Kinloss........Whats Going on?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 49
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nimrods Fuel-leak Figures Shock
From the Press & Journal today:
08:50 - 21 May 2007
The RAF's ageing fleet of Nimrods have suffered an average of one fuel leak every week since the disaster in Afghanistan which claimed the lives of 14 servicemen......
http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/dis...=sidebarsearch
08:50 - 21 May 2007
The RAF's ageing fleet of Nimrods have suffered an average of one fuel leak every week since the disaster in Afghanistan which claimed the lives of 14 servicemen......
http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/dis...=sidebarsearch
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD, the BoI for XV 206, the Herc that was taken out by a land mine last May, has still not been published, even though the office used by the Board emptied months ago. Lots of politics and legal stuff still going on. Only hope that there is a good reason for the delay, a new recommendation perhaps? Certainly has been a lot of noise generated.
The investigation currently taking place into XV179 crash is extremely thorough. The BoI is not the end of the line by any stretch.
Fingers crossed that you don't have to wait too much longer.
The investigation currently taking place into XV179 crash is extremely thorough. The BoI is not the end of the line by any stretch.
Fingers crossed that you don't have to wait too much longer.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nimrods exceeded planned flying hours for 2 years before fatal crash
Posted here in case it interests. James K.
The Scotsman
Tue 22 May 2007
Nimrods exceeded planned flying hours for 2 years before fatal crash
JAMES KIRKUP
([email protected])
THE RAF's fleet of Nimrod aircraft significantly exceeded their planned flying hours in the two years before the crash last September of a Scottish-based spyplane in which 14 British servicemen were killed, it has been revealed.
Official Ministry of Defence data shows that in 2004-5 and 2005-6, the Nimrods flew more than 3,000 hours longer than RAF guidelines said they should. In all, the planes were in the air for 129 days more than they should have been during the two-year period.
The revelation will heighten fears that the Nimrods - which are an average of 36 years old - are being overworked because of Britain's military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The crash of Flight XV230, whose home base was RAF Kinloss, in Afghanistan last September was the worst single loss of British military lives since the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. Investigators believe the plane was blown apart by an explosion triggered after a fuel pipe cracked during mid-air refuelling.
In February, all Nimrods were temporarily grounded after a dent was found in the fuel pipe of one of the aircraft.
And last week, the MoD admitted that the ageing fleet is now reporting fuel leaks at a rate of almost one a week, although officials insist the leaks do not pose any threat to safety.
The Nimrod MR2 aircraft that fly from Scotland are due to be replaced with a new model. The process of ordering the replacements began in 1992, and the new plane was initially scheduled to be in service by 2003. But bureaucratic delays have pushed that date back to 2010.
The confirmation last night that the existing surveillance craft have been routinely exceeding their planned flying hours put fresh pressure on the government over the replacement planes.
In 2004-5, planners scheduled the Nimrods to fly 10,514 hours. They actually flew for 12,118. The following year, the plan was for 7,932 hours in the air. The actual total logged was 9,445.
In 2006-7, the Nimrods would once again have exceeded their target times, but the loss of XV230 sharply reduced the total hours flown.
The Nimrods, which are converted airliners, are used as the eyes and ears of British military forces, flying long-distance surveillance flights over the Middle East and Asia, where they use their complex radar systems to sweep huge areas.
The planes also carry out search-and-rescue missions in the seas around Britain.
Angus Robertson, the Scottish National Party MP whose Moray constituency includes RAF Kinloss, said the flight log details were extremely worrying.
"The Nimrod fleet has been worked extremely hard during recent years ... Bearing in mind the age of the aircraft, the recent fuel leaks, and the tragic crash of Flight XV230, there are now serious concerns," he said.
"This all makes the case for the quickest possible introduction of the new Nimrod."
An MoD spokesman last night conceded that the Nimrods are flying more and more, but insisted the workload did not put crew at risk.
He added: "The capabilities of the Nimrod and the requirement to employ it have expanded significantly over the last few years, but we have managed this as we continue to meet our operational commitments."
ends
The Scotsman
Tue 22 May 2007
Nimrods exceeded planned flying hours for 2 years before fatal crash
JAMES KIRKUP
([email protected])
THE RAF's fleet of Nimrod aircraft significantly exceeded their planned flying hours in the two years before the crash last September of a Scottish-based spyplane in which 14 British servicemen were killed, it has been revealed.
