Nimrod MRA.4
Exrigger, 'Canopus' had nothing (airframe-wise) to do with the Nimrod programme. It's a Comet 4C and was delivered straight from the production line to Boscombe Down as a Navigation and avionics trials aircraft.
At the risk of drifting further away due to responses to my post I will answer in reverse order:
BossEyed: Apologies, I knew that the Canopus was at Boscombe and did say from memory, mistakenly it appears, that I thought this was used for demonstrating the early nimrod concept before the two that Cazatou mentioned.
Cazatou: Again apologies, I was going from memory from way back to late 60s early 70s and did not remember those two, so I will amend my statement and say no production Nimrod was ever built and put into RAF Service using any Comet airframes and subsequently converted to MR2/R1/MRA4 (though no doubt someone will correct me on this point as well)
BossEyed: Apologies, I knew that the Canopus was at Boscombe and did say from memory, mistakenly it appears, that I thought this was used for demonstrating the early nimrod concept before the two that Cazatou mentioned.
Cazatou: Again apologies, I was going from memory from way back to late 60s early 70s and did not remember those two, so I will amend my statement and say no production Nimrod was ever built and put into RAF Service using any Comet airframes and subsequently converted to MR2/R1/MRA4 (though no doubt someone will correct me on this point as well)
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 55
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Exrigger,
You’re partially right, a boscombe Comet was used for Searchwater trails and was fitted with a large nose radome. Without checking I'm not sure which one it was though.
You’re partially right, a boscombe Comet was used for Searchwater trails and was fitted with a large nose radome. Without checking I'm not sure which one it was though.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
davejb
"The Great British Public" (whose spending power is being squeezed every which way due to the state of the Nations finances) would certainly express surprise that the aircraft that you insist is a "must have" as a Maritime Patrol Aircraft is based on a design which first flew on 27 July 1949.
To put that into context; 32 days after the 1st flight of a Comet the prototype Vampire Night Fighter first flew on 28 August 1949. We do not base the UK's all weather Air Defence needs on a 62 year old design - so why should we do so in the case of an extremely limited order for Maritime Patrol Aircraft?
United Kingdom PLC is effectively hovering on the brink of bankruptcy - yet our Armed Forces are severely stretched by a conflict in Afghanistan where there is no Maritime threat.
In an Ideal World all things are possible - the World in which we live is far from ideal and the Country has to live within its means. Remember it was only 6 years ago that the UK finally paid off the debts accumulated during World War Two!!!
PS We still owe for World War 1.
"The Great British Public" (whose spending power is being squeezed every which way due to the state of the Nations finances) would certainly express surprise that the aircraft that you insist is a "must have" as a Maritime Patrol Aircraft is based on a design which first flew on 27 July 1949.
To put that into context; 32 days after the 1st flight of a Comet the prototype Vampire Night Fighter first flew on 28 August 1949. We do not base the UK's all weather Air Defence needs on a 62 year old design - so why should we do so in the case of an extremely limited order for Maritime Patrol Aircraft?
United Kingdom PLC is effectively hovering on the brink of bankruptcy - yet our Armed Forces are severely stretched by a conflict in Afghanistan where there is no Maritime threat.
In an Ideal World all things are possible - the World in which we live is far from ideal and the Country has to live within its means. Remember it was only 6 years ago that the UK finally paid off the debts accumulated during World War Two!!!
PS We still owe for World War 1.
Last edited by cazatou; 24th Mar 2011 at 13:51.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 57
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re XV147 & XV148
XV147 was purchased by BAE Systems in 1993, it was indeed sectioned at Farnborough with the Port wing and Fuselage from the nose to Rear Pressure Bulkhead taken to the BAE Warton site in Lancahire in support of what became the MRA4 project.
The interiour was fully stripped and converted to MRA4 standard with cockpit and mission system areas completed.
The wing center-box was removed to develop the technique used on all subsequent airframes to under go MRA4 conversion.
The nose radome was dug up from the golf course at Woodford and fitted to the aircraft. The last use for the airframe was to act as crew egress trials before it was finally cut up and road hauled off site 17/03/03 (The same day it was announced to chop the MRA4 from a 21 aircraft build down to only 9).
