Nimrod MRA.4
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,373
Received 118 Likes
on
85 Posts
Regarding the issue of corrosion on the original airframe, I would say this based on personal experience....albeit only one.
I helped supervise the strip down of XV246 at Waddo in 2007...down to the bare shell in fact.....now this is prior to any paint removal at Woodford and a detailed rather than general inspection, but overall there was minimal corrosion around the hyd.bay, the bomb door brackets and in the APU bay....the only real corrsion we found was exfoliation ( minimal ) on the frame aft of the AE's position and under the cabin floor. This could be dressed out in less than an hour I would propose and in fact we had a structures eng.visit who concurred it was nothing to even get concerned about. As far as I am aware, there is a battery drain tube in the same location which must have leaked at some point and hence the cause. Overall, for it's age, the condition was pretty damn good to say the least.
As another poster said, if you want to see the depth of engineering that takes place, have a day out to Woodford and you would be impressed. If there's one thing they do well, it's over engineer...which is not such a bad thing actually.
Pontious....if you think corrosion around the galley / toilet area was a problem, trust me, the same problem is commonplace in the civ. carriers world...you really don't want to take too close a look as a pax at times...
I helped supervise the strip down of XV246 at Waddo in 2007...down to the bare shell in fact.....now this is prior to any paint removal at Woodford and a detailed rather than general inspection, but overall there was minimal corrosion around the hyd.bay, the bomb door brackets and in the APU bay....the only real corrsion we found was exfoliation ( minimal ) on the frame aft of the AE's position and under the cabin floor. This could be dressed out in less than an hour I would propose and in fact we had a structures eng.visit who concurred it was nothing to even get concerned about. As far as I am aware, there is a battery drain tube in the same location which must have leaked at some point and hence the cause. Overall, for it's age, the condition was pretty damn good to say the least.
As another poster said, if you want to see the depth of engineering that takes place, have a day out to Woodford and you would be impressed. If there's one thing they do well, it's over engineer...which is not such a bad thing actually.
Pontious....if you think corrosion around the galley / toilet area was a problem, trust me, the same problem is commonplace in the civ. carriers world...you really don't want to take too close a look as a pax at times...
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Corrosion
23rd FEBRUARY 2006
TITLE
a. STI/NIMROD/899
b. FUSELAGE: SKIN LAP JOINTS - CRACKING.
a. STI/NIMROD/899
b. FUSELAGE: SKIN LAP JOINTS - CRACKING.
Area to be
examlned 19 SWG skin panel horizontal lap joints betweenframes 8 and54
d. Structural Intenritv. This Instruction has Structural Integrity implications regarding the work content at para 4.b.
The work detailed is to be undertaken by personnel qualified in accordance with JAP 100A-01, Chap 11. I.2 .
b. Work Required.The work detailed is to be undertaken by personnel qualified in accordance with JAP 100A-01, Chap 11. I.2 .
(1) Ensure the aircraft is safe for maintenance in accordance
with para 3.c.(l).
with para 3.c.(l).
(2) Refer to Figure I :-
(a) Using Lotoxane (Ref 33Dl1923265) degrease the
exterior surface of the 19 SWG Lap Joints within the
designated areas and ensure free from flaking paint and
corrosion.
(b) Apply NDT Technique NIMRODIEDDII 51 to
exterior surface of all the 19 SWG Lap Joints within the
designated areas. Where faults are found report in
accordance with para 7 of this Instruction.
(3) Restore the protective finish, to the latest standard, to all
(a) Using Lotoxane (Ref 33Dl1923265) degrease the
exterior surface of the 19 SWG Lap Joints within the
designated areas and ensure free from flaking paint and
corrosion.
(b) Apply NDT Technique NIMRODIEDDII 51 to
exterior surface of all the 19 SWG Lap Joints within the
designated areas. Where faults are found report in
accordance with para 7 of this Instruction.
(3) Restore the protective finish, to the latest standard, to all
areas of examination and adjacent structure disturbed by this
Instruction.
c. Manhours.
Satisfaction.
NDT 24 Manhours.
NDT 24 Manhours.
Painter and Finisher As required.
Rectification.
Eng Tech A As required.
Painter and Finsher As required.
Rectification.
Eng Tech A As required.
Painter and Finsher As required.
I shall make no comment as it seems to upset some ppruners.
TD
Not sure what this proves? I've seen similar on the 4 other military jet types I've flown and also on my Piper PA28 that I operate and was overseen by the CAA and is now under EASA CS-23.
Corrosion in aluminium structures is nothing new, needs constant supervision and periodic correctional maintenance.
LJ
Not sure what this proves? I've seen similar on the 4 other military jet types I've flown and also on my Piper PA28 that I operate and was overseen by the CAA and is now under EASA CS-23.
Corrosion in aluminium structures is nothing new, needs constant supervision and periodic correctional maintenance.
LJ
Last edited by Lima Juliet; 26th Aug 2010 at 17:39. Reason: Originally types on my iPhone!
