PDA

View Full Version : Vulcan Alleged Barrel Roll being investigated


N.HEALD
5th Nov 2015, 20:44
Seems the CAA are looking into the Vulcan..............


Vulcan bomber prohibited air roll investigated - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-34712346?SThisFB)


Hopefully nothing will come of it

goudie
5th Nov 2015, 20:46
Hopefully nothing will come of it

A slapped wrist at the most I fancy. Wish I'd seen it.

high spirits
5th Nov 2015, 20:52
Go on CAA - do your worst. Ground the fleet :)

Always a Sapper
5th Nov 2015, 21:03
That'll be that grounded then....:sad: Oh wait, er.....

skua
5th Nov 2015, 21:07
Police stations around the country are being closed due to lack of funds. But the Fun Police have endless resources.....

sycamore
5th Nov 2015, 21:15
Looks like that big r/c model....

Wokkafans
5th Nov 2015, 22:24
Not sure how they will explain this :E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itsNH_Pmfck&feature=iv&src_vid=HHmxptTxUhc&annotation_id=annotation_3387090003

itsNH_Pmfck

Checkmate
6th Nov 2015, 05:31
Alleged?

I thought it was a [email protected]*king good one!

Old-Duffer
6th Nov 2015, 06:37
Just deny it - 'It was the camera angle that made it look like that - yer Honour'.

I wonder what Roly Falk is thinking as he watches this from his cloud up there!

Old Duffer

Maxibon
6th Nov 2015, 08:36
What a great idea to role an ageing airframe in light of what happened at Shoreham. It is a shame the Vulcan has finished but the level of irresponsibility is extraordinary for such a professional team. I hope this wasn't true but if it was, count your lucky stars that you got away with it.

As for those supporting such an action on this site, try examining the 925 posts on the Shoreham thread. PPrune - the first P stands for professional.

chevvron
6th Nov 2015, 09:23
When he visited Farnborough once, Roly Falk told us the Vulcan, being a 'big' Avro 707, was stressed for and should have been able to do everything the '707 did. The '707 could be barrel rolled hence.....

the_flying_cop
6th Nov 2015, 09:28
A little over the top there Maxibon don't you think? Even if this were confirmed as actually happening, it is not as if he flew under Tower Bridge inverted in the dark and in IMC.

There is absolutely no correlation between the Shoreham accident and a Vulcan being barrel rolled.

There was no 'getting away with it' the aircraft allegedly did something which it is absolutely more than capable of doing, in the hands of someone who was absolutely more than capable of doing it.

Unless you have an inside scoop on the actual cause of the Hunter crash to compare it with, then i suggest that we just calm down a little.

Counting one's 'lucky stars' that they got away with it seems a trifle dramatic.

Even the CAA spokesman has said

BBC News:

"A spokesman for the CAA said it was looking whether the Vulcan "may have performed a roll manoeuvre".
He added: "This did not occur during an air display. Although not normally allowed under its current permissions to fly, a roll is a benign manoeuvre and the Vulcan's maintenance support organisation has confirmed that the aircraft is safe to fly."

and

"The CAA said the measures taken in the wake of the Shoreham air crash were primarily applicable to air displays."

Just This Once...
6th Nov 2015, 10:14
...the aircraft allegedly did something which it is absolutely more than capable of doing, in the hands of someone who was absolutely more than capable of doing it.

So this manoeuvre was cleared by the DO, the original release to service, the operating authority, the permit to fly and taught to crews?

If so then there is nothing to worry about at all and I am surprised that the CAA are even looking at it.

If the aircraft and crew are cleared and capable why is the manoeuvre not more commonplace?

octavian
6th Nov 2015, 10:36
OK, I'll bite.

I'm not sure that the age of the airframe is relevant; if it was I would suggest that all those high energy manoeuvres carried out by the large number of pre 1960 (XH558's build year) aircraft, including Spitfires and the like, might be severely restricted to the point of grounding, nor is "what happened at Shoreham"; something which is under investigation by the AAIB, which respected body has yet to complete its report, although the interim release may have set a few hares running.


The airframe is either capable of a positive G rolling manoeuvre, as Roly Falk demonstrated in 1955, which means that it is, or it isn't. During its service life, I would suggest that Vulcans (generic) were subject to significantly greater manoeuvring stresses than the alleged roll being discussed here. Unless there was a specific airframe restriction placed on XH558, then I can't see why the manoeuvre is up for discussion. Incidentally, the restrictions placed on high performance civil operated jet aircraft following the accident at Shoreham relate to air displays and, in my opinion, owe more to the perceived need of the CAA to "be seen to be doing something" than to response based on known facts. No Hunters, apart from UK civil operated aircraft are grounded. Yes, Shoreham was a tragic accident and the outcome of both the AAIB report and the CAA review into airshows will prove interesting, as will any police investigation.

As for the 925 posts on the Shoreham thread, I wonder how many of them are from people who meet either, or more especially both, of the first two Ps of this forum? I doubt that we will ever know, because we all hide behind our user names.

Capot
6th Nov 2015, 10:40
That quote from the CAA spokesperson sounds to me very like someone giving the preliminaries to saying that the CAA is going to take little or no further action.

greybeard
6th Nov 2015, 10:48
In the 1960s at RAAF Pearce a Vulcan did a barrel roll during the climb out from Take-off, mag bloddy nificent it was.

When an aerobatic manoeuvre is defined as more than 90 of bank we are a nanny state for sure.

Done by people who knew what and when to do what was in the capability of the equipment, go for it, we may NEVER see it again more is the pity

Pontius Navigator
6th Nov 2015, 11:05
IIRC the Release to Service permitted rolling G of 1.75 on a one off war mission, We were not permitted to practise the escape manoeuvre. I think we went to about 1.5 g during evasive bomb runs.

As for the alleged barrel roll, it was stated that the two films of the alleged roll were not video files but constructed from a number of still frames.

As the film was a construct it is also open to deconstruct and potentially invalid as evidence.

"Did you?"

"No, I didn't"

~~

"Call expert witness #1"

"What is your expertise?"

"I am a former display pilot."

"Did you observe Vulcan XH558 perform a manoeuvre where the aircraft became inverted and otherwise known a a barrel roll?"

"I saw the Vulcan from .... and saw it bank away. I did not see it the whole time."

"Call the next witness."

BEagle
6th Nov 2015, 11:31
Your recollection is incorrect, Pontius. The 'g' limits were significantly higher and we often flew sustained 60° AoB turns at 300'.

The Vulcan was cleared for manoeuvres 'appropriate for a medium bomber'. Barrel rolls were neither common, nor were crews taught how to fly them.

When the Vulcan was displayed at Farnborough, it was carefully inspected before and after each flight - which involved a technician going inside the wing to check the leading edge structure.

Ill-disciplined RAF pilots' mishandling probably damaged VX770 before it crashed at Syerston as a result of structural failure when the aircraft was being flown inside the approved flight envelope.....

If XH558 was rolled in the manner alleged, the culprits deserve no sympathy.

Dougie M
6th Nov 2015, 11:45
Surely if the CAA say that the manoeuvre was "not part of a display" there is, ipso fatso, no case to answer.

Treble one
6th Nov 2015, 11:58
Was the Vulcan ever cleared for a LABS manoeuvre, if that's a question anyone is allowed to answer?

I'm thinking of course in connection with a weapons delivery profile.

NutLoose
6th Nov 2015, 12:10
It ISN'T cleared Aerobatics on its 2008 permit, hence it is breaching the regulations, do you think the CAA will turn a blind eye to that, I don't, especially post Shoreham..

See para 6.2

http://www.caa.co.uk/aandocs/27038/27038000000.pdf


..

Pontius Navigator
6th Nov 2015, 12:36
BEagle, the 1.75 was the escape manoeuvre at 11,000 feet and might also have been to ensure the proper geometry from the blast origin.

60 AOB at low level certainly, in fact we went much further in display flying. I don't recall much higher g loading though unless my knees are now suffering as a consequence.

What g limit would you suggest?

Yellow Sun
6th Nov 2015, 14:26
Treble one,

Was the Vulcan ever cleared for a LABS manoeuvre, if that's a question anyone is allowed to answer?

I'm thinking of course in connection with a weapons delivery profile.

That's an easy one, no.

YS

Fareastdriver
6th Nov 2015, 14:27
IIRC the Valiant was stressed to 3G but we were limited to 1.5 G to stop the NBS scanner coming out of the radome.

Just This Once...
6th Nov 2015, 14:55
According to the posted link the CAA Airworthiness Approval cleared the aircraft to:

6.2.1 Aerobatic manoeuvres, intentional spinning and stalling are prohibited.

6.2.2 Load factor limitations: (see Marshall Aerospace manual for full listing)
Weight up to 160,000 lb, up to 0.89 IMN, no aileron +2.0g/0.0g
" " with aileron +1.8 g/0.0g
Manoeuvres under zero or negative g are prohibited.

I'm not qualified to comment on the authenticity or otherwise of the photographs.

sangiovese.
6th Nov 2015, 15:04
Looks to me like one pilot may have made an error while distracted and the other quite correctly unwound the aircraft afterwards :)

overstress
6th Nov 2015, 15:05
Typical of the jobsworth mentality of some Brits that this was ever reported in the first place.

Two's in
6th Nov 2015, 15:12
There is absolutely no correlation between the Shoreham accident and a Vulcan being barrel rolled.

In the current environment where every aspect of display flying, aircrew qualification and vintage aircraft airworthiness is under intense scrutiny, not least by the CAA; at best the alleged incident demonstrates a certain lack of awareness of that scrutiny. At worst, it may demonstrate a casual regard for the CAA Permit restrictions under which it flew. Neither example particularly helps the case for convincing the CAA and the public that existing flying regulations are suitably robust.

Kobus Dune
6th Nov 2015, 15:15
More than half of the comments come from people who have never done a barrel roll in their life, and who ususally cannot distinguish between a roll, a barrel-roll, a loop, a split-S, who think that LABS is for urine testing ....limited as they are with 30° AOB in their liners...

