Did they use full power??

I seem to remember that taking off with full power in a ‘light ‘ Vulcan was very exiting!
The acceleration was enormous and V rotate came up very quickly!

Below a certain AUW 85 % thrust was used for t/o.

Why were the air brakes not deployed ?

(Hazy memory recalls a Hunter going into the water at Gib doing brake checks- in the 70s ??)

'(Hazy memory recalls a Hunter going into the water at Gib doing brake checks- in the 70s ??)'

Not quite right - he narrowly managed to avoid a dip in the harbour by selecting the undercarriage up on the emergency override system and remained on the runway edge - just.. He was indeed doing a brake check following a brake change. His first run was on the westerly runway followed by a return run on the easterly. He then decided to do one more run 'just to be sure' . Now those of you that know the Hunter will know that a) it did not have maxarets and b) it was notorious for brake fade. The outcome was thus no surprise! From memory this was in 1977 as the detachment finished after 12 years in 1978.

nip, the Hunter does have `maxarets`,or at least the ones I worked on at Halton,and later flew,had them....

You are of course quite correct. It is 41 years since I last flew that lovely aircraft. Despite some 800+ hours on it my memory let me down. Thank you for correcting it.

Let us see how gash they were? Lots of mates with diggers that one would struggle to get from a hire company next day. No wonder they got it out so quickly.

I bet they did. Get the howl and the nose up. We do with XX741. But have more reliable speed sensing equipment in use. Our first test runs were 100 knots that was 125 first time. XX741 would have flown at that speed and weight..80 max now. Spoke to a regular jet car driver (and professional military pilot as day job) and he was not impressed by the show last weekend. Was unprofessional in his book.

XM655 has Olympus 301 engines, so with the enlarged air intakes doesn't produce the Vulcan howl that the 201 engined aircraft did.

Full power was always used in the Vulcan for take-off; a 4-eng go-around normally required 80% thrust; a 2-eng go-around required 93%. In a 200-ser aircraft anything more than 93% would cause the howl, particularly it the throttles were opened briskly at low speed....

300-ser aircraft were de-rated until the South Atlantic campaign, so didn't howl. The 'cruise' limit setting was then the same as the 'take-off' limit setting for 200-ser aircraft and 300-ser were always flown in 'cruise'. But those who had flown them years earlier when full power was available advised that the howl they made would shake Lincoln cathedral!

Anyway, '655 is now back on the pan with fully serviceable brakes and steering. At present there is no suggestion that there won't be any future taxy runs.

Beagle, how right you are regarding 300-ser. aircraft in "cruise". The "cruise/take-off" limiting switch (yes -switch! ) was mounted on the throttle quadrant and wire locked in "cruise". I do remember, however, when giving displays overseas with friendly crew chiefs, that frequently the wire locking was "broken" and the switch was in the take-off position. Who was I to change it?!!! glad 655 is now "S", many happy memories! Bill

Back where it should be - nothing obvious in the way of damage.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....ae1df75138.jpg

I vaguely recall picking up a 300 series aircraft from St Athan and finding the governor switch in Takeoff. As it was ex-major all the role equipment had been removed and the ZFW was somewhere in 80s. I only vaguely recall the departure as it didn’t take long and everything happened extremely quickly! I do recall that an unusually large amount of up elevon was involved.

Happy days
YS

Well as that's a long distance shot, and, in all probability there isn't any damage, well to the aircraft at least, then you can't say for certain there's no damage until you jack the wheels and carry out a detailed close inspection and functional checks.

However, watch the arrival of the aircraft on YT at Wellesbourne and note the stopping distance along with the aircraft taxiing clear...now I don't know what the landing speed / weight would have been on the day, plus, it had five crew on board, but compare the safe arrival..... to the fast taxi event....

On arrival she was travelling fast enough to deploy the tail braking chute. Fast taxi could not use the chute. You're comparing apples and pears.

Apparently they've damaged an engine, which will need to be replaced.

I'd have thought that 3-engined taxy runs might be a tad safer. :O

DR,longer accel. distance to achieve speed........

In other words, lower speed for the same acceleration time. :O

Depends. A four engined taxi run at low speed would be safer than a 3 engined taxi run at high speed.

I suspect that, whether or not they manage to restore 4 serviceable engines, the speed at which they perform taxi runs is going to be reviewed in the light of the incident.

Recovery video