The wing was also used in support of the MRA4 project but was disposed of earlier than the fuselage because the all new wing of the MRA4 negated any benefit.
XV148 The fuselage and wings were used as fatigue rig test pieces in support of mk1r & MR2P, and have long since been scrapped, the only portion to remain is the cockpit section which is currently down South owned by the Author of the AirBritain publication covering the history of the Comet - Mike
The interiour was fully stripped and converted to MRA4 standard with cockpit and mission system areas completed.
The wing center-box was removed to develop the technique used on all subsequent airframes to under go MRA4 conversion.
The nose radome was dug up from the golf course at Woodford and fitted to the aircraft. The last use for the airframe was to act as crew egress trials before it was finally cut up and road hauled off site 17/03/03 (The same day it was announced to chop the MRA4 from a 21 aircraft build down to only 9).
The wing was also used in support of the MRA4 project but was disposed of earlier than the fuselage because the all new wing of the MRA4 negated any benefit.
XV148 The fuselage and wings were used as fatigue rig test pieces in support of mk1r & MR2P, and have long since been scrapped, the only portion to remain is the cockpit section which is currently down South owned by the Author of the AirBritain publication covering the history of the Comet - Mike
Originally Posted by Sideshow Bob
You’re partially right, a boscombe Comet was used for Searchwater trails and was fitted with a large nose radome. Without checking I'm not sure which one it was though.
XW626 was fitted with a large bulbous nose (and Nimrod fin top), but that was a concept demo aircraft for the well known success story that was NimWACS.
I'm not aware of any trials aircraft pre-XV147/148, as described by cazatou and mikealder.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 57
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only other Comet I know of to have had any involvement in Nimrod was an airframe built specifically for cabin pressure test work in the water tank at Farnborough, after a simulated 100,000 flying hours the fuselage was taken to Woodford and used as a mock up to house the Nimrod MR1 as well as having wooden panier skirts fitted.
Once the above work was complete the airframe was used for smoke egress training by the Woodford Fire department.
In 96/97 the fuselage was moved to Warton and modified to MRA4 fit in way of flying controls/ hydraulics and used as the "Iron Bird" for endurance testing of the FCS, the cockpit section came from an ex AEW aircraft XV263 as the old Comet front end had quite a bit of structure missing - I can't remember the actual build number of the Comet it was something like 5402 - Mike
Once the above work was complete the airframe was used for smoke egress training by the Woodford Fire department.
In 96/97 the fuselage was moved to Warton and modified to MRA4 fit in way of flying controls/ hydraulics and used as the "Iron Bird" for endurance testing of the FCS, the cockpit section came from an ex AEW aircraft XV263 as the old Comet front end had quite a bit of structure missing - I can't remember the actual build number of the Comet it was something like 5402 - Mike
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 55
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Bob, sure you're not getting your Searchwaters and your AEWs mixed up?
)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear oh dear,
Cazatou -
Care to highlight which post of mine says Nimrod is a must have? Like, not just on this thread, but on ANY thread? Perhaps, when quoting me, you'd do me the service of ensuring I actually said whatever you say I did?
(In return I'll not post that you insist 30% of all fighter pilots should be gay, and 32 Sqn make GR4 squadrons look like the girl guides...keep misquoting me and the gloves are off pal!)
For anyone else who can't read without getting confused, I was commenting on Manccowboys assertion that the main issue with MRA4 was its name, which had been deeply tarnished by Afghanistan. I said that there was more than one problem - as well as the name being Nimrod the Brit public hadn't a clue anyway what Nimrods did, so they wouldn't give a damn about losing what they never knew they'd had. (I translate my original post, as some seem to have grasped my point incompletely, my apologies for overestimating the efficacy of the RAF's IQ testing at Biggin Hill).
On OTHER threads I have argued that the UK needs an MPA, I have never said that MPA should be an MRA4, (although I can't for the life of me see that cutting up MRA4's to buy something else instead is a brilliant idea frankly.)
Do try to keep up, there will be a test at the end.