Herod
6th Nov 2015, 15:25
In the 1960s at RAAF Pearce a Vulcan did a barrel roll during the climb out from Take-off, mag bloddy nificent it was.

Yep, I was there. Also a nice series of low-level wingovers. It was great to be an Air Force brat in those days. We could generally get up close to anything that visited. All three Vs, Comets, Britannias from the RAF, Sea Vixens and Scimitars from the RN, C124 and B47 from the USAF. Lots more.

BEagle
6th Nov 2015, 16:40
If I recall correctly, a 'J' fatigue meter count was somewhere around +2.6G and would require the aircraft to be checked for overstress damage.

Attacking Catcleugh reservoir along its line meant a firm turn and some overbanking around a hill to stay inside the low level route - we termed this 'J count corner'....

Bergerie1
6th Nov 2015, 16:44
If properly flown - no problem:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMWxuKcD6vE

octavian
6th Nov 2015, 17:41
I'm sure that it was also in 1955 that Tex Johnston barrel rolled the Boeing 707 prototype, of which video footage exists and is available on YouTube. I believe that when asked what the h*ll he thought he was doing! he is alleged to have said that he was selling airplanes! Good call.

Bob Hoover was, probably, the premier exponent of energy management as the link in Bergerie1's link shows. No questionable Photoshopping on either of those clips, but like others I'm not qualified to comment on the images of the alleged Vulcan rolling, although I do think that the second set looks highly dubious, which may call the first set into question.

Kobus Dune makes an interesting point which I believe reinforces my opinion made in post 14 about qualification. On that note, the next time I go off in my 65 year old Chipmunk I must remember to do a few twiddly bits.

Heathrow Harry
6th Nov 2015, 17:48
IIRC Johnston was moved off the 747 test programme because he was thoughtto be too high risk...................

GlobalNav
6th Nov 2015, 18:00
"It ISN'T cleared Aerobatics on its 2008 permit, hence it is breaching the regulations, do you think the CAA will turn a blind eye to that, I don't, especially post Shoreham..

See para 6.2

http://www.caa.co.uk/aandocs/27038/27038000000.pdf"

IF the Vulcan actually competed a roll or any other maneuver considered "aerobatic", then the crew left CAA little option but to take enforcement action. The regulations for display are not so much the problem, as it is compliance to said regulations.

It is wonderful to see an airplane (oops aeroplane) like the Vulcan fly. Hopefully, this last flight does not give reason to deny future requests for demonstration flights other similarly loved and admired aircraft.

Treble one
6th Nov 2015, 20:14
Many thanks for clearing that up.


There is a YouTube video of a B-47 carrying out a LABS manoeuver, so I was wondering if a Vulcan could do the same.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqIJL8lx00o

I'm pretty sure I've seen a YouTube video of a Vulcan rolling out off the top of a loop at Farnborough although I stand to be corrected.


Found it


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUi8-V28Vcc

ORAC
6th Nov 2015, 20:26
Define the "aerobatics" they were unauthorised do to do.

The CAA have no defined limits, if you accept the standard any "sharp" manoeuvre or exceeding 30 AOB, then their standard display with wing overs for the last couple of years exceeds it. So, again, give me a precise definition of the limits they maintained for their display season they suddenly exceeded - such that the CAA could credibly take action on - without opening themselves out to scrutiny ( including possible legal liability for Shoreham etc).

IMHO the CAA will maintain a discrete silence.....

Brian W May
6th Nov 2015, 21:56
Stable door . . . horse . . . . last flight . . .

Now you can see why COs often lied about the disbanded squadron's last day . . .

smujsmith
6th Nov 2015, 22:17
A simple question from a mere support numpty. Does it matter anymore, at all ? It's gone, grounded, never to fly again. The manoeuvre was apparently not done as part of a public display, possibly a salute to Mr Falks initial introduction of the aircraft, way back then. It's a damn shame that so many are so litigious, and PC about what was once conceived as professional and controlled enthusiasm. I always thought that a barrel roll involved a maximum 1G through the procedure. I'm no professional aviator, so please don't waste a post jumping on me, I merely offer an opinion from someone who once enjoyed our military aviation fraternity, though the sarcasm and self righteousness is becoming fairly tedious.

Smudge :ok:

NutLoose
6th Nov 2015, 22:32
Define the "aerobatics" they were unauthorised do to do.

The CAA have no defined limits, if you accept the standard any "sharp" manoeuvre or exceeding 30 AOB, then their standard display with wing overs for the last couple of years exceeds it. So, again, give me a precise definition of the limits they maintained for their display season they suddenly exceeded - such that the CAA could credibly take action on - without opening themselves out to scrutiny ( including possible legal liability for Shoreham etc).

IMHO the CAA will maintain a discrete silence.....




So what are these then in chapter 6 below? They define the CAA aerobatic manoeuvres, which of course it cannot do under its permit coverage.
They checked the Vulcan was cleared for its wing overs after Shoreham as it was on the VTTS website saying as much from the Chief Pilot..
Perhaps they should have asked a Display Authorisation Evaluator (DAE)


http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%20403%20Flying%20displays%20and%20special%20events.pdf

Chapter 6
Part A - Skill levels for authorisation of aerobatic displays
Standard

6.1 Standard aerobatic displays

 Lines – Mainly horizontal or up to 45° climbing/diving lines in normal flight.
 Turns – Turns through 90° to 360° in normal flight.
 Spins – Erect Spins of one turn, with entry and exit in normal flight.
 Stall Turns – Stall turns with normal entry and exit.
 Loops and Eights – Inside circular loops with normal entry and exit.
 Combinations – Half an inside loop followed by a half roll (‘Roll off the Top’.) Five eighths of an inside loop combined with a half roll on diving exit Line (‘Half Cuban 8’). 45° climbing line followed by a half roll and pull through to level flight (‘Reverse Half Cuban 8’)
 Rolls – Slow, aileron or barrel rolls on horizontal line, or where combined with a combination manoeuvre listed above, on the diving or climbing line.
Intermediate

6.2 Intermediate aerobatic displays


 Lines – Mainly horizontal or 45° climbing or diving Lines in normal or inverted flight.
 Angles – Change of flight path between lines normally through angles of not more than 90°.
 Turns – Turns through 90° to 360° in normal flight, starting and finishing in normal or inverted flight.
 Spins – Erect spins of one or two turns with entry and exit in normal flight.
 Stall Turns – Stall turns with normal entry and exit, with or without half rolls in the vertical climb and/or dive.
 Loops and Eights – Inside half loops, loops and ‘Cuban 8s’ with normal entry and exit. Loops may be circular or square.
 Combinations – Half to five eighths of an inside loop may be combined with entry or exit lines and angles. Quarter or half rolls may be included on the lines.
 Rolls – By definition these are inserted in lines or other figures. Slow or aileron rolls, two point or four point rolls, with between a quarter and one rotation flown in any one of the positions referred to above. Positive flick rolls.

Advanced

6.3 Advanced aerobatic displays


 Lines – Horizontal, climbing and diving in normal flight and vertical Lines climbing and diving. All lines may be flown with or without rolls.
 Angles – Flight through any angle between such lines, with a change of flight path typically between 45 and 135°.
 Turns and Rolling Turns – Turns through 90 to 360° starting and finishing in normal or inverted flight, with or without rolls, with rotation in the same or opposite direction to the turn.
 Spins – Normal and Inverted spins with entry and exit in normal or inverted flight.
 Stall Turns – Stall turns with normal or inverted entry and exit with or without rolls in the vertical climb and/or dive.
 Loops and Eights – Inside and outside half loops, loops and horizontal eights (‘inside’ + ‘outside’), with normal or inverted entry and exit. Loops may be circular, square, diamond or eight–sided. Rolls may be inserted in loops and eights.
 Combinations of Lines, Angles, Loops and Rolls – Half to three–quarters of an inside or outside loop may be combined with entry or exit lines or angles and rolls may be included on the lines.


CAP 403 Chapter 6: Part A - Skill levels for authorisation of aerobatic displays February 2015 Page 60


 Rolls – By definition these are inserted in lines or other figures. Slow or aileron rolls, 2 point, 4 point or 8 point rolls, positive or negative flick rolls with typically between a quarter and one rotation flown in any of the positions referred to above.

Unlimited

6.4 Unlimited Aerobatic Displays - By definition, there are no restrictions on aerobatic figures, including autorotative figures which a pilot flying Unlimited category aerobatics may perform.


NOTE: Although based on FAI skill levels, these aerobatic DA skill levels have been adjusted to reflect the normal display aerobatic environment. They should not be confused with the FAI skill levels.

overstress
6th Nov 2015, 23:23
Nut: they weren't doing an aerobatic display....

salad-dodger
6th Nov 2015, 23:44
What is your point Nut Loose?

S-D

Cows getting bigger
6th Nov 2015, 23:47
Display flying aside, I think the Vulcan was on a Permit. A more pertinent question is what conditions were attached to the permit?

salad-dodger
6th Nov 2015, 23:48
Does it matter anymore, at all ?
If it turns out to be an unauthorised manoeuvre, and the crew performing it still hold licenses, then yes, it does very much matter.

A simple question from a mere support numpty.
Please also save the embarrassingly pathetic false self deprecation. You use it on every thread. Have some self respect man, you were a GE in the RAF FFS!

S-D

TBM-Legend
7th Nov 2015, 01:11
Saw a Vulcan do a roll after a very high speed low level departure [7.00am] at Williamtown RAAF Base in 1974 followed by a roll on climb-out. Last visit ex-Exercise Pitch Black in DRW. Loved the chaps stepping out of this beauty with their uniform on under their flight suit...

I was the twr controller at Willi...

Background Noise
7th Nov 2015, 11:01
Display flying aside, I think the Vulcan was on a Permit. A more pertinent question is what conditions were attached to the permit?
I think you will find that at post #21

NutLoose
7th Nov 2015, 11:46
Over stress and salad dodger my point is a roll in any shape or form is considered by the CAA to be an aerobatic manoeuvre and as such it is by the terms of the CAA Permit to fly operating outside its legally laid down limitations and as such is in breach of the ANO, which is therefore illegal.

