Nimrod project progress at Kinloss
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: NEAR TO ISK
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DIO are the Defence Infrastructure Organisation and in effect now own the closed buildings within the boundaries of Kinloss. It would be part of the draw down of the base to hand them over to DIO.
The Station hand over buildings to DIO as they are vacated so the maintenance responsibility is transferred . XV244 is currently in No 11 Hangar (The old NMSU) which has now been formally handed over to DIO.
Because the Station do not "own" the hangars they now have no input (or desire to have any input) in rental agreements et al for their use.
If you wish to be part of Morayvia, you can join via me at
[email protected]
I would be happy to send you an application form
The Station hand over buildings to DIO as they are vacated so the maintenance responsibility is transferred . XV244 is currently in No 11 Hangar (The old NMSU) which has now been formally handed over to DIO.
Because the Station do not "own" the hangars they now have no input (or desire to have any input) in rental agreements et al for their use.
If you wish to be part of Morayvia, you can join via me at
[email protected]
I would be happy to send you an application form
Thread Starter
I suppose I should clarify part of my last post. The nose section of XV240 is obviously not big enough to include a cafeteria much less an Imax Theatre although the front end has probably seen a few cream sponges in it's time!
From my dealings with DIO and DE in a previous incarnation, my view is that they are stuck in the unfortunate position of being perceived as 'nasty people' despite often having hugely passionate people working for them.
The problem is twofold - firstly it is the issue that DIO has to be seen to either put the buildings to defence use (i.e. part of the MOD) or show how it is diversting itself of them, either to Govt or private sector. This means having to be absolute b@stards, and insisting on charging for things used by non MOD assets, because HMT has to see things done properly.
This is because in the good old days it was possible to turn a blind eye, but nowadays the media (self annointed guardians of moral justice) would hit the roof if they saw public buildings being used in a manner outside that laid down by the rules - no matter how worthy the cause is.
From DIO perspective, if they make an exception for one, then they are going to have to make an exception for all - would you like to see a charity supporting hugely dubious causes insisting on its right to free access to MOD facilities including power, maintenance and the like, because the real fear is that a cause we like gets a break, then plenty of others we may be less supportive of may get a good claim on these sort of facilities too.
There is the wider issue though as well of the defence budget being used indirectly to support private enterprise or charity, which raises all manner of issues over the use of public funds innapropriately.
Let me be clear - I think the Nimrod charity is a great idea, I hope it does really well and when I'm up that way later this year I'd love to put some money in their pockets if they are open. BUT I equally feel that once a plane is struck off charge, or a ship off our books, then it is no longer the responsibility of the public to provide funding indirectly for private charities - no matter how worthy they may be. The budget is squeezed to breaking point, and I'd rather we spent every scarce penny on inservice people, and not those charities showing out of service kit. I also don't want precedents set which means charities or causes that I would have real issues with using lawyers to find loopholes or exploits enabling them to use our facilities for free.
Ultimately its not the people at DIO to blame (both civil and military)- talk to them and you'll see the passion for defence in what they do. Someon though has to implement rules, no matter how distasteful people think they may be - it doesnt mean that they dont give a damn though.
The problem is twofold - firstly it is the issue that DIO has to be seen to either put the buildings to defence use (i.e. part of the MOD) or show how it is diversting itself of them, either to Govt or private sector. This means having to be absolute b@stards, and insisting on charging for things used by non MOD assets, because HMT has to see things done properly.
This is because in the good old days it was possible to turn a blind eye, but nowadays the media (self annointed guardians of moral justice) would hit the roof if they saw public buildings being used in a manner outside that laid down by the rules - no matter how worthy the cause is.
From DIO perspective, if they make an exception for one, then they are going to have to make an exception for all - would you like to see a charity supporting hugely dubious causes insisting on its right to free access to MOD facilities including power, maintenance and the like, because the real fear is that a cause we like gets a break, then plenty of others we may be less supportive of may get a good claim on these sort of facilities too.
There is the wider issue though as well of the defence budget being used indirectly to support private enterprise or charity, which raises all manner of issues over the use of public funds innapropriately.
Let me be clear - I think the Nimrod charity is a great idea, I hope it does really well and when I'm up that way later this year I'd love to put some money in their pockets if they are open. BUT I equally feel that once a plane is struck off charge, or a ship off our books, then it is no longer the responsibility of the public to provide funding indirectly for private charities - no matter how worthy they may be. The budget is squeezed to breaking point, and I'd rather we spent every scarce penny on inservice people, and not those charities showing out of service kit. I also don't want precedents set which means charities or causes that I would have real issues with using lawyers to find loopholes or exploits enabling them to use our facilities for free.