LJ agree with your post and I can concur, for example when the new Hawks were purchased by Australia and Canada the Vol 6 Repair Manual had loads and load of special repairs and inspections which the new aircraft had engineered out during build so the Vol 6 had these removed and only had the standard corrosion and crack/damage repair that all aircraft have available to the maintainers, no doubt there will now be ones that have come out as an engineering instruction as posted by TD which eventually if the issue becomes a fleet wide issue is then incorporated within the Vol 6 Repair Manual and it will start to grow again with any emergent corrosion/cracking/damage issues throughout the life of the aircraft.
The current Amercan aircraft I am involved in has numerous versions of that posted with regards to periodic checks for cracks and corrosion when something new is found during maintenance or extant ones that for now remain outside the Vol 6.
The current Amercan aircraft I am involved in has numerous versions of that posted with regards to periodic checks for cracks and corrosion when something new is found during maintenance or extant ones that for now remain outside the Vol 6.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator
Hawker Siddley built the Nimrod using a largely Avro workforce. Do you begin to see a possible problem?
When the "de Havilland" fuselages arrived at Woodford in the late '60s, they were a source of frustration and sometimes amusement. My old Dad felt somewhat lucky to have already transferred to the 748 line. His pal, the New Assembly Night Superintendent, did not feel so lucky.
A 748 fuselage being built at Chadderton the AVRO way.
Exrigga
All well & good for the RAAF Hawk & whatever you are working on .... But what you are not aware of is that there (currently) is no Vol6 for the MRA4...... The customer forgot to include it in his requirements... Doh!
All well & good for the RAAF Hawk & whatever you are working on .... But what you are not aware of is that there (currently) is no Vol6 for the MRA4...... The customer forgot to include it in his requirements... Doh!
no Vol6 for the MRA4...... The customer forgot to include it in his requirements... Doh!
However, that does not stop anything omitted from the endorsed requirement being added; especially, as in this case, when it has to be listed in the Release to Service or it's absence explained (assuming the current Sponsor says it is actually needed). First port of call is the Publications Authority (ATP, who were in Farnborough, then moved to Glasgow in the mid-90s). I think I know what their answer will be. At the time many posts were cut because AMSO (headed by RAF 3 Star) had cut the money for pubs, saying amendments/accuracy was irrelevant. If there is no work to do, the posts cannot be justified. This policy was largely rescinded when someone sane took over, but there was no money to retrospectively address "gaps". As the same policy obviously applied to safety cases, I think you'll agree what I've said explains much that has happened these last few years.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exrigga
All well & good for the RAAF Hawk & whatever you are working on .... But what you are not aware of is that there (currently) is no Vol6 for the MRA4...... The customer forgot to include it in his requirements... Doh!
All well & good for the RAAF Hawk & whatever you are working on .... But what you are not aware of is that there (currently) is no Vol6 for the MRA4...... The customer forgot to include it in his requirements... Doh!
It makes perfect sense to see how the aircraft develops and what needs it requires in its first few years of service. Its day 1 basics and some people just dont have a clue.
Rum Punch
Your statement would hold water if it was a new aircraft you were getting. I don’t know what people on here think ‘relifed’ is (post #467), but the retained part of MRA4 is not ‘zero lifed’.
Have a quick thumb through the MR2 Vol 6..... There are no standard repairs for MRA4 (some of which need to be rolled over from MR2/R1), no allowable damage limits and so on. Once delivered to you every dent, nick, scratch, crack, flaking paint et al.... will require a request for a repair/assessment from BAE.
Re Fincastle’s post .....
“...I repeat my earlier point that the initial 3x Mk2 airframes for the Mk 4 programme which were prepared at BOH were virtually corrosion free BEFORE they were stripped back to bare metal...”
Only states the obvious... of course they will appear virtually corrosion free before being stripped back. Not sure what point is being made ..
As far as corrosion is concerned... If you have access to it, have a look at SI 227 for a starter (better example than that at post #488), be assured, corrosion has been a significant issue during the conversion (& I have access to the proof). Don’t rely on statements re what was seen & done at Bournemouth. Significant sections of Keel skin have had to be replaced for starters and despite repeated assurances that lap skins had been checked for corrosion it subsequently transpired that they were not (but only after insisting on documentary evidence that they had).
Notwithstanding, all occurrences of corrosion have been dealt with and MRA4 enjoys a far better level of corrosion protection than MR2 had.
Have a quick thumb through the MR2 Vol 6..... There are no standard repairs for MRA4 (some of which need to be rolled over from MR2/R1), no allowable damage limits and so on. Once delivered to you every dent, nick, scratch, crack, flaking paint et al.... will require a request for a repair/assessment from BAE.
Re Fincastle’s post .....
“...I repeat my earlier point that the initial 3x Mk2 airframes for the Mk 4 programme which were prepared at BOH were virtually corrosion free BEFORE they were stripped back to bare metal...”
Only states the obvious... of course they will appear virtually corrosion free before being stripped back. Not sure what point is being made ..
