that I've ever found) that suggest that any aircraft were subsequently changed.

Incidentally, you can see the afore-mentioned intake differences on a photograph on page 87 of my old Vulcan Story book if you have it:)

flipflopman RB199

7th Jan 2007, 14:13

My Dad's Little Boy,

Sorry old chap, but you're wrong on all counts there. As Tim states, there was never any official designation of B2A. All Vulcan B2's were just that, with the only differing designations being the B2MRR and K2 Tankers. This is borne out by every piece of official literature I have seen referring only to 'Vulcan B2' or 'Vulcan B2 Blue Steel'

The Blue Steels modifications were extensive, involving major Spar modifications required to recess the missile into the bomb bay. Therefore, only those airframes modified to carry Blue Steel could carry Blue Steel.

Tim,

Regarding the Retro-fitment of 301's, XH557 was initially delivered with 201's but was then used by Bristol Siddeley for engine trials, having first 2 x 301's in the No 1 and 4 position, later being fitted with 4 x 301's.

Flipflopman

Pontius Navigator

7th Jan 2007, 14:14

I don't recall any shortage of 301 series engines, certainly in the late delieveries at Coningsby. We used unrestricted power and we knew the difference.

We were the wing earmarked for the Far East deployment solely because we had the bigger, more powerful, engines. Later, when Waddington took over the role all the jets were swapped over too.

In Cyprus we made do with the 201 engines.

The 301 had a larger diameter and a short tail cone. This was a great benefit as the jet pipe could be slide out to get at the fire tec boxes. The smaller 201 series required the tail cone to be removed first.

Jackonicko

7th Jan 2007, 18:07

Now I might not know about designations, but I do know that:

Vulcan B.Mk 2 BS
A mini-fleet of 26 B.Mk 2s equipped to carry the Blue Steel missile equipped the Scampton Wing (that's 24 plus two spares). Blue Steel required modifications to the Vulcan’s spars, with the forward bomb bay spar having a crank in it, and the rear spar a cut-out. Bomb bay doors were removed and replaced by a fairing, and an extra ‘saddle’ fuel tank was installed in the bomb bay above Blue Steel’s forward section. A trials aircraft (XH539) was followed by 26 production ‘B.Mk 2 BS’ Vulcans. These were XL317-321, XL359-361, XL392, XL425-427, XL443-446, XM569-576, and XM594-595

Seven further conversions were made to cover a major modification programme on the Blue Steel Fleet, which left Scampton 'short'. These were XL384-390.

The seven 'extras' left Scampton with an embarrassment of jets after the mod programme had finished, and seven jets (XL445, 446, XM569-573) surplus to requirements were converted back to the freefall role in 1966.

Following the withdrawal of Blue Steel, all surviving aircraft were converted back to standard freefall bomber configuration.

Interestingly, these seven extra Blue Steel conversions were the only aircraft delivered with 201s that were officially converted to have 301s - this mod being undertaken at the same time as the Blue Steel mod, when the aircraft were stripped down to their undies anyway.

I make the 301 situation as follows:

Almost all Vulcan B.Mk 2s (from the eleventh aircraft, XH557, onwards) were built with larger engine intakes, in anticipation of the greater mass flow demanded by the 20,000-lb st Olympus 301 engine, though most were actually fitted with the 17,000-lb st Olympus 201. The 301 also required major structural alterations to the engine bays, making re-engining a complex and difficult process, requiring a full return to works. 36 aircraft were built with Olympus 301s, and seven more received them during conversion to B.Mk 2BS.

Trial Installation: XH557
Proof Installation: XJ784
Fitted on the production line during build: XL391, XM574-XM657
Retrofitted: XL384-390

When it comes to Skybolt, things are less clear.

XH537, XH538, and XH563 were trials aircraft ('563 for electrical compatability, so perhaps not fitted with pylons, etc?).

XM597-612 were built with the required hardpoints and wiring for Skybolt (16 jets) as was XL391 (the first Olympus 301 aircraft, held back on the line as a result).

But there were supposed to be 18 fully fitted Skybolt aircraft, and various sources list the following as having full Skybolt mods (front and rear attachments, etc.)

XL390, XH555 and XM574.

To further muddy the waters, most XH- and all surviving XJ- serialled B.Mk 2s were subsequently retrofitted with Skybolt front attachment points (not rear) in 1964-65, though this was after the (1962) cancellation of Skybolt.

And while the B2A designation may have been unofficial it was clearly used, but for which - Olympus 301 jets or Blue Steel? Does anyone have a B2A in their logbook under 'type'?

Jackonicko

7th Jan 2007, 18:16

Pontius Navigator

7th Jan 2007, 18:27

Jackonicko,

Further to your bomb bay tank fit, the BS ac could carry two extra saddle tanks. These were the A-tank (front) and E-tank (aft) IIRC th ecapacity of the A-tank was 5600lb with the E-tank being very similar. Both tanks were contoured to accommodate the BS indented bomb bay.

Later, I can't recall the date but between 1966-1968, Avro made the Drum tank. A drum tank held 8000lb of fuel. The bomb-bay could accept a fore and aft drum and the WE177 in the middle. This gave the aircraft possibly a further 300 miles range for the strike mission.

It could also have carried 7x1000 lb HE as an alternative. With one drum it could have carried 14x1000 lb.

Tim McLelland

7th Jan 2007, 18:52

As far as I'm aware, all of this information is covered in the listings which I first wrote in my book something like a dozen years ago or more. I haven't seen any reliable information to contradict any of it, so I'd be inclined to stick with that info. The larger intake was standard after XH557, indeed, pretty-much everything seems to have proceeded as standard after that particular aircraft, the only differences being the engine (201 and 301) and whether mods were for Blue Steel or Skybolt, etc., as described.

As for the "Vulcan B2 BS" designation, it's another unofficial one which gets thrown-up in books and articles, but having specifically checked this subject with Woodford many, many years ago, they assured me that the only official design/service designations were the B2, the K2 and the B2(MRR).
Re- XH558, the aircraft was of course operated by 27 Sqn as a B2(MRR) for some years, prior to being converted into a tanker. However, when it re-appeared as a tanker (and subsequently acquired 50 Squadron's markings at Waddington) it occasionally ventured-out with sniffer pods attached (as did XH560), so the aircraft was evidently still used for this role until the VC10 took over.