Ultimately its not the people at DIO to blame (both civil and military)- talk to them and you'll see the passion for defence in what they do. Someon though has to implement rules, no matter how distasteful people think they may be - it doesnt mean that they dont give a damn though.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Torquay, England
Posts: 838
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by scuttled
It s modern, no nonsense, fiscally responsible thinking such as yours that has resulted in only two Lancasters left flying in the world today. And only one of those in the Mother country. Compare this to the equivalent US aircraft of the same era.
I know you love fishing, but just be nice and let those that care have this one little thing. Thanks. Appreciate it.
I know you love fishing, but just be nice and let those that care have this one little thing. Thanks. Appreciate it.
Some folks enjoy life to the full and would never dream of insulting their fellow man, others however seem to take satisfaction out of being rude.
I have visions of our resident complainer being the one and only.......
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question re payment of crew et al. I may be missing something so if someone could explain, that would be good.
Why do they pay the crew to fly the Vulcan ?
I would have thought plenty of qualified ex Vulcan pilots would love to get behind the controls of a Vulcan again.
Who else gets paid and why ?
Why do they pay the crew to fly the Vulcan ?
I would have thought plenty of qualified ex Vulcan pilots would love to get behind the controls of a Vulcan again.
Who else gets paid and why ?
Oldsarbouy,
I'd hate to that comment quoted out of context. Oh, what the hell...
Glojo, now that is funny!!!!!!!
I'd hate to that comment quoted out of context. Oh, what the hell...
although the front end has probably seen a few cream sponges in it's time!
Glojo, now that is funny!!!!!!!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney
Even if they are running it as a business,
Use you as an Example. If some organisation said they were setting up
a display unit of previous UK based FJ's including F16's, F15's, F4's etc and we need qualified pilots available to fly them to demonstrate at airshows, no pay but everything else paid for (fuel etc) how many volunteers would they get ?
Anyway, hope someone can clarify.
Even if they are running it as a business,
Use you as an Example. If some organisation said they were setting up
a display unit of previous UK based FJ's including F16's, F15's, F4's etc and we need qualified pilots available to fly them to demonstrate at airshows, no pay but everything else paid for (fuel etc) how many volunteers would they get ?
Anyway, hope someone can clarify.
Indeed, 500. I and hunderds of others would be there like a shot. For free. In fact, I'm off to the sim in a month or so - see what I can remember.
I do agree with the point, I was highlighting the fact that, on top of that, it seems a bit low to get people donating without knowing that they're not just keeping a wonderful old girl flying, they're also paying the crew.
I do agree with the point, I was highlighting the fact that, on top of that, it seems a bit low to get people donating without knowing that they're not just keeping a wonderful old girl flying, they're also paying the crew.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Pembrokeshire UK
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure if this is relevant, but thought I would share this letter I sent to the IWM at Duxford. They have a Shack MKIII under conservation there ... perhaps they might like a Nimrod?
Before joining BOAC / BA as flight crew, I served as RAF aircrew on Shackletons. Operating as a Flight Engineer (air eng) on 201 & 203 squadrons and ASWDU from 1960 to 1970.
So on my first visit to Duxford on Sat last, I was surprised and delighted to see the very aircraft in which I last flew nearly 50 years ago. Like me it looks a little worn and has its wings clipped … but only temporarily I hope?
The Viper jets were installed in the outboard Griffon nacelles, and the controls were placed under the Flight Engineer’s desk drawer lid. This upset some Engs since that drawer had been used for spare pens, Dalton computer, and sandwiches (or Cornish pasties if operating out of St Mawgan!)
On take-off the pilots wound up the Griffons to 2750 rpm and max boost, and the Eng set his Vipers to full power in one co-ordinated action. … the resulting acceleration was brisk, but the noise and vibration was awe inspiring to both crew and outside onlookers. With four turning and two burning we took to the sky in a maelstrom of noise.
In those days the Griffon engines had become unreliable, especially when operated at max power with water meth injection. Rolls Royce passed Griffon engine overhaul to another firm, and engine failures became more and more frequent. Crews therefore saw the Viper jets as a ‘Get you home’ device rather than an assist for take-off. My expectation of at least one Griffon failure on every mission came true when on patrol far out in the N Atlantic. Having successfully feathered an outboard engine we were unable to maintain height on the other three, so I lit up the corresponding Viper jet. We then climbed slowly to a respectable(for a Shackleton) altitude of 3000 feet. At this stage I realised that the high fuel consumption of the jet engine meant we would run out of fuel before reaching home. So for the next few hours I would shut down the Viper, the Shackleton would slowly descend to below 1000 feet, whereupon I would restart the Viper and we would ascend … we made it home and a beer in the Sgts Mess bar never tasted so good.