Dave
Edit: By the way, many jet aircraft now regularly enjoy many decades of life - B707, 747, B-52, there are DC-3's still in use, ditto PBY-5's and a good many more. Provided the aircraft is either a new build of an old design, or has any 'fatigue prone' components replaced, there is no LOGICAL reason to replace an existing, proven design, unless you have a better design as an alternative. Nimrod based on Comet is a complete red herring, the MRA4 was not some hammered out compo tins glued to a 1940's airframe... had the Nimrod been completely rebuilt, ie completely new airframes (no more wings don't fit issues, rerouting of ducts, rethink of component layout to meet modern safety standars etc) then it would have been the best MPA in the world...just like MR1 and MR2 were.
Cazatou -
"The Great British Public" (whose spending power is being squeezed every which way due to the state of the Nations finances) would certainly express surprise that the aircraft that you insist is a "must have" as a Maritime Patrol Aircraft is based on a design which first flew on 27 July 1949.
(In return I'll not post that you insist 30% of all fighter pilots should be gay, and 32 Sqn make GR4 squadrons look like the girl guides...keep misquoting me and the gloves are off pal!)
For anyone else who can't read without getting confused, I was commenting on Manccowboys assertion that the main issue with MRA4 was its name, which had been deeply tarnished by Afghanistan. I said that there was more than one problem - as well as the name being Nimrod the Brit public hadn't a clue anyway what Nimrods did, so they wouldn't give a damn about losing what they never knew they'd had. (I translate my original post, as some seem to have grasped my point incompletely, my apologies for overestimating the efficacy of the RAF's IQ testing at Biggin Hill).
On OTHER threads I have argued that the UK needs an MPA, I have never said that MPA should be an MRA4, (although I can't for the life of me see that cutting up MRA4's to buy something else instead is a brilliant idea frankly.)
Do try to keep up, there will be a test at the end.
Dave
Edit: By the way, many jet aircraft now regularly enjoy many decades of life - B707, 747, B-52, there are DC-3's still in use, ditto PBY-5's and a good many more. Provided the aircraft is either a new build of an old design, or has any 'fatigue prone' components replaced, there is no LOGICAL reason to replace an existing, proven design, unless you have a better design as an alternative. Nimrod based on Comet is a complete red herring, the MRA4 was not some hammered out compo tins glued to a 1940's airframe... had the Nimrod been completely rebuilt, ie completely new airframes (no more wings don't fit issues, rerouting of ducts, rethink of component layout to meet modern safety standars etc) then it would have been the best MPA in the world...just like MR1 and MR2 were.
Last edited by davejb; 24th Mar 2011 at 18:15.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: St Annes
Age: 68
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No,
I rather expect you to be short on factual content actually. The usual response to completing misquoting and misrepresenting somebody else is to say 'sorry, I had been drinking', by the way.
Dave
I rather expect you to be short on factual content actually. The usual response to completing misquoting and misrepresenting somebody else is to say 'sorry, I had been drinking', by the way.
Dave
although I can't for the life of me see that cutting up MRA4's to buy something else instead is a brilliant idea frankly
Just IMO of course.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Here and there, occasionally at home.
Age: 56
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GrahamO and Caztazou
"And in that single response you have demonstrated how little you actually understand. Exactly what airframe are you going to purchase that requires as little modification as possible? Please, do tell, 'cos I'm sure Boeing et al would love to know what you have in mind."
That was going to be my response. I could have argued that the concept of the fax is at least 150 years old, the telephone is at least as old, e-mail is the best part of 40 years old but because an aircraft concept is 'old' it's of no use. Oddly enough, the only people that espouse that idea are those that have f@ck all clue about that of which they spout.
I could point out that Caz is resident in country that isn't even an island and it still has an MPA fleet (and it's almost as old as Nimrod) but I don't hear him berating his host nation.
I then realised that I am just wasting my breath. Life is too short.
Crack on folks.
That was going to be my response. I could have argued that the concept of the fax is at least 150 years old, the telephone is at least as old, e-mail is the best part of 40 years old but because an aircraft concept is 'old' it's of no use. Oddly enough, the only people that espouse that idea are those that have f@ck all clue about that of which they spout.