Roll it once I could understand, as it may have been safer to continue the manoeuvre than to reverse the direction and you could argue the toss over that one, but twice you are either arrogant or just plainly stupid and either way you should no longer be in command of any aircraft and one hopes the CAA if the findings are proven come down heavily on the individual. He has by his actions already demonstrated his total disregard for the legally laid down limits for operating the aircraft he was flying safely, not exactly a ringing endorsement for an airline captain is it.

Not only that, but at the end of what has been a superb example of a civilian company operating a complex aircraft successfully over the past 8 years, it slightly tarnishes their reputation for safety and due diligence in all things, and one hopes it does not have a knock on effect for any future planned historical aircraft operations. I for one am looking forward to seeing the new Mosquito back in UK skies.

You make your choice, you accept the consequences.

.

Tourist
7th Nov 2015, 12:43
Nutloose

 Lines – Mainly horizontal or up to 45° climbing/diving lines in normal flight.
 Turns – Turns through 90° to 360° in normal flight.
 Spins – Erect Spins of one turn, with entry and exit in normal flight.
 Stall Turns – Stall turns with normal entry and exit.
 Loops and Eights – Inside circular loops with normal entry and exit.
 Combinations – Half an inside loop followed by a half roll (‘Roll off the Top’.) Five eighths of an inside loop combined with a half roll on diving exit Line (‘Half Cuban 8’). 45° climbing line followed by a half roll and pull through to level flight (‘Reverse Half Cuban 8’)
 Rolls – Slow, aileron or barrel rolls on horiz

The extract you posted to prove that a roll is an aerobatic manuever would also by the same logic call turns and lines aerobatic manuevers, surely?

iRaven
7th Nov 2015, 12:48
Do we know who was flying it on 'that' day? Some who flew XH558 are not airline pilots.

iRaven

NutLoose
7th Nov 2015, 13:22
Fair enough Raven, someone else mentioned he flew for an airline so I leave it at that... open.

It all comes down to what the CAA defines as aerobatics then? I was always lead to believe a roll was counted as that, time will tell.


BTW from


http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/20130121SSL19.pdf


2 AIRCRAFT SUITABILITY



a) The particular aircraft which you propose to use must be cleared for the aerobatic manoeuvres intended, so a review of the Certificate of Airworthiness/Permit to Fly and the Flight Manual/Pilot’s Operating Handbook, including all Supplements, is essential before flight. These will detail the permitted speeds (e.g. VA – manoeuvring speed, the maximum speed at which controls can be fully deflected under normal circumstances), as well as the permitted manoeuvres and load factors, which may vary between two outwardly identical aircraft. The aircraft should, ideally, be fitted with a ‘g’ meter to confirm that it has been flown within its permitted ‘g’ envelope. In addition, try to avoid sudden large control movements at any speed, especially when reversing direction.

turbroprop
7th Nov 2015, 15:36
My understanding is that the reason for the Vulcan being grounded is due to the Design Authorities withdrawing their support. I can see their reasoning as it is near impossible to guarantee the integrity of a single complex aging aircraft. Even if a strong case could be put forward to reverse their decision it does not help the case if the aircraft appears to be operated outside of it's permit.

On the other hand...

Wish I had been one of the lucky ones to have witnessed that roll. No harm done and what a way to sign off her flying career.

Tengah Type
7th Nov 2015, 16:39
IIRC Aerobatics are defined as more than 90 degrees of pitch or bank angle. Therefore a barrel roll is an aerobatic manoeuvre.

I have only seen a couple of frames of the alleged barrel roll, in online newspapers, and not the full sequence. Are the weather conditions, ambient lighting, and positioning of the aircraft in the sequence of frames, correct for the whole thing being shot from the ground on that date/time?

I have no idea of the height, speed or track of the aircraft at the time.

Thomas coupling
7th Nov 2015, 16:57
In the UK - where exactly is the definition of an aerobatic manouevre?

Tourist
7th Nov 2015, 17:52
IIRC Aerobatics are defined as more than 90 degrees of pitch or bank angle. Therefore a barrel roll is an aerobatic manoeuvre.


Well that, if true, is very interesting, and indicative of catastrophic failure of the CAA to not stop the Vulcan pilots years ago.


These scoundrels have been going past 90 degrees bank angle repeatedly on every display with millions watching!

Did nobody notice!!!

Ground the Vulcan immediately!!!

goudie
7th Nov 2015, 17:59
These scoundrels have been going past 90 degrees bank angle repeatedly on every display with millions watching!

I was one of those millions. Three cheers for those scoundrels. Hip hip...:ok:

Pontius Navigator
7th Nov 2015, 18:03
Is it not true that this is a sequence of stills and not a video? Equally is there any ground reference from which to deduce bank angle, pitch or height?

I was once required to calibrate my camera for a CAA investigation. Is there any chance of a vali calibration in this case?

NutLoose
7th Nov 2015, 18:53
The main reason it's grounded is I believe from what I have read is because the engines are at their life limits, they I believe had already been extended once, but with no viable replacement units available RR took the correct decision and withdrew the design authority for them, that would have resulted in the others DA's being withdrawn.
It's all well and good saying let it fly etc, but if it went down at an airshow etc I would hate to think of the casualties and in this day and age the company share price is everything. Just look how quick RR were to release a press statement when the BA 777 burst into flames in Vegas pointing out it was not their engines.

4mastacker
7th Nov 2015, 19:09
It does seem a little strange that no one else appears to have reported seeing the alleged act. Whenever I've seen the aircraft over this part of the universe, it has either been following the High Dyke (to the east of the town) or over to the west near to Belvoir Castle.

Here is a link to the report in the local rag.

VIDEO: Did Vulcan do banned trick over Grantham? - Grantham Journal (http://www.granthamjournal.co.uk/news/local/video-did-vulcan-do-banned-trick-over-grantham-1-7033833#axzz3qpahEfTN)

The location where the person claims they saw the alleged event is beside the big white tower on the high ground just to the east of the A1 and south of the town(for those familiar with the area).

Here's a link to Bing maps which shows the position of the water tower.

Gorse Lane water tower (http://binged.it/1NWVwm9)

I am assuming (a dangerous thing to do) that the aircraft was heading north at the time judging by the sun's reflections on the aircraft - perhaps a PI could confirm that. But, if that guy was standing where he says he was standing, looking at those photo clips would put the manoeuvre being carried out at low level directly over the town centre. I think if that was the case, we would have heard about this "event" a lot quicker than the three weeks it took this guy to bring it to the attention of a regional newspaper.

jumpseater
7th Nov 2015, 20:18
It did roll. Twice. It was seen by a good friend of mine who isn't into aviation. His description was as per the videos. He lives just south of Grantham. A couple of his friends were with him too and also saw the event. I heard about it on the day 4th Oct, just after it occurred.

sycamore
7th Nov 2015, 22:29
So, the photographer `just happened` to be `there` at the time the `aircraft` was` allegedly` rolled..bit of a coincidence...?
I don`t see any smoke from 4 Olympi,nor any vortices from the wingtips..
In a clear blue sky,and over a major town,no evidence of clouds,horizon or other features..? rather `jerky` stills,compared to what is produced at air displays...?
Possibly taken from another aircraft ,rolling around ,above,below `558`,and then `stitched` together` with a lot of photoshopping...?
90 deg/sec rate of roll for the `2nd.roll..?
If it had happened as indicated,it would have hit the streets within hours,not weeks.....
If i`d have had the chance to do it,it would have been above 8/8 cloud cover,where one can barrel-roll almost any aircraft at no more than 2-2.25 G,at the most....

racedo
7th Nov 2015, 23:04
Seems the CAA are looking into the Vulcan..............


Vulcan bomber prohibited air roll investigated - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-34712346?SThisFB)


Hopefully nothing will come of it


How dare they do that................

Did they not think of the School, Kindergarten, Old People's home, lost animal shelter with cute photogenic puppies and cute kittens home all underneath their flight path.

Oh the sheer inhumanity of this.

Personally think they must ground the aircraft and have an inquiry conducted by Prune's finest down the Dog and Duck, meetings scheduled every Wednesday at 7.30pm to review the evidence and other flight material that may be completely and utterly irrelevant.
Govt will ensure refreshments are provided. :E

After 15 years and thousands of hours of flight viewed the "Committee" announce Yup its probably dangerous so lets meet to decide the punishment and review the evidence again, 7.30pm at Dog and Duck.

EESDL
9th Nov 2015, 20:10
FFS............

megan
10th Nov 2015, 01:48
Yup its probably dangerous so lets meet to decide the punishment and review the evidence again, 7.30pm at Dog and DuckI'd suggest the punishment be for the perpetrators of such a dastardly deed be sentenced to attending the Dog and Duck at 7.30 PM for time immemorial without the need to buy a round.

safetypee
11th Nov 2015, 10:50
What you do depends on your point of view.

http://i1.wp.com/innerairmanship.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/roll.jpg?zoom=1.5&resize=768%2C533

Pontius Navigator
11th Nov 2015, 12:03
I don't see any registration details on the image above, are we sure it is the same Vulcan your honour?

olympus
11th Nov 2015, 12:31
Where can I get a jpeg of that photograph (without the cheesy caption) for my desktop?

rugmuncher
11th Nov 2015, 13:00
Take any phot' of the aircraft and rotate 180 deg.

;)

falcon12
11th Nov 2015, 13:52
I seem to remember that the Bruntingthorpe based Victor became airborne whilst doing a fast taxi a few years back. Plenty of eye witness's, video and camera records of the incident and the CAA investigated.

Outcome - I believe a minor reprimand which seems like common sense prevailing.

A precedent maybe for the Vulcan investigation, or is that too much to hope for?

After all, its been done before without incident as the aircraft is capable of doing it without stressing itself to the point of destruction even though it has the highest airframe hours of Vulcan ever built. And no, it was not displaying at the time, so it is said.

safetypee
11th Nov 2015, 16:46
P Nav. Not guilty. An open mind never assumes truth.