A notable trip for my squadron was a goodwill mission to the SAAF base at Ysterplaat in S Africa. We flew a Viper equipped MK III Shack down through Africa at an unprecedented 8000 feet altitude. It was the only time I ever used the two speed superchargers on the Griffon engines. We carried two crews on the aircraft for that trip, and when off watch my favourite position was right down in the tail looking out of the Perspex cone at the African scenery passing slowly (150 knots!)below. Looking at your aeroplane brings it all back quite vividly.
Another special moment for me occurred at Duxford on the same Saturday. Having retired from BA I fly a little vee tail Robin ATL, and always intended to fly into Duxford with my teenage son. To my surprise there in front of the control tower was a French registered Robin ATL identical to mine … the owner turned out to be just as enthusiastic about her aeroplane and the contact really put the cream on a splendid day for me.
Very many thanks … and can I please climb up the parachute hatch ladder into the Shackleton flight deck once again next time I visit Duxford?
So on my first visit to Duxford on Sat last, I was surprised and delighted to see the very aircraft in which I last flew nearly 50 years ago. Like me it looks a little worn and has its wings clipped … but only temporarily I hope?
The Viper jets were installed in the outboard Griffon nacelles, and the controls were placed under the Flight Engineer’s desk drawer lid. This upset some Engs since that drawer had been used for spare pens, Dalton computer, and sandwiches (or Cornish pasties if operating out of St Mawgan!)
On take-off the pilots wound up the Griffons to 2750 rpm and max boost, and the Eng set his Vipers to full power in one co-ordinated action. … the resulting acceleration was brisk, but the noise and vibration was awe inspiring to both crew and outside onlookers. With four turning and two burning we took to the sky in a maelstrom of noise.
In those days the Griffon engines had become unreliable, especially when operated at max power with water meth injection. Rolls Royce passed Griffon engine overhaul to another firm, and engine failures became more and more frequent. Crews therefore saw the Viper jets as a ‘Get you home’ device rather than an assist for take-off. My expectation of at least one Griffon failure on every mission came true when on patrol far out in the N Atlantic. Having successfully feathered an outboard engine we were unable to maintain height on the other three, so I lit up the corresponding Viper jet. We then climbed slowly to a respectable(for a Shackleton) altitude of 3000 feet. At this stage I realised that the high fuel consumption of the jet engine meant we would run out of fuel before reaching home. So for the next few hours I would shut down the Viper, the Shackleton would slowly descend to below 1000 feet, whereupon I would restart the Viper and we would ascend … we made it home and a beer in the Sgts Mess bar never tasted so good.
A notable trip for my squadron was a goodwill mission to the SAAF base at Ysterplaat in S Africa. We flew a Viper equipped MK III Shack down through Africa at an unprecedented 8000 feet altitude. It was the only time I ever used the two speed superchargers on the Griffon engines. We carried two crews on the aircraft for that trip, and when off watch my favourite position was right down in the tail looking out of the Perspex cone at the African scenery passing slowly (150 knots!)below. Looking at your aeroplane brings it all back quite vividly.
Another special moment for me occurred at Duxford on the same Saturday. Having retired from BA I fly a little vee tail Robin ATL, and always intended to fly into Duxford with my teenage son. To my surprise there in front of the control tower was a French registered Robin ATL identical to mine … the owner turned out to be just as enthusiastic about her aeroplane and the contact really put the cream on a splendid day for me.
Very many thanks … and can I please climb up the parachute hatch ladder into the Shackleton flight deck once again next time I visit Duxford?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 76
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I last flew in XV244 in May 1983. We were deployed to KSS flying Survops & used it as valuable training for the Aird Whyte later in the month. I'm too modest to say who won, but as it was a Mk 1 we weren't allowed to participate in the Fincastle later in the year. Thanks George!!
Instead we had to do a Royal SAR to Cyprus, Nairobi & Bombay. B*gger!
Good luck with the preservation you guys. Keep her airworthy, you never know..................................!
Instead we had to do a Royal SAR to Cyprus, Nairobi & Bombay. B*gger!
Good luck with the preservation you guys. Keep her airworthy, you never know..................................!
Might DIO be persuaded to sell said hangar to Morayvia for a modest sum? Let's face it, they won't be flooded with offers for an elderly hangar in deepest Moray, so they might be keen to dispose of it (the Arrse-mongers won't need every building at Findhorn Barracks, surely?).
The Mk 3 Phase 3 Shack. at Duxford stood "outside" for many years. Lots of pressure' from the Association and the advent of the big hangar got it "inside" at last. The then (?) aircraft curator was an ex RN helicopter-orientated person which may explain why the Mk 2 was refused. The Griffon 57 was "somewhat unreliable" on the Phase 2 aircraft, hence "Pop" GLadstone's AFC.
