Shorts Belfast

[dunc0936]

Short Belfast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Belfast)



Its a shame not more were made and continually updated as could have been just as good if not better than the C130 but as usual the American's have screwed the country over if the Wikipedia artical is correct.

is there anyone on here that flew in one and could compare the Belfast to the 70's C130?

Duncan

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Here we go again!

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/505435-when-we-had-aircraft-industry-our-own.html

Oh well, when you start your Harrier thread in due course, you'll find at least one stalwart supporter...

[Dengue_Dude]

I think they built ten . . . all different, shame they didn't build 15 and add a few more variations.

I only paxed in one once but it was pretty cavernous, we sat on pax seats on the ramp. Quite nice crew transport from what I gathered from colleagues who flew on 53.

Saw one in Gan with 3 Wessex onboard - that was impressive (in those days). They used to fly about 10,000' below us and about 50 knots or so slower (ish).

[dunc0936]

I'm Sure there are many aircraft that could be mentioned including the Harrier and maybe the Nimrod. Either I don't understand the aircraft industry or the political thinking of the time enough to fathom it all out

[SASless]

...as usual the American's have screwed the country over....


Seems the Green Eyed Monster is alive and well!:=

You Aviation Industry....what there is of it....went away along with your Empire.....trodding off hand in hand into the Sunset.

Deal with it!:uhoh:

[barnstormer1968]

Hmmm, green eyed monster eh. Surely that would mean the poster was jealous. Why would they be jealous rather than angry at how the Americans have stitched up the Brits several times, and now just re run contests when non U.S. products win!

As the our aviation disappearing, that's just ill informed IMHO.

SAS you seem a bit bitter recently.

[Archimedes]

SAS -the British aviation industry did not go away; it consolidated and downsized and was nationalised for a period, but it is still ranked as the 2nd or 3rd largest in the world, dependent upon the way the figures are interpreted.

Dunc - in 1965, the conditions which the US wished to seek to impose for support for an additional loan from the IMF were based around the desire to see the UK staying east of Suez, and (LBJ hoped) sending troops to Vietnam. There were much bigger fish to fry than cancelling 20 Belfasts for C-130s - which, in any event, were the replacement for the HS681 rather than additional Belfasts. If any skulduggery occurred, it'd have been the HS681 that got it in the neck.[1] And with respect, while the US has often pursued its interests in a manner which upsets the Daily Mail and which gives the lie to ideas of extra-special friendship/treatment


The question you ask about the Belfast is covered in some detail here (http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/483264-short-belfast-why.html)

[1] - And the alleged skulduggery is probably along the lines of that seen with TSR2: non-existent. In that case, the US attitude was one of 'They're cancelling [/I] it? Seriously?, and concern over the implications of having the Canberra 8 in service in Europe in the 1970s was in no small part responsible for the US falling over to offer good terms for the F-111. Remember also that the Labour government had a very jaundiced view of the British aircraft industry - Healey used the phrase "wet nursing mentally retarded children" - see here (http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1965/jan/19/defence-aircraft-orders), although note his claims as to what he was referring to - while concern over project management and rising defence costs was growing; buying OTS in the form of Phantom and Hercules was not exactly the most stupid idea that Wilson's administration ever had.

[huntaluvva]

Duncs

You may like to do a bit of digging on this Forum before quoting Wikipaedia:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/290174-were-you-belfast-any-sign-scurvy.html

Not called the Belslow without good reason.

HL

[Pontius Navigator]

The Belfast was an interesting aircraft though. Without going in to the whole story which has been recounted before, at Masirah on one occasion, the Belfast concerned had a flight refuelling probe. As it had the probe this reduced it uplift by 102 lbs. Headwinds were forecast so it had to have full fuel so it planned load had to be reduced by a couple of passengers.

Pretty tight margins for the hop to Akrotiri via Iran.

On the probe fit, same question arises as on the Valiant thread. Just how much money was wasted fitting probes to a whole host of aircraft without having any plans for a realistic tanker programme?

I presume it was a scheme to get the Belfast with heavier loads through to the far east.

[AGS Man]

Some years ago when the FLA program was reviewed some genius came out with the term Best FLA, interesting that it's an anagram of Belfast!

[Heathrow Harry]

Pontius - by "realistic" do you mean the ability to refuel a lot of the fleet at one time or the ability to ocaaionaly refuel the odd aircraft

I suspect that, in those far off days, the apparent cost of fitting a probe etc was the considered worthwhile just in case you might need it one day - no clever dick analysis and cost benefit malarkey - just planning for the worst

[Bigpants]

Probe a good idea for it's day re Belfast.

