Nimrod Information
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll try again.
Can we please, please, please wait till the BOI reports, rather than all this speculation. Please give the guys a chance to do their work. I feel we should all respect their efforts. And give them a chance. And, these things DO take time for a thorough job to be done.
Nigegilb. I'm not sure your MRA4 source. I do not wish to get involved in a long drawn out "discussion" about it, but your info on the new fuel system is fundamentally wrong. See a few pages ago, the response from 'the short fat one'. He describes it rather nicely.
Finally, to suggest that the MoD misled the public by providing MR2 footage when asked for MRA4 holds little water. My understanding is that the MoD were consulted very little in the making of this programme. I rather point the finger at the BBCs lack of attention to detail...remember, after the awful events of Sep 06, they, for a while, reported the crash as a MERLIN...
Can we please, please, please wait till the BOI reports, rather than all this speculation. Please give the guys a chance to do their work. I feel we should all respect their efforts. And give them a chance. And, these things DO take time for a thorough job to be done.
Nigegilb. I'm not sure your MRA4 source. I do not wish to get involved in a long drawn out "discussion" about it, but your info on the new fuel system is fundamentally wrong. See a few pages ago, the response from 'the short fat one'. He describes it rather nicely.
Finally, to suggest that the MoD misled the public by providing MR2 footage when asked for MRA4 holds little water. My understanding is that the MoD were consulted very little in the making of this programme. I rather point the finger at the BBCs lack of attention to detail...remember, after the awful events of Sep 06, they, for a while, reported the crash as a MERLIN...
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Betty,
For Christ's sake stop whinging on about waiting for the BoI to 'do its job'
The BoI will almost certainly have already 'done its job' and the report will now be doing the rounds between CAS, ACAS, ministers and everyone else before its released (maybe) to the public in a hugely sanitised version.
If Nigels comments about the MR4 Fuel system are so 'fundamentally wrong' then do us all a favour, and tell us what the real story is please. Clearly you know more than most, so lets have the facts instead of you telling everyone to stop speculating.
The MOD were consulted enough to allow Glenn Torpy to be interviewed and look like a fish out of water, I hardly think they wouldn't have asked for some footage of an MR4 do you? Maybe, (just maybe) it was BWOS who were not happy about handing over the footage? I didn't see much involvement from them, did you?
Either way, it's time you stopped telling people on this forum, especially the likes of Tappers Dad, what to do. Let him speculate and question as much and as often as he wants. He has every right to ask searching questions and seek out the truth, and the waiting is hurting him. I would do the same if I had lost my son. Infact, I don't think I would have been anywhere near as calm and reasoned as TD if it had been my boy - I would have been camped outside the MOD or parliament giving all the faceless and spineless ^&$$£" some serious grief!
So please do us a favour Betty, and shut up yourself! thanks
TSM
For Christ's sake stop whinging on about waiting for the BoI to 'do its job'
The BoI will almost certainly have already 'done its job' and the report will now be doing the rounds between CAS, ACAS, ministers and everyone else before its released (maybe) to the public in a hugely sanitised version.
If Nigels comments about the MR4 Fuel system are so 'fundamentally wrong' then do us all a favour, and tell us what the real story is please. Clearly you know more than most, so lets have the facts instead of you telling everyone to stop speculating.
The MOD were consulted enough to allow Glenn Torpy to be interviewed and look like a fish out of water, I hardly think they wouldn't have asked for some footage of an MR4 do you? Maybe, (just maybe) it was BWOS who were not happy about handing over the footage? I didn't see much involvement from them, did you?
Either way, it's time you stopped telling people on this forum, especially the likes of Tappers Dad, what to do. Let him speculate and question as much and as often as he wants. He has every right to ask searching questions and seek out the truth, and the waiting is hurting him. I would do the same if I had lost my son. Infact, I don't think I would have been anywhere near as calm and reasoned as TD if it had been my boy - I would have been camped outside the MOD or parliament giving all the faceless and spineless ^&$$£" some serious grief!
So please do us a favour Betty, and shut up yourself! thanks
TSM
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MRA4 AAR system
Betty, I stand by the following statement about MRA4 AAR. It has been the subject of a Parliamentary question and what I am claiming has not been denied by the MoD. There are some unpalatable truths about this tragedy and not everyone is comfortable dealing with them. I understand your concerns, but there is a very real chance that this could happen again. I have been told that the MRA4 design was frozen at the back end of last year, there is no OBIGGS or Foam on order and the AAR system is not double skinned, unlike the Tri Star. It is not being built to a Civil Standard, and the "fag packet" Falklands design is being adhered to.
The AAR system on MRA4 is the retained MR2 system. That means what the MR2 has, MRA4 will have also. That said, there are some differences, mainly where that fuel enters tanks in the Bomb Bay.