Apologies to Dave English re photo credit, which is here:- Inner Art of Airmanship Blog | Posting my perpetual pursuit of piloting perfection (http://innerairmanship.com/blog/)

rugmunch; invert the photo; did you move the sun?

Wokkafans
11th Nov 2015, 17:09
rugmunch; invert the photo; did you move the sun?

Just reflection of the sun from flying over a solar farm :ok:

rugmuncher
11th Nov 2015, 17:20
Here you go, without the caption.

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/6/9/6/2026696.jpg

:ok:

TEEEJ
11th Nov 2015, 18:18
Olympus wrote

Where can I get a jpeg of that photograph (without the cheesy caption) for my desktop?

The original image of XH558 is at the following link. Taken at RAF Wyton, 2014.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/15616611192/

TEEEJ
11th Nov 2015, 18:23
Rugmuncher wrote

Here you go, without the caption

Not the same image. That one is of XH558 at RAF Fairford, 2011.

Photos: Avro 698 Vulcan B2 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Avro-698-Vulcan/2026696/L)

rugmuncher
11th Nov 2015, 20:09
2011, 2014, 2015 a lot of phot's while inverted.

Time for a pint I think.

Maybe not such a big deal.

Pontius Navigator
11th Nov 2015, 20:53
RM, now prove that the succession of stills cobbled in to a barrel roll over Grantham is a genuine sequence.

No chance.

No find a credible observer that can identify the flight as performing a barrel roll.

MPN11
11th Nov 2015, 20:54
What would the world be without a bit of "They go Up Diddley-Up, they go Down Diddley-Down", done in the right place occasionally by someone who really knows what they're doing?

racedo
11th Nov 2015, 23:57
I'd suggest the punishment be for the perpetrators of such a dastardly deed be sentenced to attending the Dog and Duck at 7.30 PM for time immemorial without the need to buy a round.


You missed the bit about "Govt ensuring refreshment are provided" :E

Pure Pursuit
12th Nov 2015, 17:42
The bottom line is fairly simple. IF they did execute barrel roll ivo Grantham whilst on a transit then, they should be hammered for it. Especially if it happened post Shoreham. If they had wanted to mess around, they should have done it feet wet where they would have been the only who would have suffered had it gone wrong.

Insenstive to recent events and foolish.

I don't think you can compare it the the accidental Victor take off...

Lima Juliet
12th Nov 2015, 20:40
^^^Agreed...:D

Stanwell
12th Nov 2015, 20:46
Re the Victor take-off..
Well, how about that one about the tech who, after a fast taxi in a Lightning, found himself
flying around, trying to work out how to get it (and himself) down again in one piece?
(Ejection was not an option, apparently - and he had only a PPL).
.

jindabyne
12th Nov 2015, 20:55
Vulcan Alleged Barrel Roll being investigated

So What?

smujsmith
12th Nov 2015, 21:27
Stanwell,

Your request re the Lightning incident at Lyneham, hardly a tech, and he did not sit on a box, myth is a wonderful thing, but here it is, in his words;

The flight in Taffy's own words
This story is well known in Lightning circles but it is great to be able to hear the real facts 'from the horses mouth' as it were.

Lightning XM135 Inadvertent Flight

Some Background Considerations

In attempting to write a more detailed personal account of my unfortunate flight in Lightning XM135 back in July 1966, I think I should add some of the reasoning and reason why I attempted the test in the first place. This might remove some of the erroneous facts, misapprehensions and misconceptions which I have seen in some accounts of the event.

First I should explain that I was a qualified pilot, even although I was an R.A.F. Engineer Branch officer. I joined the R.A.F. as an apprentice in 1943, from where I gained a cadetship to university. At the university I read mechanical engineering and learnt to fly on Tiger Moths, with the University Air Squadron. On graduation, I was given the option to continue with an engineering career or to follow a General Duties (Flying) career. I chose the former path and the Air Ministry at that time, considered that there was merit in allowing me to qualify to 'wings' standard as a pilot, in the belief that an engineering officer with a pilot qualification, could more easily see the pilots point of view in aircraft maintenance matters. I too, thought this was a very good idea.

I qualified on Harvards, but my early engineering duties only allowed me to keep in flying practice on Chipmunks. Whilst I was at Kinloss, I managed to get checked out on Oxfords and on occasions assisted a qualified test pilot, to air test twin engine Neptunes. My only jet aircraft experience was as a passenger in the second seat of a Javelin T3 and again in the 'rumble' seat of a Canberra. In my service, one of my postings took me to 33MU Lyneham where as the C.O of a civilian manned aircraft storage unit, I had Canberra, Meteor and Lightning types, which were gradually being prepared for despatch to various flying unit tasks. When the Meteor and Canberra types had been cleared, the powers that be, decided that the MU should close after the last Lightning's had been despatched. Up until the last Canberra, I had a qualified and current test pilot on my staff for those aircraft, but he was not a current Lightning pilot. When a Lightning needed test flying, I had to call for any available pilot with a current test pilot rating. Most times I would find one who could be spared within a 24 or 36 hour period. So much for my personal and R.A.F unit background.

Lightning Mk 1A XM135

XM 135 was being prepared for despatch to a Target Facilities Flight, but over a period of weeks, it had been giving no end of trouble. Each time it was being flight tested, the pilot found that on the initial few yards of a take off run, the inverter, supplying power to the primary flight instruments, would cut out and the stand by inverter would have to cut in, clearly an unsatisfactory state of affairs. Electricians were using every trick in their trade to establish the cause, each time thinking that they had removed, replaced and tightened every likely component. With nothing out of order, they would seek another test flight. It was a Boscombe Down pilot who next attempted to fly the aircraft, found the same problem persisting and refused to fly until a more positive explanation could be determined.

Back to the drawing board, electricians decided to devise some tests which might isolate the fault and indicate roughly where and which component was at fault. They intended to ask the next test pilot to switch in and out parts of circuits, using trailing wires from the likely circuits to temporary switches in the cockpit and to do these electrical switchings before and after each few yards of a simulated take off run, when the fault was manifest. The temporary wires from internal circuitry required the cockpit canopy to be removed and in this state the aircraft was made ready for another air test. Being a pilot, it was easiest for me, as CO, to request the services of a qualified test pilot, from wherever I could find one, but for the next test on XM135, no pilot was available for at least another week. With my unit closing down, many civilians being made redundant, a timetable of clearance being upset with this 'rogue' aircraft, there was much tetchiness and irritation amongst my staff. The intended Boscombe Down pilot, knowing I was a pilot, suggested I might try the test myself. He suggested using an out of use runway (Runway36) as I would only be using 30 or 40 yards at a time. He suggested using a Land Rover to communicate with Air Traffic Control and to get their clearance for each movement of the aircraft. However, there was one remaining minor problem. I had only sat in a Lightning cockpit once before and I had no idea how to start its two Rolls Royce Avon engines! The Foreman of engine trades gave me a 5 minute briefing on how to do this and XM135 was towed out to Runway 05 on 22July 1966 for my electrical tests.

It was by way of extraordinary good fortune that my engine Foreman explained that, although I would not be needing reheat, that reheat needed the throttles to be pushed past a reheat 'gate' and one had to feel for the gate keys, behind the throttle, to unlock. My only other knowledge of the Lightning was what I could remember from pilot's notes. At each test flight by the qualified pilot, I would be in ATC with a copy pilot's notes, should he need any aircraft figures to be relayed to him. One or two figures stuck in my mind, namely that the undercarriage had a maximum speed before it should be retracted and I had an even vaguer figure of about 150 knots for a landing speed. Some extra knots would be required for each 1000 lbs. of unused fuel, but I did not need to bother with any such figures for the test, which I was to undertake.

The Ground Test

I was correctly strapped into the cockpit (seated on the in situ parachute and ejector seat) and after starting the engines and holding the aircraft static, on the brakes, I did the necessary preliminaries for the electrical checks in the cockpit, checking the notes I had scribbled on a notepad which lay on the coaming in front of me. All seemed ready for the first test and I indicated to the Land Rover to obtain ATC clearance for use of the short 30 or 40 yards of runway. Holding the brakes I gradually opened the throttles to about 90%. My feeling at the time was the unexpected heavy vibration of Avon power held against the brakes. I did a quick check of the temporary electrical switches and circuitry lights, then released the brakes. That initial punch from the thrust was quite remarkable and I moved the expected 30 to 40 yards before I throttled back and applied the brakes. So far so good. I made some notes, altered some more switch positions, noted the on/off lights and prepared for the next test. This was done in a similar fashion and I was leaving the 'fault' diagnosis to my electrical staff who would have to interpret my notes. I needed to do one more test and ATC had noted that I had only used about 100 yards total, so they were quite happy to clear me for a similar short distance. ATC had also been holding up a fuel bowser and trailer with 3600 gallon of AVTAG for awaiting C130 aircraft refuelling, they decided to allow the bowser to cross the runway. On opening the throttles for that final test, I obviously pushed them too far, misinterpreting the thrust, because of the unexpected heavy vibration and they got locked into reheat. Yes, I did use some expletives but I had no time to think of getting out of reheat, because in front of me, the bowser and trailer had just crossed the runway, from right to left, so my thoughts were to make sure I was missing them by sufficient margin. No, I couldn't steer to clear them; reheat takes you in a straight path like a bullet out of a gun. The time between finding myself in reheat and just missing the bowser was less than half the time I have taken to write this sentence.