When the RAF decided not have voyager equipped with a boom I wrote to my MP pointing out it seemed daft given the C17 based on the same airfield and a boom might be handy re inter operability...

Got the usual platitudes, RAF C17 does not need AAR goes for miles, did not want boom over third basket etc.

So here we are then three baskets which do not fit probes and in the meantime the RAF has a few rivet joint aircraft which need a boom....

The old school attitude of bolting one on just in case holds good for me.

Final point what was the worse project in terms of design, engineering, politics and costs?

Belfast or A400?

[Pontius Navigator]

Pontius - by "realistic" do you mean the ability to refuel a lot of the fleet at one time or the ability to ocaaionaly refuel the odd aircraft

I suspect that, in those far off days, the apparent cost of fitting a probe etc was the considered worthwhile just in case you might need it one day - no clever dick analysis and cost benefit malarkey - just planning for the worst

HH, at the time of inception, all the V-bombers, the Javelins, the VC10s and the Belfast and, apparently the Argosy, were all capable of receiving from the few Valiant tankers. Was it realistic to provide that capability for so many aircraft of so many different types?

The only one with a realistic requirement was the Javelin. While they flew Vulcans non-stop to Australia the strategic gain was minimal. Unrefuelled they could have got there in may be 60 hours against 20 odd with AAR. That gain of 40 hours would be negated by the time to activate the route. Even activated the route would have been limited to one or two aircraft every 6 hours of so.

Equipping so many aircraft to enable a couple to flight refuel did not make economic sense.

[Fareastdriver]

Had uses for the Lightning, though. It could go quite a long way if you refueled it at the top of its intial climb. Taking them out to Akrotiri was easy enough.

When we got there there was a sudden rush job to get two to Bahrain. On arrival one was taken by a company demo pilot to Ryhad and the result was that the big Saudi contract came to fruition.

[sled dog]

Ref the Javelin ( Mk 9 ) fitment, from memory probe was fixed by a few 1/4 inch bolts to the attachment brackets, plus pipe fittings etc. Easily fitted / removed by a couple of blokes.

[Pontius Navigator]

FED, I was referring to the late '50s early '60s that prescribed a probe for about everything. The Lightning, in the same context as the Javelin had an excellent case for a probe. Clearly by the mid-60s the AAR mafia had had its day as the C130 and Nimrod were not equipped for AAR.

[Heathrow Harry]

Pontius wrote:-

"Equipping so many aircraft to enable a couple to flight refuel did not make economic sense"

agreed - but it made OPERATIONAL sense to maximise the variety of the fleet you could deploy quickly

the decision to fit so may planes was undoubtedly taken when the RAF thought they'd have a much larger number of tankers a la SAC

[Ivan Rogov]

PN, that would be the Nimrod that then needed a rapid probe fit in 1982. I think the Vulcan AAR capability had lapsed, not sure about the C130 or Victor as a receiver though.

AAR for larger aircraft (other than FJ) provides a great deal of flexibility for unplanned events, increasing range or on station time greatly. We used to always have a plan B or C, now we are lucky to have a plan A :(

Not having a boom on the new Voyager is a classic example of how we fail to provide 'agile, adaptable and capable' equipment for our forces or our Allies, no wonder the US are getting fed up with us and the rest of NATO.

[Pontius Navigator]

PN, that would be the Nimrod that then needed a rapid probe fit in 1982. I think the Vulcan AAR capability had lapsed, not sure about the C130 or Victor as a receiver though.

True, neither the C130 nor the Nimrod were AAR capable. I am referring directly to the original procurement strategy where we failed to provide the requisite tanker force to support our receiving capability. The Valiant force was better than the Victor that replaced it but by no means a proper capability. The Vulcan ceased AAR with the demise of the Valiant in 1964; I was on one of the last courses. The Victor 2 did not do AAR either until it was roled as a tanker.

AAR for larger aircraft (other than FJ) provides a great deal of flexibility for unplanned events, increasing range but only if the tankers are pre-deployed otherwise the best would be to increase the payload on departure and top up fuel before proceeding en route.

or on station time greatly. We used to always have a plan B or C, now we are lucky to have a plan A :(

That is a given but the only aircraft that could have benefited from an increased on station time in the 60s was the Valiant ACP,the Valiant Tanker and the V-bomber QRA which never came to fruition after the initial trials as it was never policy to fly with live weapons.

The Comet (51 Sqn) which could have used the extra flexibility was not AAR capable.

Not having a boom on the new Voyager is a classic example of how we fail to provide 'agile, adaptable and capable' equipment for our forces or our Allies, no wonder the US are getting fed up with us and the rest of NATO.

