Nimrod Information
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When 46 arrived at Waddington, all the Engines, including the APU, were returned to manufacture.
Without these Anti Deteriation Runs could not be carried out so the servicability of major flight systems could not be assesed and she was preped for storage
A few minor and major components, difficult to demand anymore, were removed to service the R1 fleet.
(On a light note The right hand stone guard on XW665 was 46s)
And it was deamed Cheaper and quicker by the RAF to Strip and Fly it in an Antonov, than Detach a team from kinloss to basiclly rebuild the Aircraft, bear in mind the R1 groundcrew are not authrized to work on MR2s
Without these Anti Deteriation Runs could not be carried out so the servicability of major flight systems could not be assesed and she was preped for storage
A few minor and major components, difficult to demand anymore, were removed to service the R1 fleet.
(On a light note The right hand stone guard on XW665 was 46s)
And it was deamed Cheaper and quicker by the RAF to Strip and Fly it in an Antonov, than Detach a team from kinloss to basiclly rebuild the Aircraft, bear in mind the R1 groundcrew are not authrized to work on MR2s
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: ecosse
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monkey, get a grip
Alloy don't rust - it corrodes - and it looks like talc
The "rust" YOU see at the wing root is accumulations of tank seal, grease, hydraulic oil, fuel etc - it's hard and brown and smells like old aeroplanes and ----old aeroplanes - it's distinctive
Woodford don't do strip downs - they do re-builds That's why they're done before delivery - Doh!
OK anoraks!
Keeping the fuselage with full NDT saves 37 certifications which means we only have to check the wings, engines and gear - however, comma, without certification of the tube, yous is fecked - clever eh! Doh! Means we get the jet in the air earlier! - Doh!
I witnessed the strip downs and NDTs at Poole in the early days and as I said in an earlier post the tubes are built well above spec - like brick sh*thouses - and are good for another 30 years
It's easier to smash up a TSR2 jig than build one - ask Dennis Heally and his Commie labour mates- Hah! Feeling better already
Alloy don't rust - it corrodes - and it looks like talc
The "rust" YOU see at the wing root is accumulations of tank seal, grease, hydraulic oil, fuel etc - it's hard and brown and smells like old aeroplanes and ----old aeroplanes - it's distinctive
Woodford don't do strip downs - they do re-builds That's why they're done before delivery - Doh!
OK anoraks!
Keeping the fuselage with full NDT saves 37 certifications which means we only have to check the wings, engines and gear - however, comma, without certification of the tube, yous is fecked - clever eh! Doh! Means we get the jet in the air earlier! - Doh!
I witnessed the strip downs and NDTs at Poole in the early days and as I said in an earlier post the tubes are built well above spec - like brick sh*thouses - and are good for another 30 years
It's easier to smash up a TSR2 jig than build one - ask Dennis Heally and his Commie labour mates- Hah! Feeling better already
I can not speak for buoy15, but the Nimrod was originally stripped at Hurn Airport, which is in Bournemouth, Poole is the adjoining town, to the west.
When I read his post, I wondered where in Poole they could have done that!
When I read his post, I wondered where in Poole they could have done that!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah! Not FR who put a year plus delay in the programme in the first place?
Total aside but College of Air Traffic Control, Poole, would have a certain ring to it.
Total aside but College of Air Traffic Control, Poole, would have a certain ring to it.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
buoy15
Thank you so much for that, but I don't ever recall mentioning 'rust' at all, only corrosion. Of course you're quit right, in that when alloy corrodes it forms a powder residue, (just like the stuff that covered most of the XV246 airframe actually when it was at Waddo!)
As for your comment regarding certification, I think that probably answers most peoples questions about why we didn't go for a 'new' aircraft. Is it fair to assume therefore that by 'modifying' existing airframes, it has negated the need for BAes to do a 'full certification' of the aircraft? hmmm, how interesting. I wonder where the cut off line is between a 'new build' (as keeps getting banded about for the MR4) and a 'mod' to an existing airframe?
It sounds like a very good (cheap) deal for BAe and a pretty pi$$ poor deal for the customer, especially with the well-documented fiasco of the differences with each frame/wing assembly. I suppose that all the MR4's will now be a bit of a 'hotch potch' affair will they?
Lastly, if this now means that you guys get your new jet earlier - how long do you think it would have taken had BAe had NOT gone for the 'cheap mod' option?? This decade possibly?
TSM
Thank you so much for that, but I don't ever recall mentioning 'rust' at all, only corrosion. Of course you're quit right, in that when alloy corrodes it forms a powder residue, (just like the stuff that covered most of the XV246 airframe actually when it was at Waddo!)
As for your comment regarding certification, I think that probably answers most peoples questions about why we didn't go for a 'new' aircraft. Is it fair to assume therefore that by 'modifying' existing airframes, it has negated the need for BAes to do a 'full certification' of the aircraft? hmmm, how interesting. I wonder where the cut off line is between a 'new build' (as keeps getting banded about for the MR4) and a 'mod' to an existing airframe?
