Victor Airborne (Merged)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is another four engined aeroplane kicking around that will almost certainly be doing this soon
SFCC - you meant the Shackleton which has started doing taxi runs at Coventry?
He could also be refering to the Lanc at East Kirkby,I believe the owners want her to fly again.
SFCC - you meant the Shackleton which has started doing taxi runs at Coventry?
He could also be refering to the Lanc at East Kirkby,I believe the owners want her to fly again.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
blue up,
Yes, I can see where you are going (or coming from).
The same applies to caravans being blown off a motorway bridge, semis being blown over, awnings, advertising signs, shed tin roofs and badly-tied-down light aircraft becoming airborne in a storm.... None of them are any business of the CAA either.
Personally, I hope the CAA will declare itself 'incompetent' in the matter, but ask CWJ and the other people doing fast taxis to damn well get their SOPs in order!
CJ
Yes, I can see where you are going (or coming from).
The same applies to caravans being blown off a motorway bridge, semis being blown over, awnings, advertising signs, shed tin roofs and badly-tied-down light aircraft becoming airborne in a storm.... None of them are any business of the CAA either.
Personally, I hope the CAA will declare itself 'incompetent' in the matter, but ask CWJ and the other people doing fast taxis to damn well get their SOPs in order!
CJ
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Off topic a bit, but this got me reading up on the Victor crescent wing. Compared to a B-47, the Victor had almost the same weight, wingspan parasitic drag and induced drag, but carried 50% greater wing area - giving greater payload and a 50,000ft ceiling.
Why then (apart from ease of engine maintenance) are all modern airliners similar in laylout to a B-47? Podded engines, swept back tapering wings?
Crescent winged, engines in the wing root Airbuses would carry more, at greater height for the same fuel economy.......
Even if you couldn't fit a hi bypass turbofan in the wing root, a podded engined crescent wing would still be more efficient and lighter than a Boeing B47/52/707/747 etc..........
Why then (apart from ease of engine maintenance) are all modern airliners similar in laylout to a B-47? Podded engines, swept back tapering wings?
Crescent winged, engines in the wing root Airbuses would carry more, at greater height for the same fuel economy.......
Even if you couldn't fit a hi bypass turbofan in the wing root, a podded engined crescent wing would still be more efficient and lighter than a Boeing B47/52/707/747 etc..........
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Well, Lincolnshire
Age: 69
Posts: 1,101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm, many of the points raised are taken (Flaps, Cross winds, Speeds etc). But, at the end of the day, didn't 'someone' ease back on the stick.............................
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
blue up,
Yes, I can see where you are going (or coming from).
The same applies to caravans being blown off a motorway bridge, semis being blown over, awnings, advertising signs, shed tin roofs and badly-tied-down light aircraft becoming airborne in a storm.... None of them are any business of the CAA either.
Personally, I hope the CAA will declare itself 'incompetent' in the matter, but ask CWJ and the other people doing fast taxis to damn well get their SOPs in order!
Yes, I can see where you are going (or coming from).
The same applies to caravans being blown off a motorway bridge, semis being blown over, awnings, advertising signs, shed tin roofs and badly-tied-down light aircraft becoming airborne in a storm.... None of them are any business of the CAA either.
Personally, I hope the CAA will declare itself 'incompetent' in the matter, but ask CWJ and the other people doing fast taxis to damn well get their SOPs in order!
It may not be an aircraft whilst on the ground (as not registered) but when it becomes wingborne, it surely is?
Anyway, if the CAA aren't interested, I'm sure the relevant H&S authority will be.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,009
Received 2,896 Likes
on
1,240 Posts
We were discussing this very thing today
we were discussing if it was actually in the CAA's remit as it being a none flyer ground based and all, we decided it wasn't all the way up to it becoming airborne which threw up some interesting thoughts as how could the CAA legislate on anything to do with fast taxying for anything else, after all they are no longer registered as aircraft, and if it never gets airborne then it is not in their sphere of influence, it's more in the Dept of Transports as its a ground based vehicle.
If they say well it flew, does that mean everytime you see a rally car airborne over a hillock that the CAA should become involved?? or an F1 Car as that has wings both front and rear....... odd situation is it not?
we were discussing if it was actually in the CAA's remit as it being a none flyer ground based and all, we decided it wasn't all the way up to it becoming airborne which threw up some interesting thoughts as how could the CAA legislate on anything to do with fast taxying for anything else, after all they are no longer registered as aircraft, and if it never gets airborne then it is not in their sphere of influence, it's more in the Dept of Transports as its a ground based vehicle.
