Shorts Belfast
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
it remains a mystery to me why anyone specified that the Belslow should be fitted with a machmeter!
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The mach meter was probably specified by Beverly aircrew given the huge increase of speed approaching the speed of heat.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: UK East Anglia
Age: 66
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In response to Big Pants and others: I am enjoying this thread. Thanks for posting the link to previous info PN. I was still at school in 60s and 70s when Belfast was around. not aware of the politics but it sound a bit like the AWACs story. the RAF always wanted AWACs but Politics and UK industry wanted AEW Nimrod.
Funny how these aircraft were taken out of service and then rented back form H L when something outsize needed shifting. I suppose this was before USSR opened up and An 124 became available. We also borrowed C5 from USA to move the submarine recovery thing before we had C17.
Now for the discussion on A400M vs Belfast:- I have been a A400M sceptic since I first became involved in 1995 when it waqs still a dream. I was hoping it would get canned and we buy C17. Well we did buy the C17 so why do we need A400M?
Well I only recently became a A400M fan having listened to Ed Strongman (Ex C130 and now the A4ooM PTP) My issue withe the A400M was that the cargo hold was only 18" longer than a long C130 (not even a tie down row to the ramp hinge, but I would have to check). Still; what a capable aircraft this is.
What I thing we need once all the A400Ms are delivered is to can the 130s and obtain something much smaller for in theatre shifting and airdropping. US use a CASA - yes part of EADS. They previously used a Short box van. Built in Belfast.
It is not a Europe vs USA procurement argument but best thing for the task. - Remind me of the task buy the way- did we buy C130 to reach the Falklands? No. hence the flap at Marshall in 1982.
As for AAR. take a look at the map. All the red bits went years back.
Funny how these aircraft were taken out of service and then rented back form H L when something outsize needed shifting. I suppose this was before USSR opened up and An 124 became available. We also borrowed C5 from USA to move the submarine recovery thing before we had C17.
Now for the discussion on A400M vs Belfast:- I have been a A400M sceptic since I first became involved in 1995 when it waqs still a dream. I was hoping it would get canned and we buy C17. Well we did buy the C17 so why do we need A400M?
Well I only recently became a A400M fan having listened to Ed Strongman (Ex C130 and now the A4ooM PTP) My issue withe the A400M was that the cargo hold was only 18" longer than a long C130 (not even a tie down row to the ramp hinge, but I would have to check). Still; what a capable aircraft this is.
What I thing we need once all the A400Ms are delivered is to can the 130s and obtain something much smaller for in theatre shifting and airdropping. US use a CASA - yes part of EADS. They previously used a Short box van. Built in Belfast.
It is not a Europe vs USA procurement argument but best thing for the task. - Remind me of the task buy the way- did we buy C130 to reach the Falklands? No. hence the flap at Marshall in 1982.
As for AAR. take a look at the map. All the red bits went years back.
Yet another Belfast thread! There have been at least 3 here over the last year or so, I think, and I'm mildly surprised at the interest shown in an aircraft of which the RAF only had 10 in all, with 53 Sqn having all 10 for only a very limited number of years. And I would hope that the internal links to some of these threads will help in the taking of another small step towards debunking the 'US pressure' business that Wikipedia appears to be perpetuating.
As to the aircraft's withdrawal from service, the only 'politics' involved were decisions consequent on the 1974 Defence Review which, inter alia, decreed that the Air Transport Force would be cut by half. This led to a numbers-based exercise and, whilst the Belfast fleet survived the first round of fleet and AE reduction announcements in 1975, its demise was not long delayed. It was, of course, obvious all along that the Service's bulk carrying capability would be lost and no surprise at all that this capability, when operationally essential, would have to be leased back from Heavylift or, indeed, from the USAF. And for dragartist, you are quite correct. This all happened way before the An 124 was built, and many more years before any prospect of leasing from the former Soviet Union existed. An organic capability was deleted from the inventory as a policy decision - it was really that simple, and that has happened again to other forces in recent years.
