Vulcan rocketry!
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought, but the 'V' force used lots of dispersal airfields ranged around the UK to disperse the force during "times of international tension". (and I've slummed it in broken down caravans and vandalised barrack buildings at nearly half of them!) I imagine that RATOG was intended to increase the number of available dispersal sites by using smaller airfields. Placing solitary aircraft all over the country would have made it impossible to eliminate the V Force in a first strike attack, but the logistics would also be horrific - and that's why the idea was dropped.
Last edited by Blacksheep; 13th Jun 2007 at 04:26.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 70
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Water-methanol thrust augmentation system
I was just reading the Valiant Pilot's Notes and this aircraft had installed a water-methanol system.
Was this ever used and did the other V bombers have it?
Was this ever used and did the other V bombers have it?
Last edited by Hipper; 13th Jun 2007 at 14:30. Reason: Correct ethanol to methanol - I must have been drinking the wrong stuff
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hipper. The Valiant Tankers had a working water injection system, we called it water-meth but maybe that is water-ethanol?. If I remember correctly it was 60% water and 40% the other. Our Avons were rated at 10,000lbs static thrust and water gave us another 1,000 lbs. We used it frequently if we were hot, high and heavy. It lasted about 40 seconds. One disadvantage was to a stream take-off where subsequent aircraft found themselves virtually IMC from the smoky exhaust. Its use also reduced engine life between overhauls but it was very welcome since in those days we often took off with Stop the wrong side of Go [as we called them then]. I am not aware of any of the other Vs being so equipped.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's an interesting business. On the face of it, there would be no reason why the Vulcan B2 would need RATOG under any circumstances. But as has been said, it suggests that even if was never explored officially, it might have had something to do with retaining the ability to operate from runways which were outside of the designated dispersal list. Can't really think what other purpose RATOG would have on a B2.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Tim, if it was long enough to land on at normal landing weights it was long enough to take-off from.
6000 ft was the normal minimum landing supposedly with a TBC stream. As I recall El Adem was only 6000 or 6500 feet in those days and we could never stream because of cross winds
Chivenor and Brawdy were both used regularly and were about 6000 feet with many others at only 7000.
6000 ft was the normal minimum landing supposedly with a TBC stream. As I recall El Adem was only 6000 or 6500 feet in those days and we could never stream because of cross winds
Chivenor and Brawdy were both used regularly and were about 6000 feet with many others at only 7000.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, I wasn't questioning that point, I meant that (as Blacksheep has commented) the only reason I can think of for retaining a RATOG capability would be if there was some vague notion of operating from dispersal sites that were outside of the normal list, ie with less than 6,000 feet of available runway. Otherwise, it's hard to see what purpose the RATOG gear would fulfil? 'Course this doesn't explain how on earth you'd get the aircraft into the place safely in the first place, unless you waited for a day with a pretty decent headwind?!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
They were, as you know, delivered to short and to soft airfield but also at basic weights. A min landing run, minimal fuel, max aerodynamic braking, chute stream etc and it could do a very short landing but not all the time.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Lynehamshire
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stopping Power !
They were, as you know, delivered to short and to soft airfield but also at basic weights. A min landing run, minimal fuel, max aerodynamic braking, chute stream etc and it could do a very short landing but not all the time.
CRPxGood
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Clear right, nah, Newark is plenty long enough, 4250. Now Catterick, that was tighter, you will find more on the Vulcan thread, 3500. Cosford was 3600
Southend is a tad short too.
Southend is a tad short too.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Wouldn't it have been possible to fit reheat to the Olympus engines as fitted to the Vulcan to give them that extra bit of grunt to get off a short runway?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
THS, in theory yes however, and this is purely speculation and I expect the engineers will comment too.
In the 50s reheat was all or nothing, throtleable reheat came later. Reheat cans weigh more than clean pipes and, unlike RATOG, would have to be dragged around all the time. RATOG would be a self-contained bolt-on and drop off. Reheat would use precious fuel so that aircraft using short runways would suffer greater range penalties and be limited to shorter range targets.
Strategically bombers on longer runways would therefore become priority targets as the enemy could deduce they were deep penetration missions.
In the 50s reheat was all or nothing, throtleable reheat came later. Reheat cans weigh more than clean pipes and, unlike RATOG, would have to be dragged around all the time. RATOG would be a self-contained bolt-on and drop off. Reheat would use precious fuel so that aircraft using short runways would suffer greater range penalties and be limited to shorter range targets.
Strategically bombers on longer runways would therefore become priority targets as the enemy could deduce they were deep penetration missions.
Tim
As a journalist, how on earth can you have the audacity to criticise '607' when you have not even read the whole thing? Is that not both supremely arrogant and professionally dubious at the same time?
You made similar comments about another Vulcan book you haven’t read in another thread.
I think that your comments here are unprofessional and unacceptable.
FTR, I very much enjoyed ‘607’.
You stated that:
Broadly interpreted, you are happy to settle for regurgitated mediocrity, then?