If they say well it flew, does that mean everytime you see a rally car airborne over a hillock that the CAA should become involved?? or an F1 Car as that has wings both front and rear....... odd situation is it not?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Dunno, the sat nav is busted.
Age: 48
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is correct that the C.A.A. have no remit when it comes to the fast taxi runs, but as soon as one becomes airborne then they do become and are involved I dont know what the outcome or whats going on but i do know they are involved.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Eastbourne
Age: 69
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watched this lot from the outset, interesting the way some prefer the hysterical approach while others take the more consider one.
While the incident was unfortunate the debate will rage on I am sure until the CAA give a statement on the matter, I for one doubt they will see it as anything other than Pilot, err! ‘Driver’ error and recommend that said personnel read up on the flight notes for the Victor with particular interest being paid to ground handling.
Mild rebuff maybe but we must all understand that the Victor in a light state is a sporty piece of tackle and taken as they do close too Vr will simply lift off if not handled with care, that the aircraft is banned from intentional flight by virtue of not having a C of A does not mean it is incapable, something the owners are I know well aware given the amount of maintenance they lavish upon the beast and right now I am also certain that they are very concerned as too the future of their charge.
Speculate if you must, but It is my understanding that this event is the first to be recorded, but I suspect not the first time a short hop has resulted or almost occurred due too wind conditions with this airframe and others, only the owners really know what happened and why, maybe we should all wait until they let us know the details if they feel they are able too.
While the incident was unfortunate the debate will rage on I am sure until the CAA give a statement on the matter, I for one doubt they will see it as anything other than Pilot, err! ‘Driver’ error and recommend that said personnel read up on the flight notes for the Victor with particular interest being paid to ground handling.
Mild rebuff maybe but we must all understand that the Victor in a light state is a sporty piece of tackle and taken as they do close too Vr will simply lift off if not handled with care, that the aircraft is banned from intentional flight by virtue of not having a C of A does not mean it is incapable, something the owners are I know well aware given the amount of maintenance they lavish upon the beast and right now I am also certain that they are very concerned as too the future of their charge.
Speculate if you must, but It is my understanding that this event is the first to be recorded, but I suspect not the first time a short hop has resulted or almost occurred due too wind conditions with this airframe and others, only the owners really know what happened and why, maybe we should all wait until they let us know the details if they feel they are able too.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: York
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Victor Airborne
May I as the owner of the 'Other Victor'; XL231 at Elvington put some things in writing before things become 'tit for tat' against the type in general and any future demonstration runs.
Firstly we operate our aircraft within a safety envelope and any high-speed operations are carried out by a former K2 multi-thousand hour Captain, who is also a civilian flight safety consultant. The other crew members are usually ALL ex-Victor men. A tail braking parachute is always used (Not the case with the other A/C in question).
XL231 is maintained to FULL serviceability at great expense and regular pitot/static tests are carried out. The flight instrumentation is also regularly tested and a full radio fit is installed. All crew wear full RAF flying kit and the groundcrew mostly are ex-RAF tradesmen.
It is of concern to us that this 'flight' took place at Bruntingthorpe and I can only gawp in wonderment that they were not killed, A Mk2 Victor rolled over once at RAF Wyton with the expected outcome...
I firmly believe that a K2 with full fwd stick pressure and fwd trim will stay on the deck if you want it to particularly if the C of G is correct. Quite what happened at Bruntingthorpe isn't totally clear as yet. In addition to the above the rear mounted airbrakes were not used (according to the photographs) which is concerning, there are no limits on their usage.
All in all I think a disasater was narrowly avoided and the 'pilot' very fortunate to pull it off. I'm not in the habit of naming names but he was a K2 captain & a former 55 Sqn commander.
Firstly we operate our aircraft within a safety envelope and any high-speed operations are carried out by a former K2 multi-thousand hour Captain, who is also a civilian flight safety consultant. The other crew members are usually ALL ex-Victor men. A tail braking parachute is always used (Not the case with the other A/C in question).
XL231 is maintained to FULL serviceability at great expense and regular pitot/static tests are carried out. The flight instrumentation is also regularly tested and a full radio fit is installed. All crew wear full RAF flying kit and the groundcrew mostly are ex-RAF tradesmen.
