Avro Vulcan ACN data & dispersal sites
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on 'til morning
Age: 63
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Avro Vulcan ACN data & dispersal sites
I've tried searching the internet including PPRuNe but can't find any reference to ACN data for the Avro Vulcan. Perhaps the RAF used a different methodology to determine whether any particular pavement was suitable? Is anyone able to provide details of the ACN (or equivalent) for the Vulcan B2?
I'm also interested in Vulcan dispersal sites. There were many "official" dispersal sites and these are listed in various publications e.g. List of V Bomber dispersal bases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and these looked like this; Aircraft XM573 (1963 Avro Vulcan B.2 C/N Set 54) Photo by Peter Nicholson (Photo ID: AC301198) and this; Vulcans in Camera - Avro Vulcan B2s on the RAF Finningley ORP. . These must have been very easy to identify using satellite imagery so I imagine the Soviets knew where all of these “official” dispersal sites were and they would all presumably be potential targets. Perhaps they were all decoys and the real dispersal bases in the event of conflict would have been elsewhere?
During the 1990s, I was told by a former RAF officer (sadly now deceased) who was based at RAF Turnhouse that there were many more “unofficial” dispersal sites for V-bombers. RAF Turnhouse was, he said, one of these. He told me that the necessary ground support equipment for Vulcan operations had been stored there during the 1960s and 70s. Although RAF Turnhouse didn't have the specially constructed dispersal pans, called Operational Readiness Platforms (ORP), like the ones in the above photos it did have unusually large turning / holding areas added at each end of runway 13/31 (as was – it is now reclassified 12/30). Nowadays, one of these is sometimes used as a parking area for several aircraft up to B747 size and is known as “Block 33”. See the “Aerodrome chart” at NATS | AIS - Home .
If you compare the size of Block 33 (SE corner of the airfield) with the turning areas at each end of runway 06/24 (which are large enough to turn a B747) it’s hard to see what purpose Block 33 was created for if not as a Vulcan ORP. As far as I have been able to establish by examining historical plans for RAF Turnhouse, these areas were added at the time that the runway was resurfaced in the early 60s which coincided with the height of the cold war and the introduction of the Vulcan B2s. Prior to that they were much smaller and were presumably sized as QRAs for the resident Vampires.
The runway improvements were said at the time to be for civilian purposes but it’s difficult to see what the civilian purpose would be for Block 33 given that the largest civil aircraft that regularly used EDI at the time was a Vickers Vanguard and there were taxiways to each end of the runway. It appears to me that this was just a cover story and that the real reason why the runway was upgraded and Block 33 (and an equivalent area at the other end of the runway) added was to allow V-Bomber operations. Is anyone able to confirm or deny the story I was told by the former RAF officer? It certainly sounds very plausible.
I'm also interested in Vulcan dispersal sites. There were many "official" dispersal sites and these are listed in various publications e.g. List of V Bomber dispersal bases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and these looked like this; Aircraft XM573 (1963 Avro Vulcan B.2 C/N Set 54) Photo by Peter Nicholson (Photo ID: AC301198) and this; Vulcans in Camera - Avro Vulcan B2s on the RAF Finningley ORP. . These must have been very easy to identify using satellite imagery so I imagine the Soviets knew where all of these “official” dispersal sites were and they would all presumably be potential targets. Perhaps they were all decoys and the real dispersal bases in the event of conflict would have been elsewhere?
During the 1990s, I was told by a former RAF officer (sadly now deceased) who was based at RAF Turnhouse that there were many more “unofficial” dispersal sites for V-bombers. RAF Turnhouse was, he said, one of these. He told me that the necessary ground support equipment for Vulcan operations had been stored there during the 1960s and 70s. Although RAF Turnhouse didn't have the specially constructed dispersal pans, called Operational Readiness Platforms (ORP), like the ones in the above photos it did have unusually large turning / holding areas added at each end of runway 13/31 (as was – it is now reclassified 12/30). Nowadays, one of these is sometimes used as a parking area for several aircraft up to B747 size and is known as “Block 33”. See the “Aerodrome chart” at NATS | AIS - Home .
