Nimrod MRA.4
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Asia/Europe
Age: 64
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You could see the floor "buckle" in flight on the MR1 & MR2
Eh? Are you sure?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Asia/Europe
Age: 64
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a "Fairey" with many boring flights on MR1's and MR2's, I never noticed it either until it was pointed out to me when a "Dry" and Rigger were talking about it over steak and chips out of Lajes one day. I admit it depends on wing loading but I don't remember a flight afterwards without seeing it...I used to hate some of the MAD manoeuvres afterwards. Not that they are liked anyway....
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ARAR ARAX, uckers, steaks out of Lajes, cards in the galley, submarines...
The maritime youth on here will not have a clue what we are on about.
PS
Forgot to mention, we were first on the stripper count too....by a country mile!!!
The maritime youth on here will not have a clue what we are on about.
PS
Forgot to mention, we were first on the stripper count too....by a country mile!!!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Not quite where I'd like to be
Age: 65
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TOFO:
Now that I can't argue with! Mind you, you had the lovely Samantha (remember C***n W**d getting more than his money's worth?) whereas we had......well, we had people who deep-fried Mars bars....
we were first on the stripper count too....by a country mile!!!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 77
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sargs
I know you're old, Fin84, but did you really beat 210 Sqn in '83? They had Mk2s (Shacks though!) and disbanded in '71!
Sqn!C***n W**d didn't get as much as a certain officer a lot more senior to him (& ME)! By the way, I have a full set of photos of the said lady which I am sometimes willing to share with friendly, polite ex Nimrod folk.
Last edited by fincastle84; 10th Sep 2010 at 11:57.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Samantha....
Okay, there will be some folk who don't agree that she had the personal kudos of an 'A' cat with 10,000 hrs maritime.... but I doubt there are many folk who knew the lady who would prefer to share a desert island with, say, an 'A' cat wet man with 10,000 hrs.....
Airde-Whyte (and let's be honest, what an odd way to settle on naming your new sprog), Fincastle.... the competitions were okay when it was level playing field, but became a bit pants when MR1/MR2 changover came round - for a start, as every dry man knows, the initial big improvement was changing from ASV21 to Searchwater, so radar detections of the target immediately gave you a £200 fine and a trip to jail.
Both comps were wet oriented so even though the dry kit went 500% better MR1 to MR2 it didn't matter. Then the dry team got colour, which was a huge improvement, and the comps still pandered to the 'can't make a decision until we've all voted' brigade* finished the third chorus....
All the comps ever proved was that nobody knew what WW3 would look like. Just to keep things fair they allowed a complete retard to specify the MR2 ESM kit, which didn't work worth **** and made full use of modern improvements in PC technology by focussing on the ability to make people memorise a phone directory.
(ARAR/ARAX was better, at least it didn't tell porkies).
Dave
* Okay, I admit it, this is an unjust dig - it's not an exact science and that's maybe the quickest way to average out opinion...but it still made the average dry guy chuckle to see a wet man canvassing how many sugars to put in his tea....**
** Dammit, okay, I admit this was just a wind up as well.....but I wouldn't let my daughter marry one....
Okay, there will be some folk who don't agree that she had the personal kudos of an 'A' cat with 10,000 hrs maritime.... but I doubt there are many folk who knew the lady who would prefer to share a desert island with, say, an 'A' cat wet man with 10,000 hrs.....
Airde-Whyte (and let's be honest, what an odd way to settle on naming your new sprog), Fincastle.... the competitions were okay when it was level playing field, but became a bit pants when MR1/MR2 changover came round - for a start, as every dry man knows, the initial big improvement was changing from ASV21 to Searchwater, so radar detections of the target immediately gave you a £200 fine and a trip to jail.
Both comps were wet oriented so even though the dry kit went 500% better MR1 to MR2 it didn't matter. Then the dry team got colour, which was a huge improvement, and the comps still pandered to the 'can't make a decision until we've all voted' brigade* finished the third chorus....
