Final season announced for Vulcan XH558
On a recent visit to Wellesbourne (great hospitality there, but the way), I was told they have 2 zero-timed Olympii available, but as 655 is a late-built aircraft these are 301's that are of no use to VTTS for 558.
Makes it even more sad that they managed to needlessly wreck 2 of theirs.
Makes it even more sad that they managed to needlessly wreck 2 of theirs.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,071
Received 2,939 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
Mr Pleming said at a talk I was at some years ago that RR at the moment would not consider overhauling them - clearly that position never changed. You are right to say nothing sinister, it's up to them. But to say it's impossible or the skills don't exist is simply not true as RR were overhauling Olympus Marine engines up until quite recently and the industrial version will continue to be overhauled for many years - both of which are very similar.
It's a shame but I presume it's just a risk that's not worth taking for them.
It's a shame but I presume it's just a risk that's not worth taking for them.
It makes Rolls Royce sound the bad boys in all of this, but not only have they gone out on a limb giving the project design authority support, I also believe have backed that up with hard cash to support the VVTS. If they say the engines are done, then they are done.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And quite rightly too, it's not a car engine, the parts and tooling will be long gone, and for what.. A stay of execution for a couple of years, could you imagine the millions it would take just to tool up alone to produce the spares, let alone to overhaul what, six engines?
It makes Rolls Royce sound the bad boys in all of this, but not only have they gone out on a limb giving the project design authority support, I also believe have backed that up with hard cash to support the VVTS. If they say the engines are done, then they are done.
It makes Rolls Royce sound the bad boys in all of this, but not only have they gone out on a limb giving the project design authority support, I also believe have backed that up with hard cash to support the VVTS. If they say the engines are done, then they are done.
With regard to the spare engines at Wellesbourne - they are actually from XM603. Not quite sure how they are zero houred but maybe the group that looked after 603 managed to get them from somewhere. They were actually removed from 603 bit the Wellesbourne group though - so those engines were not baged and have lost their audit trail I think. One of them is actually on 655 now as they had a minor issue with one if 655s engines so swapped to one of these spares.
Originally Posted by Gsxr600
However I don't believe the parts and tooling will be long gone due to other similar versions of the Olympus still being in use.
The Marine, Industrial engine connection is of no relevance, in the same way that a Meteor isn't relevant to a Merlin when it comes to flying.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which part of RR haven't overhauled a Vulcan Olympus since 1982, do you not understand, and yes that does mean ALL the tooling and spares are long gone - they were long gone before '558 ended it's RAF display flying in the early 1990's!!
The Marine, Industrial engine connection is of no relevance, in the same way that a Meteor isn't relevant to a Merlin when it comes to flying.
The Marine, Industrial engine connection is of no relevance, in the same way that a Meteor isn't relevant to a Merlin when it comes to flying.
So I take it that these guys would not have any of the non-existant spares, tooling etc?
RWG - Olympus Gas Generator
(I realise they are not aero engine repairers, but they must get the bits from somewhere)
RWG - Olympus Gas Generator
(I realise they are not aero engine repairers, but they must get the bits from somewhere)
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly what confuses me. I'm sure this company isn't certified to overhaul aero engines, but the power generation version is almost identical to the 202. I wonder if they actually bought the tooling from RR. I do know this company helped test one of the VTTS' engines on their test rig - the one that had metal filings found in the sump plugs - which would imply RR don't have any equipment left.
I know that RR was overhauling marine Olympus engines for the Navy but not sure if these units are anything like the 202.
If nothing else hopefully these guys could work on non flying engines to keep the remaining ground running Vulcans taxable for years to come.
I know that RR was overhauling marine Olympus engines for the Navy but not sure if these units are anything like the 202.
If nothing else hopefully these guys could work on non flying engines to keep the remaining ground running Vulcans taxable for years to come.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,071
Received 2,939 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
Almost is as good as a mile, a Meteor tank engine is almost a Merlin, however the pistons etc are as a lot of the parts, manufactured differently, I think one is a casting where the other is forged..
