Another Nimrod Question?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: here & there
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another Nimrod Question?
Hi All
Sorry to hijack the forum for a small question but my research has failed me.
Due to a discussion on another forum I've been looking at the runway requirements for a Nimrod.
Simply could a Nimrod land and take off on a 1825x45m runway assuming the ACN/PCN was in order, which in this case I think it is subject to being below the MTOW but I digress.
I've been unable to find the LDR and take off roll specs for a Nimrod and I'm looking at a Mk1 & MK2 BTW.
Thanks in advance.
Just looking for a Technically yes it could/no it couldn't answer.
Sorry to hijack the forum for a small question but my research has failed me.
Due to a discussion on another forum I've been looking at the runway requirements for a Nimrod.
Simply could a Nimrod land and take off on a 1825x45m runway assuming the ACN/PCN was in order, which in this case I think it is subject to being below the MTOW but I digress.
I've been unable to find the LDR and take off roll specs for a Nimrod and I'm looking at a Mk1 & MK2 BTW.
Thanks in advance.
Just looking for a Technically yes it could/no it couldn't answer.
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well thay are regular vistors to Gibraltar, which has almost the same length of runway as your figures.
S_H
S_H
Last edited by Safety_Helmut; 26th Feb 2008 at 07:08.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nimrod at Stanley
During my time in Stanley the Mk2 came for an exercise and operated off the aluminium runway - as I recall that was less than 6,000ft in old money, but no doubt someone would know. I don't know what weights they were operating at though.
JB
JB
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Doha
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Normally use 6000ft as a planning figure. If it's slightly below, it would be a worth a look in the ODM. No noticeable difference between Mk1 and Mk2.
Figures can be reduced if you refer to the Military Operating Standard, which is the norm for landing at Gibralter.
Figures can be reduced if you refer to the Military Operating Standard, which is the norm for landing at Gibralter.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smaller runway (L and W) than you'd think -
'Feb 24 1993, XV241, captain Sqn Ldr Ovell Taxiway landing trials RAF Kinloss, duration 1 hr 50 (day)'.
Unusual to get rates when returning to your home base, having been detached for 2 weeks to Boscombe Down to assist in a variety of trials by backending a flight deck, and having to stay unexpectedly overnight.
Of particular note was it took way less than 2 hr 30 to prepare for a flight - I seem to recall ambling gently across from coffee bar to aircraft about 25 mins before planned take off - and for some reason entry to the a/c was via front starboard door every time.
Did quite a few rollers on the taxiway, and there was a lot of room to spare, possibly due to the excellent piloting that fortnight, no aspersions on those I flew with on sqns but these guys used to virtually pick grease marks to land on "3 inches long there Bertie - Yes Harold, bit of a gust from that seagull as I flared" style of thing. Landings were on the northern side I recall, though it's 15 years ago and for all I now remember reliably I was in the navy and probably still like rum and unusually flared trousers.
(The auth sheet facts are okay though, still got the logbook <g>)....
'Feb 24 1993, XV241, captain Sqn Ldr Ovell Taxiway landing trials RAF Kinloss, duration 1 hr 50 (day)'.
Unusual to get rates when returning to your home base, having been detached for 2 weeks to Boscombe Down to assist in a variety of trials by backending a flight deck, and having to stay unexpectedly overnight.
Of particular note was it took way less than 2 hr 30 to prepare for a flight - I seem to recall ambling gently across from coffee bar to aircraft about 25 mins before planned take off - and for some reason entry to the a/c was via front starboard door every time.
Did quite a few rollers on the taxiway, and there was a lot of room to spare, possibly due to the excellent piloting that fortnight, no aspersions on those I flew with on sqns but these guys used to virtually pick grease marks to land on "3 inches long there Bertie - Yes Harold, bit of a gust from that seagull as I flared" style of thing. Landings were on the northern side I recall, though it's 15 years ago and for all I now remember reliably I was in the navy and probably still like rum and unusually flared trousers.
(The auth sheet facts are okay though, still got the logbook <g>)....
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, to be slightly off topic. I'm not a journalist but just a simple civvie as hopefully my other posts might show. I just read there are only 6 serviceable (does that mean flying?) MR2 Nimrods! If this is true it kinda beggars belief.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: N/A
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly right, NL.
Casino, I don't mean this to sound like a 'back in your box' or 'we know better than you' type comment, but, just to expand on what NL was saying:
Say your aim was to keep six 40-year-old, large(ish) fixed-wing aircraft, with lots of mission systems, serviceable each day (and remember we have a few detached around the world as well -- I'm not sure whether you were including them). After you'd accounted for the major servicing, equalized maintenance, inevitable unservicabilities and snags, and even turnaround services between sorties, you'd probably need to start with a pool of at least 15 aircraft (as we have) or probably more. Add a couple of aircraft dedicated to trials to that mix, couple it with the fact that not all aircraft are fitted with every bit of kit you might need for a particular sortie, and you're starting to appreciate that's it's not as simple as it might sound!
Best,
Dave
Casino, I don't mean this to sound like a 'back in your box' or 'we know better than you' type comment, but, just to expand on what NL was saying:
Say your aim was to keep six 40-year-old, large(ish) fixed-wing aircraft, with lots of mission systems, serviceable each day (and remember we have a few detached around the world as well -- I'm not sure whether you were including them). After you'd accounted for the major servicing, equalized maintenance, inevitable unservicabilities and snags, and even turnaround services between sorties, you'd probably need to start with a pool of at least 15 aircraft (as we have) or probably more. Add a couple of aircraft dedicated to trials to that mix, couple it with the fact that not all aircraft are fitted with every bit of kit you might need for a particular sortie, and you're starting to appreciate that's it's not as simple as it might sound!
Best,
Dave