The AAR system will not be qualified on delivery. It has to be available ready to use at short notice.
The system does carry fuel though, and it is pressurised (& yes there have been leaks during ground refuel).
There is a requirement to 'design out' of MRA4 any known MR2 issues. To that end engineers are on the distribution for all Incident signals, Mods, STI, SI, RTI & UTI. Every one is looked at to see if it's applicable to MRA4. Where the MRA4 has the same parts ('retained') the issues are to be designed out.
There is no design for foam in tanks (neither Flight Deck Armour funnily enough). It will only go on MRA4 at the request of the customer.
The AAR system on MRA4 is the retained MR2 system. That means what the MR2 has, MRA4 will have also. That said, there are some differences, mainly where that fuel enters tanks in the Bomb Bay.
The AAR system will not be qualified on delivery. It has to be available ready to use at short notice.
The system does carry fuel though, and it is pressurised (& yes there have been leaks during ground refuel).
There is a requirement to 'design out' of MRA4 any known MR2 issues. To that end engineers are on the distribution for all Incident signals, Mods, STI, SI, RTI & UTI. Every one is looked at to see if it's applicable to MRA4. Where the MRA4 has the same parts ('retained') the issues are to be designed out.
There is no design for foam in tanks (neither Flight Deck Armour funnily enough). It will only go on MRA4 at the request of the customer.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scotland
Age: 49
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The MOD had ample opportunity to be involved in the programme, however there stance all along was that they did not wish to pre-empt the BOI and that in their view the programme should not be shown.
I think it's worth noting that the MOD have provided families with no information about the BOI or it's progress, there has been a complete wall of silence from the MOD. This stance has in my view directly fuelled further speculation and questioning which would likely have been reduced had the MOD had the courtesy to communicate with the families. All that the silence has done is add weight to those who argue that the MOD has something to hide.
And to those who seem to be living in a bubble and believe that there is no political influence over the BOI can you explain why it is that despite apparently being ready for publication the MOD has chosen to delay publication until after the summer recess of parliament. Something stinks here and I've spoken to many non-RAF, non-family members who have the same opinion.
I think it's worth noting that the MOD have provided families with no information about the BOI or it's progress, there has been a complete wall of silence from the MOD. This stance has in my view directly fuelled further speculation and questioning which would likely have been reduced had the MOD had the courtesy to communicate with the families. All that the silence has done is add weight to those who argue that the MOD has something to hide.
And to those who seem to be living in a bubble and believe that there is no political influence over the BOI can you explain why it is that despite apparently being ready for publication the MOD has chosen to delay publication until after the summer recess of parliament. Something stinks here and I've spoken to many non-RAF, non-family members who have the same opinion.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSM. I feel you have taken me a tad out of context. Rather than jumping in feet first, and posting your shouty reply, I would have rather that you understood that I merely stated I felt it appropriate to wait for the findings. I am not whingeing, not "telling" anyone what to do, as you kindly put it, and I think you are as bit out of line telling folks on this forum to "shut up". We all have our opinions; I was close to a fair few of the guys killed.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WNM
I'm not vying for more thread creep than is necessary. May I refer you to post219, from ShortFatOne on the "Kinloss, what's going on?" thread. ta
I'm not vying for more thread creep than is necessary. May I refer you to post219, from ShortFatOne on the "Kinloss, what's going on?" thread. ta
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Betty with the greatest respect you do not appear to have any knowledge on this subject. Referring us to another poster proves nothing. Can you please state why you think I am wrong or otherwise stand aside.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Nige
My knowledge is just fine, thanks. I simply can't see the need to go over all that has been covered a few weeks ago on a similar thread. With the greatest respect.
My knowledge is just fine, thanks. I simply can't see the need to go over all that has been covered a few weeks ago on a similar thread. With the greatest respect.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Betty,
I'm sorry you feel a little hard done by, but I am sick to death of people like you telling others (such as Tappers Dad et al) to just keep waiting for the BoI results and stop speculating. I would defy you and anyone else to say that you wouldn't do exactly the same as them, if you were in their position. I doubt if Tappers Dad will get to see the full report, or indeed any of it, but his search for the truth should not be stifled or belittled by you or anyone else.
As for the MR4 fuel system, I note your lack of responce to my comments and Nigels, so I will make the assumption that you simply don't know what you are talking about. The shortfatone is at ISK, NOT at BWOS where the MR4 is being (re)built!
And finally like you, I also lost a lot of friends on XV230 and was extremely close to many of them. If you feel that you have the right to tell people to stop speculating then thats fine, but I feel I have an equal right to tell you to stop talking rubbish!
I'm sorry you feel a little hard done by, but I am sick to death of people like you telling others (such as Tappers Dad et al) to just keep waiting for the BoI results and stop speculating. I would defy you and anyone else to say that you wouldn't do exactly the same as them, if you were in their position. I doubt if Tappers Dad will get to see the full report, or indeed any of it, but his search for the truth should not be stifled or belittled by you or anyone else.
