Did You Fly The Vulcan?? (Merged)
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I've just pulled my post over from the Nimrod thread. In a way it proves that what goes round goes around.
Someone suggested that AAR training could continue on the Nimrod pending a fix of a potential system fault using a dry proding technique.
I recalled:
Unless the AAR system has been changed since I had my training many moons ago, and indeed I may be talking b*ll*cks, but I believe a dry prod is not exactly dry.
The hose was full of fuel at full trail. When the receiver engaged and pushed forward the fuel in th ehose has to go somewhere. The somewhere used to be in to the receiver. Only a few pounds at a time but several prods later was sufficient to extend the range of the receiver and shorten the pubrise time for the tanker.
This was as taught at the Valiant OCU to us would be Vulcan receivers back in 1964.
This was then partly confirmed by RAF Techie:
I believe the hose of the tanker has to be pressurized with fuel to stop it flapping about in the airflow and keep it vaguely steady. Again, I too may be talking rubbish but that's what I've been led to believe.
and finally confirmed by ORAC:
Correct for the centreline HDU IIRC, which of course is all that is relevant . . .
[I left my last sentence out
]
Someone suggested that AAR training could continue on the Nimrod pending a fix of a potential system fault using a dry proding technique.
I recalled:
Unless the AAR system has been changed since I had my training many moons ago, and indeed I may be talking b*ll*cks, but I believe a dry prod is not exactly dry.
The hose was full of fuel at full trail. When the receiver engaged and pushed forward the fuel in th ehose has to go somewhere. The somewhere used to be in to the receiver. Only a few pounds at a time but several prods later was sufficient to extend the range of the receiver and shorten the pubrise time for the tanker.
This was as taught at the Valiant OCU to us would be Vulcan receivers back in 1964.
This was then partly confirmed by RAF Techie:
I believe the hose of the tanker has to be pressurized with fuel to stop it flapping about in the airflow and keep it vaguely steady. Again, I too may be talking rubbish but that's what I've been led to believe.
and finally confirmed by ORAC:
Correct for the centreline HDU IIRC, which of course is all that is relevant . . .
[I left my last sentence out
]
Last edited by Pontius Navigator; 15th Nov 2006 at 17:50. Reason: mention the Vulcan
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Staffordshire
Age: 57
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please forgive this intrusion, but it does have some relevance.
I only view this forum as I have family connections to the RAF from my recently-retired husband, through my Father back to his uncle who served on Catalinas - it sometimes seems like the only way that I can understand why the men in my life are the way that they are.
I was very lucky: despite often leaving his family concerned as to whether he would come back while performing his duty, I have a whole and healthy husband. I have a friend whose husband's life and service ended in a smoking hole. While she and her family were helped in their grieving by the support that they received from his service mates and the inquiry process, I am sure that she would not be helped by people raking over the incident unnecessarily, in fact I am convinced that she would find it very hurtful indeed.
I understand that many of you have an abstract professional interest, please be patient, it will be satisfied without the danger of hurting the families of those involved when everyone who needs to know the details is given them in 2008.
I only view this forum as I have family connections to the RAF from my recently-retired husband, through my Father back to his uncle who served on Catalinas - it sometimes seems like the only way that I can understand why the men in my life are the way that they are.
I was very lucky: despite often leaving his family concerned as to whether he would come back while performing his duty, I have a whole and healthy husband. I have a friend whose husband's life and service ended in a smoking hole. While she and her family were helped in their grieving by the support that they received from his service mates and the inquiry process, I am sure that she would not be helped by people raking over the incident unnecessarily, in fact I am convinced that she would find it very hurtful indeed.
I understand that many of you have an abstract professional interest, please be patient, it will be satisfied without the danger of hurting the families of those involved when everyone who needs to know the details is given them in 2008.
Last edited by Babyfactory; 15th Nov 2006 at 21:02. Reason: Spelling
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I think a lot of people would be mightlily upset having to try and archive 48 pages of a thread
As for 'moderating' - this forum runs on a loose string. It may be necessary, it may not. The mIl forum has mostly been 'self-moderating' with a few exceptions. I have faith.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC,
Tak so mucket. You reassure us.
I hope the people involved in the Glenview discussion can agree to disagree.....
Milt,
I know about "learning from accidents". Remember Eastern Airlines flight 401? We learned from that on Concorde...... within months.
