Avro (?) Vulcan

[TDR]

This is one to make all that have flown or admired the AVRO Vulcan laugh or cry.

The RAF Museum at Hendon insist on referring to the Vulcan as a Hawker Siddley aircraft because "at the time the Vulcan was in production, Avro were owned by Hawker Siddely"

So have we been wrong for all these years?

Visit their website and comment on it, I did, you'll laugh at the reply!

[Archimedes]

Following that logic, the caption's still wrong. When the Vulcan left service, HSA were part of everyone's favourite soon-to-be denationalised aircraft company - BAe (no systems). So surely it should be a BAe Vulcan?. :rolleyes:

Gloster Typhoon, anyone? Hawker were too busy to make the Typhoon (working on the Tempest, etc), and the work was farmed out to Glosters. Since the RAFM's Tiffie survived by dint of being a late production example that never entered service, it should be captioned as a Gloster Typhoon.

So either the Vulcan caption's wrong or the Tiffie caption is wrong. Can't have it both ways.

Also, if this is correct, my old Rover was a BAe 216, or maybe even a BMW 216.

Quite daft....

[Jackonicko]

Had always understood that aircraft were named according to the identity of the Design Authority - usually the manufacturer of that airframe/variant. Thus night-fighter Meteors are Armstrong Whitworth Meteors, and the Avro Vulcan B.Mk 1 became the Hawker Siddeley Vulcan in its B.Mk 2 form, while the Sea Hawk was an Armstrong Whitworth fighter derived from a Hawker prototype. In the case of wartime aircraft produced by multiple manufacturers - like your Typhoon example, the Design Authority (Hawker) provides the name.

Didn't say it was logical or clear, just believe that to be the reason.

[Archimedes]

Jacko,

I sort of agree, but...

The Vulcan B2 was designed by Avro well before Avro became part of HSA. Now, once HSA took over, fair enough (in a way)since that company became the DA, although the Avro division of HSA was directly responsible. However, once HSA was nationalised, BAe became the DA. The Vulcan in question is either an Avro Vulcan B2 on the basis that A V Roe Ltd designed and built it or a BAe Vulcan B2 on the grounds that BAe were the DA when it left service.

I'd be mildly interested (but can't work up that much enthusiasm...) to know whether the RAFM refer to the Victor as the Handley Page Victor, the HSA Victor (since they were the DA for the K2) or the BAe Victor (on the same grounds as for the Vulcan post nationalisation. Also, is the Hunter (last seen leaving RAF service in 2000) now the BAe Hunter, or did it remain HSA??

The whole thing is really just a case of people being sloppy - there's no obvious consitency in how this is done.

[BEagle]

The Chipmunks I flew were 'De Havilland', the Gnats were 'Folland', the Hunters were 'Hawker', the Vulcans were 'Avro', the Bulldogs and Wetdreams were 'Scottish Aviation' - but for some odd reason the Jet Provost was BAC and the Buccaneer was HS!

But the VC10 is still the 'Vickers' Funbus.....

[Jackonicko]

It's who is the DA at some (probably variable) time between contract and service entry, not exit. Thus by the time the Vulcan B.Mk 2 went to Handling Squadron for pilot's notes and other documentation to be prepared, it was HSA.

The Victor K2 is also (yuk!) HSA.

The VC 10 is thus probably BAC, officially, since Vickers ceased to be in '64 with the formation of BAC. Also, the BAC name seems to have been officially retrospectively adopted by the RAF for some types, including the Lightning and maybe the Canberra and JP.

[DamienB]

The answer to this really lies in how much of an anal spotter you are.

I've never heard anybody who worked on or flew Vulcans describe them as 'Hawker-Siddeley Vulcans'. I thought HS had been around since the 30s, and Avro were part of them from then - so is it the HS Anson? Naaaaaaaah.

I think the RAFM have more pressing matters to attend to than their naming conventions - like the leaky roof in the main display hall perhaps? Wasn't nice to see the Lanc perched over a huge puddle last time I visited, and I suspect large quantities of water do a hell of a lot more harm than having the lights on bright enough to avoid people crashing into things and having to bring NukeEmTilTheyGlow (tm) flash attachments for their cameras.

[WebPilot]

Even the RAFM isn't consistent on the website - the Cosford Vulcan is just listed as 'Vulcan'.