It sounds like a very good (cheap) deal for BAe and a pretty pi$$ poor deal for the customer, especially with the well-documented fiasco of the differences with each frame/wing assembly. I suppose that all the MR4's will now be a bit of a 'hotch potch' affair will they?
Lastly, if this now means that you guys get your new jet earlier - how long do you think it would have taken had BAe had NOT gone for the 'cheap mod' option?? This decade possibly?
TSM
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,372
Received 117 Likes
on
84 Posts
TSM,
Why, please, do you persist in the fallacy there was "powder residue" etc covering the airframe ?.
Let me put this as politely as I can. I was involved with that airframe from mid October until Dec. I know every inch of it....it was part of my job and responsibility to do so....and I therefore feel justified in refuting your comments, based on 30+ years as an engineer, mil and civil, there was "excessive corrosion" when, for your benefit, there was not. The airframe was in very good condition overall as I have said and the patches of corrosion that were found, were small. Show me an aircraft of this era that doesn't have any corrosion by the way
The Nimrod topic is an emotive issue, for obvious reasons, however your assertation regarding the corrosion is misleading and erroneous. If you would care to post the photographs you say you took, and then identify the form of corrosion you say was present, please, please do. Possibly myself and the 15 other members on the team missed this ?
If not, may I respectfully suggest you adhere to a well known RAF expression and wind your neck in, sir.
Why, please, do you persist in the fallacy there was "powder residue" etc covering the airframe ?.
Let me put this as politely as I can. I was involved with that airframe from mid October until Dec. I know every inch of it....it was part of my job and responsibility to do so....and I therefore feel justified in refuting your comments, based on 30+ years as an engineer, mil and civil, there was "excessive corrosion" when, for your benefit, there was not. The airframe was in very good condition overall as I have said and the patches of corrosion that were found, were small. Show me an aircraft of this era that doesn't have any corrosion by the way
The Nimrod topic is an emotive issue, for obvious reasons, however your assertation regarding the corrosion is misleading and erroneous. If you would care to post the photographs you say you took, and then identify the form of corrosion you say was present, please, please do. Possibly myself and the 15 other members on the team missed this ?
If not, may I respectfully suggest you adhere to a well known RAF expression and wind your neck in, sir.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: scotland
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The BOI report makes reference (2-34) to the fact that following a number of sorties, prior to the XV230 accident, fuel was seen dripping from the bomb bay and there was evidence of fuel in No.1 blow-off exit pipe. Also, a limitation was placed on the the amount of fuel held in No.1 tank at 15K. Does anyone, who was out there, know how these defects were carried (ADF/Lims) and who signed them off?
PM your comments if you wish.
DV
PM your comments if you wish.
DV
The cause of the imbalance between fuel flow in, and air flow out, can be attributed to one or more of the following factors: operator technique, fuel pump rates, refuelling rates in other tanks (this will effect the input into the blown-off tank and the demands on the central ventilation system) and in the case of fuel blow-off the most likely cause would be aircraft attitude and turbulent movement. Its quite possible for the blow-off valve to react to air pressure alone, and that would not be problematic (escaping air is not a hazard), but fuel escaping is another matter. So, by agreement between the aircrew, it was decided to attempt to obviate No1 Tank fuel blow-off by trying to ensure that the valve did not immerse in fuel during AAR. Hence the tank was not in-flight refuelled above 15K. The BOI report indicates that 120/3 was briefed on this slight and very sensible amendment to the procedure. The fact that the revised procedures, after the crash, now encompasses a reduced target quantity in the No1 tank is a solid endorsement of their decision.
Ed Sett
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Edset100: Many thanks for that very detailed reply. I understand though that the tank had still blown-off on an earlier flight with a reduced tank loading of 15K, and it must be assumed that F.S Davies stuck to 15K on the day of the accident. Would that not indicate that there was a fault with the system? The Board also suggest, in their report, that the Blow-off "phenomena" was an unusal event, requiring several conditions to come into play at the same time. Yet it would seem that XV230 had at least three blow-off events in about two weeks.
You also said that "Unless the blow-off is suspected of operating earlier it is not regarded as a system defect" But in the boards report it states that on an earlier flight "The air engineer subsequently noticed that, during AAR, the No1 tank appeared to reach full at an indicated 15K of fuel............might provoke the blow-off vave to operate" Does that not suggest that there was something wrong? Do we know if the 15K limitation applied to other aicraft in the Gulf at the time, or just XV230?
I fully understand your explaination for blow-off associated with refuel rates and air venting, but that simply blows of air, not fuel.
DV
You also said that "Unless the blow-off is suspected of operating earlier it is not regarded as a system defect" But in the boards report it states that on an earlier flight "The air engineer subsequently noticed that, during AAR, the No1 tank appeared to reach full at an indicated 15K of fuel............might provoke the blow-off vave to operate" Does that not suggest that there was something wrong? Do we know if the 15K limitation applied to other aicraft in the Gulf at the time, or just XV230?