Why can't you accept other people's judgment that in this case there is not really anything more to be learned from the accident, and that you might as well wait until 2008?
It's a bit like dragging out John Derry's crash with the DH110 at Farnborough, or Mike Lithgow and his crew going down in the 1-11 prototype G-ASHG....
Tak so mucket. You reassure us.
I hope the people involved in the Glenview discussion can agree to disagree.....
Milt,
I know about "learning from accidents". Remember Eastern Airlines flight 401? We learned from that on Concorde...... within months.
Why can't you accept other people's judgment that in this case there is not really anything more to be learned from the accident, and that you might as well wait until 2008?
It's a bit like dragging out John Derry's crash with the DH110 at Farnborough, or Mike Lithgow and his crew going down in the 1-11 prototype G-ASHG....
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Age: 84
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beautifully put Babyfactory, though if ever there was a misnomer it is that
I don't believe the thread is in any danger, it is far too valuable to be so placed, and far too many admirers and simple observers like myself would feel the loss. It's very overt nature presents an immaculate record in my humble opinion, and it has everything a good book should have. Courage, humour, risk, danger, professionalism and mateship. What more could be added?
Please, for those of us who could merely observe, keep it up.
I don't believe the thread is in any danger, it is far too valuable to be so placed, and far too many admirers and simple observers like myself would feel the loss. It's very overt nature presents an immaculate record in my humble opinion, and it has everything a good book should have. Courage, humour, risk, danger, professionalism and mateship. What more could be added? Please, for those of us who could merely observe, keep it up.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK Vulcan enthusiasts I quit using this thread in trying to source some detail of the Glenview loss.
I am intrigued as to how the do-gooders will continue the cover up post 2008 which is nigh upon us.
Having been on too many boards of inquiry, some of which were inconclusive, I found there was ALWAYS some lesson/s to be learned.
My own involvement in clearing the Vulcan for RAF service has focussed my attention and concern for all Vulcan misadventures and a pride in the small part I played in its development into one of the most successful designs in its time. I can say the same for the F-111 which almost replaced the Vulcan in the RAF as the F-111K.
I am contributing to the pending publication of a book on Vulcan development which will use with appreciation many contributions to this thread. The intense interest in the thread is a good indication that the book will be a great success.
Keep on posting your fascinating anecdotes which are important historically.
I am intrigued as to how the do-gooders will continue the cover up post 2008 which is nigh upon us.
Having been on too many boards of inquiry, some of which were inconclusive, I found there was ALWAYS some lesson/s to be learned.
My own involvement in clearing the Vulcan for RAF service has focussed my attention and concern for all Vulcan misadventures and a pride in the small part I played in its development into one of the most successful designs in its time. I can say the same for the F-111 which almost replaced the Vulcan in the RAF as the F-111K.
I am contributing to the pending publication of a book on Vulcan development which will use with appreciation many contributions to this thread. The intense interest in the thread is a good indication that the book will be a great success.
Keep on posting your fascinating anecdotes which are important historically.
Surely, if there had been a serious defect in the flying ability of the vulcan, then most of them would have fallen out of the sky, as they didn't, I suggest that Milt has done his previous job correctly,and the Vulcan was a 'safe' aircraft to fly.
As there may soon be a Vulcan flying, there should be no surprises as to what it can and cannot do, so I put it to Milt, that there is nothing to achieve by raking up the past, as the data gained from the early Vulcan aircraft is only applicable to an aircraft that effectively went out of service over 20 years ago (not counting VDF).
As there may soon be a Vulcan flying, there should be no surprises as to what it can and cannot do, so I put it to Milt, that there is nothing to achieve by raking up the past, as the data gained from the early Vulcan aircraft is only applicable to an aircraft that effectively went out of service over 20 years ago (not counting VDF).
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When considering aircraft accidents from the point of view of learing about flying it is useful to try and establish whether the accident is totally type related (the wing bolt was not strong enough) has no type connections (he blacked out very low and for too long) or is a complex mixture (like so many of them)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
should be no surprises as to what it can and cannot do
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say there seems to be a degree of unnecessary drama contained in the comments on the Glenview incident. I don't quite understand why discussing the technicalities of any crash is judged (by some) to be ill-advised. Surely, information (rather than mis-information) is always a good thing? Likewise, we've already established that all the facts will be avilable in two years, so what's the difference? As for any potential risk of upsetting families associated with the incident, this presupposes that any of them would ever be reading Pprune, doesn't it?!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
I have to say there seems to be a degree of unnecessary drama contained in the comments on the Glenview incident. I don't quite understand why discussing the technicalities of any crash is judged (by some) to be ill-advised. Surely, information (rather than mis-information) is always a good thing? Likewise, we've already established that all the facts will be avilable in two years, so what's the difference? As for any potential risk of upsetting families associated with the incident, this presupposes that any of them would ever be reading Pprune, doesn't it?!