Official Ministry of Defence data shows that in 2004-5 and 2005-6, the Nimrods flew more than 3,000 hours longer than RAF guidelines said they should. In all, the planes were in the air for 129 days more than they should have been during the two-year period.
The revelation will heighten fears that the Nimrods - which are an average of 36 years old - are being overworked because of Britain's military commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The crash of Flight XV230, whose home base was RAF Kinloss, in Afghanistan last September was the worst single loss of British military lives since the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. Investigators believe the plane was blown apart by an explosion triggered after a fuel pipe cracked during mid-air refuelling.
In February, all Nimrods were temporarily grounded after a dent was found in the fuel pipe of one of the aircraft.
And last week, the MoD admitted that the ageing fleet is now reporting fuel leaks at a rate of almost one a week, although officials insist the leaks do not pose any threat to safety.
The Nimrod MR2 aircraft that fly from Scotland are due to be replaced with a new model. The process of ordering the replacements began in 1992, and the new plane was initially scheduled to be in service by 2003. But bureaucratic delays have pushed that date back to 2010.
The confirmation last night that the existing surveillance craft have been routinely exceeding their planned flying hours put fresh pressure on the government over the replacement planes.
In 2004-5, planners scheduled the Nimrods to fly 10,514 hours. They actually flew for 12,118. The following year, the plan was for 7,932 hours in the air. The actual total logged was 9,445.
In 2006-7, the Nimrods would once again have exceeded their target times, but the loss of XV230 sharply reduced the total hours flown.
The Nimrods, which are converted airliners, are used as the eyes and ears of British military forces, flying long-distance surveillance flights over the Middle East and Asia, where they use their complex radar systems to sweep huge areas.
The planes also carry out search-and-rescue missions in the seas around Britain.
Angus Robertson, the Scottish National Party MP whose Moray constituency includes RAF Kinloss, said the flight log details were extremely worrying.
"The Nimrod fleet has been worked extremely hard during recent years ... Bearing in mind the age of the aircraft, the recent fuel leaks, and the tragic crash of Flight XV230, there are now serious concerns," he said.
"This all makes the case for the quickest possible introduction of the new Nimrod."
An MoD spokesman last night conceded that the Nimrods are flying more and more, but insisted the workload did not put crew at risk.
He added: "The capabilities of the Nimrod and the requirement to employ it have expanded significantly over the last few years, but we have managed this as we continue to meet our operational commitments."
ends
Join Date: May 2007
Location: England - Now
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears that they exceeded planned sortie hours. Is there a problem with that provided of course that the proper serving procedures were carried. The aircraft I flew on rarely seemed to fly planned hours in peacetime let alone when on a war footing. Also the one leak per week report. Is that more or less than would have been expected or has been seen in the past - how does it compare to other large aircraft fleets?
Should there be concern at this or is it another Shock Horror headline to worry and confuse those, like me, who have no idea of the servicing schedule or maintenance programmes of the Nimrod?
Should there be concern at this or is it another Shock Horror headline to worry and confuse those, like me, who have no idea of the servicing schedule or maintenance programmes of the Nimrod?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
and of course they were never converted airliners except for the initial trials aircraft.
Properly speaking they were 'based on the plans of an airliner' or 'based on the plans of the Comet airliner.'
Remember that other famous MPA, the P3, was based on the Lockheed Electra airliner. The Russian May was also based on an airliner. The Fokker 28 has also been made into an MPA. The HS748 also, IIRC, was also a private ventur eplatform for an MPA. Only, as far as I know, of recent MPA, was one designed from scratch and that was the Atlantic/Atlantique.
Properly speaking they were 'based on the plans of an airliner' or 'based on the plans of the Comet airliner.'