If you compare the size of Block 33 (SE corner of the airfield) with the turning areas at each end of runway 06/24 (which are large enough to turn a B747) it’s hard to see what purpose Block 33 was created for if not as a Vulcan ORP. As far as I have been able to establish by examining historical plans for RAF Turnhouse, these areas were added at the time that the runway was resurfaced in the early 60s which coincided with the height of the cold war and the introduction of the Vulcan B2s. Prior to that they were much smaller and were presumably sized as QRAs for the resident Vampires.
The runway improvements were said at the time to be for civilian purposes but it’s difficult to see what the civilian purpose would be for Block 33 given that the largest civil aircraft that regularly used EDI at the time was a Vickers Vanguard and there were taxiways to each end of the runway. It appears to me that this was just a cover story and that the real reason why the runway was upgraded and Block 33 (and an equivalent area at the other end of the runway) added was to allow V-Bomber operations. Is anyone able to confirm or deny the story I was told by the former RAF officer? It certainly sounds very plausible.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Garden of England
Age: 85
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't help regarding Aircraft Classification Numbers (ACN) for the Vulcan, unfortunately. But your post has reminded me of a very interesting piece of information passed to me by another PPRuNer a few years ago. He told me that in about 1968, a Vulcan was landed at RAF Halton, the training centre for RAF apprentices.
Since the airfield at Halton is grass, without any paved runways, I find that quite astounding! If it could be confirmed to have taken place, in the absence of a runway with a conventionally designed and rated PCN (Pavement Classification Number), it might indicate that the RAF did in fact use a non-standard methodology to assess whether the grass surface was suitable. And one would assume that the aircraft involved would have been as light as possible, with all unnecessary items removed and minimum fuel load. Even so, I would think the wheels would leave significant ruts!
Since the airfield at Halton is grass, without any paved runways, I find that quite astounding! If it could be confirmed to have taken place, in the absence of a runway with a conventionally designed and rated PCN (Pavement Classification Number), it might indicate that the RAF did in fact use a non-standard methodology to assess whether the grass surface was suitable. And one would assume that the aircraft involved would have been as light as possible, with all unnecessary items removed and minimum fuel load. Even so, I would think the wheels would leave significant ruts!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Garden of England
Age: 85
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kitbag, thanks for that, not being ex-military I don't generally frequent the Military Aircrew forum, so wasn't aware the subject had been raised so recently!
Having read through the whole thread, I can't find any reference to any of the Vulcans or Comets flying out again. Does anyone know if this was done?
Regarding my comment about use of a "non-standard methodology" to assess the suitability of the grass surface, I just love the description of John Cunningham walking about and digging his heel in a few times before deciding to land the Comet there. As a former Civil and Structural Engineer myself, that sounds about right!!!
Having read through the whole thread, I can't find any reference to any of the Vulcans or Comets flying out again. Does anyone know if this was done?
Regarding my comment about use of a "non-standard methodology" to assess the suitability of the grass surface, I just love the description of John Cunningham walking about and digging his heel in a few times before deciding to land the Comet there. As a former Civil and Structural Engineer myself, that sounds about right!!!
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,372
Received 118 Likes
on
85 Posts
" I can't find any reference to any of the Vulcans or Comets flying out again. Does anyone know if this was done?"
The aircraft were flown in purely to be used as ground instructional aircraft....
The prospect of them ever flying again..... after the attention of numerous apprentices.... would have dropped the house prices to less than zero in Wendover...and beyond....
The aircraft were flown in purely to be used as ground instructional aircraft....
The prospect of them ever flying again..... after the attention of numerous apprentices.... would have dropped the house prices to less than zero in Wendover...and beyond....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on 'til morning
Age: 63
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Kitbag and Krystal n chips. That answers the 603DX's Halton supplementary question. Is anyone able to answer the original questions in this thread please?
RAE Farnborough isn't on the Wikipedia list but for years after I went there, the area now known as 'South 2 Apron' was always referred to as 'V-Bomber Dispersal'. The name was only changed in the noughties prior to civilianisation.
'South 2 Apron' was always referred to as 'V-Bomber Dispersal'
This from the days when to actually see a n-weapon was regarded as a security breach.