[Vee2]

Was designed and built by Avro as a combine harvester, but when they discovered it was too big to go through field gates they handed it over to HSA for use as bomber. Nuff said.

[Max R8]

It seems to me that the solution is to attribute aircraft types to the original design team company. So it would be the DH 125, Beagle Bulldog, Blackburn Bucc, Handley Page Jetstream and the VC10K still has Vickers logos on the control yoke so that settles that!
Conversly, if they are attributed to the company that built them then the Canberra PR9 and Brittania (RAF ones) should be Shorts types!

Oh God! My closet spotterdom is all exposed! I'd better burn those photos I took in Greece!!!

By the way Beagle, wasn't the Chippy DH Canada? :p

[Greg Baddeley]

Anyone out there recall Raymond Baxter's Airshow commentary from the mid-seventies (can't remember the show, it may have been a Biggin Hill BoB Day)

"And now, the Vickers Vulcan"

Aaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrggggggggggggghhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!

We still love him though!

[Blacksheep]

I'm astonished that the RAF Museum haven't checked the aircraft manuals. All the ones I ever used referred to the dear old lady as "Avro" and even included the A.V. Roe logo on the title page.

The convention dates back at least to the war when aircraft and vehicles were built and delivered under contracts with a wide variety of companies. Nevertheless, they were always identified by the name of the designers, not the name of the builders with whom the contracts were placed. They'll be waffling on about the Ford Jeep next!

**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

[newswatcher]

If "Avro" is OK for Duxford, and the "Vulcan Operating Company", guess it's OK for me!

Also, nice little canned history here:

http://www.barryt.co.uk/vulcan2.htm

[Evanelpus]

Admired them for yonks as a lad and was very lucky to have worked on them for 10 years at the HS plant at Bitteswell, they were always referred to as AVRO Vulcans. In all that time I never heard anyone from the company refer to them as HS Vulcans.

[WebPilot]

Blacksheep,

At the risk of pedantry, as it happens I have an early Ford built jeep. It has 'Ford' stamped into the metal of the rear panel and there are a lot of differences between the Ford GPW and the Willy's MB. For example the front frame cross member on a Ford is a steel tube, the Willy's uses a U-shaped pressed steel part. Later built jeeps had more in common as the body tub became a common version manufactured by a compoent supplier for both Ford and Willy's.

The Hotchkiss firm built them in France after the war and the Hotchkiss jeeps differ in several ways.

Going right back though, there was considerable debate over who actually originated the design - Willys or Bantam. The Federal Trade Commission in 1943 stated that "In truth and in fact, the idea of creating the Jeep was originated by the American Bantam Car Co. of Butler, PA, in collaboration with certain officers of the United States Army, and the same was developed by the American Bantam Car Co. in collaboration with said officers AND NOT BY THE RESPONDENT, WILLY'S-OVERLAND MOTORS, INC."

So. Any clearer?

[Busta]

I flew it all through the 70's, don't care who built it, jolly fine aeroplane!

Nothing matters very much, most things don't matter at all.

[Blacksheep]

My apologies WebPilot,

On the Car, General Purpose I stand corrected. But the magnificent Avro is still an Avro.

**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

[BEagle]

Yes - a magnificent beast. Outfoxing fighters at FL 510+ (yes, I know that was above the normal limit) was fun, M0.84 turns at FL 410.....at 45 deg AoB were merely part of the Instrument Rating Test. Could easily crack M0.92 and above (rather too far above on one occasion, I have to admit!), transatlantic range and the ability to carry 27000 lb of bombs.

A pity that the world lead we had with this aircraft was allowed to be lost - a non-nuclear development with modern avionics and weapons systems would have been pretty awesome!

[Blue Stuff]

... as would the Avro London, the projected airliner development. Shame it never progressed beyond the model stage.

Incidentally, and on a similar note, was the Vulcan powered by BRISTOL Olympus or R-R Olympus? Only stirring. Belated Merry Christmas one and all.

Blue.

[Blacksheep]

Blue Stuff,

After the Rolls/Bristol merger, all our Olympus engines returned from overhaul with a brass plate affixed next to the data plate reading:

Overhauled by the Standard Motor Company Ltd.

so I suppose the mighty Olympus really became a Standard Olympus. :)

(Until the Frogs got involved that is...)