Which is my point from the 60s - failure to provide half the resources.

[BEagle]

While it is true that Voyager should have been fitted for operation in the receiver role either using a probe or a UARRSI, it remains a mystery to me why anyone specified that the Belslow should be fitted with a machmeter!

[Herod]

it remains a mystery to me why anyone specified that the Belslow should be fitted with a machmeter! Agreed; it would have been better to fit a calendar. ;)

[Pontius Navigator]

The mach meter was probably specified by Beverly aircrew given the huge increase of speed approaching the speed of heat.

[dragartist]

In response to Big Pants and others: I am enjoying this thread. Thanks for posting the link to previous info PN. I was still at school in 60s and 70s when Belfast was around. not aware of the politics but it sound a bit like the AWACs story. the RAF always wanted AWACs but Politics and UK industry wanted AEW Nimrod.

Funny how these aircraft were taken out of service and then rented back form H L when something outsize needed shifting. I suppose this was before USSR opened up and An 124 became available. We also borrowed C5 from USA to move the submarine recovery thing before we had C17.

Now for the discussion on A400M vs Belfast:- I have been a A400M sceptic since I first became involved in 1995 when it waqs still a dream. I was hoping it would get canned and we buy C17. Well we did buy the C17 so why do we need A400M?

Well I only recently became a A400M fan having listened to Ed Strongman (Ex C130 and now the A4ooM PTP) My issue withe the A400M was that the cargo hold was only 18" longer than a long C130 (not even a tie down row to the ramp hinge, but I would have to check). Still; what a capable aircraft this is.

What I thing we need once all the A400Ms are delivered is to can the 130s and obtain something much smaller for in theatre shifting and airdropping. US use a CASA - yes part of EADS. They previously used a Short box van. Built in Belfast.

It is not a Europe vs USA procurement argument but best thing for the task. - Remind me of the task buy the way- did we buy C130 to reach the Falklands? No. hence the flap at Marshall in 1982.

As for AAR. take a look at the map. All the red bits went years back.

[ICM]

Yet another Belfast thread! There have been at least 3 here over the last year or so, I think, and I'm mildly surprised at the interest shown in an aircraft of which the RAF only had 10 in all, with 53 Sqn having all 10 for only a very limited number of years. And I would hope that the internal links to some of these threads will help in the taking of another small step towards debunking the 'US pressure' business that Wikipedia appears to be perpetuating.

As to the aircraft's withdrawal from service, the only 'politics' involved were decisions consequent on the 1974 Defence Review which, inter alia, decreed that the Air Transport Force would be cut by half. This led to a numbers-based exercise and, whilst the Belfast fleet survived the first round of fleet and AE reduction announcements in 1975, its demise was not long delayed. It was, of course, obvious all along that the Service's bulk carrying capability would be lost and no surprise at all that this capability, when operationally essential, would have to be leased back from Heavylift or, indeed, from the USAF. And for dragartist, you are quite correct. This all happened way before the An 124 was built, and many more years before any prospect of leasing from the former Soviet Union existed. An organic capability was deleted from the inventory as a policy decision - it was really that simple, and that has happened again to other forces in recent years.

[Mk 1]

IR: Not having a boom on the new Voyager is a classic example

Given that just about every nation that has ordered the A330 MRTT have opted for the boom, would it be that difficult to get a boom retrofitted at a later stage? Quite apart from adding utility to the airframe and adding capability to existing assets, for refuelling the larger aircraft you are talking about the fuel transfer rate is 2 to 3 times faster aren't you?

Maybe some a55hat in procurement thought that they'd save money up front as we can just glue one on later? Or does it have more to do with the fact that these are essentially civvy airframes being operated by a civvy company and they will find it easier to sell the airframes later without the additional plumbing over and above the wing pods?

Edit: Ah, just did some reading on the 'procurement' - contract issues. I can see the conversation happening with the civvy contractor who no doubt were dead set against a boom as it would be a far more significant penalty to range/payload when the civvies were operating it as a charter plane. Same with the refuelling recepticle - added weight - less payload for civvy ops. At which point the MOD should have realised the tail was wagging the dog and exited stage right. I have seen outsourcing first hand in the ADF - the perceived savings don't materialize OR the short term savings are there but the longer term impacts from those using the service provided are more costly.

[Finnpog]

Another point Mk. 1 is that as no boom (AIUI) was part of the specification for the contract with AirTanker; then the harsh world of RealPolitik, Business & Commerce would see some eye-watering quotes from the single source supplier were the MoD to go and ask for an 'extra' to alter that spec.