1. Not withstanding that all will be revealed in 2008 the current talk is clearly upsetting people and regardless of the rights or wrongs it is not our place to continue so to do when someone says "stop poking me in the eye."
2. The second issue is the unsubstantiated and demonstrably incorrect assumption that families don't read Prune. I have been contacted by the son of a former crash victim who wanted to know if I knew the father an dif I could throw any light on the incident. That person has made a pilgrimage to the crash site many times in an attempt to understand why the crew died. I shall say no more.
In essence, please drop it.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Practice Intercepts etc
Copied over from the PI thread:
There are, I am sure, many stories of intercepts on the Vulcan and the subsequent evasion. In the one below we could not evade as we were on a flight plan over France but there were plenty of other instances where we could.
In days of old when the only RAF 4-jets were Comets or V-bombers we never declared aircraft type except RAF 4-Jet.
One day, over France, 14 Aug 1964, we were asked by the French ATC for our airframe number. "We are a 4 jet we replied".. What sort of 4 jet? "A 4-jet 4-jet" was the quick reply.
Are you a Vulcan? Are you Vulcan Xray Mike 647?
Now that was a tough call. Yes would blow security and No would be a lie.
Just then the co called and reported 2 Mirage on our starboard side. That's nothing said the wg cdr. We have 2 F104 on the other.
Basically we were boxed by the RCAF on one side and the FAF on the other.
Fair Cop.
There are, I am sure, many stories of intercepts on the Vulcan and the subsequent evasion. In the one below we could not evade as we were on a flight plan over France but there were plenty of other instances where we could.
In days of old when the only RAF 4-jets were Comets or V-bombers we never declared aircraft type except RAF 4-Jet.
One day, over France, 14 Aug 1964, we were asked by the French ATC for our airframe number. "We are a 4 jet we replied".. What sort of 4 jet? "A 4-jet 4-jet" was the quick reply.
Are you a Vulcan? Are you Vulcan Xray Mike 647?
Now that was a tough call. Yes would blow security and No would be a lie.
Just then the co called and reported 2 Mirage on our starboard side. That's nothing said the wg cdr. We have 2 F104 on the other.
Basically we were boxed by the RCAF on one side and the FAF on the other.
Fair Cop.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontius
I have no wish to open up what is obviously a tender sore for certain people, however, Beags, who has been quite assertive in his wish to exclude any discussion on the accident was not quite so diplomatic when he posted at #181 or #231 about other accidents.
I have no wish to open up what is obviously a tender sore for certain people, however, Beags, who has been quite assertive in his wish to exclude any discussion on the accident was not quite so diplomatic when he posted at #181 or #231 about other accidents.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Pontius
I have no wish to open up what is obviously a tender sore for certain people, however, Beags, who has been quite assertive in his wish to exclude any discussion on the accident was not quite so diplomatic when he posted at #181 or #231 about other accidents.
I have no wish to open up what is obviously a tender sore for certain people, however, Beags, who has been quite assertive in his wish to exclude any discussion on the accident was not quite so diplomatic when he posted at #181 or #231 about other accidents.
I have lost count of the number of messages that I have written recently but used the back arrow and not sent them. There is probably an equal number that I have edited immediately after posting. There is, to my recollection, only one that I have deleted some time after the event.
PS, although this forum is supposedly anonymous there is a number of posters who are known to each other. The knowledge that you are not as anonymous as you think at first does make you think before posting that supremely witty comment shortly after pubset. It can be embarassing trying to regain a friendship that you stupidly lost. I know several posters on this thread, even if I have not met them in the flesh.
Finally, let me say I disagree with BEags on this one but I respect the request to STFU.
RSS, with respect, I think that one could note that both both those accidents have been widely covered (and in some detail) both in print and on the internet. I read the full details of the Syerston incident in a book while I was still at school, and although I always get the book wrong (it's not the one with the photo of the actual accident on the front), I do recall that the author was far less diplomatic than BEags. The XL390 loss, however, hasn't received similar attention.
