Vulcan B2A - Olympus 301 or Blue Steel
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
XL388 with Olympus 201s
Not a great image, but XL388 with 201s. Later photos with 301s abound on the net. So in case there was any doubt it did happen...
Photo from: Alan Todd, Vulcan photo album, Bayford press Ltd, 1987.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, having checked the photos, it would seem that a few 201-engined aircraft were re-engined, even though Woodford's documents insist that they weren't! I think the only possible source which could explain this mystery is Rolls Royce, so if I find any news, I'll pass it on.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's a start
http://www.avrovulcan.org.uk/1_group...tion/ol301.htm
and here
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/sho...&postcount=215
XH557. Delivered: May 1960. First Vulcan to be fitted with Olympus 301 engines. Although she was orignally delivered with the 201 units, and subsequently re-engined.
XL384. Delivered: March 1962. Olympus 201 engines. Conversion to Blue Steel role included fitting of 301 engines.
XL385. Delivered: April 1962. Olympus 201 engines. Conversion to Blue Steel role included fitting of 301 engines.
etc etc ...........
http://www.avrovulcan.org.uk/1_group...tion/ol301.htm
and here
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/sho...&postcount=215
XH557. Delivered: May 1960. First Vulcan to be fitted with Olympus 301 engines. Although she was orignally delivered with the 201 units, and subsequently re-engined.
XL384. Delivered: March 1962. Olympus 201 engines. Conversion to Blue Steel role included fitting of 301 engines.
XL385. Delivered: April 1962. Olympus 201 engines. Conversion to Blue Steel role included fitting of 301 engines.
etc etc ...........
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's no new information on there though - we know it was possible (and one aircraft was recorded as being re-engined) but there's only ever been heresay and rather cloudy (and therefore unreliable) recollections from people so far on this subject. I've not seen anything that specifically confirms that any batch of aircraft was re-engined ever since I dug-out what I thought was factual information (doh!) from Woodford about fifteen years ago. As I say, I can only think of Rolls Royce being a potential source of documentation on this matter but I guess at this late stage they'll probably have dumped everything - as is so often the case with these things. I suppose (on the basis of photo analysis) it should be possible to take an educated guess at which aircraft were involved, but it would be nice to get some hard facts to settle the matter. I have a feeling I might be disappointed though!
Still, if this isn't enough of a headache, I'm also doing a Hunter book. The sheer joy of trying to sort-out an accurate list of serials, coversions and allocations? No chance!
Still, if this isn't enough of a headache, I'm also doing a Hunter book. The sheer joy of trying to sort-out an accurate list of serials, coversions and allocations? No chance!
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's no new information on there though - we know it was possible (and one aircraft was recorded as being re-engined) but there's only ever been heresay and rather cloudy
what do you want - an Olympus engine change working party to turn up and beat it into you.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, just some reliable information. Lists on websites (probably based on my own serials list which has been in print for over a decade) are fine but they're hardly facts, are they? Recollections ain't facts either...
Anyway, let's not have a pointless argument, eh?
Anyway, let's not have a pointless argument, eh?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Deepest darkest London
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right,
So how many books are out there with Vulcan airframe histories? apart from yours TMcL?
There must be other references somewhere, I recall that Robert Jacksons book might have done them, but don't have it to hand this minute how about the aircraft record cards presumably in the RAFM? that might fill in the gaps?
Just a thought....
V1
So how many books are out there with Vulcan airframe histories? apart from yours TMcL?
There must be other references somewhere, I recall that Robert Jacksons book might have done them, but don't have it to hand this minute how about the aircraft record cards presumably in the RAFM? that might fill in the gaps?
Just a thought....
V1
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(probably based on my own serials list which has been in print for over a decade)
Get real! There are hundreds of 'lists' out there. Why rely on one from a guy who wasn't there?
Thread Starter
"I suppose (on the basis of photo analysis) it should be possible to take an educated guess at which aircraft were involved...."
True. And so far, it seems to indicate that the original explanation (seven aircraft re-engined during Blue Steel mods) might be correct.
"Recollections ain't facts either..."
True, too, but recollections from Vulcan engine blokes might be more reliable than a journo's interpretation of incomplete data from the manufacturers..... especially when that interpretation seems to contradict information gleaned from aircraft record cards.
