XH558 gone tech
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's bad timing! I suppose good news is that they're going to fit the tank, which suggests they must be pretty confident of flying again next year, so it's not all bad news.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really don't think they should be spending money on a new tank until they actually are confident of flying next year, and for me that would mean having at least the funding in place for the wing mod and enough for the winter servicing.
Really can't see the point in throwing money away like that in their current situation.
Really can't see the point in throwing money away like that in their current situation.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, it is perhaps like I said in a previous post. Maybe their finances are rather better than they often imply. I can't imagine they'd bother fitting a new tank unless they were pretty confident that they can fly again next year. I suspect there's a lot of brinkmanship in their funding pleas.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: southern England
Age: 66
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Retirement? I would cheerfully see it scrapped. Whoopee! Remind the public how fifty years ago we had the capability to blow up the whole of Russia and kill everybody on the planet. Glory, Heroism, Sacrifice, (cue silly bint warbling opera to hide noise of old piston engined warplane.)
We built so many good civilian aircraft which weren't used to kill people. Almost any of them would be cheaper to keep flying, more reliable, more durable and more representative of our aviation heritage than this scandalously over hyped object.
We built so many good civilian aircraft which weren't used to kill people. Almost any of them would be cheaper to keep flying, more reliable, more durable and more representative of our aviation heritage than this scandalously over hyped object.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But in saying that you're completely misunderstanding the whole point of the Vulcan and the V-Force. Yes, it was designed as a weapon of mass destruction but that was necessary in order to provide a credible (and visible) deterrent. Make no mistake, the Soviet Union was prepared to use nuclear weapons against the West (there are many post-unification sources that will illustrate this quite openly) and the only credible way of ensuring that nothing like that would happen, was to have the ability to strike back with decisive force.
Yes, the V-Force was small when compared to SAC but it was far closer to Moscow, could react more swiftly and would have (had it been needed) been at the very forefront of a retaliatory attack on the Soviet Union. The Soviets knew this, and so there is no doubt that the Vulcan was worth every penny that was spent on it, at a time when the country was financially crippled. By any standards the Vulcan was money well spent because we're all still here to talk about it half a decade later.
Civilian aircraft might well be just as interesting in terms of design and appeal, but the Vulcan was much more than that. Yes, it was big and noisy and awe-inspiring to look at, but more importantly it was capable of doing the job that it was designed for, and it did it with huge success. We know this because we weren't all killed a long time ago.
Yes, the V-Force was small when compared to SAC but it was far closer to Moscow, could react more swiftly and would have (had it been needed) been at the very forefront of a retaliatory attack on the Soviet Union. The Soviets knew this, and so there is no doubt that the Vulcan was worth every penny that was spent on it, at a time when the country was financially crippled. By any standards the Vulcan was money well spent because we're all still here to talk about it half a decade later.
Civilian aircraft might well be just as interesting in terms of design and appeal, but the Vulcan was much more than that. Yes, it was big and noisy and awe-inspiring to look at, but more importantly it was capable of doing the job that it was designed for, and it did it with huge success. We know this because we weren't all killed a long time ago.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hurn, I did think the same thing but I can't see any point in spending money on a new fuel tank if there was any real intention to make just one last flight. I'm sure it would have been possible to have made a short-term fix if that had been the plan.
I can only assume that they have already taken the decision to work towards flying again next year, whether they have funds for the wing modifications or not. Maybe they have more money than they're letting-on about, or maybe they're just optimistic. Or perhaps there are enough flyable hours to squeeze another display season out of the aircraft even without doing the modifications? It's not as if the aircraft did all that many shows this year!
I can only assume that they have already taken the decision to work towards flying again next year, whether they have funds for the wing modifications or not. Maybe they have more money than they're letting-on about, or maybe they're just optimistic. Or perhaps there are enough flyable hours to squeeze another display season out of the aircraft even without doing the modifications? It's not as if the aircraft did all that many shows this year!
m.Berger,
Not quite sure whom you mean by "we", but I've flown many hours on at least two of the passenger jets you may have in mind. Excellent as they were in terms of safety and handling qualities, they were less profitable and successful than their American counterparts (unless you are including the A320).
