Nimrod MRA.4
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was never 'planned' to fly a Nimrod to Cosford; however, MOS landing performance was investigated to determine whether or not it was possible.
It was; however, the risk was deemed to great. 3700ft is quite short!
Duncs
It was; however, the risk was deemed to great. 3700ft is quite short!
Duncs
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,974
Received 2,881 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
closer to its final destination
NutLoose
For goodness sake don't tell MoD there is a cheaper more efficient way.
About 4 years ago a company replied to a Nimrod ITT for an R&D contract. They quietly mentioned, in private, that the R&D was unnecessary because the kit the IPT wanted had been in service since 1996, removed and replaced by an upgrade which far exceeded the Nimrod spec, and MoD owned the Intellectual Property Rights. The company had no vested interest whatsoever and even told MoD who would do the job.
The IPT lodged a formal complaint with the Managing Director along the lines of MoD is always right, butt out or don't expect future business. The R&D contract went ahead. Lord alone knows what was delivered. That's where the money goes folks.
For goodness sake don't tell MoD there is a cheaper more efficient way.
About 4 years ago a company replied to a Nimrod ITT for an R&D contract. They quietly mentioned, in private, that the R&D was unnecessary because the kit the IPT wanted had been in service since 1996, removed and replaced by an upgrade which far exceeded the Nimrod spec, and MoD owned the Intellectual Property Rights. The company had no vested interest whatsoever and even told MoD who would do the job.
The IPT lodged a formal complaint with the Managing Director along the lines of MoD is always right, butt out or don't expect future business. The R&D contract went ahead. Lord alone knows what was delivered. That's where the money goes folks.
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,371
Received 116 Likes
on
83 Posts
Last time the Nimrod to Cosford by road idea was mentioned on here, the little matter of access was also mentioned.....notably a hump back bridge at one end of the airfield and a low railway bridge at the other...the former, for a low loader would be nigh on impossible I would suggest...the rail bridge, well there's the little matter of the two fin spars.....a major job to remove...so it occured to me that, a little polite note to BAe may provide an answer.....lift the fuse off the load loader on the main site and plonk it on a borrowed transportation trolley..... as in the one we used to shift XV 246 in the Antonov....and which will be lower than a low loader and may just, only just I reckon, get under the bridge.
If this idea is accepted, my consultancy fee, in cash, in a plain brown envelope to a yet to be decided drop off point will be gratefully received....well one lives in hope here you understand....
If this idea is accepted, my consultancy fee, in cash, in a plain brown envelope to a yet to be decided drop off point will be gratefully received....well one lives in hope here you understand....
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,974
Received 2,881 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
NutLoose
For goodness sake don't tell MoD there is a cheaper more efficient way.
About 4 years ago a company replied to a Nimrod ITT for an R&D contract. They quietly mentioned, in private, that the R&D was unnecessary because the kit the IPT wanted had been in service since 1996, removed and replaced by an upgrade which far exceeded the Nimrod spec, and MoD owned the Intellectual Property Rights. The company had no vested interest whatsoever and even told MoD who would do the job.
The IPT lodged a formal complaint with the Managing Director along the lines of MoD is always right, butt out or don't expect future business. The R&D contract went ahead. Lord alone knows what was delivered. That's where the money goes folks.
For goodness sake don't tell MoD there is a cheaper more efficient way.
About 4 years ago a company replied to a Nimrod ITT for an R&D contract. They quietly mentioned, in private, that the R&D was unnecessary because the kit the IPT wanted had been in service since 1996, removed and replaced by an upgrade which far exceeded the Nimrod spec, and MoD owned the Intellectual Property Rights. The company had no vested interest whatsoever and even told MoD who would do the job.
The IPT lodged a formal complaint with the Managing Director along the lines of MoD is always right, butt out or don't expect future business. The R&D contract went ahead. Lord alone knows what was delivered. That's where the money goes folks.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Just down the road from ISK
Posts: 328
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by
It was never 'planned' to fly a Nimrod to Cosford; however, MOS landing performance was investigated to determine whether or not it was possible.
It was; however, the risk was deemed to great. 3700ft is quite short!
Duncs
It was; however, the risk was deemed to great. 3700ft is quite short!
Duncs
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: A 1/2 World away from Ice Statio Kilo
Posts: 404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vage
That is not even funny many people should have received the GM just for flying with him, I believe the MR2 was the only one he had not crashed but he did try
Charlie sends
That is not even funny many people should have received the GM just for flying with him, I believe the MR2 was the only one he had not crashed but he did try
Charlie sends
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A4Scooter
The average Kipper Fleet pilot would not fit into an ATR 72 cockpit.