Yes, 50 Sqn did retain some "straight" B2's, XM652 and 655 were the last Vulcans to leave Scampton. XL426 was the most well-known one of course, as it continued flying on the display circuit until it was sold and went to Southend. XH560 was retained to become the official post-50 Squadron display aircraft and XH558 was scheduled to go to Marham to be dumped, but a last-minute look at the books revealed that there were fewer hours on 558, so XH560 eventually flew to Marham and was eventually destroyed on-site, leaving XH558 to soldier-on until she too was sold to David Walton. I have a feeling that XH560 actually only flew one public display (at Coningsby) shortly before retirement?

brickhistory

7th Jan 2007, 18:54

So, TM, we're to take it that you wrote a book?

Tim McLelland

7th Jan 2007, 18:58

So, TM, we're to take it that you wrote a book?
:rolleyes:

ZH875

7th Jan 2007, 19:05

ZH875,
On a previous thread you posted a picture of XH558 with the maritime type fit, in full 50 Squadron colours. Do you have the original? Was this before or after conversion to K2 standards? Did some of the K2s have this capability?

When 50 had its K2s, did it also have three or four 'straight' B2s? Standard B.Mk 2s used by 50 are known to have included XL426, and XM597, but how about XM652 and XM655?Jacko, I do have the original. IIRC, '558 came to 50 Sqn from 44(R) Sqn, with pods fitted, I believe that the pods were removed during the conversion process, as all pictures on http://www.avrovulcan.org.uk/tankers/index.htm seem to indicate, but they do show the pods on '560.

During the time 50 Sqn had tankers, there were actually only 5 HDU's to share between the 6 tanker aircraft, and there were also 4 B2s, I can remember when 655 was sent to Wellesbourne, as I returned to Waddington with no brakes on my car.

Regarding the Blue Steel aircraft, they should all have the second ECM aerial mounting plates between the port engines, but this looks like it was a late mod, as the picture of XL317 shows, it only has the standard starboard side.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/ZH875/XL317.jpg

XM652 and 655 were the last Vulcans to leave Scampton. Was this prior to 50 Sqn being the last Vulcan unit based at Scampton?.

Jackonicko

7th Jan 2007, 19:09

Tim,

According to the captions on Andy Leitch's site, before XL391, ALL B.Mk 2s were built and delivered with Olympus 201s.

Certainly 391 has been widely quoted to be the first production Vulcan with 301s, and as the previous seven jets were returned to Woodford for BS mods - it all SEEMS to fit.

And do I assume that Tim M is actually Tim L?

BEagle

7th Jan 2007, 19:23

There was never any official designation of 'B2A'.

The 'B2(MRR)' aircraft were, however, officially termed 'SR2' when I was first at Sunny Scampton, but became B2(MRR) in around 1979. My logbook 9 July 1979 indicates that we flew 5:25 in XJ825 during EX HIGHWOOD. I remember thinking what a very tatty jet it was - full of bodge tape repairs....

I guess the 'B2(MRR)' terminology came in to emphasise the boat-spotting role of the Colostomy Crews of 27 - rather than the other role to which Tim refers..... Did the RAF really trust 50 Sqn to fly in that role in their K2s...:rolleyes:

Tank fits were either:

'A' tank only
'A' & 'E' tanks
Single drum tank (forward) only
Double drums
'A' tank forward, drum tank aft

and the K2s had triple drums.

Also, the only really noticeable difference between the 'small intake' B2s (such as XH538, our Bomb Comp jet in 1979) was that we had smaller intake blanks - so no-one else's ground crew could pinch them!

Tim McLelland

7th Jan 2007, 19:29

Tim,
According to the captions on Andy Leitch's site, before XL391, ALL B.Mk 2s were built and delivered with Olympus 201s.
Certainly 391 has been widely quoted to be the first production Vulcan with 301s, and as the previous seven jets were returned to Woodford for BS mods - it all SEEMS to fit.
And do I assume that Tim M is actually Tim L?

Nope, that's incorrect.

But yeah, I used to be called Tim L:)

Tim McLelland

7th Jan 2007, 19:31

I guess the 'B2(MRR)' terminology came in to emphasise the boat-spotting role of the Colostomy Crews of 27 - rather than the other role to which Tim refers

Indeed, the term refers (as you might expect) to Maritime Radar Reconnaissance - the sniffer pods were an additional role for which there was no aircraft designation (nor was there on the Victor SR2 fleet when they carried sniffer mods on their external fuel tanks).

BEagle

7th Jan 2007, 19:43

You don't say.........:rolleyes:

Jacko - still awaiting your reply.

Tim McLelland

7th Jan 2007, 20:00

You don't say.........:rolleyes:
Jacko - still awaiting your reply.

No need to roll your eyes - I was only clarifying the point you'd mentioned for anyone who doesn't know. Honestly, you can't say a thing without someone snapping at you *tuts* it's like Celebrity Big Brother on here:)

Jackonicko

7th Jan 2007, 20:06

BEags,

And I was waiting for yours! Have sent you a couple of e-mails, and just re-forwarded the last.

J

ZH875

7th Jan 2007, 20:16

As per usual, the wonderful answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything, otherwise known as Wikipedia has the answer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Vulcan

The question is why do so many people quote Wikipedia as the answer to everything, how much of it is correct?.

BEagle

7th Jan 2007, 20:29

Tim - we've had about enough of your vile personal habits on here......

...watching Big Brother indeed. Ye gods, whatever next...Coronation Street?

:p

ZH875

7th Jan 2007, 20:33

Well as far as any records go, there's no evidence to suggest that any of the B2 fleet was re-engined in such a manner. The documentation I gleaned from Woodford many years ago stated the engine fit when they were delivered and there are no records (at least none that I've ever found) that suggest that any aircraft were subsequently changed.

I wonder where this information was made up from then, http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/mongsoft/vulcan_production_list_page_all.htm look at the notes on aircraft such as:557,784, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389 & 390, as this author believes they were indeed re-engined.

Pontius Navigator

7th Jan 2007, 20:34

Well the nuclear bit is not quite right. The Mk 2 Vulcan never had a US Thermonuclear bomb. The yield of the Red Snow capsule differs from that that I taught.

The Vulcans did not adopt a hi-lo-hi profile when Skybolt was cancelled and Blue Steel retired. If we remove Skybolt from the equation the low level penetration was adopted before Blue Steel was retired. It is unlikely that Skybolt deployment would have been sufficiently early to avoid the need for low level penetration, but that is a supposition.