It's cuckoo land to think just because there is a marine, pumping or generation version that they are one and the same engine, you do not require the same qualities from a ground based engine. Parts etc can be built from cheaper materials where weight is not a factor etc.
.
It's cuckoo land to think just because there is a marine, pumping or generation version that they are one and the same engine, you do not require the same qualities from a ground based engine. Parts etc can be built from cheaper materials where weight is not a factor etc.
.
Last edited by NutLoose; 17th May 2015 at 14:44.
Having had first hand experience of industrial Avons initially serviced by RR and thence elsewhere, the performance and reliability differences would make me very wary of flying with a non RR serviced item strapped to my backside.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well thanks for the polite response NutLoose. Would make sense that the ground based units are not made the same although odd that power generation unit uses a 201 engine which was fitted to early Vulcans only difference to a 202 is the rapid start. Surprised they didn't pick a different version number if the parts and materials had been changed. Or maybe they did and the info I read is wrong!
Oberon, thanks for the info, pretty much what I suspected but nice to learn more about these technicalities.
Oberon, thanks for the info, pretty much what I suspected but nice to learn more about these technicalities.
Last edited by Gsxr600; 17th May 2015 at 14:40.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,071
Received 2,939 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
Oddly enough I've seen a Lycoming crankcase that look identical to the aviation version, however cast on the inside face was airboat only, so one assumes it was a material difference.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Midlands
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents, to help clarify and hopefully ward off a bunfight here, I'll throw in my 2p worth.
As someone who was involved throughout the restoration phase of XH558, I can tell you that all avenues have been explored regarding the overhauling of the engines. Whilst yes, you are correct in assuming that the marine Olympus is similar to the Aero Olympus, and both share the 202 mark designation, the materials of which both are made differ considerably. As you can perhaps imagine, a marine engine is static, weight is of no consequence and it also has to deal with quite a corrosive environment, guzzling as it does over 240lb of salty sea air per second! Because of this, extensive use of Stainless Steel and other heavy materials are used in the compressors and casings of the marine version, along with other changer unique to that variant.
The Aero Olympus is a little different and obviously weight is a prime factor in the choice of materials, hence aluminium alloys and magnesium alloys feature heavily throughout.
Similar, yes. Identical, no.
Regardless of this, although Rolls-Wood (or RWG) have the approvals and licence from Rolls-Royce to overhaul the marine version, they do not have the requisite approval to overhaul the aero version, even if a supply of spares were available, which they are sadly not. There is no conspiracy theory here, please believe me when I say that all of these avenues were explored in the very early days, just as I'm sure you would hope them to have been.
The change in time between overhaul from an hours basis, to a cyclic basis was done upon the insistence of Rolls-Royce, the design authority, and was a condition of their continued support. During the RAF service of the Vulcan, the engines had a 2000 hour life between overhauls. R-R, in keeping with the way that their civil fleets are now managed, insisted upon a cyclic life of IIRC 1200 cycles (in this instance a cycle being one excursion from idle-max-idle) which, following some number crunching regarding average throttle movements per display and transit, worked out to around 1600 hours. To assist in trying to squeeze as much life as possible from this cyclic limit, Aerobytes fitted telemetry and engine monitoring software to work out the cycles and partial cycles as accurately as possible to ensure no cycle was wasted!
Aside from all of this is the major issue of safety. Please try and remember that these engines are certainly not the carefree handling and safe engines of today. They are of early 1950's vintage when failures were tolerated much more often than today as an unavoidable risk. Olympus engines suffered horribly throughout their life with rear bearing issues, and have RPM resonance bands that the engines cannot sit in for any length of time, lest they will vibrate theirselves to pieces! They are old engines that must be managed as such. Engine technology has come a long way, and safety must not be taken for granted. Rolls Royce are a company built upon a reputation of safety and reliability and make their money by selling safe, reliable engines to airlines to transport us all around the globe without fear of the engines spoiling our day, hence they will always err on the side of caution where old engines are in question. The fact that they have given as much support as they have, is pretty remarkable and is something for which we should be grateful, not critical.
Hopefully that's cleared up a couple of issues, I should add that I am in no way an official mouthpiece for Vulcan to the Sky, I was simply someone who was around at the time that these questions were being asked and was party to some of the answers!!