Even Italy which like many other countries is financial crisis is replacing their Atlantic a/c with ATR72 maritime patrol aircraft...
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: 100 Group Country
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to Key Historic forum, Defence Equipment & Support have written to a number of aircraft museums offering 'sections' of MR4A.
Nut Loose
You are correct about the VC10 wiring, I was involved with that one.
Nut Loose
You are correct about the VC10 wiring, I was involved with that one.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 76
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the original subject
I've just received a Christmas card from one of my ex P1s who has been very closely involved in the MRA4 & only left the project 2 weeks before it was cancelled. He assures me that at that point the project was safe. He also says that it was on schedule, that it was working extremely well & showed tremendous potential.
So what the hell happened during that 2 week period?
So what the hell happened during that 2 week period?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,974
Received 2,881 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oops my mistake
I thought it was schedule as in.."an ordered list of times at which things are planned to occur"
But what was meant was, schedule as in..."a random, arbitary, moveable, self-defining list of times at which things might or might not occur".
Silly me.
I thought it was schedule as in.."an ordered list of times at which things are planned to occur"
But what was meant was, schedule as in..."a random, arbitary, moveable, self-defining list of times at which things might or might not occur".
Silly me.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 57
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last time the Nimrod to Cosford by road idea was mentioned on here, the little matter of access was also mentioned.....notably a hump back bridge at one end of the airfield and a low railway bridge at the other...the former, for a low loader would be nigh on impossible I would suggest...the rail bridge, well there's the little matter of the two fin spars.....a major job to remove...so it occured to me that, a little polite note to BAe may provide an answer.....lift the fuse off the load loader on the main site and plonk it on a borrowed transportation trolley..... as in the one we used to shift XV 246 in the Antonov....and which will be lower than a low loader and may just, only just I reckon, get under the bridge.
The Nimrod when sat on the AN124 transport sleds is inclined nose up at 1,6 degrees, this is to lower the height of the all important fin spars, the heighest point on the Nimrod in the stillage is the third yellow ratchet strap when looking at the front stillage 3,6 meters from what I recall, with a bridge height of 12' 9" (3,88M in Euro speak) the Nimrod would fit, in fact it could be transferred from the lorry to the flight stillage in the visitor carpark then towed all the way in to the museum from there! Which would be a shorter distance than the ground move we undertook with 246 at Waddington (remember the VC10 in circuit at the time we wanted to cross the active).
It is also possible to lower the stillage by a further 25MM by removal of the packers installed between the wheels and the framework, these packers were only needed for the AN124 loading preventing a tail strike when translating from the ground to the extension ramp.
The same Nimrod stillage was designed to work with the AN124 and Heanor Haulage 80 wheel road transport equipment, additionally the option to load the Nimrod on to a boat was also given consideration. One option back in 1996 was to road haul the Nimrod from Kinloss to Ardersier and then use a boat to the South coast with only the final part of the trip in to Bournemouth being performed by road. This was the backup plan in case something negated using the Russian AN124, the route we proposed to take on the road had been checked out and catered for avoiding the rail bridge you would encounter if you turn right out of the main gate at Kinloss, similar attention to detail was also in place for the Bournmouth road network.
Getting the fuselage moved is an easy task, the wing would be a rather more complicated challenge - Mike
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The US of A, and sometimes Bonnie Scotland
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well....
Even Billy Connolly is going on about ASW in his Xmas DVD (which I recommend highly).
I commend you to have a look! How come the world's funniest man understands that submarines are "still out there", but MRA4 has been cancelled??!!
What a mistaka to maka!!!!
Even Billy Connolly is going on about ASW in his Xmas DVD (which I recommend highly).
I commend you to have a look! How come the world's funniest man understands that submarines are "still out there", but MRA4 has been cancelled??!!
What a mistaka to maka!!!!
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pary Animal wrote this in September 2010:
Any pictures yet?
I'm willing to put my ba*ls on the line and make a clear and unequivocal statement that regardless of what happens with SDSR, the MRA4 WILL come into service with the RAF and remain so for at least 25 years. Anyone who absolutely disagrees with me can say so and eat humble pie in 4 months time.
If by the remotest chance, I am wrong, then i will post the photo's on here of me eating my 27 year old 5,000 hrs chip-bag!
Over to the rest of this thread readers to get off the fence....
If by the remotest chance, I am wrong, then i will post the photo's on here of me eating my 27 year old 5,000 hrs chip-bag!
Over to the rest of this thread readers to get off the fence....