Remember that other famous MPA, the P3, was based on the Lockheed Electra airliner. The Russian May was also based on an airliner. The Fokker 28 has also been made into an MPA. The HS748 also, IIRC, was also a private ventur eplatform for an MPA. Only, as far as I know, of recent MPA, was one designed from scratch and that was the Atlantic/Atlantique.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontius Navigator
The Nimrod is discribed as being conversion/extensive modification of the De Havilland Comet, the world's first jet airliner. 20 of the Comets crashed between Oct 52 - Jan 71
Next you will be saying the MR4 is a New Aircraft
The Nimrod is discribed as being conversion/extensive modification of the De Havilland Comet, the world's first jet airliner. 20 of the Comets crashed between Oct 52 - Jan 71
Next you will be saying the MR4 is a New Aircraft
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: GB
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
40 years today since 1st flight.
The Nimrod prototype XV148 (Ex Comet 4C conversion) maiden flight was on 23 May 1967.
The first new build Nimrod aircraft, XV226, maiden flight 28 June 1968.
The Nimrod prototype XV148 (Ex Comet 4C conversion) maiden flight was on 23 May 1967.
The first new build Nimrod aircraft, XV226, maiden flight 28 June 1968.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Pontius Navigator
The Nimrod is discribed as being conversion/extensive modification of the De Havilland Comet, the world's first jet airliner. 20 of the Comets crashed between Oct 52 - Jan 71
Next you will be saying the MR4 is a New Aircraft
The Nimrod is discribed as being conversion/extensive modification of the De Havilland Comet, the world's first jet airliner. 20 of the Comets crashed between Oct 52 - Jan 71
Next you will be saying the MR4 is a New Aircraft
The Nimrod was new metal from the floor up based on old plans. Almost all modern MPA were new metal based on old civil aircraft plans.
There is no way I was suggesting that the MRA4 was a new aircraft.
All Nimrods are firmly based on that new metal cut in the 1960s and 70s albeit each iteration has had more new metal added. The AEW3 had the bombdoors replaced and the cabin floor reskinned simply to save weight.
The Mark 2 was weight limited. It was impossible to upgrade the Mark 2 to Mark 4 as the undercarriage simply could not take the weight. Undoubtedly the MRA4 has lots of new body work but no way should it, or could it, be described as new build.
What airframe numbers are attributed to this creation? The original or some new ones?
The Comet crashes were mostly down to pilot error, instrument failure and, in one case, a bomb. The ones that weren't were due to fundamental misunderstanding of what design were needed for a jet-liner, including some wing design snags and the fact they had square windows, which is used in undergraduate engineering cses as an example of stress concentration factors leading to catastrophic failures.
Since we've been flying the Nimrod, a period getting on for 40 years, we've lost, I think, 5 ac? Bringing up the Comet isn't. in my engineer's opinion, teribly relevant.
Since we've been flying the Nimrod, a period getting on for 40 years, we've lost, I think, 5 ac? Bringing up the Comet isn't. in my engineer's opinion, teribly relevant.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: desert mostly
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TD, have to disagree with your last:
1. Nimrod not a converted Comet. Built from new from plans based on the Comet design. Different from a conversion/mod.
2. MRA4 retains 4% of an MR2 (re- conditioned fuselage tube and parts of tail re-lifed for 30 yrs+. Watching them strip & inspect the tube back to basics is quite impressive). By my small aircrew brain that's 96% new build. Externally there are similarities, but to say it's not a new aircraft is oversimplifying things.
I empathise deeply with your position. I knew all 12 crew on 230 and not a day passes without a thought for them and their families, and for the situation at Kinloss. Hence I feel it's important that we deal with facts. I know it is a rumour network though!
Regards
1. Nimrod not a converted Comet. Built from new from plans based on the Comet design. Different from a conversion/mod.
2. MRA4 retains 4% of an MR2 (re- conditioned fuselage tube and parts of tail re-lifed for 30 yrs+. Watching them strip & inspect the tube back to basics is quite impressive). By my small aircrew brain that's 96% new build. Externally there are similarities, but to say it's not a new aircraft is oversimplifying things.
I empathise deeply with your position. I knew all 12 crew on 230 and not a day passes without a thought for them and their families, and for the situation at Kinloss. Hence I feel it's important that we deal with facts. I know it is a rumour network though!
Regards
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK difar69 The Nimrod was built from new from plans based on the Comet design However on 2nd October 1969. XV 230 was delivered to the Operational Conversion Unit at St Mawgan, and became the first Nimrod to enter operational service with the RAF. SO IT WAS STILL A 38 year old aircraft designed in the early 60s. With some 38 year old parts on board.
