Shorts Belfast
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shorts Belfast
Short Belfast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Its a shame not more were made and continually updated as could have been just as good if not better than the C130 but as usual the American's have screwed the country over if the Wikipedia artical is correct.
is there anyone on here that flew in one and could compare the Belfast to the 70's C130?
Duncan
Its a shame not more were made and continually updated as could have been just as good if not better than the C130 but as usual the American's have screwed the country over if the Wikipedia artical is correct.
is there anyone on here that flew in one and could compare the Belfast to the 70's C130?
Duncan
Here we go again!
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...y-our-own.html
Oh well, when you start your Harrier thread in due course, you'll find at least one stalwart supporter...
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...y-our-own.html
Oh well, when you start your Harrier thread in due course, you'll find at least one stalwart supporter...
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think they built ten . . . all different, shame they didn't build 15 and add a few more variations.
I only paxed in one once but it was pretty cavernous, we sat on pax seats on the ramp. Quite nice crew transport from what I gathered from colleagues who flew on 53.
Saw one in Gan with 3 Wessex onboard - that was impressive (in those days). They used to fly about 10,000' below us and about 50 knots or so slower (ish).
I only paxed in one once but it was pretty cavernous, we sat on pax seats on the ramp. Quite nice crew transport from what I gathered from colleagues who flew on 53.
Saw one in Gan with 3 Wessex onboard - that was impressive (in those days). They used to fly about 10,000' below us and about 50 knots or so slower (ish).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm Sure there are many aircraft that could be mentioned including the Harrier and maybe the Nimrod. Either I don't understand the aircraft industry or the political thinking of the time enough to fathom it all out
...as usual the American's have screwed the country over....
Seems the Green Eyed Monster is alive and well!
You Aviation Industry....what there is of it....went away along with your Empire.....trodding off hand in hand into the Sunset.
Deal with it!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm, green eyed monster eh. Surely that would mean the poster was jealous. Why would they be jealous rather than angry at how the Americans have stitched up the Brits several times, and now just re run contests when non U.S. products win!
As the our aviation disappearing, that's just ill informed IMHO.
SAS you seem a bit bitter recently.
As the our aviation disappearing, that's just ill informed IMHO.
SAS you seem a bit bitter recently.
Last edited by barnstormer1968; 23rd Feb 2013 at 21:32.
SAS -the British aviation industry did not go away; it consolidated and downsized and was nationalised for a period, but it is still ranked as the 2nd or 3rd largest in the world, dependent upon the way the figures are interpreted.
Dunc - in 1965, the conditions which the US wished to seek to impose for support for an additional loan from the IMF were based around the desire to see the UK staying east of Suez, and (LBJ hoped) sending troops to Vietnam. There were much bigger fish to fry than cancelling 20 Belfasts for C-130s - which, in any event, were the replacement for the HS681 rather than additional Belfasts. If any skulduggery occurred, it'd have been the HS681 that got it in the neck.[1] And with respect, while the US has often pursued its interests in a manner which upsets the Daily Mail and which gives the lie to ideas of extra-special friendship/treatment
The question you ask about the Belfast is covered in some detail here
[1] - And the alleged skulduggery is probably along the lines of that seen with TSR2: non-existent. In that case, the US attitude was one of 'They're cancelling [/I] it? Seriously?, and concern over the implications of having the Canberra 8 in service in Europe in the 1970s was in no small part responsible for the US falling over to offer good terms for the F-111. Remember also that the Labour government had a very jaundiced view of the British aircraft industry - Healey used the phrase "wet nursing mentally retarded children" - see here, although note his claims as to what he was referring to - while concern over project management and rising defence costs was growing; buying OTS in the form of Phantom and Hercules was not exactly the most stupid idea that Wilson's administration ever had.