Before my thoughts could again return to getting myself out of reheat, I was gathering speed and about to cross the main duty runway, where a Comet had just passed on its take off run. I then had no time to look for reheat gate keys, my eyes were on what next lay ahead. Two things, the end of the short runway 07 and just beyond was the small village of Bradenstoke which I just had to miss. There was no chance of stopping, non whatsoever. I had gained flying speed (that is what reheat is for, short sharp take offs) and I had no runway left. I did not need to heave it off the runway, the previous test pilot had trimmed it exactly for take off and only a slight backward touch on the stick and I was gathering height and speed. Then my thought was to get my speed back in case I should damage the undercarriage. Incidentally, I could not have raised the undercarriage; the ground servicing locks were in place for safety reasons. With only clear blue sky in front of me, I could then search and feel for those gate keys. Yes, I found them and thanked my lucky stars that my engine foreman had quite incidentally told me of their location and I was soon able to get the speed back to (I am guessing now) about 250knots. My next thoughts were to keep Lyneham airfield in sight and where had the Comet got to, the one I had missed a few seconds ago? Then I asked myself, should I eject and where and when? No, I could not; the safety pins were in the ejection seat and safe for servicing, not for flying. My only alternative then was to attempt a landing, but how does one interpolate or extrapolate Tiger Moth, Chipmunk, Harvard flying to a two engined, 11 ton, beast like the Lightning?

After regaining my bearings, a little composure and simply by observation, making sure that the Comet had been warned away, I decided I should attempt a landing on the duty runway and direction. I was trying to combine all my limited flying experience into a few minutes of DIY flight 'training' on a Lightning. It wasn't easy, but I must admit that some of the elementary rudiments of my proper flying training and flight theory were coming in useful. I needed to get the feel of the aircraft, if I was to get it back on the ground. My first approach was ridiculous, I could tell that my speed, height, rate of descent, even alignment wasn't correct and my best plot was to go round again. This time making sure that my throttles would be well below reheat position. A second approach was no better, I had some aspects better, but as the duty runway 25 is on the lip of an escarpment, with a valley floor beyond, my rate of descent took me below runway height and I found myself adding power to get back to the right level. More power also meant more speed and I was trying to get to something like 150 knots for landing, but the uncoordinated attempt was becoming a mess so I abandoned it, took myself away on a very wide circuit of Lyneham and decided to land in the opposite direction. This I thought would give me more time to get the 'feel' right and if I made a mess of the landing, I would overrun the runway and just drop (crash) into the valley beyond. In that direction, with a messed up landing, I would have no fear of crashing into Lyneham village.

The long final leg of this approach gave me the thinking time that I needed and I gradually got the feel that speed, alignment, rate of descent, height and approach angle were better. I plonked it down at about the right position off the runway threshold, but just forgot that I was in a nose wheel aircraft and emulated my best three wheelers in a Chipmunk or Harvard. The result was that I crunched the rubber block which encases the brake parachute cables. However, I had got down, but I then had to stop. I obviously knew the Lightning had a brake parachute, but where was the 'chute lever, button or knob? There, I found it marked Brake Chute and I pulled it and I could then look ahead and concentrate on keeping straight and somewhere near the centre line. I hung on to the brake lever, I wasn't slowing as much as I would like, so I just kept up my hand pressure on the brakes. I had about 100 yards of runway left when I stopped and even then, I didn't know that the brake parachute had dropped off as soon as it was deployed, because the cable had been severed as a result of my super tail wheel three pointer.

Events Immediately after the Flight

XM 135 was towed back to the hangar and I was taken to see the medical officer who gave me some pills to calm my nerves. I felt reasonably calm because I had almost killed myself on five occasions in that 12 minute flight, yet I had miraculously survived. What is more, I would see my wife and young family again. Two or three times in that same 12 minutes, I thought I would never ever see them again. My only priority was to save my own skin, I was not thinking about the non insured loss of a Lightning Mk 1A aircraft. The minor damage to the aircraft was repaired with a new set of brake shoes and a new rubber chute block. As a memento, I have kept that rubber block, one day it might be returned to XM135 at Duxford.

The Fault

Although the tests I did and the ensuing flight did not immediately provide a reason for the initial electrical fault, my electrical staff, with additional assistance from English Electric, Salmesbury eventually did. Apparently, in early versions of the Lightning, there was to be a ground test button fitted into the standby inverter circuit. It was never fitted to the Mk1A but the wires were left in the looms. It was one of these redundant wires which shorted on to the UHF radio as it moved on its trunnions when the aircraft nudged forward on take off. Who would have thought I should risk my life to find it, in the way I did?

Events Subsequent to the Flight

There was a subsequent Inquiry to find out what had happened and why and to make recommendations for it never to happen again. As I was the Commanding Officer of the Unit, I was responsible for my own as well as the service actions of all my staff. I was not acting against any orders in the Flight Order Book which I religiously kept up to date. But those orders did not cater for engineering officers doing investigative type checks on Lightning's. They were later amended. After the Unit Inquiry I had to go up in front of the Commander-in-Chief. That was when I thought my career would be placed in jeopardy. I even thought that my coveted 'wings' would be taken from me; I had no idea how the incident was being regarded by Command or indeed Air Ministry. But, as I stood in front of Air Marshal Sir Kenneth Porter, he read the proceedings, asked me if I agreed with his view that "With the limited flying experience that I had, the test would have been better left to an experienced and current Lightning test pilot." I agreed of course. He then told me to remove my hat, sit down and proceeded to tell me some of his unfortunate flying incidents in Mesopotamia in the Middle East. I was thankful that nothing more was to become of the incident and that I still had a job to do back at 33 Maintenance Unit, Lyneham.

I coped with all the official communications regarding the incident, but what I was unprepared for was the release of the story to the public. I had had very little experience of working with the press, certainly none with radio, TV, national and world press. I had no training in how to deal with their quest for news. My Command Headquarters suggested I went away on leave before press releases were made by Air Ministry. This I did and took my family off camping to Jesola, in Italy. Imagine my complete surprise when, on the first day of camp, on my way to find some ice, someone shouted "Hello Taffy, I've just been reading about your Lightning flight!!" The world seemed a very small place. On returning to the U.K. I was overwhelmed to find that the incident was still front line news. People wanted to write articles in newspapers, books, magazines, interviews on TV and radio and underhand attempts to hear my account of what had happened. Having admitted that I had made an unwise decision to do the ground tests, I decided that the unwanted publicity that I had attracted was in no way going to be for financial gain. I steadfastly refused offers although for a two page article in the Sunday Express, I requested the editors to make a contribution to the R.A.F. Benevolent Fund. Despite prompts, no moneys were ever handed over and I became very disillusioned with all publicity media. Some friends thought I had gained reward for an article in 'Mayfair'; it was written without my knowledge and authority, but, because it was factually correct, I had no redress from the Press Complaints Board. Nonetheless, I was extremely annoyed.

Some years after the incident, my hidden fears of high speed flight came to the surface and I had to spend two periods in hospital. I had not come to terms with the emotional side of the event. To return to my wife and family after five close encounters with death, was indeed a miraculous experience, but I had not been honest with myself, to accept it as such, so I needed psychiatric help. I could recall the technicalities of the flight without any hang-ups, but was unwilling to talk about that emotional side of the ordeal until I was placed under medical drugs and to bring those emotions to the surface. That was a rewarding experience and it gave me a much better understanding of people who might need that same kind of help, after similar unfortunate occurrences.

Forty Years On

I am now retired and living with my wife in Cheshire. Apart from being an active DIY plumber, carpenter, electrician handyman, my main pastime is involvement with family history. My inadvertent flight is still very vivid and in writing this personal account, I needed little prompting. Over the intervening years, I have received many letters and reminders from people whom I did not know, all praising my efforts to return myself and aircraft back to the ground safely. Yes, I have basked in some glory, when accounts of what happened, have been retold in social gatherings. I have never sought publicity, but whenever it became impossible to suppress, I have had to live with it. I enjoyed my career in the Royal Air Force, but not because of XM135!

Best regards

Taffy Holden

RIP Sir, truly a hair rising incident. Stanwell, hope that helps. Now, back to aero batting the tin triangle !!!!

Smudge :ok:

Stanwell
12th Nov 2015, 21:31
Thanks Smudge - it had been some years since I read about it. Memory dims. :ok:

jumpseater
12th Nov 2015, 21:39
The bottom line is fairly simple. IF they did execute barrel roll ivo Grantham whilst on a transit then, they should be hammered for it. Especially if it happened post Shoreham. If they had wanted to mess around, they should have done it feet wet where they would have been the only who would have suffered had it gone wrong.

Insenstive to recent events and foolish.

I don't think you can compare it the the accidental Victor take off...

The only people who seem to be denying it are basing their evidence on what has been posted here, and that the manoeuvres were at low level. Since when has in the vicinity of FL100(allegedly) been low level? At that altitude there's likely to be radar recordings of altitude/direction changes. Bearing in mind the Vulcan used to do low level transits, why was it so far up in the sky on that occasion. Those like myself who have seen more than one set of images of the event, and know how cameras work, and, gosh!, even know someone who witnessed both manoeuvres, would be quite happy to put up next months salary, matched by a nay-sayer of course, as a wager that they did roll it.
(Funds to be held by a neutral third party, cash in advance),

As for the images being photoshopped those comments clearly come from people who haven't worked out the amount of work required to do that task to that quality. Not to mention matching time and date stamps of the images to anyone else who has 'made a photoshop' of the same event from a different location in the vicinity. It would be far quicker and easier for those alleged fakers to actually go out, stand in several different locations and photograph the sodding aircraft doing a roll.

Sorry. Rolls, one each perhaps or two for one? ...

Then there's the guy I know who saw the events. Pontius Nav thinks he's not credible, just so we know he's not credible Pontius, perhaps you could tell us why he isn't credible? Just to confirm you or I are talking about the same individual, let me know something about them, either on here or by PM

Pontius Navigator
12th Nov 2015, 23:31
Jumpseater, I was speaking metaphorically not literally. I was suggesting a simplistic legal cross examination.

I have been there and know the simple questions asked where the witness is limited to yes/no answers or required to give an equivocal answer that casts doubt on their testimony.

Essentially I was suggesting that the created video, and it was mentioned here that it was a succession of stills, not a Photoshop, would be open to legal challenge. That the witnesses credibility would be challenged. The challenge would include the witnesses knowledge of a barrel role if that was the legal charge.

I know I could not give testimony to confirm or refute a barrel roll.