As to the aircraft's withdrawal from service, the only 'politics' involved were decisions consequent on the 1974 Defence Review which, inter alia, decreed that the Air Transport Force would be cut by half. This led to a numbers-based exercise and, whilst the Belfast fleet survived the first round of fleet and AE reduction announcements in 1975, its demise was not long delayed. It was, of course, obvious all along that the Service's bulk carrying capability would be lost and no surprise at all that this capability, when operationally essential, would have to be leased back from Heavylift or, indeed, from the USAF. And for dragartist, you are quite correct. This all happened way before the An 124 was built, and many more years before any prospect of leasing from the former Soviet Union existed. An organic capability was deleted from the inventory as a policy decision - it was really that simple, and that has happened again to other forces in recent years.
IR: Not having a boom on the new Voyager is a classic example
Given that just about every nation that has ordered the A330 MRTT have opted for the boom, would it be that difficult to get a boom retrofitted at a later stage? Quite apart from adding utility to the airframe and adding capability to existing assets, for refuelling the larger aircraft you are talking about the fuel transfer rate is 2 to 3 times faster aren't you?
Maybe some a55hat in procurement thought that they'd save money up front as we can just glue one on later? Or does it have more to do with the fact that these are essentially civvy airframes being operated by a civvy company and they will find it easier to sell the airframes later without the additional plumbing over and above the wing pods?
Edit: Ah, just did some reading on the 'procurement' - contract issues. I can see the conversation happening with the civvy contractor who no doubt were dead set against a boom as it would be a far more significant penalty to range/payload when the civvies were operating it as a charter plane. Same with the refuelling recepticle - added weight - less payload for civvy ops. At which point the MOD should have realised the tail was wagging the dog and exited stage right. I have seen outsourcing first hand in the ADF - the perceived savings don't materialize OR the short term savings are there but the longer term impacts from those using the service provided are more costly.
Given that just about every nation that has ordered the A330 MRTT have opted for the boom, would it be that difficult to get a boom retrofitted at a later stage? Quite apart from adding utility to the airframe and adding capability to existing assets, for refuelling the larger aircraft you are talking about the fuel transfer rate is 2 to 3 times faster aren't you?
Maybe some a55hat in procurement thought that they'd save money up front as we can just glue one on later? Or does it have more to do with the fact that these are essentially civvy airframes being operated by a civvy company and they will find it easier to sell the airframes later without the additional plumbing over and above the wing pods?
Edit: Ah, just did some reading on the 'procurement' - contract issues. I can see the conversation happening with the civvy contractor who no doubt were dead set against a boom as it would be a far more significant penalty to range/payload when the civvies were operating it as a charter plane. Same with the refuelling recepticle - added weight - less payload for civvy ops. At which point the MOD should have realised the tail was wagging the dog and exited stage right. I have seen outsourcing first hand in the ADF - the perceived savings don't materialize OR the short term savings are there but the longer term impacts from those using the service provided are more costly.
Last edited by Mk 1; 24th Feb 2013 at 22:34. Reason: Read more about it.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another point Mk. 1 is that as no boom (AIUI) was part of the specification for the contract with AirTanker; then the harsh world of RealPolitik, Business & Commerce would see some eye-watering quotes from the single source supplier were the MoD to go and ask for an 'extra' to alter that spec.
Bristow Helicopters used the Belfast to deliver some Bell 212's and Kit to Somalia....required major dis-assembly of the aircraft. Rotor blades off, Head and Mast off, Tail Booms off....resulting in three days of work to get the three aircraft flyable after being delivered.
Canadian Helicopters used the Russian Beastie.....only one Tail Rotor Blade had to be removed as I recall.
All their aircraft were up and running within an hour or two after arrival.
Evergreen used a C-130.....damaged both the 212 and the 130 dragging the helicopter into the Herc.
Canadian Helicopters used the Russian Beastie.....only one Tail Rotor Blade had to be removed as I recall.
All their aircraft were up and running within an hour or two after arrival.
Evergreen used a C-130.....damaged both the 212 and the 130 dragging the helicopter into the Herc.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Bristow Helicopters used the Belfast to deliver some Bell 212's and Kit to Somalia....required major dis-assembly of the aircraft. Rotor blades off, Head and Mast off, Tail Booms off....resulting in three days of work to get the three aircraft flyable after being delivered.