Dunc - in 1965, the conditions which the US wished to seek to impose for support for an additional loan from the IMF were based around the desire to see the UK staying east of Suez, and (LBJ hoped) sending troops to Vietnam. There were much bigger fish to fry than cancelling 20 Belfasts for C-130s - which, in any event, were the replacement for the HS681 rather than additional Belfasts. If any skulduggery occurred, it'd have been the HS681 that got it in the neck.[1] And with respect, while the US has often pursued its interests in a manner which upsets the Daily Mail and which gives the lie to ideas of extra-special friendship/treatment
The question you ask about the Belfast is covered in some detail here
[1] - And the alleged skulduggery is probably along the lines of that seen with TSR2: non-existent. In that case, the US attitude was one of 'They're cancelling [/I] it? Seriously?, and concern over the implications of having the Canberra 8 in service in Europe in the 1970s was in no small part responsible for the US falling over to offer good terms for the F-111. Remember also that the Labour government had a very jaundiced view of the British aircraft industry - Healey used the phrase "wet nursing mentally retarded children" - see here, although note his claims as to what he was referring to - while concern over project management and rising defence costs was growing; buying OTS in the form of Phantom and Hercules was not exactly the most stupid idea that Wilson's administration ever had.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Ingerland
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Duncs
You may like to do a bit of digging on this Forum before quoting Wikipaedia:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...gn-scurvy.html
Not called the Belslow without good reason.
HL
You may like to do a bit of digging on this Forum before quoting Wikipaedia:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...gn-scurvy.html
Not called the Belslow without good reason.
HL
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The Belfast was an interesting aircraft though. Without going in to the whole story which has been recounted before, at Masirah on one occasion, the Belfast concerned had a flight refuelling probe. As it had the probe this reduced it uplift by 102 lbs. Headwinds were forecast so it had to have full fuel so it planned load had to be reduced by a couple of passengers.
Pretty tight margins for the hop to Akrotiri via Iran.
On the probe fit, same question arises as on the Valiant thread. Just how much money was wasted fitting probes to a whole host of aircraft without having any plans for a realistic tanker programme?
I presume it was a scheme to get the Belfast with heavier loads through to the far east.
Pretty tight margins for the hop to Akrotiri via Iran.
On the probe fit, same question arises as on the Valiant thread. Just how much money was wasted fitting probes to a whole host of aircraft without having any plans for a realistic tanker programme?
I presume it was a scheme to get the Belfast with heavier loads through to the far east.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontius - by "realistic" do you mean the ability to refuel a lot of the fleet at one time or the ability to ocaaionaly refuel the odd aircraft
I suspect that, in those far off days, the apparent cost of fitting a probe etc was the considered worthwhile just in case you might need it one day - no clever dick analysis and cost benefit malarkey - just planning for the worst
I suspect that, in those far off days, the apparent cost of fitting a probe etc was the considered worthwhile just in case you might need it one day - no clever dick analysis and cost benefit malarkey - just planning for the worst
Last edited by Heathrow Harry; 24th Feb 2013 at 08:21.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Voyager lesson
Probe a good idea for it's day re Belfast.
When the RAF decided not have voyager equipped with a boom I wrote to my MP pointing out it seemed daft given the C17 based on the same airfield and a boom might be handy re inter operability...
Got the usual platitudes, RAF C17 does not need AAR goes for miles, did not want boom over third basket etc.
So here we are then three baskets which do not fit probes and in the meantime the RAF has a few rivet joint aircraft which need a boom....
The old school attitude of bolting one on just in case holds good for me.
Final point what was the worse project in terms of design, engineering, politics and costs?
Belfast or A400?
When the RAF decided not have voyager equipped with a boom I wrote to my MP pointing out it seemed daft given the C17 based on the same airfield and a boom might be handy re inter operability...
Got the usual platitudes, RAF C17 does not need AAR goes for miles, did not want boom over third basket etc.
So here we are then three baskets which do not fit probes and in the meantime the RAF has a few rivet joint aircraft which need a boom....
The old school attitude of bolting one on just in case holds good for me.
Final point what was the worse project in terms of design, engineering, politics and costs?