The Vulcan had capabilities unmatched by its foreign rivals, as did the Victor I believe. Pre-Polaris, they may have saved us from becoming a client-state of the Soviet Union. No doubt you will disagree.
Not quite sure whom you mean by "we", but I've flown many hours on at least two of the passenger jets you may have in mind. Excellent as they were in terms of safety and handling qualities, they were less profitable and successful than their American counterparts (unless you are including the A320).
The Vulcan had capabilities unmatched by its foreign rivals, as did the Victor I believe. Pre-Polaris, they may have saved us from becoming a client-state of the Soviet Union. No doubt you will disagree.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: southern England
Age: 66
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHO94: But we were prepared to use nuclear weapons against Russia. Of course they were prepared to do the same. There is nothing noble about reverence for WDMs. Indeed, many would find it perverse.
It was the national will that the UK had (and still has) a nuclear deterrent.
The V-force held this responsibility for many years during the dark times of the Cold War. The Vulcan's nuclear role did NOT end with Polaris; crews were trained to deliver the WE177 against Warsaw Pact targets right up until the early 1980s when the task was handed over to more modern aircraft.
'Ban the Bomb' folk can have their say, which wouldn't have been the case had the deterrent faild, but equally so can those who agreed with the national policy.
I hope that 558 will be repaired; I was surprised to read the VTS statement that the No. 5 tank was required for CG control purposes as this is actually effected by '1-to-7' tank transfer. It would be feasible to blank off the starboard No. 5 tank, but that would require the aircraft to be flown with the fuel tank transfer sequence timers in 'MAN', increasing crew workload. Also, it is both VTS and CAA policy that the aircraft must be maintained in a fully serviceable condition.
The V-force held this responsibility for many years during the dark times of the Cold War. The Vulcan's nuclear role did NOT end with Polaris; crews were trained to deliver the WE177 against Warsaw Pact targets right up until the early 1980s when the task was handed over to more modern aircraft.
'Ban the Bomb' folk can have their say, which wouldn't have been the case had the deterrent faild, but equally so can those who agreed with the national policy.
I hope that 558 will be repaired; I was surprised to read the VTS statement that the No. 5 tank was required for CG control purposes as this is actually effected by '1-to-7' tank transfer. It would be feasible to blank off the starboard No. 5 tank, but that would require the aircraft to be flown with the fuel tank transfer sequence timers in 'MAN', increasing crew workload. Also, it is both VTS and CAA policy that the aircraft must be maintained in a fully serviceable condition.
I was surprised to read the VTS statement that the No. 5 tank was required for CG control purposes ..........
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But we were prepared to use nuclear weapons against Russia.
Surely this is just common sense? There would have been little point in creating atomic/thermonuclear weapons at huge expense, and creating the V-Force to carry them, if there had been no overt will to use them. That was the very foundation of the deterrent policy. The very fact that the UK was able and willing to use them ensured that we didn't have to. The alternative doesn't bear thinking about.
It reminds me of another thread on this forum about the BBMF (and some notion of acquiring a Mosquito if you please, but I digress...), where there is so much affection for the BBMF and respect for the actions of those involved in the BofB and in Bomber Command, but almost to the point of dismissal of anything else. Mention the Vulcan and it is regarded as somehow less important in our history. This is quite absurd as if one takes a realistic look at the darker days of the Cold War, it's clear that the Vulcan could arguably be described as the most significant warplane the RAF has ever had. Yes, many others contributed to numerous victories but the Vulcan (by its very nature) saved us from utter destruction.