[Torquelink]

Agreed; it would have been better to fit a calendar.

And didn't it suffer bird strikes from behind . . .?

[Pontius Navigator]

I thought that was the Beverly.

[SASless]

Bristow Helicopters used the Belfast to deliver some Bell 212's and Kit to Somalia....required major dis-assembly of the aircraft. Rotor blades off, Head and Mast off, Tail Booms off....resulting in three days of work to get the three aircraft flyable after being delivered.


Canadian Helicopters used the Russian Beastie.....only one Tail Rotor Blade had to be removed as I recall.

All their aircraft were up and running within an hour or two after arrival.

Evergreen used a C-130.....damaged both the 212 and the 130 dragging the helicopter into the Herc.

[Pontius Navigator]

Bristow Helicopters used the Belfast to deliver some Bell 212's and Kit to Somalia....required major dis-assembly of the aircraft. Rotor blades off, Head and Mast off, Tail Booms off....resulting in three days of work to get the three aircraft flyable after being delivered.


Canadian Helicopters used the Russian Beastie.....only one Tail Rotor Blade had to be removed as I recall.

All their aircraft were up and running within an hour or two after arrival.

Evergreen used a C-130.....damaged both the 212 and the 130 dragging the helicopter into the Herc.

And the cost/benefit analysis?

We did one comparing putting an F3 in the back of the AN224 or tanking it to FI. I don't know which worked out best in terms of fuel burn and F3 /tanker hours and charter/time down.

[SASless]

No comparison PN.....when you fetch in your fleet of 25 helicopters in two lifts, and only have to put one tail rotor blade on per aircraft, fuel the aircraft....and get to work earning Revenue....as compared to fetching them in three at a time and taking three days to put them back together before going to work.

Even by RAF math....the Belfast falls short of the mark as compared to the competition.

The Belfast just didn't cut the mustard....in uniform or out.

[Madbob]

SAS

Here's a copy of an earlier post that you may have missed.......

Here's a comparison of the predicted performance of the A400 versus those venerable workhorses of the air which in design terms date from 50 (yes 50!) years ago. The max payload of the A400 is 82,000 lbs, C 133 110,000 lbs, Belfast 80,000 lbs and the Herc (C130 H) 45,000 lbs. Max cruise speeds are very similar, 350 mph, 359 mph, 358 mph and 336 mph respectively.

The range of the A400 with a 20 tonne payload (btw this woul be a full load for a Herc) is projected at 3,753 nm for the A400 and with 23.5 tonnes the C133 could go 3,560 nm, the Belfast could do about 3,600 miles and the Herc only 2,050 nms.

The A400 has 4 x 11,000 shp, the C 133 4 x 7,500 shp, the Belfast 4 x 5,730 shp and the C 130 4 x 4,300 shp.

The real question is what would each aeroplane cost to build in today's prices and whether the A400 really is giving us value for money for what might seem a modest improvement in performance.




General characteristics - A400M

Crew: 3-4 (2 pilots, 3rd optional, 1 loadmaster)
Capacity: 37,000 kg (82,000 lb), 116 fully equipped troops / paratroops, up to 66 stretchers accompanied by 25 medical personnel
Length: 43.8 m (143 ft 8 in)
Wingspan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingspan): 42.4 m (139 ft 1 in)
Height: 14.6 m (47 ft 11 in)
Empty weight: 70 tonnes (154,000 lb)
Max takeoff weight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_Takeoff_Weight): 130 tonnes (287,000 lb)


Total Internal Fuel: 46.7 tonnes (103,000 lb)
Max. Landing Weight: 114 tonnes (251,000 lb)
Max. Payload: 37 tonnes (82,000 lb))


Powerplant: 4× EuroProp International TP400 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EuroProp_International_TP400)-D6[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A400M#cite_note-9) turboprop, 8,250 kW (11,000 hp) each
Performance

Maximum speed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds#Vno): 300 knots CAS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calibrated_airspeed) (560 km/h, 350 mph)
Cruise speed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds#Vc):Mach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_number) 0.68 - 0.72 ()


Initial Cruise Altitude: at MTOW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_Take-Off_Weight): 9,000 m (29,000 ft)


Range (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_%28aircraft%29): at Max. payload: 3,300 km (1,782 nmi) (long range cruise speed; reserves as per MIL-C-5011A)

Range at 30-tonne payload: 4,800 km (2,592 nmi)
Range at 20-tonne payload: 6,950 km (3,753 nmi))

Ferry range (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferry_range): 9,300 km (5,022 nmi)
Service ceiling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceiling_%28aeronautics%29) 11,300 m (37,000 ft)