Belfast or A400?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Pontius - by "realistic" do you mean the ability to refuel a lot of the fleet at one time or the ability to ocaaionaly refuel the odd aircraft
I suspect that, in those far off days, the apparent cost of fitting a probe etc was the considered worthwhile just in case you might need it one day - no clever dick analysis and cost benefit malarkey - just planning for the worst
I suspect that, in those far off days, the apparent cost of fitting a probe etc was the considered worthwhile just in case you might need it one day - no clever dick analysis and cost benefit malarkey - just planning for the worst
The only one with a realistic requirement was the Javelin. While they flew Vulcans non-stop to Australia the strategic gain was minimal. Unrefuelled they could have got there in may be 60 hours against 20 odd with AAR. That gain of 40 hours would be negated by the time to activate the route. Even activated the route would have been limited to one or two aircraft every 6 hours of so.
Equipping so many aircraft to enable a couple to flight refuel did not make economic sense.
Had uses for the Lightning, though. It could go quite a long way if you refueled it at the top of its intial climb. Taking them out to Akrotiri was easy enough.
When we got there there was a sudden rush job to get two to Bahrain. On arrival one was taken by a company demo pilot to Ryhad and the result was that the big Saudi contract came to fruition.
When we got there there was a sudden rush job to get two to Bahrain. On arrival one was taken by a company demo pilot to Ryhad and the result was that the big Saudi contract came to fruition.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the Doghouse
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ref the Javelin ( Mk 9 ) fitment, from memory probe was fixed by a few 1/4 inch bolts to the attachment brackets, plus pipe fittings etc. Easily fitted / removed by a couple of blokes.
Last edited by sled dog; 24th Feb 2013 at 14:11.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
FED, I was referring to the late '50s early '60s that prescribed a probe for about everything. The Lightning, in the same context as the Javelin had an excellent case for a probe. Clearly by the mid-60s the AAR mafia had had its day as the C130 and Nimrod were not equipped for AAR.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pontius wrote:-
"Equipping so many aircraft to enable a couple to flight refuel did not make economic sense"
agreed - but it made OPERATIONAL sense to maximise the variety of the fleet you could deploy quickly
the decision to fit so may planes was undoubtedly taken when the RAF thought they'd have a much larger number of tankers a la SAC
"Equipping so many aircraft to enable a couple to flight refuel did not make economic sense"
agreed - but it made OPERATIONAL sense to maximise the variety of the fleet you could deploy quickly
the decision to fit so may planes was undoubtedly taken when the RAF thought they'd have a much larger number of tankers a la SAC
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PN, that would be the Nimrod that then needed a rapid probe fit in 1982. I think the Vulcan AAR capability had lapsed, not sure about the C130 or Victor as a receiver though.
AAR for larger aircraft (other than FJ) provides a great deal of flexibility for unplanned events, increasing range or on station time greatly. We used to always have a plan B or C, now we are lucky to have a plan A
Not having a boom on the new Voyager is a classic example of how we fail to provide 'agile, adaptable and capable' equipment for our forces or our Allies, no wonder the US are getting fed up with us and the rest of NATO.
AAR for larger aircraft (other than FJ) provides a great deal of flexibility for unplanned events, increasing range or on station time greatly. We used to always have a plan B or C, now we are lucky to have a plan A
Not having a boom on the new Voyager is a classic example of how we fail to provide 'agile, adaptable and capable' equipment for our forces or our Allies, no wonder the US are getting fed up with us and the rest of NATO.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
AAR for larger aircraft (other than FJ) provides a great deal of flexibility for unplanned events, increasing range
or on station time greatly. We used to always have a plan B or C, now we are lucky to have a plan A
The Comet (51 Sqn) which could have used the extra flexibility was not AAR capable.
Not having a boom on the new Voyager is a classic example of how we fail to provide 'agile, adaptable and capable' equipment for our forces or our Allies, no wonder the US are getting fed up with us and the rest of NATO.
Last edited by Pontius Navigator; 24th Feb 2013 at 16:48.
While it is true that Voyager should have been fitted for operation in the receiver role either using a probe or a UARRSI, it remains a mystery to me why anyone specified that the Belslow should be fitted with a machmeter!
