Did You Fly The Vulcan?? (Merged)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Over the rainbow
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taken at RAAF Darwin, Feb '66. CO W/Cdr D.A. Arnott, DFC.
At the time 35 was at Cottesmore with a detachment at RAF Tengah. It was from there that we went to Darwin.
Sorry messed up the insert photo bit. Try again later.
'We knew how to whinge but we kept it in the NAAFI bar.'
At the time 35 was at Cottesmore with a detachment at RAF Tengah. It was from there that we went to Darwin.
Sorry messed up the insert photo bit. Try again later.
'We knew how to whinge but we kept it in the NAAFI bar.'
Last edited by philrigger; 5th Jan 2007 at 15:30.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: USA-East coast
Age: 51
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pics.
Tim, I received an email from you on the Vulcan topic, requesting any info.
Here's a couple of pictures I stumbled onto at work:
1. A plaque in my mess
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/5...evulcanvx5.jpg
2. Dont know the story..sorry.
http://img319.imageshack.us/img319/8944/2wg1.jpg
cheers.
Here's a couple of pictures I stumbled onto at work:
1. A plaque in my mess
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/5...evulcanvx5.jpg
2. Dont know the story..sorry.
http://img319.imageshack.us/img319/8944/2wg1.jpg
cheers.
Last edited by tommytill; 8th Jan 2007 at 11:03. Reason: grammar
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2. Dont know the story..sorry.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: firmly on dry land
Age: 81
Posts: 1,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I note the comment about the airbrakes being left out. AFAIR the Vulcan 2 always flew circuits with the airbrakes at high-drag. Perhaps BEagle can expand?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
V-Bombers by Tim Laming. Recent revelations mean we can no longer advise purchase of this volume.
Think that tells you all you need to know about his web site - evidently he says whatever he likes depending on whether he happens to like the person involved!
What a prat.
Quote:Perhaps BEagle can expand?
I'm sure he can. Meantime will this do? It's a way of reducing Min Drag Speed by increasing the Profile (aka Zero Lift) Drag thus shifting the total drag curve up and to the left. A popular Aerodynamics "minibrief" at CFS when I was there.
I'm sure he can. Meantime will this do? It's a way of reducing Min Drag Speed by increasing the Profile (aka Zero Lift) Drag thus shifting the total drag curve up and to the left. A popular Aerodynamics "minibrief" at CFS when I was there.
Thread Starter
Fly downwind at 1100ft using about 72% at Pattern Speed.
Carry out pre-landing checks.
When the threshold is 45 deg behind, throttle back to 69%, select mid-drag airbrake and begin descending turn at 30 deg AoB.
At about 900ft, check feet off brakes, 3 greens and speed at Approach Speed +10 kts.
At about 700ft, throttle back to about 66% and reduce to Approach Speed.
At 300 ft, select high-drag airbrake and begin tapering back to Threshold Speed.
If overshooting, select 80%, level wings, airbrake in, landing gear up and climb at Pattern Speed. Start climbing 30 deg AoB turn to downwind at 600 ft.
With only 66% on the approach, even with high drag airbrake on the final part of the approach the engine response time wasn't brilliant. An airbrakeless approach was even more tricky unless the speed was really well nailed.
Use of airbrake improves engine response as the higher drag means higher thrust and the engines will be in a more responsive regime. The min drag speed is indeed reduced, which means that you will be further from the 'wrong side of the drag curve' on the approach - but few at CFS could actually prove that min drag speed was at the intersection of the zero lift and lift dependent drag curves... Neither could they prove the theoretical 1.32 relationship between min drag speed and min power speed - just a lot of waffling and waving of 4 coloured pens usually. Few could remember differentiation from their schoolboy applied maths days.
Carry out pre-landing checks.
When the threshold is 45 deg behind, throttle back to 69%, select mid-drag airbrake and begin descending turn at 30 deg AoB.
At about 900ft, check feet off brakes, 3 greens and speed at Approach Speed +10 kts.
At about 700ft, throttle back to about 66% and reduce to Approach Speed.