Flipflopman
As someone who was involved throughout the restoration phase of XH558, I can tell you that all avenues have been explored regarding the overhauling of the engines. Whilst yes, you are correct in assuming that the marine Olympus is similar to the Aero Olympus, and both share the 202 mark designation, the materials of which both are made differ considerably. As you can perhaps imagine, a marine engine is static, weight is of no consequence and it also has to deal with quite a corrosive environment, guzzling as it does over 240lb of salty sea air per second! Because of this, extensive use of Stainless Steel and other heavy materials are used in the compressors and casings of the marine version, along with other changer unique to that variant.
The Aero Olympus is a little different and obviously weight is a prime factor in the choice of materials, hence aluminium alloys and magnesium alloys feature heavily throughout.
Similar, yes. Identical, no.
Regardless of this, although Rolls-Wood (or RWG) have the approvals and licence from Rolls-Royce to overhaul the marine version, they do not have the requisite approval to overhaul the aero version, even if a supply of spares were available, which they are sadly not. There is no conspiracy theory here, please believe me when I say that all of these avenues were explored in the very early days, just as I'm sure you would hope them to have been.
The change in time between overhaul from an hours basis, to a cyclic basis was done upon the insistence of Rolls-Royce, the design authority, and was a condition of their continued support. During the RAF service of the Vulcan, the engines had a 2000 hour life between overhauls. R-R, in keeping with the way that their civil fleets are now managed, insisted upon a cyclic life of IIRC 1200 cycles (in this instance a cycle being one excursion from idle-max-idle) which, following some number crunching regarding average throttle movements per display and transit, worked out to around 1600 hours. To assist in trying to squeeze as much life as possible from this cyclic limit, Aerobytes fitted telemetry and engine monitoring software to work out the cycles and partial cycles as accurately as possible to ensure no cycle was wasted!
Aside from all of this is the major issue of safety. Please try and remember that these engines are certainly not the carefree handling and safe engines of today. They are of early 1950's vintage when failures were tolerated much more often than today as an unavoidable risk. Olympus engines suffered horribly throughout their life with rear bearing issues, and have RPM resonance bands that the engines cannot sit in for any length of time, lest they will vibrate theirselves to pieces! They are old engines that must be managed as such. Engine technology has come a long way, and safety must not be taken for granted. Rolls Royce are a company built upon a reputation of safety and reliability and make their money by selling safe, reliable engines to airlines to transport us all around the globe without fear of the engines spoiling our day, hence they will always err on the side of caution where old engines are in question. The fact that they have given as much support as they have, is pretty remarkable and is something for which we should be grateful, not critical.
Hopefully that's cleared up a couple of issues, I should add that I am in no way an official mouthpiece for Vulcan to the Sky, I was simply someone who was around at the time that these questions were being asked and was party to some of the answers!!
Flipflopman
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for such a detailed response. That's cleared up my confusion and is really what I suspected but hoped might not be true!
Any insight on the Doncaster plan? I think I share some scepticism about the sense retiring to Doncaster rather than Bruntingthorpe or Elvington where she would be among her Victor sister and other cold war types, as well as being more accessible than an active airport? That's assuming the people at Bruntingthorpe or Elvington would want her.
Any insight on the Doncaster plan? I think I share some scepticism about the sense retiring to Doncaster rather than Bruntingthorpe or Elvington where she would be among her Victor sister and other cold war types, as well as being more accessible than an active airport? That's assuming the people at Bruntingthorpe or Elvington would want her.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Midlands
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gsxr600,
I'm sorry buddy, I've been away from 558 for some time now, so have no knowledge of the future plans for the aircraft other than that which is in the public domain. I have my own opinions, which are probably not too far from that of most other people with regard to Bruntingthorpe or Elvington, however, I'm not in full possession of the facts, so opinions are all that they'd be.
Flipflopman
I'm sorry buddy, I've been away from 558 for some time now, so have no knowledge of the future plans for the aircraft other than that which is in the public domain. I have my own opinions, which are probably not too far from that of most other people with regard to Bruntingthorpe or Elvington, however, I'm not in full possession of the facts, so opinions are all that they'd be.