All the comps ever proved was that nobody knew what WW3 would look like. Just to keep things fair they allowed a complete retard to specify the MR2 ESM kit, which didn't work worth **** and made full use of modern improvements in PC technology by focussing on the ability to make people memorise a phone directory.
(ARAR/ARAX was better, at least it didn't tell porkies).
Dave
* Okay, I admit it, this is an unjust dig - it's not an exact science and that's maybe the quickest way to average out opinion...but it still made the average dry guy chuckle to see a wet man canvassing how many sugars to put in his tea....**
** Dammit, okay, I admit this was just a wind up as well.....but I wouldn't let my daughter marry one....
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Blighty
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talk about thread-hijack by the old and probably not so bold...
On a more thread-worthy note... good to see a decent turnout on the pan for Alphas fly through/past at Kinloss... Although a few remarks of "Pansy, call that a wing-over" could be heard :P
On a more thread-worthy note... good to see a decent turnout on the pan for Alphas fly through/past at Kinloss... Although a few remarks of "Pansy, call that a wing-over" could be heard :P
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Not quite where I'd like to be
Age: 65
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talk about thread-hijack by the old and probably not so bold...
There, I've always wanted to sound like my Dad.......
Last edited by sargs; 11th Sep 2010 at 03:57.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 77
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
davejb
Both comps were wet oriented so even though the dry kit went 500% better MR1 to MR2 it didn't matter.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ambiguity
C***n W**d didn't get as much as a certain officer a lot more senior to him (& ME)!
I think we should be told!
Last edited by Neptunus Rex; 11th Sep 2010 at 12:47.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Here and there, occasionally at home.
Age: 56
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simflea
All aircraft are designed to flex, otherwise they would crack and fall apart shortly after you got airborne Concorde used to strecthc something ridiculous and the effects, allegedly, could be seen in the rear toilet). The wings on the MR1/MR2/MRA4 do not meet (sic). They are each bolted (fwd and rear spar each side) to the frame of the No1 Tank. In the case of the finlets on MRA4, don't matter whether you are convinced or not, they work for the aircraft. Only time will tell if MRA4 is going to be a stayer or not as you put it but I can tell you if given a choice between MRA4 and Mr Boeing's effort of an MPA, I'll take MRA4 every single time, no question.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SFO
Totally agree. For MPA, four engines should come under "essential criteria." The proponents of two engines can bang on all they like about performance, but the inescapable fact is, that if you lose one of the two, you cannot continue "on task."
Totally agree. For MPA, four engines should come under "essential criteria." The proponents of two engines can bang on all they like about performance, but the inescapable fact is, that if you lose one of the two, you cannot continue "on task."
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally agree. For MPA, four engines should come under "essential criteria." The proponents of two engines can bang on all they like about performance, but the inescapable fact is, that if you lose one of the two, you cannot continue "on task."
Not saying I disagree with you that four is not better than two, however weigh up running costs etc, and there are good reasons that two reliable engines can do the job.
Y_G
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can tell you if given a choice between MRA4 and Mr Boeing's effort of an MPA, I'll take MRA4 every single time, no question.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 77
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neptunus Rex:
I can assure you that as far as Sam is concerned my virginity is firmly intact!
Pontius N.:
Looking for a 3rd mad mark is taking attack criteria to a ridiculous extent. Mine were quite straight forward in that if a mark was achieved along the assessed track-attack! Maybe they were trying to impress the GSU!
Did we ever fly together?
Getsometimein:
Thanks for allowing we old f***s to borrow your thread, most enjoyable
I can assure you that as far as Sam is concerned my virginity is firmly intact!
Pontius N.:
Looking for a 3rd mad mark is taking attack criteria to a ridiculous extent. Mine were quite straight forward in that if a mark was achieved along the assessed track-attack! Maybe they were trying to impress the GSU!
Did we ever fly together?
Getsometimein:
Thanks for allowing we old f***s to borrow your thread, most enjoyable
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have flown a 3-engined ferry - from Kinloss to St Mawgan. It is no big deal, especially with close-coupled engines. With the rules in force at the time, the Thrust-to-Weight ratio was huge; far better than most op or training take-offs, as you would expect. Why didn't we change the engine at ISK? They had none to spare that day.