At 300 ft, select high-drag airbrake and begin tapering back to Threshold Speed.
If overshooting, select 80%, level wings, airbrake in, landing gear up and climb at Pattern Speed. Start climbing 30 deg AoB turn to downwind at 600 ft.
With only 66% on the approach, even with high drag airbrake on the final part of the approach the engine response time wasn't brilliant. An airbrakeless approach was even more tricky unless the speed was really well nailed.
Use of airbrake improves engine response as the higher drag means higher thrust and the engines will be in a more responsive regime. The min drag speed is indeed reduced, which means that you will be further from the 'wrong side of the drag curve' on the approach - but few at CFS could actually prove that min drag speed was at the intersection of the zero lift and lift dependent drag curves... Neither could they prove the theoretical 1.32 relationship between min drag speed and min power speed - just a lot of waffling and waving of 4 coloured pens usually. Few could remember differentiation from their schoolboy applied maths days.
Last edited by BEagle; 8th Jan 2007 at 13:17.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just in case you guys haven't noticed from this thread and others, Brickhistory evidently doesn't like me, so he seems to think it's his mission to make sniping comments every time I say anything. I think the best policy might be to simply ignore him seen as he never actually says anything. Bless, he must have some serious issues to deal with
Incidentally (not that any of you will probably even care, but seen as he raises the subject...), I don't know (or care) what the "recent revelations" are that Burke mentions on his site. I just thought it worth mentioning that when he can't even see fit to add proper references to the the availability of Vulcan books (when he doesn't happen to like the author of the main two), it kinda suggests that (like many other sites) the rest of the site might also be a tad suspect in places. Always worth bearing this in mind when you consider this, and the subject of this thread, etc. Just because something's published on a web site, doesn't mean it's true
Incidentally (not that any of you will probably even care, but seen as he raises the subject...), I don't know (or care) what the "recent revelations" are that Burke mentions on his site. I just thought it worth mentioning that when he can't even see fit to add proper references to the the availability of Vulcan books (when he doesn't happen to like the author of the main two), it kinda suggests that (like many other sites) the rest of the site might also be a tad suspect in places. Always worth bearing this in mind when you consider this, and the subject of this thread, etc. Just because something's published on a web site, doesn't mean it's true
OK?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Back in Blighty
Age: 73
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DD v A+E
The other thread running at the moment jogged a memory and also lit up a question. Bomb bay fuel tank fits were accurately described. As far as I can remember A + E = 11000lbs, Double Drums = 16000lbs. In my co pilot days with 617 we were tasked with some MRR (27 was recently reformed and it was an exercise secondary role). We also flew MRR in the Med for the benefit of Buccaneers.
Now as I recall on several long and boring sessions the extra 5000lbs only actually gave a useful 20minutes extra because we used so much extra effort dragging it up to 40+. Does that burn rate seem familiar to others?
Now as I recall on several long and boring sessions the extra 5000lbs only actually gave a useful 20minutes extra because we used so much extra effort dragging it up to 40+. Does that burn rate seem familiar to others?
Thread Starter
Hi Ray,
Yes, there was a bit of a flattening off in the ODM climb rate at about 40000ft at that weight. Those who tried to get up to FL430 wasted a lot of fuel; we learned this on trips to Goose which were a bit tight at times with 98+8. Hence a climb to FL390, a short cruise, then up to FL430 before the oceanic boundary gave us a bit more fuel at top of drop....
And wasn't boat-spotting so $odding awfully boring! 27 were welcome to it!
Yes, there was a bit of a flattening off in the ODM climb rate at about 40000ft at that weight. Those who tried to get up to FL430 wasted a lot of fuel; we learned this on trips to Goose which were a bit tight at times with 98+8. Hence a climb to FL390, a short cruise, then up to FL430 before the oceanic boundary gave us a bit more fuel at top of drop....
And wasn't boat-spotting so $odding awfully boring! 27 were welcome to it!