<<The navigator and electronics operator could only escape by tilting their seats and climbing out of the cockpit after the pilots had ejected.>>

No, radar and AEO by swivelling and they didn't climb out they slide out BEFORE the pilots if they were lucky.

<<(two extra seats could be fitted for Crew Chiefs if required, for a total of 7 crew).>>

If you could dignify the 6th and 7th seat go-boxes as seats.

The ceiling is a bit optimistic.

The Mk1/1a differed by having a DC/Generator electrical system rather than the AC/Alternator system in the B2.

clicker

7th Jan 2007, 21:18

....Victor SR2 fleet when they carried sniffer mods on their external fuel tanks.

As a matter of interest were these mods like a little cap on the nose of the tank and a bulge at the rear lower part of the tank.

Reason I ask is that I have a slide in my collection taken at Wyton of XL165. I had been a member of staff with a ATC unit and we had the annual camp photo taken in front of the aircraft and seem to remember someone having a hissy fit becausse that aircraft was used. I didnt tell him I had also captured the aircraft on my camera as I walked away :E

clicker

Jackonicko

7th Jan 2007, 21:29

Jackonicko

7th Jan 2007, 21:32

Clicker,

They were.

See:
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0246794/L/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1029488/L/

They look like the units that were mounted on the front of the Hunter tanks on the Vulcan.

ZH875

7th Jan 2007, 21:46

ZH875, unless you can date that photo, it would seem to be a K.Mk 2 - as the records seem to show that the jet went from No.44 Squadron direct to Woodford for K2 conversion, and only then went to No.50 on 20 October 1982.

There's also the 'fact' (?) that the role inferred by the fit was only taken over by No.50 after the disbandment of No.44 on 21 December 1982.

Thus if it has No.50's markings the inference is that it's post conversion, and that Tim M's contention that XH558 "ventured-out with sniffer pods attached (as did XH560), so the aircraft was evidently still used for this role until the VC10 took over." is correct.

Looking at the Photo, it looks like it is taken whilst 50 Sqn were still on Echo dispersal at Waddington,and with the runway direction, I would put it on E9. Also looking at the back of the aircraft, it looks like the 'skip' is present, as you can just make out the forward/sideward pointing light assembly, thus at this time, it must be a K2, and taken late 82 or early 83, as the sqn moved down to Bravo on return from bolthole at Scampton & Conningsby. I know that the pods were not normally fitted, along with the rest of the ADAM junk in the cockpit, and I am certain that the ones I saw were labelled as Hunter aircraft in origin.

clicker

7th Jan 2007, 21:46

Thanks Jackonicko,

Always wondered what "them bits" were for, and almost 30 years later have the proper answer.

Cheers

BEagle

7th Jan 2007, 22:06

The Vulcan Mk3 ducts were installed in ex-Sea Vixen (or Scimitar) tanks of (originally) 150 gallon capacity.

Hunters had either much smaller 100 gall tanks or larger 230 gallon tanks.

Tim McLelland

7th Jan 2007, 22:50

Indeed Beagle, they do appear to have been of Sea Vixen origin, even though various books and articles attribute them to Hunters. Like so much dodgy information about Vulcans, the same material gets recycled again and again but it's not necessarily correct, hence the confusion regarding serials, engines and so on.

Incidentally Clicker, the Victor mods were only on the front of the tanks, the other "bump" you mention was, I believe, standard to all Victor external tanks. It was of course the same sensor shroud that had previosuly been on Canberras and subsequenly appeared under Vulcans and then VC10's. I sometimes hear tales that Shackletons may have carried them too occasionally but I've never seen any photographic evidence to suppoort this...

As for XH558 there's no confusion there at all. The aircraft went to 50 Squadron as a tanker but still occasionally flew with sniffer pods attached (as did XH560) and carried 50 Sqn markings, when they were eventually applied. The markings were finally removed when the aircraft went to Kinloss to be "de-tankered" and resprayed into its current (bizarre) air show paint scheme.

Blacksheep

8th Jan 2007, 01:16

Never heard of a B Mk2A They were all designated B Mk2 on the Vols 1 and 4 that we used in the sixties. Perhaps the chaps at Bruntingthorpe can confirm my memory as they must have some of the last remaining copies of the Vulcan APs. For a time, around '68 and '69, we had a mixture of B Mk1As and B Mk 2s of both the freefall & Blue Steel type on centralised 1st line servicing at Waddington.

Beags list of bomb bay tankage combinations is spot on, but he's left out the most important fit of all - 'A' For'ard and 'E' aft with a pannier in the middle for the crew chief to carry his bicycle around and the crew to transport their loot back to Blighty. :rolleyes:

After Rolls Royce took over Bristol they had a distaste for touching the Olympus 201s and 301s. I recall engines coming back from overhaul with a brass plate on the side engraved "Overhauled by the Standard Motor Company" - the car company that built the RAF's Standard Vanguard staff cars at the time.

The Mk1A was a considerable systems change from the Mk1, enabling the aircraft to penetrate the upgraded Soviet air defences that it otherwise could not cope with. Our Mk 1As at Waddington differed from the Mk1s chiefly by having the ECM pod stuck on the back and the addition of the Bleed Air Turbine or BAT that drove a 200/115V 3Φ 400 Hz generator to power the ECM dustbins. The upgrade also filled the flight line crew room with an extra layer of "Fairies" for the bridge school - though the ECM chaps tended to have bigger muscles than most, apart from the "Sooties".

The ECM was added to give the "Radio Operators" something to do apart from picking their noses - at least according to Geordie, our Electrical Chiefy. ;)

Obviously, Geordie wasn't too fond of AEOs but he did have a point. The aircraft side of the Blue Steel modification didn't alter the aircraft's own systems nearly as significantly as those that converted the Mk1 to Mk1A. The Blue Steel capable aircraft on the Waddington wing were to all intents and purposes, the same aircraft as the others.

By the way Pontius, the Fire Tec boxes were (and on 558 maybe they still are) in the nose wheel bay. You shifted the jet pipes to get at those two rearmost detector head thermocouples.

allan907

8th Jan 2007, 06:03

The weekly "orbat" from HQ 1 Gp (SD ????) only differentiated between B1A and B2 (with a note to designate which were BS equipped).

wonderboysteve

17th Jan 2007, 14:02

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v686/steveanddrdan/xl388_1963.jpg
Not a great image, but XL388 with 201s. Later photos with 301s abound on the net. So in case there was any doubt it did happen...
Photo from: Alan Todd, Vulcan photo album, Bayford press Ltd, 1987.

forget

17th Jan 2007, 15:07

Quite right Steve. Ba boom! ..........XL388 when it was in the USA at Davis-Monthan AFB in Tucson, Arizona during their Airshow for 1968.