Tactical Takeoff Distance: 940 m (3 080 ft) (aircraft weight 100 tonnes, soft field, ISA, sea level)
Tactical Landing Distance: 625 m (2 050 ft) (see above)
Turning Radius (Ground): 28.6 m



General characteristics - C133 Cargomaster

Crew: six (two pilots, two engineers, navigator, loadmaster)
Capacity: Designed as a logistics transport, the C-133 carried only small numbers of passengers, usually associated with the cargo.
Payload (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payload_%28air_and_space_craft%29): 110,000 lb (50,000 kg)
Length: 157 ft 6 in (48.0 m)
Wingspan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingspan): 179 ft 8 in (54.8 m)
Height: 48 ft 3 in (14.7 m)
Wing area: 2,673.1 ft² (248.34 m²)
Empty weight: 109,417 lb (49,631 kg)
Loaded weight: 275,000 lb (125,000 kg)
Max takeoff weight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_Takeoff_Weight): 275,000 lb (C-133A) / 286,000 lb (C-133B) (125,000 kg (C-133A) / 130,000 kg (C-133B))
Powerplant: 4× Pratt & Whitney T34 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pratt_%26_Whitney_T34&action=edit&redlink=1)-P-9W turboprops (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboprop), 7,500 shp (5,586 kW) each
* Cargo deck : 86 ft 10 in (26.47 m)
Performance

Maximum speed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds#Vno): 312 kt (359 mph / 578 km/h)
Cruise speed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds#Vc): 280 kt (322 mph / 519 km/h)
Range (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_%28aircraft%29): 3,560 nm with 52,000 lb (23,587 kg) payload (4,097 mi / 6,590 km)
Service ceiling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceiling_%28aeronautics%29) 32,300 ft (9,800 m)
General characteristics - Belfast C Mk 1

Crew: Basic aircrew 4 (two pilots, engineer & navigator/radio operator) plus reserve crew
Capacity: 11,750 cu. ft.
Payload (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payload_%28air_and_space_craft%29): 80,000 lb (36,288 kg)
Length: 136 ft 5 in (41.70 m)
Wingspan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingspan): 158 ft 10 in (48.1 m)
Height: 47 ft (14.33 m)
Wing area: 2,466 ft² (229.1 m²)
Empty weight: 130,000 lb (59,020 kg)
Max takeoff weight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_Takeoff_Weight): 230,000 lb (104,300 kg)
Powerplant: 4× Rolls-Royce Tyne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Tyne) R.Ty.12, Mk. 101 turboprops, Hawker Siddeley Dynamics 4/7000/fully-feathering airscrews of 16 ft. diam., 5,730 ehp (4,270 kW) each
Performance

Cruise speed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds#Vc): 358 mph (576 km/h)
Range (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_%28aircraft%29): 5,200 miles (8,368 km) with capacity fuel load of 80,720 lb
Service ceiling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceiling_%28aeronautics%29) 30,000 ft (9,100 m)
Rate of climb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_climb): 1,060 ft/min (323 m/min)
Range with maximum payload: 970 miles (1,560 km)

General characteristics - C 130 H

Crew: 4-6: at least 2 pilots,1 flight engineer (eliminated in the J variant, replaced by crew chief), and 1 loadmaster; additional loadmaster and navigator are usually part of the crew
Capacity:


92 passengers or
64 airborne troops or
74 litter patients with 2 medical personnel

Payload (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payload_%28air_and_space_craft%29): 45,000 lb (20,000 kg) including 2-3 Humvees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Mobility_Multipurpose_Wheeled_Vehicle) or an M113 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M113) Armored Personnel Carrier
Length: 97 ft 9 in (29.8 m)
Wingspan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingspan): 132 ft 7 in (40.4 m)
Height: 38 ft 3 in (11.6 m)
Wing area: 1,745 ft² (162.1 m²)
Empty weight: 83,000 lb (38,000 kg)
Useful load: 72,000 lb (33,000 kg)
Max takeoff weight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_Takeoff_Weight): 155,000 lb (70,300 kg)
Powerplant: 4× Allison T56-A-15 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_T56)turboprops (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboprop), 4,300 shp (3,210 kW) each
Performance

Maximum speed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds#Vno): 329 knots (379 mph, 610 km/h)
Cruise speed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds#Vc): 292 knots (336 mph, 540 km/h)
Range (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_%28aircraft%29): 2,050 nm (2,360 mi, 3,800 km)
Service ceiling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceiling_%28aeronautics%29) 33,000 ft (10,000 m)

[tornadoken]

In 1957-60 Govt. had difficulty with re-equipment for Transport Command and the overseas Transport Units. By then it was already evident that best-of-class was C-130, but we had no $. 23 Britannias were taken and much of this work was put into State-owned Shorts. 14 VC10s were diverted from BOAC and 13 of their fuselages also came from Shorts. Under 1958/60 "rationalisation" of the industry, Shorts involvement in English Electric's bid to (to be TSR.2) was deleted. Abortive efforts were made by the Ministry of Aviation to interest anybody in taking Shorts off-the-books, so something had to go in to keep their Experimental resource intact.