Back on the first page, I wrote that:
"Seven further conversions were made to cover a major modification programme on the Blue Steel Fleet, which left Scampton 'short'. These were XL384-390.
The seven 'extras' left Scampton with an embarrassment of jets after the mod programme had finished, and seven jets (XL445, 446, XM569-573) surplus to requirements were converted back to the freefall role in 1966.
Following the withdrawal of Blue Steel, all surviving aircraft were converted back to standard freefall bomber configuration.
Interestingly, these seven extra Blue Steel conversions were the only aircraft delivered with 201s that were officially converted to have 301s - this mod being undertaken at the same time as the Blue Steel mod, when the aircraft were stripped down to their undies anyway.
I make the 301 situation as follows:
Almost all Vulcan B.Mk 2s (from the eleventh aircraft, XH557, onwards) were built with larger engine intakes, in anticipation of the greater mass flow demanded by the 20,000-lb st Olympus 301 engine, though most were actually fitted with the 17,000-lb st Olympus 201. The 301 also required major structural alterations to the engine bays, making re-engining a complex and difficult process, requiring a full return to works. 36 aircraft were built with Olympus 301s, and seven more received them during conversion to B.Mk 2BS.
Trial Installation: XH557
Proof Installation: XJ784
Fitted on the production line during build: XL391, XM574-XM657
Retrofitted: XL384-390"
1) The idea that the seven 'extras' were retrofitted with 301s when converted to carry Blue Steel is logical.
2) It was stated that this was the case by Andy Leitch on his site, and he doesn't strike me as the sort to 'make things up', while his site seems to be a magnet for former Vulcan air and groundcrew, who would know right from wrong on this, and who clearly didn't see a need to correct him.
3) There is clear evidence that in the case of at least one aircraft (XL388 above) the engine fit took place exactly as detailed by Andy, whereas there is NO EVIDENCE that any of the aircraft were originally built with 301s - and would have been out of sequence had they been.
True. And so far, it seems to indicate that the original explanation (seven aircraft re-engined during Blue Steel mods) might be correct.
"Recollections ain't facts either..."
True, too, but recollections from Vulcan engine blokes might be more reliable than a journo's interpretation of incomplete data from the manufacturers..... especially when that interpretation seems to contradict information gleaned from aircraft record cards.
Back on the first page, I wrote that:
"Seven further conversions were made to cover a major modification programme on the Blue Steel Fleet, which left Scampton 'short'. These were XL384-390.
The seven 'extras' left Scampton with an embarrassment of jets after the mod programme had finished, and seven jets (XL445, 446, XM569-573) surplus to requirements were converted back to the freefall role in 1966.
Following the withdrawal of Blue Steel, all surviving aircraft were converted back to standard freefall bomber configuration.
Interestingly, these seven extra Blue Steel conversions were the only aircraft delivered with 201s that were officially converted to have 301s - this mod being undertaken at the same time as the Blue Steel mod, when the aircraft were stripped down to their undies anyway.
I make the 301 situation as follows:
Almost all Vulcan B.Mk 2s (from the eleventh aircraft, XH557, onwards) were built with larger engine intakes, in anticipation of the greater mass flow demanded by the 20,000-lb st Olympus 301 engine, though most were actually fitted with the 17,000-lb st Olympus 201. The 301 also required major structural alterations to the engine bays, making re-engining a complex and difficult process, requiring a full return to works. 36 aircraft were built with Olympus 301s, and seven more received them during conversion to B.Mk 2BS.
Trial Installation: XH557
Proof Installation: XJ784
Fitted on the production line during build: XL391, XM574-XM657
Retrofitted: XL384-390"
1) The idea that the seven 'extras' were retrofitted with 301s when converted to carry Blue Steel is logical.
2) It was stated that this was the case by Andy Leitch on his site, and he doesn't strike me as the sort to 'make things up', while his site seems to be a magnet for former Vulcan air and groundcrew, who would know right from wrong on this, and who clearly didn't see a need to correct him.