I fully understand your explaination for blow-off associated with refuel rates and air venting, but that simply blows of air, not fuel.
DV
Last edited by Distant Voice; 8th Jan 2008 at 07:36.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Between the Sticks
Age: 61
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"For God's sake..."
Betty Swallox.................. I could not agree more! Have any of these MRA4 "experts" ever seen the aircraft? Have they ever been in it or actually know anything about it?
It is not just an MR2 with new wings and engines! It is a totally different animal and they should have changed the bloody name.
Incidentally..............
T45
Astute
Typhoon
Bowman
ASTOR
All late. As Ben Elton used to say "Double seat, double seat, got to get a double seat"
Betty Swallox.................. I could not agree more! Have any of these MRA4 "experts" ever seen the aircraft? Have they ever been in it or actually know anything about it?
It is not just an MR2 with new wings and engines! It is a totally different animal and they should have changed the bloody name.
Incidentally..............
T45
Astute
Typhoon
Bowman
ASTOR
All late. As Ben Elton used to say "Double seat, double seat, got to get a double seat"
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 49
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DV, is the venting described in this report another description of the 'blow-off' events described?
http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/nimrodreport2.pdf
http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/nimrodreport2.pdf
Tristar crew reported that the level of venting from the rear of the aircraft was similar to that of a fuel dump.
Last edited by Da4orce; 9th Jan 2008 at 10:17. Reason: Correct report link
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PQs
Nimrod Aircraft
Mr. George Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the review into the Nimrod conducted by Mr. Charles Haddon-Cave QC to be published. [176269]
7 Jan 2008 : Column 53W
Des Browne: I have nothing to add to the written ministerial statement I made in the House on 13 December 2007, Official Report, column 50WS. It is too early to speculate on a possible timescale for publication.
Mr. George Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the review into the Nimrod conducted by Mr. Charles Haddon-Cave QC to be published. [176269]
7 Jan 2008 : Column 53W
Des Browne: I have nothing to add to the written ministerial statement I made in the House on 13 December 2007, Official Report, column 50WS. It is too early to speculate on a possible timescale for publication.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Da4orce: Having read the full Air Incident report the impression that I get is that it was not a blow-off. Why?
(1) No.1 tank was well below 15K at the time. In fact it never went above 14.5K (I assume you are thinking of the type of blow-off mentioned in BOI report)
(2) Fuel appeared to be coming from the bomb bay, and the post flight check supports that by the amount fuel in that area.
(3) Initial testing suggests that the problem was associated with fuel line couplings.
(4) There were high pressure surges during re-fuelling (up to 80 psi)
(5) There was no evidence of any fuel in the blow-off valve.
The report implies that it was difficult to replicate fuel fault conditions on the ground, which is something that came across in the QinetiQ report.
There should be a follow up report, so someone should be able to complete the story.
I suppose this could, quite easily been another XV230, had the fuel found a source of ingnition (The SCP was cleared for use)
DV
(1) No.1 tank was well below 15K at the time. In fact it never went above 14.5K (I assume you are thinking of the type of blow-off mentioned in BOI report)
(2) Fuel appeared to be coming from the bomb bay, and the post flight check supports that by the amount fuel in that area.
(3) Initial testing suggests that the problem was associated with fuel line couplings.
(4) There were high pressure surges during re-fuelling (up to 80 psi)
(5) There was no evidence of any fuel in the blow-off valve.
The report implies that it was difficult to replicate fuel fault conditions on the ground, which is something that came across in the QinetiQ report.
There should be a follow up report, so someone should be able to complete the story.
I suppose this could, quite easily been another XV230, had the fuel found a source of ingnition (The SCP was cleared for use)
DV
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: scotland
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DV,
I'm impressed with your knowledge. However, I must correct your last sentence. On the date of that incident (Nov 06), the SCP was not cleared for use. It is important for everyone, with any interest in the accident, to know that not one single Nimrod has flown with its SCP cleared for use since the loss of XV230. Other system limitations and prohibitions have also been in place since the accident, thus making the aircraft completely safe to fly and to conduct AAR.
Ed Sett
I'm impressed with your knowledge. However, I must correct your last sentence. On the date of that incident (Nov 06), the SCP was not cleared for use. It is important for everyone, with any interest in the accident, to know that not one single Nimrod has flown with its SCP cleared for use since the loss of XV230. Other system limitations and prohibitions have also been in place since the accident, thus making the aircraft completely safe to fly and to conduct AAR.
Ed Sett
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 49
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks DV for the explanation.
Edset your post suggests that the SCP was/is the only source of ignition on the Nimrod.
By way of clarification and not meaning to question your knowledge can you confirm my above statment is correct? Is there no way that fuel can be ignited without the use of the SCP? Presumably a post 230 fire risk assessment supports this?
Edset your post suggests that the SCP was/is the only source of ignition on the Nimrod.
By way of clarification and not meaning to question your knowledge can you confirm my above statment is correct? Is there no way that fuel can be ignited without the use of the SCP? Presumably a post 230 fire risk assessment supports this?