CHF - Merlin Mk 4
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guidedweapons
You can't sit there on your friggin' high horse slating Seldom's use of the word 'selection', inferring that he's comparing himself to the SAS ! Pathetic. It's just a word, the correct word. RAF aircrew are SELECTED to do the various roles, because they have passed a series of stringent tests at the Officer and Aircrew SELECTION Centre. Nobody was suggesting it was Iron Man. Just because the Navy call it something different, that's not our fault.
No, it wasn't just ASW crewmen but CHF too, not telling me how marvellous I am, just how some of the things I'd learnt over the length of my training was quite different to them. This was often evident at Staneval time, when revising. You may go on the defensive, but this is how it was.
I won't even furnish your attempt for a rise that RAF and AAC crewmen are the same with a response.
No, it wasn't just ASW crewmen but CHF too, not telling me how marvellous I am, just how some of the things I'd learnt over the length of my training was quite different to them. This was often evident at Staneval time, when revising. You may go on the defensive, but this is how it was.
I won't even furnish your attempt for a rise that RAF and AAC crewmen are the same with a response.
WG34/ Merlin
Back to the WG34/Merlin debate & JD's comment:
"EHI as a company wasn't set up till 1980, there was massive delay as a new management tier took over, and then proceeded to cripple the design with excess weight
And don't forget that even when the design was finished they f'd up on the actual build. IBM (now part of Lockheed Martin) had to be called in to supervise system integration and eventually became the project leaders.
So you have a project designed by one company, redesigned and crippled by another, with the build split over two contractors (Westland and Agusta) and project managed by another. Its a wonder the thing ever flew"
I have no idea how close to flying the WG34 was when the 101 became a reality but I'd guess it was a little further off than implied or else we probably would have bought it in the first place! EHI did not cripple the design with excess weight on purpose, or on a whim, the excess weight came about because of the aforementioned gearbox/ RTM322 fuel consumption issues & because the rear fuselage structure, as designed, vibrated like hell in the prototypes & needed beafing up (note the prototypes initially flew with scaffolding poles cross bracing the rear fuselage!).
The project management was a mess. When isn't it with British military design/ procurements? But it was also partly the MoD's fault as at the time they were actually the system integrator by default. EHI built an airframe that flew (& that's what they were contracted to do); the various equipment manufacturers built radar, sonar, radios etc that worked (& that's what they were contracted to do) but no one was responsible for making them all work together in the flying airframe! Until L-M were contracted. You'd have though that the MoD would have learnt the lessons of TSR-2, Nimrod AEW etc & specified the procurement of a "system" rather than doing things seperately but NO!
"EHI as a company wasn't set up till 1980, there was massive delay as a new management tier took over, and then proceeded to cripple the design with excess weight
And don't forget that even when the design was finished they f'd up on the actual build. IBM (now part of Lockheed Martin) had to be called in to supervise system integration and eventually became the project leaders.
So you have a project designed by one company, redesigned and crippled by another, with the build split over two contractors (Westland and Agusta) and project managed by another. Its a wonder the thing ever flew"
I have no idea how close to flying the WG34 was when the 101 became a reality but I'd guess it was a little further off than implied or else we probably would have bought it in the first place! EHI did not cripple the design with excess weight on purpose, or on a whim, the excess weight came about because of the aforementioned gearbox/ RTM322 fuel consumption issues & because the rear fuselage structure, as designed, vibrated like hell in the prototypes & needed beafing up (note the prototypes initially flew with scaffolding poles cross bracing the rear fuselage!).
The project management was a mess. When isn't it with British military design/ procurements? But it was also partly the MoD's fault as at the time they were actually the system integrator by default. EHI built an airframe that flew (& that's what they were contracted to do); the various equipment manufacturers built radar, sonar, radios etc that worked (& that's what they were contracted to do) but no one was responsible for making them all work together in the flying airframe! Until L-M were contracted. You'd have though that the MoD would have learnt the lessons of TSR-2, Nimrod AEW etc & specified the procurement of a "system" rather than doing things seperately but NO!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was inference from Running In that RAF crewmen don't do planning or Nav. They do. Very much so.
They also accompany the pilots on IF trips, often with little to do, but learning enough about it and doing enough that should they end up with 2 junior LCR stick-monkeys, about to pull up through cloud into an airway, he or she could say no and come up with a sensible plan B. This is after they've quickly selected all the necessary, nearest and relevant navaids and freqs to further reduce the capacity required of the front enders. And once they're finally preparing for an approach, correcting them when they've calculated and selected the wrong MDH. I've heard it on verygood authority that CHF crewmen don't even bother their arse to go on IF trips.
It's not just ramp up, ramp down and counting backwards missing out numbers.
They also accompany the pilots on IF trips, often with little to do, but learning enough about it and doing enough that should they end up with 2 junior LCR stick-monkeys, about to pull up through cloud into an airway, he or she could say no and come up with a sensible plan B. This is after they've quickly selected all the necessary, nearest and relevant navaids and freqs to further reduce the capacity required of the front enders. And once they're finally preparing for an approach, correcting them when they've calculated and selected the wrong MDH. I've heard it on verygood authority that CHF crewmen don't even bother their arse to go on IF trips.
