New (f)or old?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
New (f)or old?
I was wondering in an idle moment about the way my tax was spent. When an aircraft is updated to a vastly superior spec and sold to the MOD, do the manufacturers typically refurb older airframes, or do they cut new metal, and everything is shiny and new? A couple of examples:
C130J - Were these newly built, or refurbed frames from C130Es and new wings/engines/avionics?
Harrier GR1/3/5/7/9 - Are there any bits in a GR9 that started off as a GR1, or was the GR5 a completely new build? If so, didn't that leave a fleet of GR3s sitting idle somewhere in Leicestershire a long while back?
Chinook Mk3 (I know they are suffering to get into service). But are (were) the airframes themselves new?
Sorry for the spotter question, but merely curious. The Nimrod MRA4 seems a lot like this, seems to be a bit costly to me to rework a 40 year old design for a total fleet of less than 20, rather than put the clever bits in an Airbus or Boeing jetliner, like the original Nimrod idea.
C130J - Were these newly built, or refurbed frames from C130Es and new wings/engines/avionics?
Harrier GR1/3/5/7/9 - Are there any bits in a GR9 that started off as a GR1, or was the GR5 a completely new build? If so, didn't that leave a fleet of GR3s sitting idle somewhere in Leicestershire a long while back?
Chinook Mk3 (I know they are suffering to get into service). But are (were) the airframes themselves new?
Sorry for the spotter question, but merely curious. The Nimrod MRA4 seems a lot like this, seems to be a bit costly to me to rework a 40 year old design for a total fleet of less than 20, rather than put the clever bits in an Airbus or Boeing jetliner, like the original Nimrod idea.
C130J - Were these newly built, or refurbed frames from C130Es and new wings/engines/avionics?
Harrier GR1/3/5/7/9 - Are there any bits in a GR9 that started off as a GR1, or was the GR5 a completely new build? If so, didn't that leave a fleet of GR3s sitting idle somewhere in Leicestershire a long while back?
Chinook Mk3 (I know they are suffering to get into service). But are (were) the airframes themselves new?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Remember the Nimron 2s and 3s were all reworked 1s. And the MRA4 is a reworked 2.
In the Nimrod case it was the airframe that was retained and the electronics upgraded.
In some other, older, cases, the electronis was often compatible, especially radios.
In the case of the old V-Force the basic navigation and bombing system was common across all types. It came in different forms but it was quite possible to modify some cans from Mark 1 to Mark 2 version.
I know we had one spate of excellent serviceability when the NBS boxes suddenly appeared with very low serial numbers. They had all been depot refurbished with new relays etc and were better than newer 'old' boxes.
In the Nimrod case it was the airframe that was retained and the electronics upgraded.
In some other, older, cases, the electronis was often compatible, especially radios.
In the case of the old V-Force the basic navigation and bombing system was common across all types. It came in different forms but it was quite possible to modify some cans from Mark 1 to Mark 2 version.
I know we had one spate of excellent serviceability when the NBS boxes suddenly appeared with very low serial numbers. They had all been depot refurbished with new relays etc and were better than newer 'old' boxes.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Archimedes
Your right about the GR 5's apart from any prototypes I believe all were converted to GR7's, some were then further upgraded to 7a's and now the 7 and 7a's are being upgraded to 9 / 9a's
The first Nimrod's to be converted to MRA4 had a full structural check and repairs where required made.
With regards to the Harrier 1's (GR1, GR3 T2 & T4) there was a stringer section which dated back to the 40's.
I have over the years herd stories that when upgrading the C130's that corrosion was found behind the toilets, which had to be cut out and replaced thus I assume some form of deep inspection must be carried out if this is true.
Your right about the GR 5's apart from any prototypes I believe all were converted to GR7's, some were then further upgraded to 7a's and now the 7 and 7a's are being upgraded to 9 / 9a's
The first Nimrod's to be converted to MRA4 had a full structural check and repairs where required made.
With regards to the Harrier 1's (GR1, GR3 T2 & T4) there was a stringer section which dated back to the 40's.