Canadian Helicopters used the Russian Beastie.....only one Tail Rotor Blade had to be removed as I recall.
All their aircraft were up and running within an hour or two after arrival.
Evergreen used a C-130.....damaged both the 212 and the 130 dragging the helicopter into the Herc.
Canadian Helicopters used the Russian Beastie.....only one Tail Rotor Blade had to be removed as I recall.
All their aircraft were up and running within an hour or two after arrival.
Evergreen used a C-130.....damaged both the 212 and the 130 dragging the helicopter into the Herc.
We did one comparing putting an F3 in the back of the AN224 or tanking it to FI. I don't know which worked out best in terms of fuel burn and F3 /tanker hours and charter/time down.
No comparison PN.....when you fetch in your fleet of 25 helicopters in two lifts, and only have to put one tail rotor blade on per aircraft, fuel the aircraft....and get to work earning Revenue....as compared to fetching them in three at a time and taking three days to put them back together before going to work.
Even by RAF math....the Belfast falls short of the mark as compared to the competition.
The Belfast just didn't cut the mustard....in uniform or out.
Even by RAF math....the Belfast falls short of the mark as compared to the competition.
The Belfast just didn't cut the mustard....in uniform or out.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bury St. Edmunds
Age: 64
Posts: 539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS
Here's a copy of an earlier post that you may have missed.......
Here's a comparison of the predicted performance of the A400 versus those venerable workhorses of the air which in design terms date from 50 (yes 50!) years ago. The max payload of the A400 is 82,000 lbs, C 133 110,000 lbs, Belfast 80,000 lbs and the Herc (C130 H) 45,000 lbs. Max cruise speeds are very similar, 350 mph, 359 mph, 358 mph and 336 mph respectively.
The range of the A400 with a 20 tonne payload (btw this woul be a full load for a Herc) is projected at 3,753 nm for the A400 and with 23.5 tonnes the C133 could go 3,560 nm, the Belfast could do about 3,600 miles and the Herc only 2,050 nms.
The A400 has 4 x 11,000 shp, the C 133 4 x 7,500 shp, the Belfast 4 x 5,730 shp and the C 130 4 x 4,300 shp.
The real question is what would each aeroplane cost to build in today's prices and whether the A400 really is giving us value for money for what might seem a modest improvement in performance.
General characteristics - A400M
General characteristics - C133 Cargomaster
Here's a copy of an earlier post that you may have missed.......
Here's a comparison of the predicted performance of the A400 versus those venerable workhorses of the air which in design terms date from 50 (yes 50!) years ago. The max payload of the A400 is 82,000 lbs, C 133 110,000 lbs, Belfast 80,000 lbs and the Herc (C130 H) 45,000 lbs. Max cruise speeds are very similar, 350 mph, 359 mph, 358 mph and 336 mph respectively.
The range of the A400 with a 20 tonne payload (btw this woul be a full load for a Herc) is projected at 3,753 nm for the A400 and with 23.5 tonnes the C133 could go 3,560 nm, the Belfast could do about 3,600 miles and the Herc only 2,050 nms.
The A400 has 4 x 11,000 shp, the C 133 4 x 7,500 shp, the Belfast 4 x 5,730 shp and the C 130 4 x 4,300 shp.
The real question is what would each aeroplane cost to build in today's prices and whether the A400 really is giving us value for money for what might seem a modest improvement in performance.