PS, BTW, according to the Vulcan Release Service low level is defined as below 10,000 feet. We did the low level high speed RTS trial and it was at 10,000 feet.

tartare
13th Nov 2015, 00:06
OK - so they rolled it.
But after doing so (in the words of a certain Captain who did the same thing with another great British delta wing jet) did they ensure they unwound it? :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYQS3qAIjAo

KYQS3qAIjAo

Pure Pursuit
13th Nov 2015, 02:03
OK - so they rolled it.
But after doing so (in the words of a certain Captain who did the same thing with another great British delta wing jet) did they ensure they unwound it? :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYQS3qAIjAo

KYQS3qAIjAo

I find it amazing that even post Shoreham, there are people on this website who are defending the allegded rolls.

IMHO, IF....IF they rolled it, their license to fly should be revoked.

Defending idiots simply I. OKIE that you agree with what they did. People live beneath where the pilots rolled the vulcan... it's not rocket science.

turbroprop
13th Nov 2015, 03:11
Is the post from Smudge the longest on PPRUNE?

ORAC
13th Nov 2015, 05:35
Quite right PP.

Joe Engle barrel rolling the X-15 was rocket science.......

q15A5ASOOXY

overstress
13th Nov 2015, 07:52
the pilots rolled the vulcan... it's not rocket science.

Shouldn't that have allegedly somewhere in it?

Not rocket science, more like aerodynamics...

I wouldn't describe the Vulcan pilots as idiots, either :suspect:

tartare
13th Nov 2015, 07:54
PP old fruit, I would humbly suggest it's an example of taking a calculated risk.
With respect - Shoreham isn't relevant IMHO.
A well maintained, albeit vintage aircraft being rolled in a relatively benign manoeuvre by experienced crew.
Pitch up and down - not huge - certainly not the same as a loop.
Wing and airframe loading - not too high so chance of an airframe failure?
Relatively small I would suspect - and I would imagine that risk assessment went through the mind of the PIC before he moved the stick.
Ever exceeded the speed limit old son?
From what I read - those who drove her said the tin triangle was as manoeuvrable as a fighter - but then what would I know.
Sometimes life isn't black and white.
Cue outrage...

salad-dodger
13th Nov 2015, 08:17
I wouldn't describe the Vulcan pilots as idiots, either
If they did it, over land, in full view, where it was filmed, and if they depend on flying for their livelihood............................?

S-D

BEagle
13th Nov 2015, 08:18
tartare wrote: I would humbly suggest it's an example of taking a calculated risk.

(and)

A well maintained, albeit vintage aircraft being rolled in a relatively benign manoeuvre by experienced crew.
Chance of an airframe failure?

If indeed XH558 was rolled in the manner alleged, what gave the crew any right to consider that they could take any such risks, calculated or not, with the aeroplane? And for them to defy the Permit to Fly restrictions in such a cavalier manner shows a flagrant and totally unacceptable lack of flying discipline.

There might not have been a risk of airframe failure, but the risk of structural damage should have required the aircraft to be grounded immediately after landing - "That was the final trip!".

Above The Clouds
13th Nov 2015, 08:37
I find it incredible in this day and age with high quality cameras on phones etc. that the conspiracy theorists still cannot produce a reasonable video of the event when stood there watching it allegedly doing two barrel rolls.

Vulcan bomber prohibited air roll investigated - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-34712346?SThisFB)

Just look back at the number of videos captured during the Shoreham incident.

tartare
13th Nov 2015, 09:49
With all due respect to your vast experience Beagle (I think you were flying the Lightning before I was even born, and funnily enough, I actually know someone who knows you) I disagree.
I think the truly insightful know when rules can be safely broken.
I suspect there would be multiple examples from your era of flying in particular where standard operating procedures were flouted and no harm was done - in fact something may have even been learned?

NutLoose
13th Nov 2015, 09:56
Above the Clouds

Well it obviously shows they tried to do it where they would be far away from prying eyes, cameras or video cameras, unfortunately, that is where their luck ran out.

NutLoose
13th Nov 2015, 09:59
Tartare, rules are there for a reason, here is a classic example of why

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Fairchild_Air_Force_Base_B-52_crash

Above The Clouds
13th Nov 2015, 10:02
NutLoose
Well it obviously shows they tried to do it where they would be far away from prying eyes, cameras or video cameras, unfortunately, that is where their luck ran out.

Or it could show a piece of fabricated video. Even in 1955 they produced better quality imagery of something no one was expecting to happen.

https://youtu.be/AaA7kPfC5Hk

BEagle
13th Nov 2015, 10:03
tartare, I have never flown the Lightning.

The only rule-breaking which was commonplace back in the late 1970s which I can recall was the scant regard given by squadron crews to the ridiculous Vulcan co-pilot 'phase' restrictions when non-constituted crews flew together. IFS actually wrote that the squadron practices in ignoring those rules were safer than the restrictive 'phase' system, because co-pilots were clearly developing their skills much quicker and making better progress towards captaincy.

tartare
13th Nov 2015, 10:26
Nutty - there are some rules you can't break.
Fully developed stalls; swept wing bombers; low and slow.
The rules the Vulcan guys `allegedly' broke aren't in the fundamental rules of aerodynamics category - which I would respectfully suggest the Fairfield B52 Captain showed an absolute contempt for.
If you want to ignore the rules of aerodynamics and physics - then more fool you I would say...

ExRAFRadar
13th Nov 2015, 11:39
Deleted posts ?

NutLoose
13th Nov 2015, 11:53
Or it could show a piece of fabricated video. Even in 1955 they produced better quality imagery of something no one was expecting to happen.



It is a film sequence taken from a lot of camera stills, you will find photographers take a burst of shots when an aircraft is manoeuvring, then pick the choice images, I do and my 1DX can shoot bursts up to 14 frames a second, this chap obviously got lucky as the aircraft completed a roll or two and the sequence has simply been tacked together to form a video. Without joining them together and showing them as a whole, the individual shots could be interperated as simply the wing overs viewed from various sides.

As for fabrication, trust me, it is very difficult to alter the shot meta data and compile a lot of shots to make up a sequence like this, lighting, sun angle, aircraft pitch, roll, size etc all come into play.

Above The Clouds
13th Nov 2015, 12:14
NutLoose, I have to admit the control inputs displayed at 00.13 in the video do look as though they tell a story, but as there is no external reference other than sunshine and shadows can anyone definitely say what occurred as the video is not real time but as you state, picture stills joined together.

NutLoose
13th Nov 2015, 12:27
Well, if the images are supplied upon request to the CAA then they can read the images individually, I will give you an example.

one from the good photo thread, hope they do not mind

http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/351182-good-photography-5.html

Using this site to read the metadata

http://regex.info/exif.cgi

you just need to run the picture location through that.

Nikon D60Lens:55-200mm f/4-5.6
Shot at 200 mm
Exposure:Not Defined, 1/800 sec, f/5.6, ISO 200
Flash:noneFocus:AF-A, Center
AF Area Mode: Dynamic Area (closest subject)
Date:December 29, 2008 2:25:03PM (timezone not specified)
(6 years, 10 months, 14 days, 14 hours, 12 minutes, 23 seconds ago, assuming image timezone of US Pacific)

now you can hide that data, but if you were supplying it to them, why would you?

..

4mastacker
13th Nov 2015, 12:48
Someone has written a letter to the newspaper which first broke the story.

Grantham Journal letter: Nothing unusual about the Vulcan - Grantham Journal (http://www.granthamjournal.co.uk/news/local/grantham-journal-letter-nothing-unusual-about-the-vulcan-1-7053998)

Just This Once...
13th Nov 2015, 12:57
Whilst this chap seemingly courted publicity with his photo allegations I have yet to find a single copy of any of the original stills online. All we have is his crude conversion to a youtube clip….

Finningley Boy
15th Nov 2015, 11:06
Was the Vulcan ever cleared for a LABS manoeuvre, if that's a question anyone is allowed to answer?


Ok as a none pilot I'll field this one, they were certainly cleared to do it in public back in the late 1950s and very early 1960s, at Farnborough. That is to say Vulcan, Victor and Valiant were all recorded performing the LABs manoeuvre.

FB:)

olympus
15th Nov 2015, 13:09
TEEEJ and Rugmuncher - thanks for the links:ok:

Treble one
15th Nov 2015, 15:02
Thanks, I've seen a YouTube video of the Vulcan's attempt....

megan
16th Nov 2015, 03:59
I surmise the alleged roll is pure BS spread by a internet gnome with far too much imagination and time on his hands, and extremely poor photoshop skills.

TsWl1k4IBD4

Pontius Navigator
16th Nov 2015, 09:10
Well, if the images are supplied upon request to the CAA then they can read the images individually,
..

While we are going round in circles, right/wrong, safe/unsafe, rules etc, what of the facts?

Is there an investigation? Have the pictures been requested? Have they been offered? Have they been handed to CAA?

goudie
16th Nov 2015, 11:16
Good points PN. This really has become a storm in a teacup IMHO.

Wander00
16th Nov 2015, 11:49
PN/Goudie - I am with you both - there are more important things - storm in a small coffee cup!

Pontius Navigator
16th Nov 2015, 17:59
I am not aware of any clearance for LABS, B47 yes, Vulcan no.

We had 3 relevant attacks, 2D, a climb to 27,000 feet for level release of Red Beard and airburst, 2E, a climb to level at 11,000 feet for a Yellow Sun ground burst and a 2H, a climb through 10,500 feet with release at angles between 12 and 15 degrees depending on Mark, engine fit and weapon.

Yellow Sun had a non-aerodynamic shape and would have been unsuitable. Red Beard could be delivered using Labs on Canberra, Buccanner and Scimitar.

NutLoose
16th Nov 2015, 18:03
Latest rumour has them taking over the classic flight aircraft from Coventry, they are also teaming up with the lot working to put a mossie in the UK skies.

Pontius Navigator
16th Nov 2015, 18:37
Will it be cleared for barrel rolls?

Treble one
16th Nov 2015, 18:52
Many thanks , as ever, for the information.