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

Tim McLelland

17th Jan 2007, 15:43

Indeed, having checked the photos, it would seem that a few 201-engined aircraft were re-engined, even though Woodford's documents insist that they weren't! I think the only possible source which could explain this mystery is Rolls Royce, so if I find any news, I'll pass it on.:)

forget

17th Jan 2007, 15:52

Here's a start:)

http://www.avrovulcan.org.uk/1_group_presentation/ol301.htm

and here

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=981053&postcount=215

XH557. Delivered: May 1960. First Vulcan to be fitted with Olympus 301 engines. Although she was orignally delivered with the 201 units, and subsequently re-engined.

XL384. Delivered: March 1962. Olympus 201 engines. Conversion to Blue Steel role included fitting of 301 engines.

XL385. Delivered: April 1962. Olympus 201 engines. Conversion to Blue Steel role included fitting of 301 engines.

etc etc ...........

Tim McLelland

17th Jan 2007, 16:00

There's no new information on there though - we know it was possible (and one aircraft was recorded as being re-engined) but there's only ever been heresay and rather cloudy (and therefore unreliable) recollections from people so far on this subject. I've not seen anything that specifically confirms that any batch of aircraft was re-engined ever since I dug-out what I thought was factual information (doh!) from Woodford about fifteen years ago. As I say, I can only think of Rolls Royce being a potential source of documentation on this matter but I guess at this late stage they'll probably have dumped everything - as is so often the case with these things. I suppose (on the basis of photo analysis) it should be possible to take an educated guess at which aircraft were involved, but it would be nice to get some hard facts to settle the matter. I have a feeling I might be disappointed though!

Still, if this isn't enough of a headache, I'm also doing a Hunter book. The sheer joy of trying to sort-out an accurate list of serials, coversions and allocations? No chance! :eek:

forget

17th Jan 2007, 16:05

Hmmmmmm.:hmm:
There's no new information on there though - we know it was possible (and one aircraft was recorded as being re-engined) but there's only ever been heresay and rather cloudy
......bl**dy hell :{ what do you want - an Olympus engine change working party to turn up and beat it into you.

Tim McLelland

17th Jan 2007, 16:08

No, just some reliable information. Lists on websites (probably based on my own serials list which has been in print for over a decade) are fine but they're hardly facts, are they? Recollections ain't facts either...

Anyway, let's not have a pointless argument, eh?

Valiantone

17th Jan 2007, 16:40

Right,

So how many books are out there with Vulcan airframe histories? apart from yours TMcL?

There must be other references somewhere, I recall that Robert Jacksons book might have done them, but don't have it to hand this minute how about the aircraft record cards presumably in the RAFM? that might fill in the gaps?

Just a thought....:E

V1

forget

17th Jan 2007, 17:01

Lists on websites (probably based on my own serials list which has been in print for over a decade) are fine but they're hardly facts, are they? Recollections ain't facts either...
Anyway, let's not have a pointless argument, eh?

I said weeks ago that when I was at Coningsby, 1964, I remembered Vulcans being re-engined - 201 to 301s. But no! ..some guy who wasn't there, but writes books about it, tells me I have my *** up my ***.

(probably based on my own serials list which has been in print for over a decade)

:eek: Get real! There are hundreds of 'lists' out there. Why rely on one from a guy who wasn't there?

Jackonicko

17th Jan 2007, 17:18

"I suppose (on the basis of photo analysis) it should be possible to take an educated guess at which aircraft were involved...."

True. And so far, it seems to indicate that the original explanation (seven aircraft re-engined during Blue Steel mods) might be correct.

"Recollections ain't facts either..."

True, too, but recollections from Vulcan engine blokes might be more reliable than a journo's interpretation of incomplete data from the manufacturers..... especially when that interpretation seems to contradict information gleaned from aircraft record cards.

Back on the first page, I wrote that:

"Seven further conversions were made to cover a major modification programme on the Blue Steel Fleet, which left Scampton 'short'. These were XL384-390.

The seven 'extras' left Scampton with an embarrassment of jets after the mod programme had finished, and seven jets (XL445, 446, XM569-573) surplus to requirements were converted back to the freefall role in 1966.

Following the withdrawal of Blue Steel, all surviving aircraft were converted back to standard freefall bomber configuration.

Interestingly, these seven extra Blue Steel conversions were the only aircraft delivered with 201s that were officially converted to have 301s - this mod being undertaken at the same time as the Blue Steel mod, when the aircraft were stripped down to their undies anyway.

I make the 301 situation as follows:

Almost all Vulcan B.Mk 2s (from the eleventh aircraft, XH557, onwards) were built with larger engine intakes, in anticipation of the greater mass flow demanded by the 20,000-lb st Olympus 301 engine, though most were actually fitted with the 17,000-lb st Olympus 201. The 301 also required major structural alterations to the engine bays, making re-engining a complex and difficult process, requiring a full return to works. 36 aircraft were built with Olympus 301s, and seven more received them during conversion to B.Mk 2BS.

Trial Installation: XH557
Proof Installation: XJ784
Fitted on the production line during build: XL391, XM574-XM657
Retrofitted: XL384-390"

1) The idea that the seven 'extras' were retrofitted with 301s when converted to carry Blue Steel is logical.

2) It was stated that this was the case by Andy Leitch on his site, and he doesn't strike me as the sort to 'make things up', while his site seems to be a magnet for former Vulcan air and groundcrew, who would know right from wrong on this, and who clearly didn't see a need to correct him.

3) There is clear evidence that in the case of at least one aircraft (XL388 above) the engine fit took place exactly as detailed by Andy, whereas there is NO EVIDENCE that any of the aircraft were originally built with 301s - and would have been out of sequence had they been.

Tim McLelland

17th Jan 2007, 18:16

Vulcan serials lists appear in various books, websites and magazines, they all tend to originate from one source of course, if you go back far enough. That's the nature of aircraft "reference" books - lots of information that gets re-used again and again. This is why things like the mythical "B2R" pop-up in print. Unlike other Vulcan books which have been mentioned before, I based my list on cross-references of all available lists and the information given to me by Woodford, so I think that's good enough reason to be confident that the list was (is) as accurate as it could be.