General characteristics - A400M
- Crew: 3-4 (2 pilots, 3rd optional, 1 loadmaster)
- Capacity: 37,000 kg (82,000 lb), 116 fully equipped troops / paratroops, up to 66 stretchers accompanied by 25 medical personnel
- Length: 43.8 m (143 ft 8 in)
- Wingspan: 42.4 m (139 ft 1 in)
- Height: 14.6 m (47 ft 11 in)
- Empty weight: 70 tonnes (154,000 lb)
- Max takeoff weight: 130 tonnes (287,000 lb)
- Total Internal Fuel: 46.7 tonnes (103,000 lb)
- Max. Landing Weight: 114 tonnes (251,000 lb)
- Max. Payload: 37 tonnes (82,000 lb))
- Powerplant: 4× EuroProp International TP400-D6[10] turboprop, 8,250 kW (11,000 hp) each
- Maximum speed: 300 knots CAS (560 km/h, 350 mph)
- Cruise speed:Mach 0.68 - 0.72 ()
- Initial Cruise Altitude: at MTOW: 9,000 m (29,000 ft)
- Range: at Max. payload: 3,300 km (1,782 nmi) (long range cruise speed; reserves as per MIL-C-5011A)
- Range at 30-tonne payload: 4,800 km (2,592 nmi)
- Range at 20-tonne payload: 6,950 km (3,753 nmi))
- Ferry range: 9,300 km (5,022 nmi)
- Service ceiling 11,300 m (37,000 ft)
- Tactical Takeoff Distance: 940 m (3 080 ft) (aircraft weight 100 tonnes, soft field, ISA, sea level)
- Tactical Landing Distance: 625 m (2 050 ft) (see above)
- Turning Radius (Ground): 28.6 m
General characteristics - C133 Cargomaster
- Crew: six (two pilots, two engineers, navigator, loadmaster)
- Capacity: Designed as a logistics transport, the C-133 carried only small numbers of passengers, usually associated with the cargo.
- Payload: 110,000 lb (50,000 kg)
- Length: 157 ft 6 in (48.0 m)
- Wingspan: 179 ft 8 in (54.8 m)
- Height: 48 ft 3 in (14.7 m)
- Wing area: 2,673.1 ft² (248.34 m²)
- Empty weight: 109,417 lb (49,631 kg)
- Loaded weight: 275,000 lb (125,000 kg)
- Max takeoff weight: 275,000 lb (C-133A) / 286,000 lb (C-133B) (125,000 kg (C-133A) / 130,000 kg (C-133B))
- Powerplant: 4× Pratt & Whitney T34-P-9W turboprops, 7,500 shp (5,586 kW) each
- * Cargo deck : 86 ft 10 in (26.47 m)
- Maximum speed: 312 kt (359 mph / 578 km/h)
- Cruise speed: 280 kt (322 mph / 519 km/h)
- Range: 3,560 nm with 52,000 lb (23,587 kg) payload (4,097 mi / 6,590 km)
- Service ceiling 32,300 ft (9,800 m)
- Crew: Basic aircrew 4 (two pilots, engineer & navigator/radio operator) plus reserve crew
- Capacity: 11,750 cu. ft.
- Payload: 80,000 lb (36,288 kg)
- Length: 136 ft 5 in (41.70 m)
- Wingspan: 158 ft 10 in (48.1 m)
- Height: 47 ft (14.33 m)
- Wing area: 2,466 ft² (229.1 m²)
- Empty weight: 130,000 lb (59,020 kg)
- Max takeoff weight: 230,000 lb (104,300 kg)
- Powerplant: 4× Rolls-Royce Tyne R.Ty.12, Mk. 101 turboprops, Hawker Siddeley Dynamics 4/7000/fully-feathering airscrews of 16 ft. diam., 5,730 ehp (4,270 kW) each
- Cruise speed: 358 mph (576 km/h)
- Range: 5,200 miles (8,368 km) with capacity fuel load of 80,720 lb
- Service ceiling 30,000 ft (9,100 m)
- Rate of climb: 1,060 ft/min (323 m/min)
- Range with maximum payload: 970 miles (1,560 km)
- Crew: 4-6: at least 2 pilots,1 flight engineer (eliminated in the J variant, replaced by crew chief), and 1 loadmaster; additional loadmaster and navigator are usually part of the crew
- Capacity:
- 92 passengers or
- 64 airborne troops or
- 74 litter patients with 2 medical personnel
- Payload: 45,000 lb (20,000 kg) including 2-3 Humvees or an M113 Armored Personnel Carrier
- Length: 97 ft 9 in (29.8 m)
- Wingspan: 132 ft 7 in (40.4 m)
- Height: 38 ft 3 in (11.6 m)
- Wing area: 1,745 ft² (162.1 m²)
- Empty weight: 83,000 lb (38,000 kg)
- Useful load: 72,000 lb (33,000 kg)
- Max takeoff weight: 155,000 lb (70,300 kg)
- Powerplant: 4× Allison T56-A-15turboprops, 4,300 shp (3,210 kW) each
- Maximum speed: 329 knots (379 mph, 610 km/h)
- Cruise speed: 292 knots (336 mph, 540 km/h)
- Range: 2,050 nm (2,360 mi, 3,800 km)
- Service ceiling 33,000 ft (10,000 m)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In 1957-60 Govt. had difficulty with re-equipment for Transport Command and the overseas Transport Units. By then it was already evident that best-of-class was C-130, but we had no $. 23 Britannias were taken and much of this work was put into State-owned Shorts. 14 VC10s were diverted from BOAC and 13 of their fuselages also came from Shorts. Under 1958/60 "rationalisation" of the industry, Shorts involvement in English Electric's bid to (to be TSR.2) was deleted. Abortive efforts were made by the Ministry of Aviation to interest anybody in taking Shorts off-the-books, so something had to go in to keep their Experimental resource intact.