It's not just ramp up, ramp down and counting backwards missing out numbers.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember what I said about a superiority complex, "selection", your not the friggin SAS.
A good few years ago, before we had PA there was a small number of fella's crossed over to the light side, I don't believe one of them had any trouble with "Selection".
If its okay with you I will pass on having a go, there is no job security!
A good few years ago, before we had PA there was a small number of fella's crossed over to the light side, I don't believe one of them had any trouble with "Selection".
If its okay with you I will pass on having a go, there is no job security!
Where did I ever say it was difficult young man
What I did say was that there Is way more to SH than cabbying round half a dozen guys in LFO. Its not your fault you don't get that, you dont have to get it as that's pretty much all you do, or at least that's what you tell us is all you do.Next chance you get pluck up some spuds and go have a chat with the Chinny or Merlin guys and ask them about the wide variety of stuff that drives on and off their aircraft, ask them about the skill sets involved in the USL,s they carry, what it's like having a bucket load of guys with kit and freight on board et etc, might just give you a more rounded look at the bigger picture that is SH.
Pssst, I work in the same office as one of the guys you mention who left the Navy for the RAF and whilst he misses some aspects of his previous life he is content with his new life and would never consider going back, do you know of many that did go back
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"& because the rear fuselage structure, as designed, vibrated like hell in the prototypes & needed beafing up (note the prototypes initially flew with scaffolding poles cross bracing the rear fuselage!."
Thank you -you make my point for me
This and the tail were Agusta's main input into the airframe design.
i.e. one of the EHI changes from the WG34 design
Thank you -you make my point for me
This and the tail were Agusta's main input into the airframe design.
i.e. one of the EHI changes from the WG34 design
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
utter b0ll0x
a little knowledge goes a long way.. and 2 and 2 seem to make 5 here
there was a development activity on 1 airframe which simulated the stronger production fuselage by internal bracing, it was an engineering investigation only
no other aircraft had any 'scaffolding poles' fitted
DM
there was a development activity on 1 airframe which simulated the stronger production fuselage by internal bracing, it was an engineering investigation only
no other aircraft had any 'scaffolding poles' fitted
DM
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Royston Vasey
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guidedweapon
"One advantage to recruited seasoned serviceman as oppossed to school leavers is that we mitigate the risk of a guy going wibble once the ramp is lowered, not one case exists in our branch, a recognised manning problem within a certain service!"
Absolutely pathetic. Really pathetic.
I suppose there is no correlation between 'going wibble' and exposure to MERT/IRT type scenarios? You may be surprised to know that the RAF WsOp branch count many ex RN, RM and Army in their number and yes, are all the stronger for it. Also let us not forget the fact that the RMs pioneered TRiM and good on them for doing so. No-one is immune from sights/smells etc they may be called to witness - whatever their cap badge.
This thread has descended into 2 parallel discussions. One an informative and interesting debate on the evolution of the Merlin the other a free-falling p!ssing contest which has become slightly embarrassing.
I'm out.
Absolutely pathetic. Really pathetic.
I suppose there is no correlation between 'going wibble' and exposure to MERT/IRT type scenarios? You may be surprised to know that the RAF WsOp branch count many ex RN, RM and Army in their number and yes, are all the stronger for it. Also let us not forget the fact that the RMs pioneered TRiM and good on them for doing so. No-one is immune from sights/smells etc they may be called to witness - whatever their cap badge.
This thread has descended into 2 parallel discussions. One an informative and interesting debate on the evolution of the Merlin the other a free-falling p!ssing contest which has become slightly embarrassing.
I'm out.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guided Weapon
"One advantage to recruited seasoned serviceman as oppossed to school leavers is that we mitigate the risk of a guy going wibble once the ramp is lowered, not one case exists in our branch, a recognised manning problem within a certain service!"
Unchecked
Unchecked:
If you re read my post I didn't say an RAF crewman doesn't get involved in Nav or flight planning - merely the fact that his CHF equivalent is more heavily involved in it - he has to be as he is trained to operate the aircraft single pilot. As for IF Nav - again he is trained in that skill on the OCU. Don't get confused with IFP, i.e climbing,descending turns on instruments for an hour - I freely admit that a Jungly crewie won't always jump in for that but an IF nav trip with various approaches - happens all the time.
I'm pleased to hear that an exchange was able to identify areas where he wasn't as well versed and admit it, it's why we send people on them and it displays something sadly missing by many posters on this thread - humility.
All the best RI
If you re read my post I didn't say an RAF crewman doesn't get involved in Nav or flight planning - merely the fact that his CHF equivalent is more heavily involved in it - he has to be as he is trained to operate the aircraft single pilot. As for IF Nav - again he is trained in that skill on the OCU. Don't get confused with IFP, i.e climbing,descending turns on instruments for an hour - I freely admit that a Jungly crewie won't always jump in for that but an IF nav trip with various approaches - happens all the time.