Clearly the engine re-fit needs to be looked into but basing modifications to serial lists on people's recollections is a dangerous game. There's no guarantee that the recollections are correct. As I've found-out, even "definitive" lists from manufacturers can't necessarily be relied upon.:)

lancs

17th Jan 2007, 18:26

what I thought was factual information (doh!) from Woodford

information given to me by Woodford

Considering that Woodford "forgot" that the wings were all different when embarking on the 2000/MRA4 project, I'm not sure about their value as a source....

brickhistory

17th Jan 2007, 18:45

I said weeks ago that when I was at Coningsby, 1964, I remembered Vulcans being re-engined - 201 to 301s. But no! ..some guy who wasn't there, but writes books about it, tells me I have my *** up my ***.

What, someone would have the gall to do that? Truly, it must be a misunderstanding.........................:E

Tim McLelland

17th Jan 2007, 21:15

lancs - I think you're probably right! Way back when I "liberated" as much material as I could from Woodford (this must be nearly 20 years ago now) they did still have a fair amount of Vulcan stuff lurking in their offices. I guess you'd be hard-pressed to get much information from them now. For example, they sold most of their military aircraft photographs to a private buyer:rolleyes:

Tim McLelland

17th Jan 2007, 21:19

What, someone would have the gall to do that? Truly, it must be a misunderstanding.........................:E
Oh dear, here he goes again zzz
Unlike lots of aersospace authors, I'm not in the business of writing-up "facts" on the basis of what somebody may or may not have remembered correctly. If we all started basing information as factual on the basis of whether someone "was there" or not, we'd have even more suspect information floating around than we already have.
But if it makes you happy to keep-on making sarcastc comments about me every time you find an opportunity, then by all means feel free to continue. Needless to say it doesn't actually bother me - I find it quite amusing.:)
Jackonicko - with reference to your posting, I don't suppose Andy Leitch has any intention of posting-up inaccurate information but I assume he got his serials from somewhere... have you asked him where? It all inevitably comes from the same sources, via one route or another. Contrary to your comments however, I did have some physical evidence to support the belief that only one aircraft had engines changed (as we've discussed in various places frequently) - namely a specific document from the manufacturer. The fact that it was evidently wrong is no reason to start supposing that any other non-researched list is any more reliable, is it?

Anyway, enough already... if anyone has any information that is of potential use then do please let me know:)

brickhistory

17th Jan 2007, 21:42

Unlike lots of aersospace authors,

Ok, here goes:

This is a military aircrew forum; for those who fly, for those who support, and those who have gone before in those roles in whatever nation's service.

You don't get it, do you! You are a writer; by your own admission you have never served a day in your life, yet you have the arrogance to lecture those who have/do serve about whatever the topic might be. It's one thing to be write about a subject, it is something else entirely to criticize those who LIVED it! Contribute certainly; disagree and prove your points (perhaps even humorously!) by all means, but stop the shrill posting.

It's great that you write about subjects near and dear to many in this forum. Well done and keep it up! Please realize that you are a writer and not now or ever a military person. Lecturing those who disagree or dispute you who have worn a uniform does you no credit. Disparaging other writers/websites because they disagree with you likewise is beneath a professional, but you seem to have at it.

Perhaps you can regale us with the tales of gaining photo use permission and publishers tribulations in payments for said photos, but please realize that you insult some truly amazing aviators and maintainers by your 'know it all' attitude.

Mods and thread readers, I apologise; ban me if needed/delete this as required.

Tim McLelland

17th Jan 2007, 21:53

I fear that no matter what I say, you'll take exception so you may as well get on with it;)
The only thing I could add is that, should you care to ask any air or ground crew, they would probably tell you that they're just as human as anyone else and are therefore, no more capable of accurately recalling facts from the 1960's than you or I. That's the basic point that I've been trying to emphasise and while you have this almost obsessive compulsion to keep reminding me that I'm not a serviceman, I still don't quite understand what this fact has to do with anything that I've said on this thread or others.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could confine ourselves to information and comments that were actually relevant to the subject being discussed (*cuts to Brick's next posting where he pastes-up this comment, for supposed ironic effect*)...:rolleyes:

ACW418

17th Jan 2007, 21:56

Ok its time to make a few comments.

Brickhistory your profile does not suggest you served in the RAF or on Vulcans so why do you have a go at a guy who has studied the subject.

On another tack I am surprised that no-one has pointed out the fairly major difference between Mk1's, Mk1A's and Mk2's namely that the flight instruments were completed different. IIRC the Mk1's and 1A's had zero reader kit with the old standard six instrument panel and the Mk2 most certainly had MFS which was a military version of the SFS fitted to the Vanguard (and possibly other aircraft). Having flown the Vulcan and ridden in the cockpit of the Vanguard the difference seemed to be that the Bomb position on the autopilot in the Vulcan was called VOR in the Vanguard. Anyone know any different.

ACW

Pontius Navigator

17th Jan 2007, 22:10

ACW, quite right. The Mk1s used the tried and tested G4B compass system. I seem to recall that they also had a PDI - Pilot's Direction Indicator to follow the NBS steers whereas it was an integrated steer mode in the MFS.

Later the PDIs were mounted in a wooden box and loosely installed in the rear so that the Nav Rad could see that the MFS/Autopilot was actually in agreement with the raw NBS steer signal. Of course I would not suggest that the master race might not have been following the steers accurately :} .

High level bomb runs were often flown on autopilot if the autopilot was a good one. Other times they were flown manually for practise. In the Mk 1 the PDI was in front of the 1st Pilot so only the left-hand seat pilot could fly a bomb run accurately. In the Mk 2 the MFS could display steering commands to either seat. It was reputed that copilots could fly the bomb runs more accurately than the Captains. I also seem to remember that the Mk 2 display included a distance to go feature.

As for the other issue you mentioned, isn't that what PMs are best suited too?

ACW418

17th Jan 2007, 22:24

PN

Thanks for your comments but no.

ACW

Milt

17th Jan 2007, 22:31

The Oz magazine Aero Australia issue 12 Jan/Mar 07 has a 9 page spread called Avro Vulcan - God of Fire.

Where did the name "God of Fire" come from?