Blue Streak IRBM needed some means of conveying trials rounds to Oz. There were also notions of shifting operational rounds between UK sites; there were notions of moving RAF's Thors: none was clearly thought through. All lapsed with Blue Streak cancellation 13/4/60. But by then Govt. had decided to take 10 (to be Belfast). Wings would come from Bristol Aircraft, back end from Saunders Roe: all this was make-work: Saro had to be given some form of backlog to entice Westland to take them on (14/7/59), and Bristol, ditto, to cause the TSR.2 winner, EE+Vickers, to accept them as 20% equity partner in BAC (18/12/59). That is why Belfast was not chopped with Blue Streak, and was retained despite buying Argosy (20 in 1959,+36, 1961).
Please dismiss silly nonsense about US machinations: it was quite the reverse. US offered per-event rent of C-133A Cargomaster (their own IRBM/ICBM lifter): to defeat that, MoA and RAF connived to invent a wholly-spurious blind landing Requirement, necessitating a UK-bespoke solution. Leader Cable was installed at Brize and the (Trident) Smiths system was expensively fitted. Never used, again because nobody thought the thing through. In Cat.IIIa visibility conditions the aircraft might be able to follow a man with a torch from runway to terminal, where its cargo would sit snug until its ground transport could move out...in Mk.1 eyeball conditions.
The type was not designed to carry heavy, dense freight on long sectors. The cube was for an empty phallus.
Blue Streak IRBM needed some means of conveying trials rounds to Oz. There were also notions of shifting operational rounds between UK sites; there were notions of moving RAF's Thors: none was clearly thought through. All lapsed with Blue Streak cancellation 13/4/60. But by then Govt. had decided to take 10 (to be Belfast). Wings would come from Bristol Aircraft, back end from Saunders Roe: all this was make-work: Saro had to be given some form of backlog to entice Westland to take them on (14/7/59), and Bristol, ditto, to cause the TSR.2 winner, EE+Vickers, to accept them as 20% equity partner in BAC (18/12/59). That is why Belfast was not chopped with Blue Streak, and was retained despite buying Argosy (20 in 1959,+36, 1961).
Please dismiss silly nonsense about US machinations: it was quite the reverse. US offered per-event rent of C-133A Cargomaster (their own IRBM/ICBM lifter): to defeat that, MoA and RAF connived to invent a wholly-spurious blind landing Requirement, necessitating a UK-bespoke solution. Leader Cable was installed at Brize and the (Trident) Smiths system was expensively fitted. Never used, again because nobody thought the thing through. In Cat.IIIa visibility conditions the aircraft might be able to follow a man with a torch from runway to terminal, where its cargo would sit snug until its ground transport could move out...in Mk.1 eyeball conditions.
The type was not designed to carry heavy, dense freight on long sectors. The cube was for an empty phallus.
Beverly birdstrikes
The Bev was renown for having birdstrikes from in front caused when the birds overtook but cut the move across the nose a little too close as listed in my rather tatty copy of " Bye Bye Bev " from Air Clues that was printed on papyrus! Along with many other little humourus gems about a splendid aircraft.