**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

[Flatus Veteranus]

It was "arranged" in '73 that a Vulcan on a Ranger should go u/s for a week at Offutt AFB, Neb (HQSAC). A team from Boeing Dynamics had a good look at it and in double-quick time produced a detailed engineering, and fully costed, proposal for a SRAM (Short Range Attack Missile) installation. This study was done at Boeing's expense and would have been a bargain because the B52s were being upgraded with the same system as a penetration aid. Part of the package would have been a military-grade INS, which might have done one of the chaps down the back out of a job. I do not believe that the study was even properly read by the wheels at HQSTC; it sank without trace, together with a number of other well thought-out ideas to exploit the superb Vulcan airframe once its Great Detergent days were over. Nothing was to be allowed to disturb the progress of the MRCA white elephant. A number of brave souls voiced their opinion that we were buying an offensive airframe without adequate range and payload together with an air defence variant that would be unable to contest airspace with third world air forces. They were ridden over roughshod. So today we have the predicted and humiliating situation in which the RAF for the first time has been unable to contribute directly to a major Western air campaign. Our masters seem quite content with this situation and to manoeuvre the British army into a position where it can operate only with the consent and support of a foreign air force. The architects of the disaster were mainly light blue, have long since retired to their plush Directorships, and are beginning to die off, festooned with "Ks" and peerages. I shed no tears for them. I spit. <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> <img src="mad.gif" border="0">

[Man-on-the-fence]

[quote]the RAF for the first time has been unable to contribute directly to a major Western air campaign. <hr></blockquote>

Now dont forget the glowing praise heaped upon the Vickers Funbus or Beagle will get upset.

Did my eyes decieve me or did I not see F-18's (sorry that F/A-18C's) pounding 'ol bin liners botty over Afghaniwhatsit?? Not the longest legged machine (without AAR) I'm sure you'll agree.

So, VC-10's apart perhaps the reason that we could not contribute is not that the Tornado has short legs, but that we dont have an Aircraft Carrier capability worth toffee.

Tornado IDS is (reportedly) a decent bit of kit. Tornado ADV is good against mass formations of bombers and not much else.

Agree about the Vulcan being wasted though. can you imagine what old johnny Afghan would have been thinking when something the size of a Vulcan came swooping over his head. <img src="cool.gif" border="0"> (well its a nice thought)

Other than that you hit the nail squarely on the head.


Oh and BTW it'll always be an AVRO

[ 28 December 2001: Message edited by: Man-on-the-fence ]</p>

[BEagle]

Hmmm - but the Great British Public, not to mention most Air Officers, think that the RAF consists virtually entirely of pointy jets.

Peters and Lee flew a Tornado in the Gulf, Our Brave Navy Boys flew Sea Harriers in the Islas Malvinas where Vulcans also made long range bombing trips. Supported by nearly 2 dozen Victors each time, of course. Hercules drop bags of food to famine victims, helicopters rescue grockles from hilltops - but the average mug punter hasn't the foggiest idea what really goes on.

Plus Blair's government-sponsored gun-runners, otherwise known as DESO, aren't interested in flogging big aeroplanes for export, only the rather tardy Bureaufighter. Even that is now losing sales to Gripen. Shame.

[Timball]

As Busta says , A Jolly Fine Aeroplane ,

[Reheat On]

Interesting how the only aircraft actually doing any work are Nimrod [well worn, lots of crew, long range, big bomb bay] Canberra PR9 [outrageously old, outrageously good - knockin spots off the satellites - longish range - 2/3 crew - decent bomb bay] C130/C17 [nuff said] and the Funbus/Trimotor fleet [nuff said]. Who'd wannabe an FJ jock these days?

The Yanks have of course put lots of shiny hardware into theatre, but banned the tankers from being anywhere useful. Could this be the way things will be under FSTA.

My 'birth of a rumour' source says that the present situation has led to a desire in high circles to can the PPP FSTA initiative and keep the whole thing military, and therefore give the UK President greater world stage capability. Brown's purse has been peeled open it seems.

Could it be that politics is becoming a little moe feet on the ground? Nah........ <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

[BEagle]

Reheat On - the best Christmas present ever for the AT/AAR force would be to hear that the ridiculous idea of PPP for FSTA had been $hit-canned. Keep core military activity totally military? Seems a bit too obvious.......