The first 2 pages in the centre fold features a good shot of XL317 with Blue Steel surrounded by a fiery atmosphere. Caption says "Vulcan B.2A XL317 of 617 Squadron based at Scampton in 1962. This was the first Vulcan equipped to carry the Avro Blue Steel nuclear standoff weapon"

I flew the odd carriage flight tests of Blue Steel in XH539 with John Baker in 1962 preceding launches at Woomera. Also dropped the first inert Blue Danube 10,000 pounder from a Mk1 at the top corner of the flight test envelope - 415 Kts IAS and 0.98 IMN. It went away cleanly as observed on closed circuit TV and high speed cameras, gently rocking in pitch. Very small feel to its release. Must have been a big splash somewhere in the middle of a range along the E coast of the UK, the name of which escapes me. Leaves me wondering whether it broke up on impact or is still intact.

Pontius Navigator

17th Jan 2007, 22:45

Milt,

Google - Roman - Vulcan - God of Fire

East coast? are you sure it was not at Jurby of the north east coast of the Isle of Man? Jurby, IIRC, was cleared for practice bombs up to 10000lbs.

Recently fishermen in the Irish Sea have been complaining of their fishing nets getting snagged on the bombs around the IOM. There were a significant number of BD and YS dropped there.

Later we were also cleared to drop YS2 into Luce Bay (West Freugh).

Tim McLelland

17th Jan 2007, 23:13

If it wasn't Jurby, where on the East Coast could it have been? I seem to recall that the Sperrin did some Blue Danube drops off the East Coast but again, I don't know where...

Blacksheep

18th Jan 2007, 00:20

Getting back to that 'discussion' regarding the accuracy of recollections, I know that I've been mistaken on a number of points, which is why its nice to discuss those times on this forum. We can all straighten our facts out.

Now, with regard to Woodford as a source of record data. An aircraft's original records remain with the aircraft. The only documentation that would be available at a contractor's site would be the work orders for the work performed at that site. Much development work was done at Woodford but most of our aircraft from Waddington went to Bitteswell for 3rd Line work. We also had an Avro/ Hawker Siddeley working party permanently based in No 2 Hangar that did a lot of modification work and structural repairs. I imagine there would have been similar teams at the Scampton and Coningsby/Cottesmore Wings.

Documents covering the work done at Bitteswell and at the No. 1 Group stations would not be held at Woodford, so there would be no source data available from there. I expect that an airframe built with wider intakes to cope with the future installation of a larger engine would have provision for easy replacement at that future time when the larger engines were actually fitted. Retrofitting could then be done at station level by the manufacturer's teams based there.

The more difficult job of shoe horning the 301 into a narrow intake airframe - and both forget and myself are absolutely certain that some aircraft were so equipped - could have been done at Bitteswell rather than Woodford. The question is, what happened to the Bitteswell documents?

Tim McLelland

18th Jan 2007, 06:45

I would imagine that Bitteswell could indeed have been the place where the refits took place, but I'm still surprised that Woodford's documents (at least the ones I found) aren't strictly accurate - you'd think the manufacturer would be fairly reliable, but it seems not! I guess pretty-much all documentation connected with Bitteswell will have been destroyed when the airfield/factory closed. The airfield's virtulally obliterated now so I think it safe to assume everything connected with it is gone too - sadly.

Pontius Navigator

18th Jan 2007, 06:45

As far as I can recall, there were no cleared ranges on the East Coast. There was however the North Sea Jettison Area. This was about 30 miles off the coast and was in use until the 1970s or later.
I suspect it was established during WW2 as a safe location, clear of mines and shipping lanes, for unserviceable bombers to jettison their weapons safely in the event of an emergency.

PS, where was the Sperrin operating from?

wonderboysteve

18th Jan 2007, 09:38

Hello again.
May I just add that while I am an aerospace professional I am not military; I`m afraid I merely enjoy the history and stories, but I have posted as I had information to add to the debate. Thanks for indulging me!
Here is XL387 in 1962, soon after delivery. Not as clear cut as '388, but they look like 201s to me. The source is as above. Glorious yorkshire rose on the fin though....
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v686/steveanddrdan/XL387_1963.jpg

sedburgh

18th Jan 2007, 09:43

The AWE web site at: http://www.awe.co.uk/main_site/about_awe/history/timeline/1953/index.html
says
Flight tests of Blue Danube with an inert warhead were carried out at the Orfordness range in Suffolk, and elsewhere.

Philip Morten

cheese bobcat

18th Jan 2007, 10:06

I may be coming into this a bit late but looking at those photos of 388 with 201s and 301s, they may have enlarged the tailpipes but they didn't seem to have done anything to the intakes. Perhaps this is why we kept having engine failures on 301s! Not enough air getting in.

forget

18th Jan 2007, 10:34

Here's something useful on intake sizes. Nearest aircraft is XJ783 with enlarged intakes. Next is XH554 with shallow intakes.

From Andy's great Vulcan site:ok: :ok:

http://www.avrovulcan.org.uk/1_group_presentation/83etal.htm

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

Evanelpus

18th Jan 2007, 11:36

I worked at Bitteswell in the 10 years prior to it's closure (never forgave Maggie, came for a visit and thanked us for all our hard work pre Falklands, it all went tits up after that) and think previous statements about paperwork and documentation are correct.....all destroyed. This is such a shame, if it's true, as vital pieces of aircraft history have been lost.

Loved working on the Vulcs, they had a unique smell to them. recently looked inside the one at Coventry and the smell is still in that one!!

Wader2

18th Jan 2007, 11:51

they had a unique smell to them. recently looked inside the one at Coventry and the smell is still in that one!!

They all did, urine, hydraulics, vomit, rubber :)

Once, at an air show, this old boy came up to us in the Lanc and asked if he could look in. He went up the steps, closed his eyes and took a deep sniff.

Brought tears to his eyes, not a pungent smell but nostalgia.

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU

18th Jan 2007, 12:22

Does anyone remember that permanent fragrance in New Assembly (Woodford) in the Vulcan and 748 days? The nearest I can liken it is Phenol with a hint of MEK and Acetone. The scent in the spray booth, at the Eastern end, was different, though.

Tim McLelland

18th Jan 2007, 14:29

Here's something useful on intake sizes. .
From Andy's great Vulcan site:ok: :ok:

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

er... page one of this thread. para 12...;)

threeputt

18th Jan 2007, 16:16

Are my eyes going or what? With perspective they all look the same.:confused:

3P

Pontius Navigator

18th Jan 2007, 16:36

Threeputt, while I agree that the perspective suggests they are all the same, look at the highlight in the two intakes.