I could point out that Caz is resident in country that isn't even an island and it still has an MPA fleet (and it's almost as old as Nimrod) but I don't hear him berating his host nation.
I then realised that I am just wasting my breath. Life is too short.
Crack on folks.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Stockport
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People are harping on about the Nimrod being an old design, Boeing's 367-80 (Dash 80) circa 1952 went on to become the 720,707 and the RC-135 and the same fuse barrels were used in the 727 and 757.
That same 50+ year old RC-135 is being converted to Rivet Joint for the RAF, at least structurally the MRA4 was over 80% new and would have lasted decades......someday someone will realise what a good asset we scrapped.
That same 50+ year old RC-135 is being converted to Rivet Joint for the RAF, at least structurally the MRA4 was over 80% new and would have lasted decades......someday someone will realise what a good asset we scrapped.
Mancowboy, well put, this is the point I have said on other forums. Added to that where is all the aircraft experience on these old American aircraft within this country, where are all the spares/Design support,ground equipment/specialist tooling and Air Publications coming from, then ask the Sentry guys/gals about how long it takes to get these items and how much it costs, then throw in ITAR. How much are these old converted jets going to cost overall as the MOD is allready asking for something different with CFM engines and what equipment will go inside ours, will we end up with another expensive Chinook farce while we try to get it all to work with an old design.
These aircraft are all different as well as the MRA4 pressure shells were slated for, again ask the Sentry guys/gals about how each aircraft is different and then decide wether buying older aircraft from the states is still viable.
One final thing, when these 'new' aircraft arrive how much is it going to cost to build new hangars for it or convert the original one.
These aircraft are all different as well as the MRA4 pressure shells were slated for, again ask the Sentry guys/gals about how each aircraft is different and then decide wether buying older aircraft from the states is still viable.
One final thing, when these 'new' aircraft arrive how much is it going to cost to build new hangars for it or convert the original one.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old design or modern look-alike is irrelevent. When Nimrod 2000 became Nimrod whenever-if-ever, the writing was on the wall, and it is a pity the decision was not made to drop the axe a decade ago. Happily the important bit, the crews, are being retained one way or another, or at least the younger element are. One can pretty much assume that within five years, MPA will have returned under a different guise. With any luck it will have jet engines rather then second hand P3s and have a twenty year + service ahead of it. For sure the host airframe will not be British, and whilst that is a tragedy, we are bankrupt and cannot afford to be choosy. For many a decade we were the icing on the MPA cake and we have much to thank the Nimrod airframe for, but modification was never the answer, development of a new airframe was, and now we have lost all hope of either.
I would prefer it if we held Nimrods memory with the kudos it deserves and not the rose tinted farce that TSR2 has endured for the last 40 years. The price of democracy is military decisions being driven by those who know the square route of cock all.
I would prefer it if we held Nimrods memory with the kudos it deserves and not the rose tinted farce that TSR2 has endured for the last 40 years. The price of democracy is military decisions being driven by those who know the square route of cock all.
DR,
While we could no doubt discuss at length exactly what you mean by 'MPA', I believe that your statement..
'...One can pretty much assume that within five years, MPA will have returned under a different guise....
is very optimistic. I can't see any politician admitting/accepting that the UK needs some form of MPA for at least 5 years. Add another 5 odd years before anything enters Sqn service, allowing for the procurement, production, delivery, training wheels to turn (even if we buy 'off the shelf') and crew experience levels will be a major issue.
10 years from now most ex-MPA crewmembers will have left the RAF by one means or another.... Many of them will be leaving in the next 4 years, and many others won't be retained beyond their next option point.
While we could no doubt discuss at length exactly what you mean by 'MPA', I believe that your statement..
'...One can pretty much assume that within five years, MPA will have returned under a different guise....
is very optimistic. I can't see any politician admitting/accepting that the UK needs some form of MPA for at least 5 years. Add another 5 odd years before anything enters Sqn service, allowing for the procurement, production, delivery, training wheels to turn (even if we buy 'off the shelf') and crew experience levels will be a major issue.
10 years from now most ex-MPA crewmembers will have left the RAF by one means or another.... Many of them will be leaving in the next 4 years, and many others won't be retained beyond their next option point.