I'm pleased to hear that an exchange was able to identify areas where he wasn't as well versed and admit it, it's why we send people on them and it displays something sadly missing by many posters on this thread - humility.
All the best RI
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK, for now.
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets face it anyone could operate from a ship, the FAA have proved it!!
How many light blue are prepared to remain at 48hours notice to embark in a FF/DD for up to 10 months continuously? (yes, including during your leave periods.)
How many, once embarked, would be prepared to fly 300 miles at night to a foreign airfield and then another 300 miles back, arriving at that Ship with no diversion fuel to land on a deck no more than 15 feet longer than your aircraft which is moving at 15 knots and also pitching and rolling in and out of limits?
How about when you're embarked, you're at AL 60 for SAR any time the Ship is at Sea?
Or even when you're not flying you could be called upon to don a BA set and conduct a re-entry into a burning compartment, or a flooded one?
Anyone thinking this is not routine for a FAA crew is sorely mistaken and I invite anyone who thinks this is easy to request an exchange tour to an FF/DD flight. We could use the extra personnel.
Perhaps anyone could, but the FAA do.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Down West
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
get a room/thread
Why don't you guys start a new "Who's the best Winch Weight/Steward" thread. It's distracting from the subject of this thread and frankly is sounding a bit childish!
Cheers now
Cheers now
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hook,line and sinker
Seldom,
I have a little sympathy for you, so let me impart a little wisdom in your direction.
I fear "running in" and GW are simply "winding you up" mate, dont add fuel to the already massive fire by trying to "justify" or "defend" your corner, it will just make them, as it has me,laugh out loud!!!
RN and RM crewmen are a self effacing bunch, they wont be bragging about thier skill sets or what theatres they have operated in, or how much they "triple loaded" last night, otherwise they will have the p**s ripped out of them by thier oppos, they just get on with the job, just like thier RAF SH counterparts.
What you all say (RN or RAF)makes a lot of sense,anyone who is reading this thread "sat on the fence"so to speak will see both points of view, but i have to agree with APO that this thread is getting away from the point slightly....but then you only have to read the SARH thread on Rotorheads to understand why that often happens on here.
Lets try and stick to the point APO alluded to, and thats how to progress/develop the Merlin into a suitable marinised SH platform, whoever its crewed by.
I have a little sympathy for you, so let me impart a little wisdom in your direction.
I fear "running in" and GW are simply "winding you up" mate, dont add fuel to the already massive fire by trying to "justify" or "defend" your corner, it will just make them, as it has me,laugh out loud!!!
RN and RM crewmen are a self effacing bunch, they wont be bragging about thier skill sets or what theatres they have operated in, or how much they "triple loaded" last night, otherwise they will have the p**s ripped out of them by thier oppos, they just get on with the job, just like thier RAF SH counterparts.
What you all say (RN or RAF)makes a lot of sense,anyone who is reading this thread "sat on the fence"so to speak will see both points of view, but i have to agree with APO that this thread is getting away from the point slightly....but then you only have to read the SARH thread on Rotorheads to understand why that often happens on here.
Lets try and stick to the point APO alluded to, and thats how to progress/develop the Merlin into a suitable marinised SH platform, whoever its crewed by.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B is for Banter
Having served in 2 different CVS (on 4 or 5 different tours) I lost count of the number of RAF GR7/9 pilots complaining that they "didn't join the RAF to go to sea".
As for CHF embarking, when I said to a CHF mate the Merlins will need marinisation he said, no they don't I can't remember the last time CHF operated from a ship.
Yes anyone could, but the FAA do
Anyway, me mums called me in for tea. I might be out to play later after I've dun me homework....
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Malkin Tower
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I can't remember the last time CHF operated from a ship."
Elements of 847 are currently flying off Albion's hangarless open deck and have been for the last four or five months , both in the Med and east of Suez
OK its not a whole squadron, but they DO do it. And they may be Lynx not Sea King, but they are still part of CHF
Elements of 847 are currently flying off Albion's hangarless open deck and have been for the last four or five months , both in the Med and east of Suez
OK its not a whole squadron, but they DO do it. And they may be Lynx not Sea King, but they are still part of CHF
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not being sensitive, just putting it how it is. As told to me by various RN peeps over the years in various crewrooms. Not my fault if your oppos are embarrassing you by peddling the truth !
As for deployments, the dit from a very experienced guy who had been around a fair time, went along the lines of only deployed a handful of times and the longest ever he did was less than 2 months. It's not really that important, just putting it as a reply to the dit about deploying for 10 months etc.... Which I don't doubt that the FAA do. CHF are a different story though.
As for deployments, the dit from a very experienced guy who had been around a fair time, went along the lines of only deployed a handful of times and the longest ever he did was less than 2 months. It's not really that important, just putting it as a reply to the dit about deploying for 10 months etc.... Which I don't doubt that the FAA do. CHF are a different story though.