The highlight appears to reach back to the centre of the intake whereas that on the next seems much further forward.

forget

18th Jan 2007, 16:44

Threeputt, Sorry to hear about the eyes. Didn't your Mother warn you?:)

Maybe this is better.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/intakes2.jpg

brickhistory

18th Jan 2007, 16:55

OK, I'm confused. Different sources say different things. Was the B.Mk 2A designation applied to Blue Steel aircraft or two those with Olympus 301s, or was it unofficial anyway?
Robert Jackson's "Avro Vulcan," 1984, p.119:
quote:
While the Blue Steel-equipped Vulcan squadrons at Scampton (whose modified aircraft, incidentally, now bore the designation B 2A) worked hard to perfect the low-level launch techniques for their missiles, the B 2 squadrons at Cottesmore and the B 1A squadrons at Waddington concentrated on low-altitude delivery techniques with their free-falling bombs."
:end quote

Of any help?

Pontius Navigator

18th Jan 2007, 17:02

Forget,

Great pic of a Mk 1a there.:}

Anyone else agree?

Tim McLelland

18th Jan 2007, 18:53

Robert Jackson's "Avro Vulcan," 1984, p.119:
quote:
While the Blue Steel-equipped Vulcan squadrons at Scampton (whose modified aircraft, incidentally, now bore the designation B 2A) :end quote
Of any help?

Isn't this where we started this thread?:eek:

threeputt

18th Jan 2007, 20:54

Nope, the eyes have it, they are the same; and that's from a Nav Rad.:}

3p

Pontius Navigator

18th Jan 2007, 21:09

Nope, the eyes have it, they are the same; and that's from a Nav Rad.:}

3p

Are you saying the lower picture is not a 1a?

The nose gear is much longer, look at the V.
The main gear is quite different.
There is no aux air scoop on the stbd side of the Mk 2 cabin.
The pitot heads are missing from the lower side of the nose etc etc
The outer wing profile is different.
There are no air scoops on the engine doors.

Tim McLelland

18th Jan 2007, 21:47

Surely, the argument over whether the aircraft is a B1A (which it would appear to be) or an early B2 is academic isn't it? The point was to illustrate the difference in intake sizes?
It's like Celebrity Big Brother in 'ere!:eek:

forget

18th Jan 2007, 22:12

Just back from the pub, lost the Quiz by one point, but I 'kin despair here. Lighten up Tim - otherwise I won't borrow your book. Let's discuss aircraft rather than who's got the biggest keyboard.
Pleased to hear about the eyes Threeputt. :ok:

PS. Threeputt. Was it the Green Dragon pub in Calne which provided so much mirth in 1962? By gum! We 'ad some fun! (RAF Yatesbury):)

flipflopman RB199

18th Jan 2007, 22:22

I concur completely with Forget,

Tim, Calm down dear...... It's only a forum! ;)

Definite pic of a B1a there, however, I feel that threeputt was referring to the intakes looking the same, rather than the aircraft, PN.

As I said earlier in the thread, looking through the various Vulcan engineering manuals and manufacturers drawings, on a day to day basis, I have never come across any official literature referring to a B2a. This includes literature from A.V.Roe, Hawker Siddeley, BAC and British Aerospace.

I would suggest that the B2a designation was probably invented unofficially many years ago with the advent of Blue Steel, and like an urban myth has been repeated so often, many people now believe it to be gospel :rolleyes:

Flipflopman

Tim McLelland

18th Jan 2007, 23:30

and like an urban myth has been repeated so often, many people now believe it to be gospel :rolleyes:
Flipflopman
Of course they believe it - the designation has cropped up in just about every Vulcan book apart from *ahem* mine:p

Blacksheep

19th Jan 2007, 03:06

Are you saying the lower picture is not a 1a?
The nose gear is much longer, look at the V...
...There is no aux air scoop on the stbd side of the Mk 2 cabin....
Its a B1A all right but the image is the wrong way round. The B1/B1A aircraft had the air scoop for the rotary transformer cooling on the left (port) side of the fuselage. As confirmation, the snoop in the picture has his arm band on the right arm, whereas all the snoops I ever met wore theirs on the left (So they knew which arm to salute with).

The original is on Andy's 'Vulcans in Camera' website in colour and appears to have been taken on the QRA dispersal at Waddington. The aircraft has an "Armed" placard on the nose gear and you can see the WRAF block in the background across the playing fields.

As I mentioned previously, at Waddington from 1966 to 1969 we had an exotic mixture of B1As, B2s with narrow intakes and 201 engines, B2s with narrow intakes and 301 engines and B2s with wide intakes and 301 engines. Some B2s were ex-Blue Steel, others were Yellow Sun machines. At no time ever did I see or use an aircraft AP, hangar check task card or engineering drawing with a B2A designation. They were all B2s on the paperwork.

Pontius Navigator

19th Jan 2007, 06:59

at Waddington from 1966 to 1969 we had an exotic mixture of B1As, B2s with narrow intakes and 201 engines, B2s with narrow intakes and 301 engines and B2s with wide intakes and 301 engines. Some B2s were ex-Blue Steel, others were Yellow Sun machines.

Ah, me too. You will therefore remember the Micky Finn I think just before the Mk1As finished when 'Boots' generated some 31 aircraft (including the 7 or so at Finningley) and ran out of crews and targets as he generated more than was required.

Remember the load time for a YS2? Just 7 minutes. Boots went ballistic when the new procedures for the WE177 started to reach Blue Steel proportions (I exagerate) - 1 hr 30 min or so. The loading teams then managed to cut it to 45 min and later 35 min IIRC.

forget

19th Jan 2007, 08:00

It's a B1A all right but the image is the wrong way round.

Quite right Blacksheep. As we were looking only at intakes I swung the lower image to give (almost) the same viewpoint for both.

Blacksheep

19th Jan 2007, 09:41

Yes I was on that Mickey Finn Pontius, not only did Boots run out of crews, he ran out of dispersals to send the aircraft to!

I was on Swing Shift (0001 to 0800) when the hooter went. We AF/BF'd all the aircraft by mid morning and I stayed on the line until mid-day, clearing defects on the last few bombers and doing "Combats" We stragglers then boarded a Beverley bound for Valley without having had any breakfast or lunch. After setting up at Valley we found the far-side detachment billets had been vandalised, including the kitchens. The detachment cooks still managed to knock up a decent meal and the swing shift people were stood down. With all the windows smashed at the barrack hut, and since the weather was good, we bedded down on the floor in the ops caravan next to the aircraft on the ORP. When the aircraft were brought to zero five I was so knackered I fell asleep against the (running) Houchin and didn't even wake up when the scramble came through. The crew chief woke me up for a spot of "wheel dancing". Thats a good way to wake up! Vulcan B1As had electric start and when the aircraft starts moving while you're still standing on the wheels pulling the last simstart cable free, its guaranteed to pump the adrenaline...