It is of concern to us that this 'flight' took place at Bruntingthorpe and I can only gawp in wonderment that they were not killed, A Mk2 Victor rolled over once at RAF Wyton with the expected outcome...
I firmly believe that a K2 with full fwd stick pressure and fwd trim will stay on the deck if you want it to particularly if the C of G is correct. Quite what happened at Bruntingthorpe isn't totally clear as yet. In addition to the above the rear mounted airbrakes were not used (according to the photographs) which is concerning, there are no limits on their usage.
All in all I think a disasater was narrowly avoided and the 'pilot' very fortunate to pull it off. I'm not in the habit of naming names but he was a K2 captain & a former 55 Sqn commander.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Victor airworthy?
If the answer to this question is posted elsewhere please forgive me.
Would it be possible to bring one of the existing Victors back to full airworthy status as has been done with the Vulcan (besides cost and operating finance issues)?
I am always reminded of one of the UK CAA prohibitions when I see one of the Lightnings flying over Cape Town, a great sight and sad because the type could be operated safely in the UK.
Would it be possible to bring one of the existing Victors back to full airworthy status as has been done with the Vulcan (besides cost and operating finance issues)?
I am always reminded of one of the UK CAA prohibitions when I see one of the Lightnings flying over Cape Town, a great sight and sad because the type could be operated safely in the UK.
Last edited by Michael Birbeck; 6th May 2009 at 22:10.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it is a marvellous testament to the hundreds of enthusiasts who look after these old aeroplanes .
So................. it gets airborne ?
That Gadge will remember that for ever, well as long as his licence lasts in any case
Long Live Britannia !
So................. it gets airborne ?
That Gadge will remember that for ever, well as long as his licence lasts in any case
Long Live Britannia !
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Dunno, the sat nav is busted.
Age: 48
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the answer to this question is posted elsewhere please forgive me.
Would it be possible to bring one of the existing Victors back to full airworthy status as has been done with the Vulcan?
I am always reminded of one of the UK CAA prohibtions when I see one of the Lightnings flying over Cape Town, a great sight and sad because the type could be operated safely in the UK.
Would it be possible to bring one of the existing Victors back to full airworthy status as has been done with the Vulcan?
I am always reminded of one of the UK CAA prohibtions when I see one of the Lightnings flying over Cape Town, a great sight and sad because the type could be operated safely in the UK.
To put it simply no
The Victors had used up all thier fatigue life and to get one in the air would require buckets of cash, possibly a re-spar. then theres the engine support etc,etc.
As for the Lightnings the reasons they are not allowed to fly are very good ones.
.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"As for the Lightnings the reasons they are not allowed to fly are very good ones. "
Just like the Policeman who wouldn't get on the Bike or the countless other pathetic "Zero Risk" attitudes that pervade our society.
Average age of the mission controllers sending people to the moon was around 26 years old. Could you imagine a 26 year old doing that today. Most have no sense of adventure, no imagination and won't attempt anything new or remotely risky as they have long ago been warned off. (My Physio told me today that new students are now encouraged NOT to touch patients and indeed are now not taught how to. They are encouraged to listen and give the patient stretching excercises and send them on their way!)
The Nanny states is/has killed this country and the sooner we get back to a bit of trial and error the better off we'll all be.
As for the Victor lifting off. What a great sight to see. Lets have more of it assuming we all realise that going to an airshow may be bad for one's health (along with Smoking, Child Birth, Swine Flu, swimming near Sellafield and eating Farley's rusks!)
Just like the Policeman who wouldn't get on the Bike or the countless other pathetic "Zero Risk" attitudes that pervade our society.
Average age of the mission controllers sending people to the moon was around 26 years old. Could you imagine a 26 year old doing that today. Most have no sense of adventure, no imagination and won't attempt anything new or remotely risky as they have long ago been warned off. (My Physio told me today that new students are now encouraged NOT to touch patients and indeed are now not taught how to. They are encouraged to listen and give the patient stretching excercises and send them on their way!)
The Nanny states is/has killed this country and the sooner we get back to a bit of trial and error the better off we'll all be.
As for the Victor lifting off. What a great sight to see. Lets have more of it assuming we all realise that going to an airshow may be bad for one's health (along with Smoking, Child Birth, Swine Flu, swimming near Sellafield and eating Farley's rusks!)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Dunno, the sat nav is busted.