As for the MR4 fuel system, I note your lack of responce to my comments and Nigels, so I will make the assumption that you simply don't know what you are talking about. The shortfatone is at ISK, NOT at BWOS where the MR4 is being (re)built!
And finally like you, I also lost a lot of friends on XV230 and was extremely close to many of them. If you feel that you have the right to tell people to stop speculating then thats fine, but I feel I have an equal right to tell you to stop talking rubbish!
Betty,
The ‘short fat one’ is correct in what he says, as is Nigegilb.
Might I ask what qualifies you to make the statement “…but your info on the new fuel system is fundamentally wrong….” (post #463 above)?
The ‘short fat one’ is correct in what he says, as is Nigegilb.
Might I ask what qualifies you to make the statement “…but your info on the new fuel system is fundamentally wrong….” (post #463 above)?
As an example - nige says MRA4 AAR is not double skinned, shortfatone says it is in certain places.
From the info I've seen, I'm inclined to side with shortfatones tone/angle on the MRA4 AAR issue (i.e. there isn't really an issue, its been engineered properly despite its heritage), rather than that I pick up from nige (i.e. I detect he implies it is MR2 based & therefore no good, and believes somehow that inerting systems are the answer to all safety issues (which of course they aren't and bring their own problems)).
From the info I've seen, I'm inclined to side with shortfatones tone/angle on the MRA4 AAR issue (i.e. there isn't really an issue, its been engineered properly despite its heritage), rather than that I pick up from nige (i.e. I detect he implies it is MR2 based & therefore no good, and believes somehow that inerting systems are the answer to all safety issues (which of course they aren't and bring their own problems)).
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Boscombe Down
Age: 52
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents,
This is in danger of degenerating in to a slagging contest wrt who knows more about the MRA4 fuel system, and is becoming personal (which will serve no real purpose). I have spent the last 2 years flying the MRA4 as one of the ATEC test pilots, but have now left the project so will refrain from commenting on the aircraft systems as, already, my knowledge may well be out of date. There are many people commenting on this thread who are unknown to me and may, or may not, have accurate knowledge of the MRA4. However, what I can say with absolute authority is that both the Short Fat One (who is not a ISK by the way) and Betty Swallox are both involved in the MRA4 programme, have a working knowledge of the MRA4 systems, have flown the aircraft, are current to fly the aircraft, and, therefore, know more about the aircraft, its systems and the safety case than most people on this thread.
This is in danger of degenerating in to a slagging contest wrt who knows more about the MRA4 fuel system, and is becoming personal (which will serve no real purpose). I have spent the last 2 years flying the MRA4 as one of the ATEC test pilots, but have now left the project so will refrain from commenting on the aircraft systems as, already, my knowledge may well be out of date. There are many people commenting on this thread who are unknown to me and may, or may not, have accurate knowledge of the MRA4. However, what I can say with absolute authority is that both the Short Fat One (who is not a ISK by the way) and Betty Swallox are both involved in the MRA4 programme, have a working knowledge of the MRA4 systems, have flown the aircraft, are current to fly the aircraft, and, therefore, know more about the aircraft, its systems and the safety case than most people on this thread.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lincs
Posts: 695
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steve,
Thats a bit of a worry then isn't it? They are both on the project you say and yet one is telling the other one that he is 'fundamentally wrong' I wonder who's right then??
I was having a few drinks with some old friends last night and remembering that exactly 25 years ago, we were all on the same Nimrod crew at Wideawake and I remember the initial AAR fit very well! It was a basta$d to get from the flt deck back to the galley, big rubber pipes everywhere!!
Sadly, it is a long time since I flew Nimrod, and I have to admit that many of the old grey cells have long been flushed away. Nevertheless, it concerns me that the left hand of this project doesn't seem to know what the right hand is doing, or thinking!!
Thats a bit of a worry then isn't it? They are both on the project you say and yet one is telling the other one that he is 'fundamentally wrong' I wonder who's right then??
I was having a few drinks with some old friends last night and remembering that exactly 25 years ago, we were all on the same Nimrod crew at Wideawake and I remember the initial AAR fit very well! It was a basta$d to get from the flt deck back to the galley, big rubber pipes everywhere!!
Sadly, it is a long time since I flew Nimrod, and I have to admit that many of the old grey cells have long been flushed away. Nevertheless, it concerns me that the left hand of this project doesn't seem to know what the right hand is doing, or thinking!!