The reason I asked was I watched a documentary about Cuba, and it was mentioned that the 'escape manoeuvre' to get the Vulcan away from the blast after dropping the weapon (YS presumably) was 'aerobatic'.

Wander00
16th Nov 2015, 20:53
When will the pleading for cash start......................

BEagle
16th Nov 2015, 21:33
Wander00 wrote: When will the pleading for cash start......................

Well indeed. But they've had all they're getting from me. I've cancelled my monthly donation and split it so that half will go to 655 MaPS and the other half to FNHT.

Stitchbitch
18th Nov 2015, 06:56
FNHT? A worthy cause. Mosquito, there's one in NZ that will eventually go to BHHH and join their fleet once restored. As for Vulcan rolls, let's hope this gets cleared up soon, for all involved.

AARON O'DICKYDIDO
18th Nov 2015, 08:26
When I first read the words 'Vulcan' and 'Rolls', I thought we were back on to aircrew rations again! Then I waited for the ex Nimrod fraternity to chip in but they were not forthcoming.

Aaron.

Pontius Navigator
18th Nov 2015, 09:15
Aaron, yr a right barrel of laughs.

:)

NutLoose
18th Nov 2015, 10:03
When will the pleading for cash start...................... Well indeed. But they've had all they're getting from me. I've cancelled my monthly donation and split it so that half will go to 655 MaPS and the other half to FNHT. BEagle

They have made a profit in the last couple of years Beags, see

https://companycheck.co.uk/company/04478686/VULCAN-TO-THE-SKY-TRUST/financial-accounts

H Peacock
18th Nov 2015, 10:41
Wow, £825,279 in wages! Great work if you can get it. I thought it was mostly volunteers. How many were getting payed, lots getting a little, or a few getting lots???

As regards the barrel roll, not sure the CAA can just turn a blind eye and ignore it. Seem to recall a while back a cup-cake attempting a loop in a Tigermoth at a ridiculously low height. Believe there was a fatality when it all went awry despite no fault being found with the aircraft.

NutLoose
18th Nov 2015, 12:51
Don't forget a lot of the people were / are full time, though a few years ago Phleming was on £70K I believe, a lot of tin rattling for that and also the crews were paid etc, most of those at Airshows etc were unpaid volunteers, they often got left to face the disgruntled public at no shows such as was the case at Waddington? when the permit wasn't in place.. I felt sorry for them, especially as they were not involved in the monumental c*ck up, simply there to do their bit to support the Vulcan..

Could be the last?
19th Nov 2015, 20:26
Just a heads-up for the 29th Nov:

Guy Martin flies alongside iconic Vulcan Bomber in new Channel 4 show | Grimsby Telegraph (http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/Guy-Martin-flies-alongside-iconic-Vulcan-Bomber/story-28205187-detail/story.html)

sooty655
20th Nov 2015, 19:27
Just a heads-up for the 29th Nov:

Guy Martin flies alongside iconic Vulcan Bomber in new Channel 4 show | Grimsby Telegraph

As well as the XH558 stuff, a lot of the material was filmed at Wellesbourne with XM655.

Well indeed. But they've had all they're getting from me. I've cancelled my monthly donation and split it so that half will go to 655 MaPS and the other half to FNHT.

Wow, £825,279 in wages! Great work if you can get it. I thought it was mostly volunteers. How many were getting payed, lots getting a little, or a few getting lots???
655MaPS are happy to assure everyone that we are ALL volunteers, and we have no intention of barrel-rolling our wonderful Vulcan. :)

JFZ90
28th Nov 2015, 17:05
The Guy Martin thing is on tomorrow at 1930

The TV trailer has some nice video - including what appears to be a clip of the start of something that could be rather similar to the aero under debate here!


EDIT; the online trailer has better shots, including the teaser at 2:23! Probably just a wing over......I think the editor is having a bit of fun!

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/guy-martin-last-flight-of-the-vulcan-bomber/on-demand

typerated
5th Jan 2017, 07:44
All gone quiet on this

Pontius Navigator
5th Jan 2017, 09:04
Until now . . .

NutLoose
5th Jan 2017, 11:45
They are moving out of their Hangar into a smaller one to save costs, using what sounds like airport requirements as an excuse and have put the Canberra project on hold / back burner... seems the cash cow has been well and truly milked to death. Call me old fashioned, but it sounds like the best place it should have gone, was back to Bruntingthorpe.

One wonders how long it will be until it is parked up outside rotting away.

http://www.vulcantothesky.org/Transformation.html


..

Wander00
5th Jan 2017, 14:44
Nl - I am similarly cynical

Pontius Navigator
5th Jan 2017, 15:04
Or from Nutty' s link, Ge us yer money

GeeRam
5th Jan 2017, 17:16
They are moving out of their Hangar into a smaller one to save costs, using what sounds like airport requirements as an excuse and have put the Canberra project on hold / back burner... seems the cash cow has been well and truly milked to death. Call me old fashioned, but it sounds like the best place it should have gone, was back to Bruntingthorpe.

One wonders how long it will be until it is parked up outside rotting away.

Within 3 years would be my guess as the answer to your last question.

Have heard whispers that the Canberra project might never happen now (as a few people predicted at the time)

I still think Elvington would have been the best place to have retired '558 to, with a combined fund raising effort to build a hangar to jointly keep and maintain both '558 and Lusty.

Blacksheep
6th Jan 2017, 11:22
One problem with "The Vulcan Experience" is that with all the changes made to satisfy civilian flying requirements, 558 is no longer a true Vulcan. The Vulcan at Hendon on the other hand...

Pontius Navigator
6th Jan 2017, 11:26
BS, or Newark etc

NutLoose
6th Jan 2017, 12:26
Accounts are here, plus the blurb on the move from No3 to No1 hangar.

https://opencorporates.com/companies/gb/04478686

Charity Details (http://beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?regid=1101948&subid=0)

BEagle
6th Jan 2017, 13:54
XM655 at Wellesbourne Mountford is the only authentic Vulcan which is still routinely run and taxyed. Thanks to the efforts of the 655 Maintenance and Preservation Society, all engine and aircraft systems are serviceable, but whether any of the lower deck people's simmering black dustbins still work, I don't know - in any case, they're not needed. The AEO's electrical panel is also fully serviceable, but obviously not the ECM cans.

See 655 Maintenance & Preservation Society - Visit Us (http://www.xm655.com/visits.php) for details of how to visit 655MaPS.

'558 was, if I recall correctly, supposed to be restored to 'as original' cockpit configuration after flying ceased. That doesn't appear to have happened...

The world's only surviving Swift F4, WK275, has been restored to an immaculate static display condition and was parked in the hangar next to '558 in December. Whether it's still there, I don't know. As for Canberra B2 WK613, it would be a great shame if the project foundered.

Personally I feel that concentrating all VTTS funding on keeping '558 in taxying condition isn't worth the expense it seems to be costing. Better to see it kept in immaculate static condition and to concentrate funding on restoring WK613 to flying condition if at all possible. If not, then at least to immaculate static condition...

GeeRam
6th Jan 2017, 23:48
Personally I feel that concentrating all VTTS funding on keeping '558 in taxying condition isn't worth the expense it seems to be costing

Have they even bothered to taxy it, or done a fast runway run etc., in the past 12 months or more that she's been grounded...?

The B Word
7th Jan 2017, 10:03
I see from the link above that the wages bill for VTTS was £869k for 34 employees with Dr Plemming taking between £70k to £80k for running the 'charity'. That's a lot of wonga...

Nige321
7th Jan 2017, 10:41
XM655 at Wellesbourne Mountford is the only authentic Vulcan which is still routinely run and taxyed.

Not for long if the owners and their developers get their way... :mad:

BEagle
7th Jan 2017, 11:36
You're out of date:

Action has been taken by Stratford-on-Avon District Council to prevent the demolition of buildings at Wellesbourne Mountford aerodrome. The council’s ruling cabinet agreed to remove permitted development rights from the site owners, the Littler family. The decision took immediate effect and is now in force. The council's cabinet also decided to seek powers to compulsorily purchase the airfield if negotiations with the owners fail and to obtain an injunction if any attempt is made to start the demolition process. The Littler family has since agreed to keep the airfield open until further notice.

Nige321
7th Jan 2017, 13:45
You're out of date:

I do know about that.
Sadly, the locals don't believe a word of it.
Most are in favour of keeping the airfield and 655 alive, but anyone who knows anything about the developers knows they won't give up...:uhoh:

noflynomore
7th Jan 2017, 14:06
the only authentic Vulcan
I am intrigued by that statement as it implies that there are "non-authentic Vulcan/s" out there, taxiing.

What on earth could a non-authentic Vulcan be? - Airfix kit? Leonard Nimoy?

Pontius Navigator
7th Jan 2017, 18:58
Nfnm, one with original equiments like Tacan replaced with VOR, with the navigation racks bare, the very heart of the Bomber, rather than the aerodynamic body that performed party tricks at airshows.

noflynomore
8th Jan 2017, 12:45
There must be precious few "authentic" historic aircraft in existence at all by that definition!
Blimey! I never knew!

Pontius Navigator
8th Jan 2017, 14:38
nfn, when I visited the RAF Museum Reserve collection I was told that the RAF Museum insisted on restoration to original flight condition although obviously not to modern standards.

It is a few years since I was in the Newark Vulcan. From what I can remember many of the Calcs in the nose wheel bay might have been missing and the 90-way/ER panel was missing from the cockpit but the NBS was there with the cockpit looking complete; that is the point, as much original equipment as possible.

pontifex
9th Jan 2017, 10:23
NFM

There is one such authentic aircraft that I know of, and that is the BBMF Lancaster. I cannot think of any equipment in that old lady that is not authentic - and this often made life quite challenging. In contrast is the Canadian Mynarski Lanc. For a start it has modern nav gear amongst many other aids to safe flying. I quite understand the purist's desire to keep things as "pure" as possible, but not at the expense of flight safety.