The age of the airframe is almost irrelevant, there are a lot older aircraft flying around safely, what makes the difference to wether it is safe or unsafe is the modifications (i.e. AAR) and Engineering Instructions that are added to it, the manner/standard/speed these are embodied, with what materials, additionally it depends on how much the airframe is used outside its original design parameters. Other factors are the depth/standard/frequency of maintenance added to spares problems.
Take the F3 Tornado it was designed as a CAP aircraft to defend the airspace over britain, when a squadron had a go at low level mud moving tactics there was a lot of stress cracking in the wing root area, the answer was a trial with an F3 sqd being equipped with outboard pylons to reduce the wing flutter and hence the stress cracking, if the aircraft had remained in its designed comfort zone this would not have been an expensive un-necessary exercise.
I suppose that some will say that the MRA4 when it comes into service will already be unsafe as it will be almost a 60 years old design
Take the F3 Tornado it was designed as a CAP aircraft to defend the airspace over britain, when a squadron had a go at low level mud moving tactics there was a lot of stress cracking in the wing root area, the answer was a trial with an F3 sqd being equipped with outboard pylons to reduce the wing flutter and hence the stress cracking, if the aircraft had remained in its designed comfort zone this would not have been an expensive un-necessary exercise.
I suppose that some will say that the MRA4 when it comes into service will already be unsafe as it will be almost a 60 years old design
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tappers Dad
I console with your concerns, and those of the other families - their sadness and anxieties, regarding the loss of the crew of XV 230
However, we must not lose sight of what the BOI is struggling to achieve in very difficult circumstances
To point problems by stating the MR2 is a converted Comet is a bit naughty
It was a new metal build based on that frame design and extensively modified
The Chief Design Engineer for project 801 ( project no for Nimrod) based at Woodford, formerly AVRO, then Hawker Siddley, now BWOS knew his onions.
He interpreted the MOD Specification - based on UK maritime and Cold War conditions - and met the order by producing a pure jet airliner size ac that
could fly by day and night in all weather at low level, to either attack a submarine or provide SAR.
With this in mind he "overmilled" as they say in the industry
He knew they were going to be turning and burning at low level in sh"te weather for most of their life (unlike the Comet) - so he beefed them up.
Where the Spec was 10ml he made it 12. and where it was 15 he made 17, and so on. Unlike Boeing - if it's 10ml then it's 10ml - saves costs - not lives
I was later involved with a group that witnessed the first 3 fuselages being NDT'd ( Non Destructive Testing) (X Ray) at Poole and was assured by the project manager that if the MRA4 never came about, the existing fleet was "oversafe" because they had been over designed, well maintained (NMSU) and well cared for (Nimrod Line) and aircrew. His final words were - " They are actually a brick-****house"
Regarding hours - the meedjia are quoting fleet not airframe
Aircraft are designed to acieve at least 48000+ flying hrs, regardless of how long they have spent on the ground
I flew on Nimrods for 32 years and achieved barely 10.000 hours in the air
I have seen every F700 in the Mk2 Fleet and the oldest at 2004 was about 19000 and the youngest about 16000
They still have a long way to go
Regarding fuel leaks
They have to be classified
Moist
Damp
Drip ( so many per min - per hr)
Persistant
Leak
Gushing
Some Ppruners might identify ex-wives here - please don't
I console with your concerns, and those of the other families - their sadness and anxieties, regarding the loss of the crew of XV 230
However, we must not lose sight of what the BOI is struggling to achieve in very difficult circumstances
To point problems by stating the MR2 is a converted Comet is a bit naughty
It was a new metal build based on that frame design and extensively modified
The Chief Design Engineer for project 801 ( project no for Nimrod) based at Woodford, formerly AVRO, then Hawker Siddley, now BWOS knew his onions.
He interpreted the MOD Specification - based on UK maritime and Cold War conditions - and met the order by producing a pure jet airliner size ac that
could fly by day and night in all weather at low level, to either attack a submarine or provide SAR.
With this in mind he "overmilled" as they say in the industry
He knew they were going to be turning and burning at low level in sh"te weather for most of their life (unlike the Comet) - so he beefed them up.