Blue Streak IRBM needed some means of conveying trials rounds to Oz. There were also notions of shifting operational rounds between UK sites; there were notions of moving RAF's Thors: none was clearly thought through. All lapsed with Blue Streak cancellation 13/4/60. But by then Govt. had decided to take 10 (to be Belfast). Wings would come from Bristol Aircraft, back end from Saunders Roe: all this was make-work: Saro had to be given some form of backlog to entice Westland to take them on (14/7/59), and Bristol, ditto, to cause the TSR.2 winner, EE+Vickers, to accept them as 20% equity partner in BAC (18/12/59). That is why Belfast was not chopped with Blue Streak, and was retained despite buying Argosy (20 in 1959,+36, 1961).

Please dismiss silly nonsense about US machinations: it was quite the reverse. US offered per-event rent of C-133A Cargomaster (their own IRBM/ICBM lifter): to defeat that, MoA and RAF connived to invent a wholly-spurious blind landing Requirement, necessitating a UK-bespoke solution. Leader Cable was installed at Brize and the (Trident) Smiths system was expensively fitted. Never used, again because nobody thought the thing through. In Cat.IIIa visibility conditions the aircraft might be able to follow a man with a torch from runway to terminal, where its cargo would sit snug until its ground transport could move out...in Mk.1 eyeball conditions.

The type was not designed to carry heavy, dense freight on long sectors. The cube was for an empty phallus.

[gopher01]

The Bev was renown for having birdstrikes from in front caused when the birds overtook but cut the move across the nose a little too close as listed in my rather tatty copy of " Bye Bye Bev " from Air Clues that was printed on papyrus! Along with many other little humourus gems about a splendid aircraft.

[ex_rigger]

As a Rigger working on Line Sqdn at Brize from 1970 to the aircrafts demise I think we all had a bit of a `Love Hate` relationship with the Belfast. A bit like the Lightning techies.
I am sure there will be a few Riggers out there remembering the long hours toiling with: Hydraulic cycling timing, Slow U/C retraction and lowering. Target speeds, The dreaded Air-conditioning snags, standing next to the prop in low ground idle while you poked a piece of locking wire down the compressor to ascertain if it was in min or max flow. Aircraft returning with Aircon Emergency Spill Valves tripped. Why? God only knew. The Air Eng pulled the fuses from the compressors on `take off` keeping the compressors in `Min Flow`. Inserting them one at a time once in the the cruise, no doubt with fingers crossed. Stick shaker activating on approach not unusual.
A few of you reading this, especially Riggers will remember how different each aircraft could be.
One of the classics was the `Emergency U/C lowering. Actuated by pulling a lever and via cables tripped the `Uplocks`
We got an STI relaying how to set these cables up. If I remember correctly it was impossible as every Airframe was so different. You certainly had to be innovative when working on that aircraft.
I had some good trips though. Two which stand out and showed the capacity of the Belfast.
One to Dorval in Canada to pick up a B747 Flight Simulator for British Airways and deliver it to Heathrow. Max AUW and came back via the Azores.
Another was (I think) a warship gun turntable which we took out to Cyprus for the new Radar up Troodos. That was a heavy piece of kit.
Yes it had it`s faults. But with better spares backup and the knowledge that was being gained by the techies we could, and should have kept it a lot longer.
I don`t think it is possible to rate it against other `Heavy Lifters` because it was a one off. It was never going to be as good as the C130 but will `Atlas` be as good as `Albert` I wonder?:)

[smujsmith]

I sincerely doubt it. I suspect that whilst Albert was a bit restricted in capacity, it was a pretty reliable airframe and could usually deliver the required "effect". I will say, when I was at Halton, we were bussed over to Brize, taken up the VC10 tail servicing staging (which felt bloody high) and then given a 1 hour air experience flight in a Belfast. It blew my mind, once airborne and let loose you didn't know you were flying, it was just huge inside. I only had the one flight, and, whilst respecting the preceding comments reference performance etc, I was well impressed.:ok:

Perhaps someone could explain why, if capacity is the real problem, why do we not commission a fleet of probe equipped Beluga's ? They would cope with most heavy/bulky loads.