A certain Big Airline has a number of eminently suitable airframes it wishes to dispose of, plenty of work has doubtless been done by the OEM on planning a mod programme to turn the aircraft into a military tanker/transport - if the PPP is binned then the RAF could operate an aircraft with rather greater fuel capacity than that proposed by the PPP bidder beacuse it would not need the large freight capacity needed by the bidder to derive sufficient revenue to make his business plan viable.

A couple of dozen 767Ks with 90-ish tonnes of fuel, 3 seats on the flight deck, 3 hoses and a suitable number of pax seats please, Gordon!!

[Flatus Veteranus]

M-o-t-F
BEagle
et al

The word "directly" was snuck into my rant to pay due regard to the splendid work being done by the tankers and recce chaps.
Even BAe were deeply suspicious of the two Buccaneers used at Warton as avionic testbeds for the IDS. They were obviously asking themselves what their shiny new bird would be able to do that the "re-avionicked" Bucc couldn't do "more of, further". OK, a short supersonic dash; but info coming out of 'Nam was already suggesting that, if you could hold 0.9M/200ft, going lower and faster was not going to buy you much more security. A fleet of new-build Buccs (RAF & FAA) would have been more useful and left cash in the till for an off-the-shelf fighter. If you insist on trying to play the Great Game, you either provide the bases in theatre or you build a brace of strike carriers (these things always seem to come in pairs). As for the Vulcan, imagine a radical change of role in the early 70s: some as "bomber busters" with AI radar and a battery of LRAAMs; the rest as non-penetrating ordnance deliverers. To save training and manpower costs, reduce crew to one pilot (as per original design) and 2 systems operators. A decent attack radar and 21 x 1,000lb JDAMS - now that would have been a useful directcontribution.
An interesting piece ("Information Warriors")by Alexander Nicoll in the FT 29/30 Dec.

"...Timeliness matters as much as accuracy...After the Gulf War the Pentagon set a target of 10 minutes from "sensor to shooter" - the gap between information being received and a weapon being fired. In Afghanistan, with US aircraft waiting in the skies to receive targetting information from special forces on the ground, that goal may have been achieved. If so, Afghanistan is likely to mark the beginning of "network-centric warfare" in which all sensors and weapons are linked into a communications network, allowing all threats to be rapidly eliminated..."

And presumably you could blame "the network" for any blue-on-blue or collateral damage incidents?

[BEagle]

Hi FV!!

Funnily enough, the idea of a Vulcan fitted with the AI system of the F-14 and a belly full of Phoenix working long range forward CAPs was someting I kicked around the crewroom in the late 70s myself...

The 'Vulcan was originally designed for 1 man' story is surely one of those apocryphal urban myths? I'd heard that it was always designed for 2 but was only flown by 1 on early flights because only 1 bang seat had been delivered.

The trials Buccaneers were indeed a thorn in BWoS' side! With the development nose fitted they had reduced drag at high IAS, carried a substantial internal bomb load and went like stink. I'd heard a story that the trials crews were told to avoid doing too well as people would indeed have wondered about the GR1 being inferior in most repects.... The same applied to the trials Lightnings at Warton, I understand, which often severely embarassed the F2! We were tasked to tank one some years ago - when we were asked to descend as the F2 was struggling to stay in contact in anything over a 20 deg AoB turn, you could almost hear the chuckles from the so-called 'target' Lightning!!

Ah well - it'll soon be 2002. Another year has slipped by with still no sign of Bureaufighter entering service. But Gripen sales are doing well.......!!

[Flatus Veteranus]

Hi BEagle!

You may be right about the originally planned number of pilots, but I find it difficult to believe that even AVP70's pygmy view of the average RAF pilot's dimensions could have committed us to a cockpit of the Vulcan's proportions intending it to be inhabited by 2 human beings! When you pushed in the fuel console there was a gap, if I remember, of less than 6 ins between the two bang-seats through which a 40-year-old and already corpulent Sqn Cdr was expected to insert himself! Once I was installed, the most demanding bit of the trip was over!. I believe a decent "Captain's chair" in the middle (bug*ger the bang seat!) with a sexy new glass cockpit, INS, GPS would have done the business. What was the co for, anyway, other than fiddling with the CofG slipstick, co0llecting the grub and doing the imprest?