Last edited by gopher01; 19th Mar 2013 at 15:19. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Belfast
As a Rigger working on Line Sqdn at Brize from 1970 to the aircrafts demise I think we all had a bit of a `Love Hate` relationship with the Belfast. A bit like the Lightning techies.
I am sure there will be a few Riggers out there remembering the long hours toiling with: Hydraulic cycling timing, Slow U/C retraction and lowering. Target speeds, The dreaded Air-conditioning snags, standing next to the prop in low ground idle while you poked a piece of locking wire down the compressor to ascertain if it was in min or max flow. Aircraft returning with Aircon Emergency Spill Valves tripped. Why? God only knew. The Air Eng pulled the fuses from the compressors on `take off` keeping the compressors in `Min Flow`. Inserting them one at a time once in the the cruise, no doubt with fingers crossed. Stick shaker activating on approach not unusual.
A few of you reading this, especially Riggers will remember how different each aircraft could be.
One of the classics was the `Emergency U/C lowering. Actuated by pulling a lever and via cables tripped the `Uplocks`
We got an STI relaying how to set these cables up. If I remember correctly it was impossible as every Airframe was so different. You certainly had to be innovative when working on that aircraft.
I had some good trips though. Two which stand out and showed the capacity of the Belfast.
One to Dorval in Canada to pick up a B747 Flight Simulator for British Airways and deliver it to Heathrow. Max AUW and came back via the Azores.
Another was (I think) a warship gun turntable which we took out to Cyprus for the new Radar up Troodos. That was a heavy piece of kit.
Yes it had it`s faults. But with better spares backup and the knowledge that was being gained by the techies we could, and should have kept it a lot longer.
I don`t think it is possible to rate it against other `Heavy Lifters` because it was a one off. It was never going to be as good as the C130 but will `Atlas` be as good as `Albert` I wonder?
I am sure there will be a few Riggers out there remembering the long hours toiling with: Hydraulic cycling timing, Slow U/C retraction and lowering. Target speeds, The dreaded Air-conditioning snags, standing next to the prop in low ground idle while you poked a piece of locking wire down the compressor to ascertain if it was in min or max flow. Aircraft returning with Aircon Emergency Spill Valves tripped. Why? God only knew. The Air Eng pulled the fuses from the compressors on `take off` keeping the compressors in `Min Flow`. Inserting them one at a time once in the the cruise, no doubt with fingers crossed. Stick shaker activating on approach not unusual.
A few of you reading this, especially Riggers will remember how different each aircraft could be.
One of the classics was the `Emergency U/C lowering. Actuated by pulling a lever and via cables tripped the `Uplocks`
We got an STI relaying how to set these cables up. If I remember correctly it was impossible as every Airframe was so different. You certainly had to be innovative when working on that aircraft.
I had some good trips though. Two which stand out and showed the capacity of the Belfast.
One to Dorval in Canada to pick up a B747 Flight Simulator for British Airways and deliver it to Heathrow. Max AUW and came back via the Azores.
Another was (I think) a warship gun turntable which we took out to Cyprus for the new Radar up Troodos. That was a heavy piece of kit.
Yes it had it`s faults. But with better spares backup and the knowledge that was being gained by the techies we could, and should have kept it a lot longer.
I don`t think it is possible to rate it against other `Heavy Lifters` because it was a one off. It was never going to be as good as the C130 but will `Atlas` be as good as `Albert` I wonder?
Last edited by ex_rigger; 19th Mar 2013 at 21:28.
I sincerely doubt it. I suspect that whilst Albert was a bit restricted in capacity, it was a pretty reliable airframe and could usually deliver the required "effect". I will say, when I was at Halton, we were bussed over to Brize, taken up the VC10 tail servicing staging (which felt bloody high) and then given a 1 hour air experience flight in a Belfast. It blew my mind, once airborne and let loose you didn't know you were flying, it was just huge inside. I only had the one flight, and, whilst respecting the preceding comments reference performance etc, I was well impressed.