Smudge

[GreenKnight121]

Madbob... you forgot the following:

A400M: cargo hold usable length 58 ft / 17.71 m, usable width 13ft / 4 m, height "up to" 13ft / 4 m.

C-133: cargo compartment length 90 ft / 27 m, and 12 ft / 3.7 m high/wide.

Belfast C.1: cargo hold length 84 ft 4 in / 25.7 m; width 16 ft 1 in / 4.9 m ; height 13 ft 4 in / 4.06 m.

C-130E/H/J: cargo compartment length 40 ft / 12.31 m, width 9 ft 11 in / 3.12 m, height 9 ft / 2.74 m.
Rear ramp length 10 ft 3 in / 3.12 m; width 9 ft 11 in / 3.02 m.

C-130H-30/J-30: cargo compartment length 55 ft / 16.9 m, width 9 ft 11 in / 3.12 m, height 9 feet / 2.74 m.
Rear ramp length 10 ft 3 in / 3.12 m, width 9 ft 11 in / 3.02 m.

[ex_rigger]

Thanks GreenKnight. That puts it nicely into perspective. :D

[Arfer Minnit]

Ex Rigger,
What a joy to read your Post #35 - brought back so many memories. I can relate to all you wrote (our times on LSS overlapped - I was on D Shift). You might also have mentioned starting the APU in a tailwind when a wet start (not uncommon) would cause a gout of flame to issue from the jetpipe and disappear up the air intake singeing off your eyebrows en route; those awful plunge mill screwdriver slots on the countersunk screws - I'm sure I removed more screws with an Ezy Out than I did with a screwdriver (locally modified to fit said plunge mill slot); shutting the ramp with the hand pump when the APU was U/S, opening the forward freight door with the hand pump (the only way to do it) where hydraulic pressure was routed to both sides of the jack simultaneously and relied on differential areas to extend the jack (WHY IN GOD'S NAME?), pumping up the flying control lock accumulator when all the pressure had leaked away through the windscreen wiper parking valve and the rudder was giving it Thump Thump against the stops in the wind. What would we have given for an electric pump like the VC10 had. Then there was the Royalite trim that was forever getting mangled by the movers. OK I know it formed the exhaust ducting for cabin air but the aircraft was a freighter - it didn't need to look pretty! Makes you wonder what the design priorities were.

Despite all the Belfast's eccentricities, though, I thoroughly enjoyed my time with it. There were 10 built and every one was a prototype. The technical publications were rubbish and every new snag was a stimulating challenge (Course notes were good - I still have access to a set). Also, it was a lot more comfy to fly in than the Hercules (except, possibly, the stub deck which made your feet tingle).

I understand there were plans to develop the aircraft as a double decked airliner with a swept wing and 4 Conways - now there's the stuff of nightmares!

The old Belfast was good at what it was good at - shifting bulk if time wasn't too much of a factor. It was never going to match the Hercules for versatility but, then, it wasn't meant to. Perhaps the A400M will go further towards that end. Whatever it does I hope its as entertaining as the Belfast was.

[ex_rigger]

Thanks Arfer Minnut for those extra memories. I was on `A` shift so we only met after our nights. I remember well my first wet start on the APU. I was shielding the intake with my Parka opened like a bat. I nearly s*** myself when it `lit up`. Didn`t do the Parka much good but I walked away with a full head of hair.
Fin leading edge changes were the one for the screws. Getting a new one on was a nightmare. The only consolation being we got an Hanger slot, Bay 6 wasn`t it? At least we wern`t freezing to death out on the pan.
Another one was the Main u/c retraction jack. A swine to fit and on the first retraction no piddling about, full hyd pressure to ensure the down lock retracted and select up with fingers crossed because you just never knew with that u/c what was going to happen.
Oh there must be many more. Some best not talked about I guess. :rolleyes:
I then went on to the VC10 after we lost the Belfast. Totally different.
Looking back now we used to get some stick from the 10 lads. It was a pleasure to wake them up at some ungodly hour when we got a break.
Really pleased I did it though. I came off Lightnings to the Belfast. Just swopped a small difficult a/c for a difficult `Big old Boy`. Happy days. We had it easy to what the lads and lasses go through now. I have so much respect for them.:D
ex rigger.

[brakedwell]

ex_rigger

I imagine the Belfast was "hand made" like the Britannia. Parts like engine cowlings, which were specific to one engine. Swopping them to another engine required hours of filing and bending and swearing to make it fit. I diverted to Malta on an east med when no 2 engine cowl started to dismantle itself and it took all day to fit a cowl from the spare Proteus stored in the MU at Safi.