I have over the years herd stories that when upgrading the C130's that corrosion was found behind the toilets, which had to be cut out and replaced thus I assume some form of deep inspection must be carried out if this is true.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The Wonderful Midlands
Age: 53
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A small factoid regarding the Harrier GR's (excuse me),
The airframes that started life as GR5's, and are still in service have ZD prefixes, and 65% LERX,
The airframes that were built from the off as GR7's have ZG prefixes, and a mixture of 65% and 100% LERX
The GR9/9a's are obviously a selection of both
Don't know about that, but I can personally think of one or two "t*ts" in a GR9 who started in a GR1
The airframes that started life as GR5's, and are still in service have ZD prefixes, and 65% LERX,
The airframes that were built from the off as GR7's have ZG prefixes, and a mixture of 65% and 100% LERX
The GR9/9a's are obviously a selection of both
Are there any bits in a GR9 that started off as a GR1
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Wilts
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The story of the Herc toilet problem was i heard down to a well known contractor not re-attached the outflow pipe correctly!!!
This led to the smelly stuff staying in the aircraft rather than being "flushed" away....
This led to the smelly stuff staying in the aircraft rather than being "flushed" away....
With regards the 'Rod conversion, I heard somewhere that BAe actually told MOD that it would be cheaper to new build the fuselages and integrate the systems, than to upgrade the older ones? Something to do with being able to use automated tooling on new build models vs older models being hand crafted to looser tolerances? Any light anyone can shed on that?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote
''This led to the smelly stuff staying in the aircraft rather than being "flushed" away....''
Were you referring to the RAF PJIs or the Paras, as the former reeked of perfume and the latter just.... reeked?
(only joking of course, lads)
Flipster
(before any J guys pipe up - no, it wasn't K navs, either!)
''This led to the smelly stuff staying in the aircraft rather than being "flushed" away....''
Were you referring to the RAF PJIs or the Paras, as the former reeked of perfume and the latter just.... reeked?
(only joking of course, lads)
Flipster
(before any J guys pipe up - no, it wasn't K navs, either!)
With regards the 'Rod conversion, I heard somewhere that BAe actually told MOD that it would be cheaper to new build the fuselages and integrate the systems, than to upgrade the older ones?
"Now, now that's quite enough of that conchy talk. Just be quiet and clean your boots, lad!"
Using aged old airframes kept in open storage by the sea in Scotland - yes, that'll be lots cheaper than using something which wasn't designed 50 years ago. Course it will......
Nimrod 2000? And it's now nearly 2006??
Using aged old airframes kept in open storage by the sea in Scotland - yes, that'll be lots cheaper than using something which wasn't designed 50 years ago. Course it will......
Nimrod 2000? And it's now nearly 2006??
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The Comet wing was supposed to be superior to modern high performance wings such as flight new comers such as the 737 (1970s). They wanted a stiffer wing capable of operating in the low speed low level regime.
As for modern construction technique, of course BWoS knows all about old for new rebuilds. Look at the Victor K2 with its short wing and new wing attachment points.
Take one of Sir Frederick's finest, make a jig, then make 20 odd parts that all fitted that one aircraft.
Then take airframe 2, coach built of course, and start again.
As for modern construction technique, of course BWoS knows all about old for new rebuilds. Look at the Victor K2 with its short wing and new wing attachment points.
Take one of Sir Frederick's finest, make a jig, then make 20 odd parts that all fitted that one aircraft.
Then take airframe 2, coach built of course, and start again.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Sorry Sir, Won't happen again.
Say "Yes, Sir", Salute, turn to the right and march out.
Like F***! The blinkers of being "in" are off, now I am "out".
You poor bastards. I feel very sorry for you. Stupid idiots above wasting (hundreds of) millions. Sorry, we dont have enough money for a pair of bootlaces. But its Ok to waste countless millions on virtually one-off aircraft. There's not even any chance of export orders because there arent enough Nimrods to convert. But an endless supply of Boeing and Airbus frames. Shysters.
Grr!
Say "Yes, Sir", Salute, turn to the right and march out.
Like F***! The blinkers of being "in" are off, now I am "out".
You poor bastards. I feel very sorry for you. Stupid idiots above wasting (hundreds of) millions. Sorry, we dont have enough money for a pair of bootlaces. But its Ok to waste countless millions on virtually one-off aircraft. There's not even any chance of export orders because there arent enough Nimrods to convert. But an endless supply of Boeing and Airbus frames. Shysters.
Grr!