You then said:
I simply do not agree. This sort of attitude is very prevalent in the military aviation publishing sector, but it's about time there was a shake up to rid us of it.
What you say smacks of laziness and apathy, and it should not be that way. This is particularly true of texts pertaining to an aircraft where there are dozens of operators still alive today to interview.
Since you frequently reference your trips to the archives, pilots’ notes, and whatnot, I had assumed that your Vulcan book would have been written ‘from the ground up’. Based on this comment and your earlier admission that it’s actually a mishmash of what you have already written, I wonder how well your book will be received by the reviewers?
Finally, you say:
You might, but not all of us do!
I agree that books can never be perfect, and will always contain some statements that people will take issue with. But, make a semi educated guess? YGTBFSM. If you do the interviews and let the sources tell the story themselves, then you don’t have to do any guess work. If there are no sources available, then you present both sides of the story and allow the reader to make his own mind up.
I really think that you should consider things more carefully before you post about other peoples' works and your own modus operandi. You are not portraying yourself, or our industry, in a very good light.
As a journalist, how on earth can you have the audacity to criticise '607' when you have not even read the whole thing? Is that not both supremely arrogant and professionally dubious at the same time?
You made similar comments about another Vulcan book you haven’t read in another thread.
I think that your comments here are unprofessional and unacceptable.
FTR, I very much enjoyed ‘607’.
You stated that:
I should point-out that I'm not claiming to write the "authoritative text on the Vulcan" - I'm just doing a book which will hopefully be worth reading, combining material from my past books with additions and amendments so that it creates what will doubtless be a far-from perfect book, but hopefully something better than anything else that's likely to come along.
You then said:
That's one of the problems with aviation books - in reality there isn't much information around other than stuff which has already been previously published in books and magazines.
What you say smacks of laziness and apathy, and it should not be that way. This is particularly true of texts pertaining to an aircraft where there are dozens of operators still alive today to interview.
Since you frequently reference your trips to the archives, pilots’ notes, and whatnot, I had assumed that your Vulcan book would have been written ‘from the ground up’. Based on this comment and your earlier admission that it’s actually a mishmash of what you have already written, I wonder how well your book will be received by the reviewers?
Finally, you say:
Books are never perfect sadly - you have to gather all the available information and make a (semi) educated guess!
I agree that books can never be perfect, and will always contain some statements that people will take issue with. But, make a semi educated guess? YGTBFSM. If you do the interviews and let the sources tell the story themselves, then you don’t have to do any guess work. If there are no sources available, then you present both sides of the story and allow the reader to make his own mind up.
I really think that you should consider things more carefully before you post about other peoples' works and your own modus operandi. You are not portraying yourself, or our industry, in a very good light.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Naturally, you're welcome to think what you like, it's a free country!
I've been around (and worked in the business) long enough to have seen-through all the bullsh*it that prevails in aviation publishing and the simple fact is that virtually no book is "original" or written "from the ground up" as you put it. The only ones that are, tend to be the "one off" titles produced for smaller companies that someone has written as a "labour of love" in his spare time, but they're the exception rather than the rule. I know it might be a depressing notion and you might want to change it, and in many respects I wish you could, but you can't. Aviation publishers just don't pay enough money to encourage anyone to produce a book from scratch, it's that simple. If you knew just how little money you actually got for such projects, you'd wonder why anyone even bothered (and many people don't!).
As for 607, I stand by what I said. I did read it all but not too carefully as it is a tad turgid in my opinion. It's a nice enough book but a bit too long in my opinion, and it does tend to over-dramatise events for obvious commercial reasons. He also shamelessly steals text from other Vulcan books (including my own) and other books too, which is not something that bothers me, but it would be nice to have been acknowledged...
As for the new Tempus book, I stand by what I said about that too - it's rubbish. Much of the material has been gleaned from other books which would be fine, except he evidently didn't seek permission to do it. The eight-page profiles for example were simply stolen from a magazine. Classy!
Finally, as for my new book, it's a mix of text from my previous books, combined with new stuff, and first-hand stories from "Vulcan people". Given that the Vulcan's story is already well-known, there's not much you can do other than add to it in parts and that's what I've tried to do. It might not meet with your approval but there we go; it might not be quite what I would ideally like to produce either but as I'm sure you know, life's often full of compromises. Whether reviewers like the book or not is irrelevant; it's worth bearing in mind that aviation books aren't produced for the interests of "enthusiasts" - they are aimed at a wider market of readers with a more casual interest. Naturally, enthusiasts buy them too but they're not the main market, so when an aviation magazine praises or criticises a book, a publisher generally doesn't even pay the slightest attention - but then again, when have you ever bought or not bought a book on the bassis of a reviewer's opinion?
I think you possibly have some over-romantic notions of aerospace publishing. I admit I did too maybe twenty years ago but unfortunately it's a very different business these days.