TSM - short fat one and betty are not disagreeing - infact betty is using short fat ones previous post to challenge the unsubstantiated rumours about the MRA4 AAR system. I had a feeling shortfatone knew what he was on about - bionic mans post & shorfatones preston (i.e. near warton) location seem to confirm this.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Boscombe Down
Age: 52
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSM
To clarify; in post 463 above, Betty was referring to nigegilb's knowledge of the system as being 'fundamentally wrong' and, therefore, suggesting that readers refer to The Short Fat Ones previous description. i.e. Betty and The Short Fat One are singing from the same hymn sheet.
Whilst this project has had its problems, please don't generalise that:
'the left hand of this project doesn't seem to know what the right hand is doing, or thinking'
based on your misinterpretation of post 463 combined with my previous post.
No offence intended, just clarification.
TVM, Steve
To clarify; in post 463 above, Betty was referring to nigegilb's knowledge of the system as being 'fundamentally wrong' and, therefore, suggesting that readers refer to The Short Fat Ones previous description. i.e. Betty and The Short Fat One are singing from the same hymn sheet.
Whilst this project has had its problems, please don't generalise that:
'the left hand of this project doesn't seem to know what the right hand is doing, or thinking'
based on your misinterpretation of post 463 combined with my previous post.
No offence intended, just clarification.
TVM, Steve
Gents,
The majority of the AAR system of MRA4 is retained structure. If anyone is in doubt… check the drawings.
Interpretation of ‘retained’ would seem to be the issue here. Take for example, the refuel Probe –
No-one is suggesting that the design is in anyway deficient.
Read the shortfatone’s post again and this time read what it says, not what you want it to say.
Quote:
“Where you are not correct is in giving the impression that the fuel pipework et al is refurbished. It is of a similar/same design but, apart from the fuselage (and one or two minor items) the rest of the aircraft (and pipework)is new build. Indeed, around the important areas (engine bays etc) the fuel pipework will be double skinned.”
Nigegilb does not say anything about the ‘fuel pipework et al’ but:
Quote:
“The AAR system on MRA4 is the retained MR2 system. That means what the MR2 has, MRA4 will have also. That said, there are some differences, mainly where that fuel enters tanks in the Bomb Bay.”
“It is not being built to a Civil Standard, and the "fag packet" Falklands design is being adhered to.” This is also correct.
It is also correct to state that in the aftermath of XV230 the MRA4 fuel system has been the subject of some scrutiny, believe me..
Nigegilb is not 'fundamentally wrong' Betty.
The majority of the AAR system of MRA4 is retained structure. If anyone is in doubt… check the drawings.
Interpretation of ‘retained’ would seem to be the issue here. Take for example, the refuel Probe –
- The first MRA4 delivered will have a Probe fitted. It is ‘retained’ Structure.
- It may be the probe removed from a Vulcan all those many years ago and hastily fitted to an MR2. It will have been re-furbished. It is retained structure.
- It may or may not be a newly manufactured probe (to MR2 drawings). It is retained structure.
No-one is suggesting that the design is in anyway deficient.
Read the shortfatone’s post again and this time read what it says, not what you want it to say.
Quote:
“Where you are not correct is in giving the impression that the fuel pipework et al is refurbished. It is of a similar/same design but, apart from the fuselage (and one or two minor items) the rest of the aircraft (and pipework)is new build. Indeed, around the important areas (engine bays etc) the fuel pipework will be double skinned.”
Nigegilb does not say anything about the ‘fuel pipework et al’ but:
Quote:
“The AAR system on MRA4 is the retained MR2 system. That means what the MR2 has, MRA4 will have also. That said, there are some differences, mainly where that fuel enters tanks in the Bomb Bay.”
“It is not being built to a Civil Standard, and the "fag packet" Falklands design is being adhered to.” This is also correct.
It is also correct to state that in the aftermath of XV230 the MRA4 fuel system has been the subject of some scrutiny, believe me..
Nigegilb is not 'fundamentally wrong' Betty.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bristol Temple Meads
Posts: 869
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel Systems
Ok, so now I think I understand it;
(1) The MRA 4 will use the same AAR design as that used on MR 2, but with new parts. So where the existing design is flawed, the MRA 4 will carry the flaws
(2) Some fuel pipes will be double skinned. No doubt we can not afford to double skin all the pipes that need it.
(3) The AAR system will not be qualified (cleared?) on delivery, but it has to be ready for use at short notice. So qualification will be done at short notice.
Can anyone tell me when and how the existing AAR was qualified? And please do not say "On the awy out to the Falklands"
DV
(1) The MRA 4 will use the same AAR design as that used on MR 2, but with new parts. So where the existing design is flawed, the MRA 4 will carry the flaws
(2) Some fuel pipes will be double skinned. No doubt we can not afford to double skin all the pipes that need it.
(3) The AAR system will not be qualified (cleared?) on delivery, but it has to be ready for use at short notice. So qualification will be done at short notice.
Can anyone tell me when and how the existing AAR was qualified? And please do not say "On the awy out to the Falklands"
DV