ORAC
9th Jan 2017, 11:29
Tatjana van Vark ~ Navigation and Bombing System NBS (http://www.tatjavanvark.nl/tvve/dduck0.html)

50+Ray
9th Jan 2017, 11:47
Authentic NBS
XM594 at Newark has the 90 way fitted. The only missing bits I am aware of are in the AEOs station, e.g. 18228 display & some jamming/HF blanks.
Ray

flapsin
9th Jan 2017, 12:09
NFM

There is one such authentic aircraft that I know of, and that is the BBMF Lancaster. I cannot think of any equipment in that old lady that is not authentic - and this often made life quite challenging. In contrast is the Canadian Mynarski Lanc. For a start it has modern nav gear amongst many other aids to safe flying. I quite understand the purist's desire to keep things as "pure" as possible, but not at the expense of flight safety.
Doesn't the BBMF Lancaster have fins and rudders from a Lincoln?

spanners123
9th Jan 2017, 12:18
Doesn't the BBMF Lancaster have fins and rudders from a Lincoln?
And doesn't the BBMF Lancaster have Shackleton undercarriage fitted??

Heinrich Dorfmann
9th Jan 2017, 12:32
and a 2nd set of flight controls?

Pontius Navigator
9th Jan 2017, 12:37
And Pontiflex, unless they have removed it, we also had TACAN mounted tdc on the coaming.

RedhillPhil
9th Jan 2017, 14:48
Well to get really picky I believe that the BBMF Lancaster has Shackleton wing spars.

NutLoose
9th Jan 2017, 15:03
Doesn't the BBMF Lancaster have fins and rudders from a Lincoln?Correct for the time period she was built in and original to her I believe.

The Mk X1X Spits of the BBMF are all flying with modified Shack powerplants.

Stitchbitch
9th Jan 2017, 17:00
Keep this under your hat, the Nav uses a GPS... ;)

Phil_R
9th Jan 2017, 17:36
Just following along, here. What's a 90-way?

Pontius Navigator
9th Jan 2017, 18:01
Phil, an advance over the 12/24 way.

Basically a fiendish bomb selector the can be used to select single bombs, some bombs, all the bombs etc.

On a Vulcan for instance the 1000 lb bombs were in two layers, 12 at the top 9 at the bottom. You could chose any one of those 9 for single release etc.

It also allowed you select the drop interval between bombs.

The standard mantra was Zero Press, Zero Press which ensured that the bomb release signal was always sent to the first available bomb. For a single bomb,IIRC, you would set the Stop to One.

*note to self, visit Newark for a refresher.

md 600 driver
9th Jan 2017, 18:12
The BBMF HAS DUAL CONTROLS which is a recent modification

all lancs in the war didn't have a copilot or a method of dual controls

ShyTorque
9th Jan 2017, 18:17
Keep this under your hat, the Nav uses a GPS... http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/wink2.gif

I'll bet he's got a digital watch, too!

H Peacock
9th Jan 2017, 18:26
The Lanc's main instrument panel looks just as it did when produced over 70 years ago; mostly direct reading dials/gauges with vacuum driven gyros. The dual flying controls are also original, but retrofitted to PA. The V/UHF radio & intercom system is not original but now rather old and in need of updating. The Nav's TACAN is indeed discreetly hidden but never used.

A handheld GPS is invariably used, but then most of the Flt's Nav's are now on ground tours and so probably not as slick at clock/map/gnd as they once were!

The undercarriage does indeed include many Shack parts including the tyres (main wheel covers!) but the most modern part of PA is the tailwheel. Its tyre comes from an Airbus!

NutLoose
9th Jan 2017, 21:21
Keep this under your hat, the Nav uses a GPS...

Surely that should read the Nav is a GPS.

I think you will find they all have FLARM now too.

ValMORNA
9th Jan 2017, 21:36
There was/is? an Avro Vulcan XL360 at the Coventry aircraft museum, with access to the 'driver's' seat on request. Saw it a good few years ago, though, so things may have changed by now.

polecat2
9th Jan 2017, 21:59
The BBMF HAS DUAL CONTROLS which is a recent modification

all lancs in the war didn't have a copilot or a method of dual controls


After many years of reading books about WW2 RAF bomber crews I have frequently seen references to a pilot of a new crew flying as a second pilot with an experienced crew for his first op. He was referred to as a 'second dickie'. From what I can remember a second set of flight controls was fitted and he used the flight engineer's fold-down seat next to the pilot.

Polecat

lauriebe
10th Jan 2017, 02:52
PN, not sure how long it is since you last visited Newark.

I was last inside 594 on 30 April 2013 and took these photos of the 'office'.

Pontius Navigator
10th Jan 2017, 08:08
Laurie,a couple before that, thanks. I have a distinct memory of no bombing panel which is not to say they didn't acquire one since.

I remember back in the 60s, going into the garden of a Lake land pub. Sitting on the wall was T2 bombing computer, previous model to the V Force T4. What it was doing there I never found out.

pontifex
10th Jan 2017, 14:35
Certainly didn't have Tacan in my day. Just a pretty unreliable old compass and the nav standing behind me with an OS map.

Re the main spas - phone rang one day and a man from Woodford said we are demolishing an old hangar and have found two lengths of what we think may be unimproved old Lanc mainspars - would you like them. Much later when the Lanc was considered to have run out of fatigue they were examined and actually found to be just that. That's why the old girl is still flying.

Pontius Navigator
10th Jan 2017, 16:55
Pontiflex clearly the Tacan mod pre-dated your time :)

It was mounted top of the coaming and if it wasn't rotating it was pointing resolutely 40 degrees off. We didnt twig why until a little time later and as it was an unestablished task we didn't trouble the engineers.

We did however find a never used drift sight which was very good for winds.

TEEEJ
9th Feb 2017, 13:49
The "XH558 barrel rolls" are discussed in the following podcast.

See 37 minutes 36 seconds until 41 minutes 55 seconds.

In this eagerly-awaited special edition of UKAR's popular podcast, Dan O'Hagan sits down for a lengthy conversation with VTTS Chief Executive Robert Pleming to discuss the present and the future, as well as a number of revealing insights into controversial incidents of the project's past.

Podcast Title #9: Vulcan XH558 Crisis (08 February 2017)

'Display Frequency' Podcast from UK Airshow Review (http://www.airshows.co.uk/podcast/)

Treble one
9th Feb 2017, 15:19
Flight crew at the time named as well.....

langleybaston
9th Feb 2017, 16:20
Thread drift but "From what I can remember a second set of flight controls was fitted and he used the flight engineer's fold-down seat next to the pilot".

I would be most interested to have a little collateral on this, as I have wondered about the matter for some time.

Davef68
10th Feb 2017, 00:28
Flight crew at the time named as well.....
That was a matter of public knowledge. The "roll" was never confirmed.

tartare
10th Feb 2017, 02:01
What's the big black and yellow handle mid panel up on the glareshield?
Is that a canopy release to lose the roof before the front two occupants step outside?

Treble one
10th Feb 2017, 05:38
The CAA ordered VTTS to check the airframe after reports of this 'manoeuvre' to see that it had not been overstressed prior to the final farewell flights-according to Dr P himself in the podcast. I don't think there's any doubt the aircraft was rolled.

BEagle
10th Feb 2017, 08:14
tartare wrote: What's the big black and yellow handle mid panel up on the glareshield?

That's for deploying the Ram Air Turbine, which provides additional electrical power for certain emergency situations.

The canopy jettison levers are the black-and-yellow striped handles on the port and starboard cockpit side walls and can be seen in the photos.

In the event of ejection, however, the canopy would be jettisoned automatically as the first part of the ejection sequence.

Davef68
10th Feb 2017, 09:54
The CAA ordered VTTS to check the airframe after reports of this 'manoeuvre' to see that it had not been overstressed prior to the final farewell flights-according to Dr P himself in the podcast. I don't think there's any doubt the aircraft was rolled.
I'm sure Pleming very quietly says 'yes' in the podcast when asked directly

tartare
10th Feb 2017, 09:59
Thanks Beagle.
Bloody legend of a jet it is...

airsound
10th Feb 2017, 16:37
Thanks for posting the UKAR link, TEEEJ (different version of the same link)
http://www.airshows.co.uk/podcast/

It's a bit on the long side (1hr 5mins), but well worth a listen - especially, perhaps, for the doubters seen occasionally in these hallowed halls. Dan O'Hagan doesn't pull any punches, and Robert Pleming gives answers that are as spin-free as you could expect from the CEO of a charity with a multi-million pound turnover.

airsound
who is, as regular readers will know, not unbiased in these matters

longer ron
10th Feb 2017, 16:45
The BBMF HAS DUAL CONTROLS which is a recent modification

all lancs in the war didn't have a copilot or a method of dual controls


After many years of reading books about WW2 RAF bomber crews I have frequently seen references to a pilot of a new crew flying as a second pilot with an experienced crew for his first op. He was referred to as a 'second dickie'. From what I can remember a second set of flight controls was fitted and he used the flight engineer's fold-down seat next to the pilot.

Polecat

AFAIK the Second Dickie trips were normally flown without dual controls being fitted,the New Pilot was simply being introduced to and being given the experience of an operational sortie at operational high AUW.Also they would probably be able to pick up many tips from a seasoned operational crew which would help with settling in a new crew.
From the books I have read the 2nd Dickie was sometimes allowed a spell on the controls to give the Skipper a break on the way home or occasionally if they were injured.

NutLoose
13th Feb 2017, 01:48
Hahahahaa

Avro vulcan xh558 1/72 Scaled Model Diorama | eBay (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/252766471984)

Al R
29th May 2017, 23:38
Bob Hoover was, probably, the premier exponent of energy management as the link in Bergerie1's link shows.

https://vimeo.com/80041004

<<05/26/2017. Bob Hoover rolls a Sabreliner- At Age 93! This is actually from three years ago. Bob retired from flying around the turn of the century, but went up in the copilot’s seat one last time to show folks how it’s done.>>

tartare
30th May 2017, 05:08
A spooky example of two degrees of separation.
Tatjana Van Vark - the Dutch woman who has restored the bomb aiming computer from the Vulcan, is a close relative of a family friend in Melbourne.
Only realised recently.
Small world.