I've been around (and worked in the business) long enough to have seen-through all the bullsh*it that prevails in aviation publishing and the simple fact is that virtually no book is "original" or written "from the ground up" as you put it. The only ones that are, tend to be the "one off" titles produced for smaller companies that someone has written as a "labour of love" in his spare time, but they're the exception rather than the rule. I know it might be a depressing notion and you might want to change it, and in many respects I wish you could, but you can't. Aviation publishers just don't pay enough money to encourage anyone to produce a book from scratch, it's that simple. If you knew just how little money you actually got for such projects, you'd wonder why anyone even bothered (and many people don't!).
As for 607, I stand by what I said. I did read it all but not too carefully as it is a tad turgid in my opinion. It's a nice enough book but a bit too long in my opinion, and it does tend to over-dramatise events for obvious commercial reasons. He also shamelessly steals text from other Vulcan books (including my own) and other books too, which is not something that bothers me, but it would be nice to have been acknowledged...
As for the new Tempus book, I stand by what I said about that too - it's rubbish. Much of the material has been gleaned from other books which would be fine, except he evidently didn't seek permission to do it. The eight-page profiles for example were simply stolen from a magazine. Classy!
Finally, as for my new book, it's a mix of text from my previous books, combined with new stuff, and first-hand stories from "Vulcan people". Given that the Vulcan's story is already well-known, there's not much you can do other than add to it in parts and that's what I've tried to do. It might not meet with your approval but there we go; it might not be quite what I would ideally like to produce either but as I'm sure you know, life's often full of compromises. Whether reviewers like the book or not is irrelevant; it's worth bearing in mind that aviation books aren't produced for the interests of "enthusiasts" - they are aimed at a wider market of readers with a more casual interest. Naturally, enthusiasts buy them too but they're not the main market, so when an aviation magazine praises or criticises a book, a publisher generally doesn't even pay the slightest attention - but then again, when have you ever bought or not bought a book on the bassis of a reviewer's opinion?
I think you possibly have some over-romantic notions of aerospace publishing. I admit I did too maybe twenty years ago but unfortunately it's a very different business these days.
I've been around (and worked in the business) long enough to have seen-through all the bullsh*it that prevails in aviation publishing and the simple fact is that virtually no book is "original" or written "from the ground up" as you put it <snip> Aviation publishers just don't pay enough money to encourage anyone to produce a book from scratch, it's that simple. If you knew just how little money you actually got for such projects, you'd wonder why anyone even bothered (and many people don't!).
I think you possibly have some over-romantic notions of aerospace publishing.
I think you possibly have some over-romantic notions of aerospace publishing.
Even so, most of my books were written from scratch (two borrow sections from previous books), and all have been widely applauded by the people that count – the readers – for their originality and reference to primary source material. So, your argument that the only way a great, original book can be released is if someone does it as a hobby is totally flawed.
FTR, I have a mortgage and similar financial commitments, and I do not enjoy any particular financial benefits that might make it easier for me to do this than you. What I do have, in spades, is a professional pride in my work and a determination that my books will be the best researched and most informative that they can be. Why? Because I don't want the punter being ripped off, and I don't want people saying that I write **** books.
Taking my most recent book as an example: I have visited the US twice to interview retired military pilots, and have a total of 80 hours of taped interviews with around 45 individuals living across the US. Whether the story is already well known is neither here nor there; what matters is that the punter is entitled to expect fresh perspectives and new stories for his hard earned cash. The money I actually live off of is that which I earn for TV, partwork, periodical, photography, monthly magazine, archiving and research commissions. On that I am able to live comfortably.
My 7 years may be less than half of your 20, but it's enough to know that I am right about what can and cannot be done in this business. There are an increasing number of aerospace publishers who are beginning to look past writers who sit behind the excuse you just gave and are recognising that they can get incisive, brand-spanking-new (at least, written from scratch) content for the same money from guys like me. I know because they are picking the phone up to me.
As for 607… He also shamelessly steals text from other Vulcan books (including my own) and other books too, which is not something that bothers me, but it would be nice to have been acknowledged...
As a side note, does he or his publisher know you are accusing him of plagiarism?
As for the new Tempus book, I stand by what I said about that too - it's rubbish.
In any case, why don’t you take legal action? If there is as serious case of plagiarism to answer to here, you should stop talking about it here and contact your publisher.
Whether reviewers like the book or not is irrelevant
It's worth bearing in mind that aviation books aren't produced for the interests of "enthusiasts" - they are aimed at a wider market of readers with a more casual interest.
When have you ever bought or not bought a book on the bassis of a reviewer's opinion?
I am sorry, Tim, but I think that your attitude stinks. And you’re right, it is a free country and I am entitled to hold this view.
I am done here. You can have the last word.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like you say, you're entitled to a view just like I am. I don't propose to waste my time arguing with you, not least because this thread is supposed to be about Vulcan RATOG developments and I'm sure none of the forum users want to be hijacked and taken into another topic just because you don't happen to like what I've said! I know what I know and if you think differently then good for you