3) There is clear evidence that in the case of at least one aircraft (XL388 above) the engine fit took place exactly as detailed by Andy, whereas there is NO EVIDENCE that any of the aircraft were originally built with 301s - and would have been out of sequence had they been.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vulcan serials lists appear in various books, websites and magazines, they all tend to originate from one source of course, if you go back far enough. That's the nature of aircraft "reference" books - lots of information that gets re-used again and again. This is why things like the mythical "B2R" pop-up in print. Unlike other Vulcan books which have been mentioned before, I based my list on cross-references of all available lists and the information given to me by Woodford, so I think that's good enough reason to be confident that the list was (is) as accurate as it could be.
Clearly the engine re-fit needs to be looked into but basing modifications to serial lists on people's recollections is a dangerous game. There's no guarantee that the recollections are correct. As I've found-out, even "definitive" lists from manufacturers can't necessarily be relied upon.
Clearly the engine re-fit needs to be looked into but basing modifications to serial lists on people's recollections is a dangerous game. There's no guarantee that the recollections are correct. As I've found-out, even "definitive" lists from manufacturers can't necessarily be relied upon.
Considering that Woodford "forgot" that the wings were all different when embarking on the 2000/MRA4 project, I'm not sure about their value as a source....
Guest
Posts: n/a
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lancs - I think you're probably right! Way back when I "liberated" as much material as I could from Woodford (this must be nearly 20 years ago now) they did still have a fair amount of Vulcan stuff lurking in their offices. I guess you'd be hard-pressed to get much information from them now. For example, they sold most of their military aircraft photographs to a private buyer
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unlike lots of aersospace authors, I'm not in the business of writing-up "facts" on the basis of what somebody may or may not have remembered correctly. If we all started basing information as factual on the basis of whether someone "was there" or not, we'd have even more suspect information floating around than we already have.
But if it makes you happy to keep-on making sarcastc comments about me every time you find an opportunity, then by all means feel free to continue. Needless to say it doesn't actually bother me - I find it quite amusing.
Jackonicko - with reference to your posting, I don't suppose Andy Leitch has any intention of posting-up inaccurate information but I assume he got his serials from somewhere... have you asked him where? It all inevitably comes from the same sources, via one route or another. Contrary to your comments however, I did have some physical evidence to support the belief that only one aircraft had engines changed (as we've discussed in various places frequently) - namely a specific document from the manufacturer. The fact that it was evidently wrong is no reason to start supposing that any other non-researched list is any more reliable, is it?
Anyway, enough already... if anyone has any information that is of potential use then do please let me know
Last edited by Tim McLelland; 17th Jan 2007 at 21:32.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ok, here goes:
This is a military aircrew forum; for those who fly, for those who support, and those who have gone before in those roles in whatever nation's service.
You don't get it, do you! You are a writer; by your own admission you have never served a day in your life, yet you have the arrogance to lecture those who have/do serve about whatever the topic might be. It's one thing to be write about a subject, it is something else entirely to criticize those who LIVED it! Contribute certainly; disagree and prove your points (perhaps even humorously!) by all means, but stop the shrill posting.
It's great that you write about subjects near and dear to many in this forum. Well done and keep it up! Please realize that you are a writer and not now or ever a military person. Lecturing those who disagree or dispute you who have worn a uniform does you no credit. Disparaging other writers/websites because they disagree with you likewise is beneath a professional, but you seem to have at it.
Perhaps you can regale us with the tales of gaining photo use permission and publishers tribulations in payments for said photos, but please realize that you insult some truly amazing aviators and maintainers by your 'know it all' attitude.
Mods and thread readers, I apologise; ban me if needed/delete this as required.
This is a military aircrew forum; for those who fly, for those who support, and those who have gone before in those roles in whatever nation's service.
You don't get it, do you! You are a writer; by your own admission you have never served a day in your life, yet you have the arrogance to lecture those who have/do serve about whatever the topic might be. It's one thing to be write about a subject, it is something else entirely to criticize those who LIVED it! Contribute certainly; disagree and prove your points (perhaps even humorously!) by all means, but stop the shrill posting.
It's great that you write about subjects near and dear to many in this forum. Well done and keep it up! Please realize that you are a writer and not now or ever a military person. Lecturing those who disagree or dispute you who have worn a uniform does you no credit. Disparaging other writers/websites because they disagree with you likewise is beneath a professional, but you seem to have at it.
Perhaps you can regale us with the tales of gaining photo use permission and publishers tribulations in payments for said photos, but please realize that you insult some truly amazing aviators and maintainers by your 'know it all' attitude.