Thread Starter
Hmmm - we were once doing some MRR borex for a bunch of Buccs. After all the "blah, blah, disport opens, blah, blah" guff had been given, there were a few short code words of commands from the Bucc formation as they manoeuvred for their attack against a splash target being towed by some grey boat or other.
Then Roger Waitout, that well-known Navy communicator, came up on frequency:
"(Buccs), this is Eagle...."
"Eagle, WAIT!"
Grunt, heave, pull, toss, roll......
"(Buccs) Bomb Gone. Go ahead, Eagle"
"Eagle - err, could you delay for a few minutes?"
Typical 0.5 mile per minute fish head comment!
Then Roger Waitout, that well-known Navy communicator, came up on frequency:
"(Buccs), this is Eagle...."
"Eagle, WAIT!"
Grunt, heave, pull, toss, roll......
"(Buccs) Bomb Gone. Go ahead, Eagle"
"Eagle - err, could you delay for a few minutes?"
Typical 0.5 mile per minute fish head comment!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
This links back to another Vulcan thread and contains details of the FEAF Dets:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...=1#post3066732
Incidentally the 12 Sqn deployment was an operational and not an exercise deployment.
The next, IX Sqn deployment was an exercise and not an operational deployment; at least that is what was said at the time. Anyone posted or attached to Malaysia at that time was however entitled to a GSM-Malaya Peninsular. The XXXV Det was told the same thing.
As it was an exercise deployment the crews were told they could NOT claim medals. IMHO this was b*ll*cks and they could claim even now.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...=1#post3066732
Incidentally the 12 Sqn deployment was an operational and not an exercise deployment.
The next, IX Sqn deployment was an exercise and not an operational deployment; at least that is what was said at the time. Anyone posted or attached to Malaysia at that time was however entitled to a GSM-Malaya Peninsular. The XXXV Det was told the same thing.
As it was an exercise deployment the crews were told they could NOT claim medals. IMHO this was b*ll*cks and they could claim even now.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The first solution was simply to unlatch the ladder and leave it loose on the door. Unfortunately there was a risk of it moving and jamming. The alternatives were, as BEagle said, was to ditch the ladder before flight or stow it forrad.
Leaving it behind was the 'best' option although this could present difficulties in the case of diversion. For agile rearcrew members this presented few problems - slide down door, hold door jack, reach out with foot onto nosewheel leg etc. Getting back in you climbed the nosewheel leg, grabbed the door jack and with a mighty bound . . .
The alternative of stowing the ladder forward had problems too. The prone bomb aimer's position was normally covered by a drop down panel which protected the T4 bomb sight or the F95 camera. This panel was modified to take two clips, identical to the door clips, so the ladder could be similarly stowed forward. In BEagles time it was not necessary to lash it down unlesss ...
If dropping bombs it was quite useful for the nav rad to watch them leave the aircraft and I could do this after bomb release by moving down to the nose. The ladder and stowage would have been in the way. Also we occasionally needed access to the F95 camera.
In Cyprus, with only one potential diversion, we usually left the ladder behind. I do not know what the position was in UK with less certain weather factors etc.
If we were doing a transit trip and the cabin was full of baggage we could not stow the ladder. Usually however baggage would be in the 4000lb or 750lb bomb bay pannier.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Over the rainbow
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontius Navigator
[/QUOTE]Anyone posted or attached to Malaysia at that time was however entitled to a GSM-Malaya Peninsular. The XXXV Det was told the same thing.
As it was an exercise deployment the crews were told they could NOT claim medals. IMHO this was b*ll*cks and they could claim even now.[/QUOTE]
If I remember correctly;
The qualifying period for the GSM (Malay Peninsula) ended on 31 Aug '65 for those in the RAF and Army. For those serving at sea it ended 31 Aug '66.
But I stand to be corrected. Exercise or not what counted was time in theatre.
PS I have a pal who was serving in Kutching (Borneo) during the early '60s. He spent some time in Singapore for sporting events and he qualified for and received the medal.
'We knew how to whinge but we kept it in the NAAFI bar.'