I thought that there had, in fact, been two queries via Pprune about the tragedy from or on behalf of family members. Speculating on why this might be so is pointless, and since at least two Ppruners who were closely associated with the accident and its aftermath believe that to revisit the incident here would risk causing further pain to the bereaved, I have to agree that I can't see the point in pushing this any further.
Finally, those on here who know won't say and have made clear that they won't. Which again raises the question of why push the matter on this thread when it will achieve nothing?
I thought that there had, in fact, been two queries via Pprune about the tragedy from or on behalf of family members. Speculating on why this might be so is pointless, and since at least two Ppruners who were closely associated with the accident and its aftermath believe that to revisit the incident here would risk causing further pain to the bereaved, I have to agree that I can't see the point in pushing this any further.
Finally, those on here who know won't say and have made clear that they won't. Which again raises the question of why push the matter on this thread when it will achieve nothing?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Intercepts
Now returning to the real topic.
Two years after the French bounced us we had a second chance.
This time, on Exercise Coop, our mission was to execute a simulated laydown attack on Juvincourt, an airfield in northern France. At this time we were still equipped with Yellow Sun so did not practice true laydown attacks.
We transitted at high level to southern Germany and entered French airspace, IFF at standby, in the region of Karlsruhr and flew over France at 500 ft 250 kts for the 200 miles to the target. All the way we had our eyes peeled for Franch fighters.
Of course the French air defence did not have our flight plans or targets (oh yeah). Anyway, as we got to the IP, 20 miles south of the target, and turned north we were bounced by a Vatour. Now of course in the ordinary course of events this was no contest. But
We were not allowed to drop chaff nor had we any X-band jammer. What the skipper did though was opened the throttles wide and we were soon accelerating through 400 kts. Unusually for the 60s we then strappe din and donned bonedomes. My head kept bouncing off the radar camera head rest and our plotter Dave F***N (no vowels) who did not have the most stanle stomach kept his head down.
The height carriage on the Calc 5 was bouncing and the H2S ranger marker was bouncing in sympathy. As we swept over the target, with the Vatour still trying to get a guns shot, our TAS was 415 kts.
A year or so later, once the laydown trials and low level trials were complete, the RTS limited the maximum speed to 375 kts with a once only wartime dash at 415 kts. But we had been there so that was one little tick in our personal survival kit.
Two years after the French bounced us we had a second chance.
This time, on Exercise Coop, our mission was to execute a simulated laydown attack on Juvincourt, an airfield in northern France. At this time we were still equipped with Yellow Sun so did not practice true laydown attacks.
We transitted at high level to southern Germany and entered French airspace, IFF at standby, in the region of Karlsruhr and flew over France at 500 ft 250 kts for the 200 miles to the target. All the way we had our eyes peeled for Franch fighters.
Of course the French air defence did not have our flight plans or targets (oh yeah). Anyway, as we got to the IP, 20 miles south of the target, and turned north we were bounced by a Vatour. Now of course in the ordinary course of events this was no contest. But
We were not allowed to drop chaff nor had we any X-band jammer. What the skipper did though was opened the throttles wide and we were soon accelerating through 400 kts. Unusually for the 60s we then strappe din and donned bonedomes. My head kept bouncing off the radar camera head rest and our plotter Dave F***N (no vowels) who did not have the most stanle stomach kept his head down.
The height carriage on the Calc 5 was bouncing and the H2S ranger marker was bouncing in sympathy. As we swept over the target, with the Vatour still trying to get a guns shot, our TAS was 415 kts.
A year or so later, once the laydown trials and low level trials were complete, the RTS limited the maximum speed to 375 kts with a once only wartime dash at 415 kts. But we had been there so that was one little tick in our personal survival kit.
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thread will not be deleted. If someone wants to delete their own posts in a hissy fit they can. They ain't taking this thread out with it though.
Crashes get discussed on PPRuNe. Reading any thread or contributing to it is not compulsary. That's the way we do it here. That's how we have run the place for 10 years. That's how it stays.
Don't like it? Avoid the thread or go elsewhere.
Rob
Crashes get discussed on PPRuNe. Reading any thread or contributing to it is not compulsary. That's the way we do it here. That's how we have run the place for 10 years. That's how it stays.
Don't like it? Avoid the thread or go elsewhere.
Rob