Mods and thread readers, I apologise; ban me if needed/delete this as required.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fear that no matter what I say, you'll take exception so you may as well get on with it
The only thing I could add is that, should you care to ask any air or ground crew, they would probably tell you that they're just as human as anyone else and are therefore, no more capable of accurately recalling facts from the 1960's than you or I. That's the basic point that I've been trying to emphasise and while you have this almost obsessive compulsion to keep reminding me that I'm not a serviceman, I still don't quite understand what this fact has to do with anything that I've said on this thread or others.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could confine ourselves to information and comments that were actually relevant to the subject being discussed (*cuts to Brick's next posting where he pastes-up this comment, for supposed ironic effect*)...
The only thing I could add is that, should you care to ask any air or ground crew, they would probably tell you that they're just as human as anyone else and are therefore, no more capable of accurately recalling facts from the 1960's than you or I. That's the basic point that I've been trying to emphasise and while you have this almost obsessive compulsion to keep reminding me that I'm not a serviceman, I still don't quite understand what this fact has to do with anything that I've said on this thread or others.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could confine ourselves to information and comments that were actually relevant to the subject being discussed (*cuts to Brick's next posting where he pastes-up this comment, for supposed ironic effect*)...
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hants
Age: 80
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok its time to make a few comments.
Brickhistory your profile does not suggest you served in the RAF or on Vulcans so why do you have a go at a guy who has studied the subject.
On another tack I am surprised that no-one has pointed out the fairly major difference between Mk1's, Mk1A's and Mk2's namely that the flight instruments were completed different. IIRC the Mk1's and 1A's had zero reader kit with the old standard six instrument panel and the Mk2 most certainly had MFS which was a military version of the SFS fitted to the Vanguard (and possibly other aircraft). Having flown the Vulcan and ridden in the cockpit of the Vanguard the difference seemed to be that the Bomb position on the autopilot in the Vulcan was called VOR in the Vanguard. Anyone know any different.
ACW
Brickhistory your profile does not suggest you served in the RAF or on Vulcans so why do you have a go at a guy who has studied the subject.
On another tack I am surprised that no-one has pointed out the fairly major difference between Mk1's, Mk1A's and Mk2's namely that the flight instruments were completed different. IIRC the Mk1's and 1A's had zero reader kit with the old standard six instrument panel and the Mk2 most certainly had MFS which was a military version of the SFS fitted to the Vanguard (and possibly other aircraft). Having flown the Vulcan and ridden in the cockpit of the Vanguard the difference seemed to be that the Bomb position on the autopilot in the Vulcan was called VOR in the Vanguard. Anyone know any different.
ACW
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
ACW, quite right. The Mk1s used the tried and tested G4B compass system. I seem to recall that they also had a PDI - Pilot's Direction Indicator to follow the NBS steers whereas it was an integrated steer mode in the MFS.
Later the PDIs were mounted in a wooden box and loosely installed in the rear so that the Nav Rad could see that the MFS/Autopilot was actually in agreement with the raw NBS steer signal. Of course I would not suggest that the master race might not have been following the steers accurately
.
High level bomb runs were often flown on autopilot if the autopilot was a good one. Other times they were flown manually for practise. In the Mk 1 the PDI was in front of the 1st Pilot so only the left-hand seat pilot could fly a bomb run accurately. In the Mk 2 the MFS could display steering commands to either seat. It was reputed that copilots could fly the bomb runs more accurately than the Captains. I also seem to remember that the Mk 2 display included a distance to go feature.
As for the other issue you mentioned, isn't that what PMs are best suited too?
Later the PDIs were mounted in a wooden box and loosely installed in the rear so that the Nav Rad could see that the MFS/Autopilot was actually in agreement with the raw NBS steer signal. Of course I would not suggest that the master race might not have been following the steers accurately
.High level bomb runs were often flown on autopilot if the autopilot was a good one. Other times they were flown manually for practise. In the Mk 1 the PDI was in front of the 1st Pilot so only the left-hand seat pilot could fly a bomb run accurately. In the Mk 2 the MFS could display steering commands to either seat. It was reputed that copilots could fly the bomb runs more accurately than the Captains. I also seem to remember that the Mk 2 display included a distance to go feature.
As for the other issue you mentioned, isn't that what PMs are best suited too?