[BEagle]

Access to the Vulcan flight deck was never particularly easy; I used to do a sort of sideways wriggle between the seats, sit down bum first then get my feet past the fuel console, put on the leg restraints and then strap in. Not that difficult even for a fully paid-up member of Athleics Anonymous (if you feel like doing something to make yourself fit, phone up a mate to talk you out of it and get a heavier glass!).

Co-pilot duties were primarily RAF - Rations And Fuel. But low level map reading and visual bombing skills became much more important once we'd binned the stupid 'Main Link Route' and used IPs and 50K maps like everyone else instead of relying on the Nav Radar alone; he who sees, controls meant that a seamless handover of fighter evasion handling skills between pilots also became important. But there were still the idle slobs around who never set themselves a challenge, chose all the easy radar targets and only ever flew the East Coast route.......

[BEagle]

Nope - not me!!

We were at FL450 rather than our normal FL410 on a particular route over the UK (err, not that far from Bawtry!). We'd asked for descent, ATC were slow in responding (we were probably in the infamous Midland Radar overhead!). As you will recall, the descent point was quite critical as though one could easily manage 500-600 KTAS at height, we were limited at low level to around 300 KIAS. So when we were cleared for descent, instead of the usual technique of extending mid-drag airbrake, allowing the trim change to pitch you into the descent after 7 seconds, stabilising the IMN/IAS, closing the throttles and then extending high-drag, I decided to close the throttles, extend high drag and stuff the nose down. I figured that the extra drag would allow a far greater rate of descent to be achieved as the aircraft accelerated against the drag. Well it did that all right - and it wasn't just the extra 4000ft of altitude that contributed to the cock-up, it was the fact that I'd forgotten about the trim change and after 7 seconds we entered a far steeper dive than I'd intended. The speed rushed rapidly upwards to at least M0.97 (when I stopped looking). Remember that bit about auto-mach trim applying 75% up elevon just to maintain attitude at M0.97? - well, it's true. That left me only 25% elevon remaining with which to effect a recovery.....so it was a question of just holding the attitude as best I could and waiting for denser air to win by reducing the IMN corrsponding to our IAS. There was much concern from 'downstairs': "It's b£oody noisy down here" said the Nav Plotter, "Well it's gone b£oody quiet up here..." said the Captain. We hurtled downwards at a helluva rate, nearly boomed HQ 1 Group at Bawtry......but sorted out the timing error pretty well.....

[ 31 December 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]</p>

[Flatus Veteranus]

BEagle

My disparaging remarks about tho role of Vulcan Cos was tongue-in-cheek. Even in my day there were low level routes (eg, Goose and Libya) where reliable radar fixes were sparse and map-reading with two pairs of eyes was the name of the game. I don't think that would apply with GPS. Since we are in confessional mode, I remember one night at low level when we were running in for a low level lay-down attack on an RBSU target. As I remember it, for this particular type of attack you had to accelerate from en route speed (about 250KIAS) to something around 300 KIAS at bomb release. Having opened the taps for the acceleration, I was distracted by something the Co wanted to show me and when I got my mind back on the job the needle was well through 400 and going round the dial like a rocket. The surplus thrust at low level was incredible! We had a rather silent RTB.

[BEagle]

Have to admit to well above 350KIAS at well below 100 ft when saying 'goodbye' to a certain static display at an aerodrome near Bury St Edmunds in 1978 - right across the ASP between the hangars and the ATC tower - followed by a gentle pull-up to 30 deg nose-up, a wingover at 120 deg AoB back to the horizon and back to sunny Scampton....and yes, we did get hugely in the $hit for that - but I was only the co-piglet and I voss only obeyink orders!!

B£oody good beat up though.....

[BEagle]

430 KIAS at sea level. Deduced empirically from the analysis of the Syerston accident with a much weaker prototype airframe.

Cranwell flypast was at 72 ft agl, I understand! The tape is astonishing, but one of a F4 flyby at Alice was even more spectacular (and b£oody dangerous!).

[jbc2001]

Interesting about the "free" SRAM mod from Boeing. In the early 80s at the Lazy B, they put out a picture of their entrant for what became the B-2. It was nothing more than a Vulcan with a then-in-vogue twin fin layout!