Perhaps someone could explain why, if capacity is the real problem, why do we not commission a fleet of probe equipped Beluga's ? They would cope with most heavy/bulky loads.
Smudge
Perhaps someone could explain why, if capacity is the real problem, why do we not commission a fleet of probe equipped Beluga's ? They would cope with most heavy/bulky loads.
Smudge
Last edited by smujsmith; 19th Mar 2013 at 22:37.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Madbob... you forgot the following:
A400M: cargo hold usable length 58 ft / 17.71 m, usable width 13ft / 4 m, height "up to" 13ft / 4 m.
C-133: cargo compartment length 90 ft / 27 m, and 12 ft / 3.7 m high/wide.
Belfast C.1: cargo hold length 84 ft 4 in / 25.7 m; width 16 ft 1 in / 4.9 m ; height 13 ft 4 in / 4.06 m.
C-130E/H/J: cargo compartment length 40 ft / 12.31 m, width 9 ft 11 in / 3.12 m, height 9 ft / 2.74 m.
Rear ramp length 10 ft 3 in / 3.12 m; width 9 ft 11 in / 3.02 m.
C-130H-30/J-30: cargo compartment length 55 ft / 16.9 m, width 9 ft 11 in / 3.12 m, height 9 feet / 2.74 m.
Rear ramp length 10 ft 3 in / 3.12 m, width 9 ft 11 in / 3.02 m.
A400M: cargo hold usable length 58 ft / 17.71 m, usable width 13ft / 4 m, height "up to" 13ft / 4 m.
C-133: cargo compartment length 90 ft / 27 m, and 12 ft / 3.7 m high/wide.
Belfast C.1: cargo hold length 84 ft 4 in / 25.7 m; width 16 ft 1 in / 4.9 m ; height 13 ft 4 in / 4.06 m.
C-130E/H/J: cargo compartment length 40 ft / 12.31 m, width 9 ft 11 in / 3.12 m, height 9 ft / 2.74 m.
Rear ramp length 10 ft 3 in / 3.12 m; width 9 ft 11 in / 3.02 m.
C-130H-30/J-30: cargo compartment length 55 ft / 16.9 m, width 9 ft 11 in / 3.12 m, height 9 feet / 2.74 m.
Rear ramp length 10 ft 3 in / 3.12 m, width 9 ft 11 in / 3.02 m.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Neither here nor there
Age: 80
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ex Rigger,
What a joy to read your Post #35 - brought back so many memories. I can relate to all you wrote (our times on LSS overlapped - I was on D Shift). You might also have mentioned starting the APU in a tailwind when a wet start (not uncommon) would cause a gout of flame to issue from the jetpipe and disappear up the air intake singeing off your eyebrows en route; those awful plunge mill screwdriver slots on the countersunk screws - I'm sure I removed more screws with an Ezy Out than I did with a screwdriver (locally modified to fit said plunge mill slot); shutting the ramp with the hand pump when the APU was U/S, opening the forward freight door with the hand pump (the only way to do it) where hydraulic pressure was routed to both sides of the jack simultaneously and relied on differential areas to extend the jack (WHY IN GOD'S NAME?), pumping up the flying control lock accumulator when all the pressure had leaked away through the windscreen wiper parking valve and the rudder was giving it Thump Thump against the stops in the wind. What would we have given for an electric pump like the VC10 had. Then there was the Royalite trim that was forever getting mangled by the movers. OK I know it formed the exhaust ducting for cabin air but the aircraft was a freighter - it didn't need to look pretty! Makes you wonder what the design priorities were.
Despite all the Belfast's eccentricities, though, I thoroughly enjoyed my time with it. There were 10 built and every one was a prototype. The technical publications were rubbish and every new snag was a stimulating challenge (Course notes were good - I still have access to a set). Also, it was a lot more comfy to fly in than the Hercules (except, possibly, the stub deck which made your feet tingle).
I understand there were plans to develop the aircraft as a double decked airliner with a swept wing and 4 Conways - now there's the stuff of nightmares!
The old Belfast was good at what it was good at - shifting bulk if time wasn't too much of a factor. It was never going to match the Hercules for versatility but, then, it wasn't meant to. Perhaps the A400M will go further towards that end. Whatever it does I hope its as entertaining as the Belfast was.