As far as corrosion is concerned... If you have access to it, have a look at SI 227 for a starter (better example than that at post #488), be assured, corrosion has been a significant issue during the conversion (& I have access to the proof). Don’t rely on statements re what was seen & done at Bournemouth. Significant sections of Keel skin have had to be replaced for starters and despite repeated assurances that lap skins had been checked for corrosion it subsequently transpired that they were not (but only after insisting on documentary evidence that they had).
Notwithstanding, all occurrences of corrosion have been dealt with and MRA4 enjoys a far better level of corrosion protection than MR2 had.
Last edited by WasNaeMe; 27th Aug 2010 at 09:17. Reason: Spelling...
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Blighty
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this Nimrod 2000 finally arriving in to service?
Glad to see "A" finally getting up again after all the problems and form signing.. Hopefully its a bed we can move forward on!
Nimrod 2000 was the name given to the programme, MRA4 is the aircraft designation. I know of only one person who seriously thought the ISD would be 2000 but, as he also thought safety was optional, I tended to ignore him. Unfortunately he was a 2 Star, so he (allegedly) knew more than the rest of us.
The key question is when did the penny drop that the designator had to change. That knowledge and the underlying reasons are what immediately force a complete revaluation of the programme timescales and cost due to the scale and scope of the extra work it implies. From memory, this would have been clear in 1996 at the very latest, but when was it actually announced? The later this decision was made, the more the regressive work required.
While good MoD(PE)/DPA/DLO/DE&S-baiting fun, it is unfair to say the MRA4 is 10 years late. Given the known work content, it is much less. The problem was, and probably remains to an extent, that parts of MoD were in complete denial about that content, a key component of which was the need for an airworthy MR2. The same problem befell, for example, the Chinook Mk1 to Mk2 upgrade – the belated realisation it had to become a Mk2, as opposed to a Mk1A. If you don’t understand the underlying issues, it is impossible to construct a taut programme. It all boils down to basic risk management – avoid the avoidable and manage the unavoidable. MRA4 has been 15 years of crisis-managing the avoidable.
The key question is when did the penny drop that the designator had to change. That knowledge and the underlying reasons are what immediately force a complete revaluation of the programme timescales and cost due to the scale and scope of the extra work it implies. From memory, this would have been clear in 1996 at the very latest, but when was it actually announced? The later this decision was made, the more the regressive work required.
While good MoD(PE)/DPA/DLO/DE&S-baiting fun, it is unfair to say the MRA4 is 10 years late. Given the known work content, it is much less. The problem was, and probably remains to an extent, that parts of MoD were in complete denial about that content, a key component of which was the need for an airworthy MR2. The same problem befell, for example, the Chinook Mk1 to Mk2 upgrade – the belated realisation it had to become a Mk2, as opposed to a Mk1A. If you don’t understand the underlying issues, it is impossible to construct a taut programme. It all boils down to basic risk management – avoid the avoidable and manage the unavoidable. MRA4 has been 15 years of crisis-managing the avoidable.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The naming convention probably goes back to the 70s with the SA80 and AS90 and Eurofighter 2000.
Given the SA80 and AS90 this even pre-dates Mr Gate's prediliction of naming his software by the year rather than version number.
Given the SA80 and AS90 this even pre-dates Mr Gate's prediliction of naming his software by the year rather than version number.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Up North (for now)
Age: 62
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the time of the bidding under SR(A)420 for an RMPA (Replacement Maritime Patrol Aircraft), BAe bid with the Nimrod 2000.
As you say tucemseh, the MoD (Procurement Executive) as they were at the time, did an internal Audit on the BAe programme shortly after the ink dried from them having signed the Contract. As I recall, at the 90% Confidence Level this decided it would be delivered approx 20 months late! Obviously MoD (PE) needed bigger pessimists on their Audit team!!
As you say tucemseh, the MoD (Procurement Executive) as they were at the time, did an internal Audit on the BAe programme shortly after the ink dried from them having signed the Contract. As I recall, at the 90% Confidence Level this decided it would be delivered approx 20 months late! Obviously MoD (PE) needed bigger pessimists on their Audit team!!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While good MoD(PE)/DPA/DLO/DE&S-baiting fun, it is unfair to say the MRA4 is 10 years late. Given the known work content, it is much less.
Can't let that go by...I'm not buying a mid 90's Defence White Paper to prove the point, so I hope a quote from Mr H-C will suffice.
The Procurement history of the replacement ‘Nimrod 2000’ (subsequently re-named ‘Nimrod MRA4’) programme has been one of continuous delays and cost over-runs. ‘Nimrod 2000’ was originally scheduled to come into service in 2000; but the In-Service Date of the replacement programme
subsequently slipped on at least six occasions (in 1999, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2008). The current scheduled In-Service Date of the Nimrod MRA4 is now December 2010,
i.e. over 10 years later.
If you want to stump up for a mid 90's DWP, you'll find the figures about that time won't be amillion miles from these:
21 Aircraft
2.1 Billion Pounds Sterling
In Service year 2000
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I've posted before, there was a "smoke and mirrors" exercise sometime around the turn of the century, to disguise the original costs, numbers and in-service date of the aircraft, so you have to dig a bit if you want the facts.
In others words you cant be arsed and want some reporter to do the work for you.