Okay, one can argue that we will never know for sure, but if one takes a realistic look at that era, and if one weighs all the factors such as SAC's posture and location, Soviet intentions, events that actually did happen, etc., then who could confidently say that if we hadn't had Vulcan, we would still be here? I think anyone who could make that claim would be optimistic at best, and naive at worst!
(and I accept that one also has to pay due respect to the Valiant, Victor and Thor to some degree!)
Surely this is just common sense? There would have been little point in creating atomic/thermonuclear weapons at huge expense, and creating the V-Force to carry them, if there had been no overt will to use them. That was the very foundation of the deterrent policy. The very fact that the UK was able and willing to use them ensured that we didn't have to. The alternative doesn't bear thinking about.
It reminds me of another thread on this forum about the BBMF (and some notion of acquiring a Mosquito if you please, but I digress...), where there is so much affection for the BBMF and respect for the actions of those involved in the BofB and in Bomber Command, but almost to the point of dismissal of anything else. Mention the Vulcan and it is regarded as somehow less important in our history. This is quite absurd as if one takes a realistic look at the darker days of the Cold War, it's clear that the Vulcan could arguably be described as the most significant warplane the RAF has ever had. Yes, many others contributed to numerous victories but the Vulcan (by its very nature) saved us from utter destruction.
Okay, one can argue that we will never know for sure, but if one takes a realistic look at that era, and if one weighs all the factors such as SAC's posture and location, Soviet intentions, events that actually did happen, etc., then who could confidently say that if we hadn't had Vulcan, we would still be here? I think anyone who could make that claim would be optimistic at best, and naive at worst!
(and I accept that one also has to pay due respect to the Valiant, Victor and Thor to some degree!)
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, many others contributed to numerous victories but the Vulcan (by its very nature) saved us from utter destruction.
So many of today's under-fifties fail to realise that the 'swinging sixties' swung because we all really believed we were on the eve of destruction. That the MAD theory proved correct is something for which everybody allive today should be grateful. We who served on the front line of the cold war get scant regard today and that is good and as it should be. We didn't do anything useful - apart from keeping the peace.
As a former mender of Vulcans I think it is long past time for 558 to be gracefully retired to a suitable museum, repainted in proper Cold War livery and with a de-activated Yellow Sun slung in the bomb bay.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: London
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
repainted in proper Cold War livery and with a de-activated Yellow Sun slung in the bomb bay.
Hendon almost managed that with its Vulcan and a Yellow Sun in the general proximity (isn't it at Cosford now?) but the Vulcan's paint scheme is still very 1980s. On the other hand, at least it's an "authentic" paint scheme that it arrived in, rather than being a slightly dodgy repaint.
It is a shame though that despite there being a fair few Vulcans still languishing in museums, not one has managed to acquire a decent Cold War paint scheme, be it white or white/camouflage. I mean, how can a Vulcan not look odd without a black radome?!
Hendon almost managed that with its Vulcan and a Yellow Sun in the general proximity (isn't it at Cosford now?) but the Vulcan's paint scheme is still very 1980s. On the other hand, at least it's an "authentic" paint scheme that it arrived in, rather than being a slightly dodgy repaint.
It is a shame though that despite there being a fair few Vulcans still languishing in museums, not one has managed to acquire a decent Cold War paint scheme, be it white or white/camouflage. I mean, how can a Vulcan not look odd without a black radome?!
Please can you help with a link to that statement? I can't find it on their website.
I mean, how can a Vulcan not look odd without a black radome?!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: North Cornwall
Age: 73
Posts: 428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the link to the newsletter that talks about the tank needed for trimming.
Vulcan to the Sky Newsletter
Vulcan to the Sky Newsletter
Beagle, you are younger than I thought! Black radomes good!!
Funny what one remembers -late 60s I was in RAFH Ely having my tonsils out. there was a wg cdr there for some other treatment, ISTR he said he had "designed" the Vulcan upper surface camouflage, based loosely on his initials. He may have been shooting a line of course.