Where the Spec was 10ml he made it 12. and where it was 15 he made 17, and so on. Unlike Boeing - if it's 10ml then it's 10ml - saves costs - not lives
I was later involved with a group that witnessed the first 3 fuselages being NDT'd ( Non Destructive Testing) (X Ray) at Poole and was assured by the project manager that if the MRA4 never came about, the existing fleet was "oversafe" because they had been over designed, well maintained (NMSU) and well cared for (Nimrod Line) and aircrew. His final words were - " They are actually a brick-****house"
Regarding hours - the meedjia are quoting fleet not airframe
Aircraft are designed to acieve at least 48000+ flying hrs, regardless of how long they have spent on the ground
I flew on Nimrods for 32 years and achieved barely 10.000 hours in the air
I have seen every F700 in the Mk2 Fleet and the oldest at 2004 was about 19000 and the youngest about 16000
They still have a long way to go
Regarding fuel leaks
They have to be classified
Moist
Damp
Drip ( so many per min - per hr)
Persistant
Leak
Gushing
Some Ppruners might identify ex-wives here - please don't
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
difar69 -
http://www.militaryaviation.eu/patrol/BAe/Nimrod.htm
Like many other successful maritime patrol aircraft, it was based on a civil airliner which had reached the end of its market life - in this case, the Comet 4. The first two RAF aircraft were unfinished Comet 4 airliners.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafkinloss/abo...mroddesign.cfm
Although the new aircraft made use of an existing airframe which included many of the original systems, there still remained much in the way of design and development.
A Comet nose fuselage section was modified to incorporate the larger flight deck windows and the integrity of the new design tested in a water tank.
http://avia.russian.ee/air/england/hawker_nimrod.php
It is a conversion of the De Havilland Comet, the world's first jet airliner. It was originally designed by Hawker-Siddeley, but is today a product of BAE Systems. The Nimrod serves the RAF in two variants: the R1 variant in a reconnaissance and electronic intelligence gathering capacity (ELINT), and the MR2 variant in the Maritime Reconnaissance role.
Exrigger Did I mention safety NO
buoy15
He knew they were going to be turning and burning at low level in sh"te weather for most of their life (unlike the Comet) - so he beefed them up.
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100n...name_page.html
Flight Lieutenant Jimmy Jones, then a flight trials engineer, was the first to test the Nimrod XV230 after it was brought into service in 1969. He said yesterday the plane was designed to fly over the North Atlantic to track Soviet submarines and was never tested in the kind of extreme heat it faced in recent conflicts.
So you flew on Nimrods for 32 years good for you. My son flew them for three years before one killed him and 13 others. And nearly 9 months later still no answers from the BOI.
http://www.militaryaviation.eu/patrol/BAe/Nimrod.htm
Like many other successful maritime patrol aircraft, it was based on a civil airliner which had reached the end of its market life - in this case, the Comet 4. The first two RAF aircraft were unfinished Comet 4 airliners.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafkinloss/abo...mroddesign.cfm
Although the new aircraft made use of an existing airframe which included many of the original systems, there still remained much in the way of design and development.
A Comet nose fuselage section was modified to incorporate the larger flight deck windows and the integrity of the new design tested in a water tank.
http://avia.russian.ee/air/england/hawker_nimrod.php
It is a conversion of the De Havilland Comet, the world's first jet airliner. It was originally designed by Hawker-Siddeley, but is today a product of BAE Systems. The Nimrod serves the RAF in two variants: the R1 variant in a reconnaissance and electronic intelligence gathering capacity (ELINT), and the MR2 variant in the Maritime Reconnaissance role.
Exrigger Did I mention safety NO
buoy15
He knew they were going to be turning and burning at low level in sh"te weather for most of their life (unlike the Comet) - so he beefed them up.
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100n...name_page.html
Flight Lieutenant Jimmy Jones, then a flight trials engineer, was the first to test the Nimrod XV230 after it was brought into service in 1969. He said yesterday the plane was designed to fly over the North Atlantic to track Soviet submarines and was never tested in the kind of extreme heat it faced in recent conflicts.
