R1 Withdrawal
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hink that you'll find that we decided to retire the R1 on 31 March 2011 well before this government got into power. For once we can't blame SDSR for this hole.
At least there is a replacement inbound which will probably arrive on time, cost what we agreed to pay for it and do what any other RJ does.
At least there is a replacement inbound which will probably arrive on time, cost what we agreed to pay for it and do what any other RJ does.
Rumour has it the decision to retire the R1 on that date was due to an offer that was made along the lines of "well if you retire it then you could use the money you save by not having to support it to get the RJs delivered a bit earlier". Pure speculation of course.
As to 'delivering to cost' I'm sure they included the cost of infrastructure changes to Waddington when they considered the deal. ....
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Hampton, UK
Age: 45
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before I continue, I'm not after any information considered sensitive by anyone about the R1...I'm just curious about the history of the fleets.
However, given that the R1 spent most of its time in service alongside the MR2 I wondered how much engineering and contractor support from the MR2's operations was shared by the R1 fleet? Was airframe servicing done by a common pool of engineers etc? Were Nimrod airmframe operations considered totally different or were the R1s a "mini-fleet" within the MR2 world?
I guess that leads to my second question about how similar, or different, were the two airframes? I'm not talking about what's inside, just the structures. I know some of the R1s were built as R1s whereas the Nimrods were Comets first etc. Were they radically different when it came to their structures?
However, given that the R1 spent most of its time in service alongside the MR2 I wondered how much engineering and contractor support from the MR2's operations was shared by the R1 fleet? Was airframe servicing done by a common pool of engineers etc? Were Nimrod airmframe operations considered totally different or were the R1s a "mini-fleet" within the MR2 world?
I guess that leads to my second question about how similar, or different, were the two airframes? I'm not talking about what's inside, just the structures. I know some of the R1s were built as R1s whereas the Nimrods were Comets first etc. Were they radically different when it came to their structures?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Blighty
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The R1's were converted MR's... To the best of my knowledge
Same engines, very similar fuel/hydraulics etc.
As for servicing, I wonder if the R1's are covered for maintainence for these 3 months and dont require any 'expected' work.
Same engines, very similar fuel/hydraulics etc.
As for servicing, I wonder if the R1's are covered for maintainence for these 3 months and dont require any 'expected' work.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Blighty
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same engines
The bomb bay doesn't open, its full of "gubbins"... Which is of course the technical term.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Just south of the Keevil gap.
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Womble
"I know some of the R1s were built as R1s whereas the Nimrods were Comets first etc."
The Nimrods were never Comets (apart from the 2? prototypes). The fuselages were built at Broughton and trucked over to Woodford for assembly as Nimrods.
"I know some of the R1s were built as R1s whereas the Nimrods were Comets first etc."
The Nimrods were never Comets (apart from the 2? prototypes). The fuselages were built at Broughton and trucked over to Woodford for assembly as Nimrods.