...that's how I remember it so clearly.

There's some photos of the B1As on that trip on Andy's site, taken while the sun was shining. (Go to the "Peter Middlebrook Collection Section 1" and scroll down to the bottom for Valley.) Not long after the scramble, the sky turned black and there was a full thunderstorm by the time the Beverley was ready to leave. We kipped overnight in the Valley transit block and flew out next morning, missing all the clearing up back at Waddington. :ok:

threeputt

19th Jan 2007, 11:16

PS. Threeputt. Was it the Green Dragon pub in Calne which provided so much mirth in 1962? By gum! We 'ad some fun! (RAF Yatesbury):)[/quote]

Forget

In 1962 I was 14 and at school at Ayr Academy in Jockistania. Dad was CO at Prestwick and I had just started to learn how to three putt!

I didn't get to Waddington until Sept 73. First trip, on 50 Sqn, in XL 388, captained by, that legend of Derbyshire, Flt Lt Jon Tye:ok: .

I only moved to Calne in 05, when I retired; one thing a chap doesn't do is go out for a casual drink in Calne.

PN

As the RB 199 guy said, it is just that the intakes look the same; different length shadows caused by the position of the sun? Like I said only a Nav Rad.

3P

Pontius Navigator

19th Jan 2007, 13:40

Yes I was on that Mickey Finn Pontius, not only did Boots run out of crews, he ran out of dispersals to send the aircraft to!

I ended up in Ops as the Ops Officer ready to scramble the exercise crews. At the same time I was holding QRA on a Mk 1 for real and I was not even Mk 1 qualified!

I was on Swing Shift (0001 to 0800) when the hooter went. We AF/BF'd all the aircraft by mid morning and I stayed on the line until mid-day, IIRC the disperse order cam about 1030-1100. One crew was doing the pre-combat checks with the nav rad in th ebomb bay. First he knew was the engines spooling up. After everything went quiet I had to go out and find out why they had not checked in, no sign, they were on the way to Manston.

We kipped overnight in the Valley transit block and flew out next morning, missing all the clearing up back at Waddington. :ok: wow, Valley-Waddo in one day :)

Stu V

19th Jan 2007, 16:13

OK, I'm confused. Different sources say different things. Was the B.Mk 2A designation applied to Blue Steel aircraft or two those with Olympus 301s, or was it unofficial anyway?

When I was a young liney at Scampton in the seventies, I asked my Chief " Why does XH558 & XH559 have smaller engine intakes" because lad came the reply, they have 200 series engines, they where half way down the build line when the Vulcan went from 112VDC to 115VAC 400HZ, thus ending up as Mk2As. I can only relate his reply as I remember it. I can't ask him as the poor old sod is probably dead!

Pontius Navigator

19th Jan 2007, 16:37

[COLOR=red]PN

As the RB 199 guy said, it is just that the intakes look the same; different length shadows caused by the position of the sun? Like I said only a Nav Rad.

3P

But as far as the Sun shadow is concerned the position of the Sun is at infinity therefore shadows from identical objects, separated by only 150 feet, should be identical. It seems clear from the proportions of shade and light that the two intakes are different.

Ex-Nav Rad, cfs n*

threeputt

19th Jan 2007, 21:54

Don't get me started, I was cfs(n).

ZH875

21st Jan 2007, 12:57

It looked relatively easy to hang a Blue Steel under a Vulcan, but it looks like the armourers must have had fun loading the Victor.

Was the Blue Steel Victor known as the Victor B2BS?.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v604/ZH875/Victor_B2BS.jpg

Tim McLelland

21st Jan 2007, 13:48

When I was a young liney at Scampton in the seventies, I asked my Chief " Why does XH558 & XH559 have smaller engine intakes" because lad came the reply, they have 200 series engines, they where half way down the build line when the Vulcan went from 112VDC to 115VAC 400HZ, thus ending up as Mk2As. I can only relate his reply as I remember it. I can't ask him as the poor old sod is probably dead!

Actually, this prompts me to ask if anyone saw the photo on page 120 of my old Vulcan Story book which shows XH558 at Woodford. The picture shows 558 shortly after completion, wearing full-colour markings. Most interestingly, the lower portion of the intake (and the side wall) is covered witha tarpaulin which suggest that some sort of work was being done on the area, post-completion.

I've often wondered whether the aircraft was originally completed with the smaller intake but modified shortly afterwards. Never seen any information to suggest that this happened (or that there would have been any point in doing it), but the photo does give you the impression that this may be what happened. Another mystery...

NRU74

21st Jan 2007, 19:18

Don't we now need a "Did you fly the Victor " thread

ACW418

21st Jan 2007, 19:37

I for one would be very interestedd in a "Did You Fly the Victor" forum as it looked a fascinating aircraft about which I know naff all.

ACW

flipflopman RB199

21st Jan 2007, 21:51

Actually, this prompts me to ask if anyone saw the photo on page 120 of my old Vulcan Story book which shows XH558 at Woodford. The picture shows 558 shortly after completion, wearing full-colour markings. Most interestingly, the lower portion of the intake (and the side wall) is covered witha tarpaulin which suggest that some sort of work was being done on the area, post-completion.
I've often wondered whether the aircraft was originally completed with the smaller intake but modified shortly afterwards. Never seen any information to suggest that this happened (or that there would have been any point in doing it), but the photo does give you the impression that this may be what happened. Another mystery...

Tim,

Having carried out a fair amount of work on 558's intake area, I can confirm that it is all completely original and left the production line as it is today. There is no evidence whatsoever of any splicing, joins or any other repair technique which would have been necessary to carry out such a modification. Bear in mind also that the first aircraft to be fitted with 301 series engines was XH557, it is highly unlikely that larger intakes would have been 'retrofitted' to XH558 or others.

There are an awful lot of Hydraulic, Oxygen, Pneumatic and Fuel pipes that lie beneath those intake skins, which is why you'll find most of ours have been removed for access. I would venture to suggest that the tarpaulins perhaps covered a removed skin. The majority of skins in that area had been removed at least once, with very few solid rivets remaining. Most were Avdel replacements, with many oversize rivets suggesting several cack handed attempts at removal :p

Flipflopman