So you flew on Nimrods for 32 years good for you. My son flew them for three years before one killed him and 13 others. And nearly 9 months later still no answers from the BOI.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The first two prototype RAF aircraft were unfinished Comet 4 airliners.
They were Comets, they were never in service as Nimrods.
You might have said the Concordes engines had been fitted to the Vulcan.
A Comet nose fuselage section was modified to incorporate the larger flight deck windows and the integrity of the new design tested in a water tank.
This nose was never subsequently built in to a Nimrod.
It is a conversion of the De Havilland Comet, the world's first jet airliner.
It was not a conversion in the accepted sense, nor was it a modification. It was a design based on
Flight Lieutenant Jimmy Jones, then a flight trials engineer, was the first to test the Nimrod XV230 after it was brought into service in 1969. He said yesterday the plane was designed to fly over the North Atlantic to track Soviet submarines and was never tested in the kind of extreme heat it faced in recent conflicts.
Who am I to disagree with a flight trials engineer, OTOH maybe both our memories are fading with time. In 1970 an early production Nimrod, without avionics as they were not ready, was flown out to Singapore for high temperature trials as the aircraft was intended from the outset to operate a detachment from Singapore. This early aircraft was fitted with electric heaters to simulate equipment heat loads.
All I am trying to do is to steer the thread along a narrow path and ensure that inaccuracies are minimized and claims founded on fact.
They were Comets, they were never in service as Nimrods.
You might have said the Concordes engines had been fitted to the Vulcan.
A Comet nose fuselage section was modified to incorporate the larger flight deck windows and the integrity of the new design tested in a water tank.
This nose was never subsequently built in to a Nimrod.
It is a conversion of the De Havilland Comet, the world's first jet airliner.
It was not a conversion in the accepted sense, nor was it a modification. It was a design based on
Flight Lieutenant Jimmy Jones, then a flight trials engineer, was the first to test the Nimrod XV230 after it was brought into service in 1969. He said yesterday the plane was designed to fly over the North Atlantic to track Soviet submarines and was never tested in the kind of extreme heat it faced in recent conflicts.
Who am I to disagree with a flight trials engineer, OTOH maybe both our memories are fading with time. In 1970 an early production Nimrod, without avionics as they were not ready, was flown out to Singapore for high temperature trials as the aircraft was intended from the outset to operate a detachment from Singapore. This early aircraft was fitted with electric heaters to simulate equipment heat loads.
All I am trying to do is to steer the thread along a narrow path and ensure that inaccuracies are minimized and claims founded on fact.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontius Navigator
I have just given information from references .
YOU ON THE OTHER HAND APPEAR TO BE JUST DISAGREEING WITHOUT REFERING TO ANYTHING.
Although I did notice you did not disagree with.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafkinloss/abo...mroddesign.cfm
Although the new aircraft made use of an existing airframe (Comet?)which included many of the original systems (Comet?), there still remained much in the way of design and development.
As you have not disagreed does this mean you agree with RAF Kinloss that they used an existing airframe and included many of the original systems ?
I have just given information from references .
YOU ON THE OTHER HAND APPEAR TO BE JUST DISAGREEING WITHOUT REFERING TO ANYTHING.
Although I did notice you did not disagree with.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafkinloss/abo...mroddesign.cfm
Although the new aircraft made use of an existing airframe (Comet?)which included many of the original systems (Comet?), there still remained much in the way of design and development.
As you have not disagreed does this mean you agree with RAF Kinloss that they used an existing airframe and included many of the original systems ?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Buoy 15. I do not know where you got the +48,000 from, my understanding is that 20,000 is about the mark. XV227 was a front runner, and was withdrawn in 2004.
DV
DV
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
DV, I was in Cyprus from Nov 70. The Nimrod ws parked immediately outside the sqn and the AEO, the one with a 'wooden' leg told us.
Now he may have been telling porkies as he didn't want to offer an aircraft tour or maybe that airframe itself was unfinished.
Now he may have been telling porkies as he didn't want to offer an aircraft tour or maybe that airframe itself was unfinished.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
TD, as a primary source I do not have to cite references.
I note that one of your sources was a Russian website.
Also I did not disagree with that source as I had no grounds upon which to disagree.
I note that one of your sources was a Russian website.
Also I did not disagree with that source as I had no grounds upon which to disagree.