What a joy to read your Post #35 - brought back so many memories. I can relate to all you wrote (our times on LSS overlapped - I was on D Shift). You might also have mentioned starting the APU in a tailwind when a wet start (not uncommon) would cause a gout of flame to issue from the jetpipe and disappear up the air intake singeing off your eyebrows en route; those awful plunge mill screwdriver slots on the countersunk screws - I'm sure I removed more screws with an Ezy Out than I did with a screwdriver (locally modified to fit said plunge mill slot); shutting the ramp with the hand pump when the APU was U/S, opening the forward freight door with the hand pump (the only way to do it) where hydraulic pressure was routed to both sides of the jack simultaneously and relied on differential areas to extend the jack (WHY IN GOD'S NAME?), pumping up the flying control lock accumulator when all the pressure had leaked away through the windscreen wiper parking valve and the rudder was giving it Thump Thump against the stops in the wind. What would we have given for an electric pump like the VC10 had. Then there was the Royalite trim that was forever getting mangled by the movers. OK I know it formed the exhaust ducting for cabin air but the aircraft was a freighter - it didn't need to look pretty! Makes you wonder what the design priorities were.
Despite all the Belfast's eccentricities, though, I thoroughly enjoyed my time with it. There were 10 built and every one was a prototype. The technical publications were rubbish and every new snag was a stimulating challenge (Course notes were good - I still have access to a set). Also, it was a lot more comfy to fly in than the Hercules (except, possibly, the stub deck which made your feet tingle).
I understand there were plans to develop the aircraft as a double decked airliner with a swept wing and 4 Conways - now there's the stuff of nightmares!
The old Belfast was good at what it was good at - shifting bulk if time wasn't too much of a factor. It was never going to match the Hercules for versatility but, then, it wasn't meant to. Perhaps the A400M will go further towards that end. Whatever it does I hope its as entertaining as the Belfast was.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Belfast
Thanks Arfer Minnut for those extra memories. I was on `A` shift so we only met after our nights. I remember well my first wet start on the APU. I was shielding the intake with my Parka opened like a bat. I nearly s*** myself when it `lit up`. Didn`t do the Parka much good but I walked away with a full head of hair.
Fin leading edge changes were the one for the screws. Getting a new one on was a nightmare. The only consolation being we got an hangar slot, Bay 6 wasn`t it? At least we wern`t freezing to death out on the pan.
Another one was the Main u/c retraction jack. A swine to fit and on the first retraction no piddling about, full hyd pressure to ensure the down lock retracted and select up with fingers crossed because you just never knew with that u/c what was going to happen.
Oh there must be many more. Some best not talked about I guess.
I then went on to the VC10 after we lost the Belfast. Totally different.
Looking back now we used to get some stick from the 10 lads. It was a pleasure to wake them up at some ungodly hour when we got a break.
Really pleased I did it though. I came off Lightnings to the Belfast. Just swopped a small difficult a/c for a difficult `Big old Boy`. Happy days. We had it easy to what the lads and lasses go through now. I have so much respect for them.
ex rigger.
Fin leading edge changes were the one for the screws. Getting a new one on was a nightmare. The only consolation being we got an hangar slot, Bay 6 wasn`t it? At least we wern`t freezing to death out on the pan.
Another one was the Main u/c retraction jack. A swine to fit and on the first retraction no piddling about, full hyd pressure to ensure the down lock retracted and select up with fingers crossed because you just never knew with that u/c what was going to happen.
Oh there must be many more. Some best not talked about I guess.
I then went on to the VC10 after we lost the Belfast. Totally different.
Looking back now we used to get some stick from the 10 lads. It was a pleasure to wake them up at some ungodly hour when we got a break.
Really pleased I did it though. I came off Lightnings to the Belfast. Just swopped a small difficult a/c for a difficult `Big old Boy`. Happy days. We had it easy to what the lads and lasses go through now. I have so much respect for them.
ex rigger.
Last edited by ex_rigger; 21st Mar 2013 at 10:38.