[Fareastdriver]

The Comets the same. When they were being rebuilt as Nimrods they found the fuselages were difference lengths. Made it quite difficult to fit a another prebuilt ventral fuselage on

[ICM]

Arfer: There was indeed a project - not that it got very far - for a marriage of the Belfast fuselage with the C-141A Starlifter's swept wings and T-tail, all to be powered by 4 RR fans - but I don't believe that a double-deck airliner was any part of that. Had it come to fruition, a highly useful military freighter would have resulted, but the USAF already had the C-5 on the way and RAF Transport Command had got as much new kit as HMG, by then into reductions East of Suez mode, was likely to contemplate.

And as you say, the Belfast was not designed to have the versatility of the C-130. When it was ordered, those capabilities were expected to be provided by the STOL HS 681, a project that did not survive the Wilson government of 1964, thus opening the gate to the Hercules buy.

[Blacksheep]

I worked as a VC10 Leccy on LSS from 71 to 74 (can't remember my shift - " B" seems to ring a bell) but we still had to do our bit on the Belslug. The electrical systems were, along with the hydraulics, clearly devised by lunatics in a Belfast funny farm. But it was an aircraft with character that, like an eccentric old aunt, you can't help being fond of. Had the Belfast been fitted with some proper engines it would have been more useful but she did her bit at a time when she was needed. Once we pulled back west of Suez the Belfast was essentially surplus to requirements.

[cuefaye]

After 3 pages, now I'm reminded why truckies were so boring in the bar :p
(And I'll wager what's coming)

[1.3VStall]

Truckies in the bar? They were normally in their hotel rooms saving their down-route allowances!

(Standing by for more incoming!):)

[brakedwell]

Rooms? Hotel Suites if you please :E

[Mike Gallafent]

I've been reading this thread with interest as I flew Belfasts as co-pilot and captain from 1966 to 1972. From flying Twin-Pins in Borneo to Belfasts was a marked change. Seeing a Belfast under construction at Shorts while still on jacks, it appeared little different to a block of flats. After courses at Shorts & Rolls Royce one exercised patience to get 'hands-on' practice with early aircraft deliveries. In consequence, the flight deck was often crowded executing circuits & let-downs at Brize. Memories? Many. Only lost an engine once getting airborne out of Akrotiri . Dumped fuel to obtain max landing weight 215,00. Hit a flock of birds on night take-off from Butterworth. Found in excess of 50 dead on runway.Taking a chopper from Ottawa (cold weather trials) to Edwards AFB for the hot equivalent. To Hollywood to collect C-130 wing planks from the Lockheed plant. Routing westabout via Gander- and once via Keflavik or else the southern route via Lajes. Delivering 747 simulator to Heathrow (inches to spare). Ferrying cases of lemonade and baked beans plus fridges & motorbikes from Aden to Muharraq. By chance, all the 7 crew were small in stature. The aircraft A/C failed en route and we were soaked as we exited aircraft. A tall movements officer, crisp from air con met us at the aircraft steps to ask the whereabouts of Snow White. Belslow? Yes, particularly in the early days. Hot and heavy out of Muharraq to Gan, it took 45 mins to reach FL 90. (There was also an engine restriction). Double crew? One became accustomed to see on flight deck the relief crew in PJs cleaning teeth etc an hour out from next landing. Only had to reverse once - tight space at Thessaloniki. One remembered to keep feet off brakes!
Due to personal circumstances, I became OC Task Plans at Brize. It fell to me to see that it was possible from the flow charts to alter the dates of some events to enable all 10 Belfasts to be at Brize at the same time. I sold the idea to OC Ops and which led to the historic flight and photos of all 10 aircraft.
It was a very enjoyable aircraft to fly and you could make some sweet landings with it. Accidents? Somebody took the fence away in the undershoot and a malfunction of brakes caused all 16 tyres to blow - both at Brize.

[Pontius Navigator]

for a marriage of the Belfast fuselage with the C-141A Starlifter's swept wings and T-tail, all to be powered by 4 RR fans

That would certainly have proven that you could make a pig fly.

The capacity of the fuselage would have been good but how would that improve the drag?

[ICM]

PN: Had that hybrid concept ever been realised, I assume that all of the drag reduction mods in the Fastback version would have been incorporated. These, as I recall, restored the aircraft drag parameters to what had been predicted at the design stage. That done, a bit more power would have been handy (the aircraft presented all manner of challenges as far as Scheduled Performance was concerned) and the 4 RR fans envisaged might have done all that was needed. But it's all academic now.