Age: 48
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Feel free to do any thing you like as long as the risk is to yourself only. The problem with aeroplanes is that when things go wrong people who did not choose to take a risk tend to get hurt, it dosnt bear thinking about what the results would have been had the Victor not made it safely down, i suggest you read Andy's (320psi) thread regarding why Lightnings wont fly in the uk.
I also witnessed the Victor fly and it wasnt a great sight to see, i didnt see a wonderfull aircraft returning to the sky i saw a something going very wrong and a very lucky escape for a number of people.
I also witnessed the Victor fly and it wasnt a great sight to see, i didnt see a wonderfull aircraft returning to the sky i saw a something going very wrong and a very lucky escape for a number of people.
norodnik - I was there and when you see the eventual posting of the videos you'll agree that short of muddy wheels, skidmarks on the grass and in various pants this was nothing short of a miracle recovery.
As an aside I remember seeing an old film of the Victor doing landings complete with jaunty muzac. a gem that stick in my head was
"with her advanced wings and high tail the victor can practically land itself - here demonstrated with the pilot with his hands off the controls......"
I think Teasin' Tina has a soul and had had enough of XH558 hogging all the glory. So she said Bollox to this fast run nonsense and flew anyway
Something just jumped into my head regd. the gust that probably pushed it over Vmu - when she eventually got back on the deck - completely p1ssed BTW -she was past the trees that helped drop the relative windspeed at that point, and reduced weathercocking force too.
As an aside I remember seeing an old film of the Victor doing landings complete with jaunty muzac. a gem that stick in my head was
"with her advanced wings and high tail the victor can practically land itself - here demonstrated with the pilot with his hands off the controls......"
I think Teasin' Tina has a soul and had had enough of XH558 hogging all the glory. So she said Bollox to this fast run nonsense and flew anyway
Something just jumped into my head regd. the gust that probably pushed it over Vmu - when she eventually got back on the deck - completely p1ssed BTW -she was past the trees that helped drop the relative windspeed at that point, and reduced weathercocking force too.
Last edited by Shaft109; 6th May 2009 at 22:48.
Tit for Tat
Victor owner - talk about getting your retaliation in first! As far as I am aware all of the stuff you say about your own aircraft (ex RAF aircrew, full flying kit etc) apply at Bruntingthorpe, with the exception of the brake parachute. I also know the pilot involved and I think you have sailed pretty close to the wind in the matter of not naming names on these threads, you've cut the possible names down to single figures at any rate - still you are a probationer so perhaps we should make allowances.
I would just like to say that I have flown with him, and would be happy to do so again - we dont yet fully understand why the aircraft got airborne - what is incontrovertible is that he got it back down in one piece with an unharmed crew, and that counts for a lot in my book.
I dont quite see what that has got to do with this case. The aircraft in question as I recall was attempting a practice assymetric landing and the accident was caused by a gross imbalance of power when full throttle was applied on the two "live" engines at touchdown. Entirely irrelevant here.
I think its a fair estimate that the photos were taken within a few seconds of the aircraft becoming airborne - would you have had them out that quickly?
More generally I have been pretty disgusted by the amount of backstabbing and unfounded criticism on this thread. It might be as well if a few contributors had just waited for the full story to emerge before getting the knives out.
I would just like to say that I have flown with him, and would be happy to do so again - we dont yet fully understand why the aircraft got airborne - what is incontrovertible is that he got it back down in one piece with an unharmed crew, and that counts for a lot in my book.
A Mk2 Victor rolled over once at RAF Wyton with the expected outcome...
In addition to the above the rear mounted airbrakes were not used (according to the photographs) which is concerning, there are no limits on their usage.
More generally I have been pretty disgusted by the amount of backstabbing and unfounded criticism on this thread. It might be as well if a few contributors had just waited for the full story to emerge before getting the knives out.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A question for those involved with these types of thing (Not specifically the Victor).
How much NDT/Investigation of the structure of the aircraft is carried out in the maintenance program? How much corrosion investigation?
I've heard un-informed comment that 'if he ran out of runway, he could have taken her round again' - not something I'd want to see on an aircraft that hadn't flown for 15 years and had spent most (all?) of that time sitting outside!
How much NDT/Investigation of the structure of the aircraft is carried out in the maintenance program? How much corrosion investigation?
I've heard un-informed comment that 'if he ran out of runway, he could have taken her round again' - not something I'd want to see on an aircraft that hadn't flown for 15 years and had spent most (all?) of that time sitting outside!