Losing one on task is also fairly straightforward. The captain on the spot would consider all inputs and decide whether to continue on task or not. The twin-engined crew would simply not have that option.
Losing one on task is also fairly straightforward. The captain on the spot would consider all inputs and decide whether to continue on task or not. The twin-engined crew would simply not have that option.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Here and there, occasionally at home.
Age: 56
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jetex Jim
Even if, interestingly enough, all the MRA4 mission avionics is straight out of Mr Boeing's (much cheaper) effort.
You are correct that the the core of the mission system was developed from a Boeing product,, just not one designed for the MPA role. Significant work has gone into adapting it, not just for the traditional maritime role but as a proper multi-role ISTAR asset. I would not be surprised to find much of what we have done over the years finding its way back into the P8. However, as good as the 737 platform is, if you look closely at the few pieces of info coming out of Boeing/USN wrt P8, you will begin to notice that the trad maritime role is being down played, not least because they have realised that the fatigue life and wing loading will take a huge hit at low level. There is also an issue with time on station, again looking at the scant data available, and assuming it is not wildly inaccurate, then the P8 is probably only going to manage about 7-8 hours sortie duration.
You are correct that the the core of the mission system was developed from a Boeing product,, just not one designed for the MPA role. Significant work has gone into adapting it, not just for the traditional maritime role but as a proper multi-role ISTAR asset. I would not be surprised to find much of what we have done over the years finding its way back into the P8. However, as good as the 737 platform is, if you look closely at the few pieces of info coming out of Boeing/USN wrt P8, you will begin to notice that the trad maritime role is being down played, not least because they have realised that the fatigue life and wing loading will take a huge hit at low level. There is also an issue with time on station, again looking at the scant data available, and assuming it is not wildly inaccurate, then the P8 is probably only going to manage about 7-8 hours sortie duration.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would not be surprised to find much of what we have done over the years finding its way back into the P8.
(I take it that the we you reference here is, 'we the Boeing company' rather than 'we BAE')
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Asia/Europe
Age: 64
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SFO
The term "where the wings meet" was meant purely as a term of reference (the galley) and not a technical description....just for the record. Yes all aircraft flex...but using the same fuselage with wings having much more lift? I was simply asking if the new engine weight catered for this sufficiently.
I take it the finlets (sic) are to compensate for the dutch roll that the Comet/Nimrod is renowned for and no doubt is worse on the MR4 without them.
I was always under the impression that it was too expensive for companies to design a bomb bay on other aircraft rather than anything else. However, the Nimrod bomb bay is hardly brilliant...has it been improved for the MR4?
Whilst it is assumed that I was preferring the B-737, this is not true...the undercarriage height on these aircraft make ground clearance as low as with the Nimrod. I would like to see effort made into an A320/A330 modification to a Maritime role. I wonder if it is also possible to make them 4-engined?
Yes it would cost money...but it would definitely be an aircraft for the future and have "staying power". It has been my experience that it is not the airframe modifications that costs in these projects, but the avionics that is added.
The term "where the wings meet" was meant purely as a term of reference (the galley) and not a technical description....just for the record. Yes all aircraft flex...but using the same fuselage with wings having much more lift? I was simply asking if the new engine weight catered for this sufficiently.
I take it the finlets (sic) are to compensate for the dutch roll that the Comet/Nimrod is renowned for and no doubt is worse on the MR4 without them.
I was always under the impression that it was too expensive for companies to design a bomb bay on other aircraft rather than anything else. However, the Nimrod bomb bay is hardly brilliant...has it been improved for the MR4?
Whilst it is assumed that I was preferring the B-737, this is not true...the undercarriage height on these aircraft make ground clearance as low as with the Nimrod. I would like to see effort made into an A320/A330 modification to a Maritime role. I wonder if it is also possible to make them 4-engined?
Yes it would cost money...but it would definitely be an aircraft for the future and have "staying power". It has been my experience that it is not the airframe modifications that costs in these projects, but the avionics that is added.