Flipflopman
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: East Anglia UK
Age: 83
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
XH588
There is no point in it going to Elvington as there is very little original taxiway for parking the victor and sometimes nimrod on it. the piece that runs from the gate onto the airfield to just past the hangar is original taxy from WW2 with Tarmac covering. the hangar floor is not strong enough to take big jets and any case it if for the use of other exhibits. The hard standing to both ends of the hangar is of the same construction. They are expecting the delivery of a Mirage IV in the near future. Access to the airfield is not always available. No storage for Vulcan spares etc.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True, but I would have hoped some funding could be raised to put up a hangar and improve facilities etc either at Elvington or Bruntingthorpe. Assumes of course planning permission wouldn't be an issue which I think it has been at Bruntingthorpe over the years.
I'm sure the VTTS has XH558s best interests at heart and I'm in possession of very few of the facts (selfishly I would like her to go to Bruntingthorpe as its not too far from me and I remember how close I could get to her on taxi runs on the 1990s). I do hope the supporters are given the chance to feed back their thoughts on the future home of 558, or at least given enough information as to why Doncaster is the best choice.
I'm sure the VTTS has XH558s best interests at heart and I'm in possession of very few of the facts (selfishly I would like her to go to Bruntingthorpe as its not too far from me and I remember how close I could get to her on taxi runs on the 1990s). I do hope the supporters are given the chance to feed back their thoughts on the future home of 558, or at least given enough information as to why Doncaster is the best choice.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: York, UK
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Elvington has a serious NIMBY issue which might also curtail any plans, pretty much all motorsport events there have been stopped for example.
Clearly some local residents have very short memories, wasn't that long ago that an endless stream of Jet Provosts would do touch & goes there most days and they weren't quiet!
Clearly some local residents have very short memories, wasn't that long ago that an endless stream of Jet Provosts would do touch & goes there most days and they weren't quiet!
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: London
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Elvington has a serious NIMBY issue which might also curtail any plans, pretty much all motorsport events there have been stopped for example.
Clearly some local residents have very short memories, wasn't that long ago that an endless stream of Jet Provosts would do touch & goes there most days and they weren't quiet!
Clearly some local residents have very short memories, wasn't that long ago that an endless stream of Jet Provosts would do touch & goes there most days and they weren't quiet!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Weedon, UK
Age: 77
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In reply to Wycombe (#22) ~
Many thanks for the kind words. We try to be as welcoming as possible to all visitors to XM655 at Wellesbourne. You are correct that our two "zero hours" 301s would be unsuitable for XH558, but they would also be unacceptable as they have no paperwork whatsoever. One of them doesn't even have a nameplate with the engine number so getting CAA or RR agreement would be a non-starter.
In addition to Flipflopman's explanation (#33), the Industrial and Marine engines also have different (larger) main bearings, a somewhat different oil system, revised internal sealing and cooling and a completely different fuel system compared to an aero 200 series. I suspect that the turbine throat areas are also different, but I'm not sure on that (it was all a long time ago).
Many thanks for the kind words. We try to be as welcoming as possible to all visitors to XM655 at Wellesbourne. You are correct that our two "zero hours" 301s would be unsuitable for XH558, but they would also be unacceptable as they have no paperwork whatsoever. One of them doesn't even have a nameplate with the engine number so getting CAA or RR agreement would be a non-starter.
In addition to Flipflopman's explanation (#33), the Industrial and Marine engines also have different (larger) main bearings, a somewhat different oil system, revised internal sealing and cooling and a completely different fuel system compared to an aero 200 series. I suspect that the turbine throat areas are also different, but I'm not sure on that (it was all a long time ago).
Originally Posted by sxr600
Would take a very strong argument to convince me Bruntingthorpe isn't where xh558 should end up especially as without the Waltons she wouldn't have flown again after retirement.
(which is the rumour going around)
Anyway, VTTS have already made the decision, it's ending it's flying days at Fininngley.....and I doubt there's anything or anyone that can change that decision.