The 5-day weather on 4 Sep at 0430 is shown as clear for the next 5 days. No reason to suspect it was not clear for the previous period.

I thought the reference regarding "Special Forces" and the Nimrod were referring to it's use as a communications platform for command and control of the "Special Forces" rather than dispatching them.

If indeed the Serial was XV230, then that airframe must be over 37 years old.
I seem to remember seeing it in at St Mawgan on arrival into service in Oct 1969. It used to be known as the "head of fleet" primarliy due to it being the first airframe that entered RAF service. Presumably a lot of "life extension" work has been carried to enable a 30+ year old frame to carry on flying?
Peter Mills

BAe Nimrod: 2 October 1969 - First production MR.Mk1 (XV230) delivered to RAF - 236 OCU at St Mawgan.

MReyn,

If you take a look at the Chinook thread you will see it littered with innacurate "shoot first" replies from the Cat:ugh:

He may well at some stage tell you, he could'nt wait to tell me, how he was an A cat Royal Flt Pilot blah blah blah but to most of us on here he is nothing short of a blinkered bufoon, and his totally stupid reply to ASM, did you see the word DEPLOY in ASM's post:rolleyes: , is totally in context with this mans offerings:ugh:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

Gentlemen,

fascinating though much of the debate may be into the whys and wherefores of this latest crash, I would wish to make simply this point:

Some of the people posting on this thread seem to neglect to realise that grieving families and friends are as likely to look at this thread as at the one posting condolences. In that light some of the rather more 'conspiracy' based emails are totally inappropriate. This isn't some giant game of cluedo you know. 14 real people died and their families and friends are the people right now who need to know the truth and not the gossip. Let's leave it to the experts hey?

Tubby,
Well said Sir.

Please gentlemen, lets use just show a little bid of compassion and understanding before we start putting wild speculative theories on here.

These men all had families and other loved ones, please try to remember that. Thank you
TKR

Loss of Nimrod from onboard fire at St Mawgan?
 

03 June 1984 apparently.

Anybody familiar with the circumstances of that loss?

B

Not a loss so much as an early retirement. Bomb bay fire,

http://p.airliners.net/photos/photos/9/9/3/1053399.jpg

and http://aviation-safety.net/database/...0603-0&lang=nl

The flares referred to were 5 inch flares and IIRC 12 were carried. They were declared obsolete not long after.

Tubby is quite right; hence the deletion of my last two posts (referring to cazatou's comments). Apologies.

If I remember correctly, the St Mawgan incident was caused by a flare that did not deploy from the launcher in the bomb bay properly. The bomb bay door were closed and then the flare finally dropped causing a fire. The aircraft landed safely and was evacuated.

After the incident a periscope was fitted into the bomb bay and one of the AEO now has to watch weapons/flares deploy. It is not unkown for the odd bit of shoe polish to make it's was on to the black eye piece.

ABIW,

Perhaps you should read ASM's post #182 again?

Your turn as top cover is it?

Best Wishes

Caz

IIRC the periscope was a standard fitment from the outset. Yes the blackeye piece was present from time to time. The flares were not dropped from launchers. They were fitted to light series carriers and dropped. An incorrect deployment would be a hang-up.

WRT the St Mawgan incident. I recall that it was assessed that one of the flares was incorrectly fitted and the Churchill plug not fully pushed home. When the Tac Chx Outbound were called for after coasting out (Shortly after T/O on 31) the Conv Arm power went on and thus applied power to the said flare. Approx 40 secs later the flare self-ignited within the closed bomb bay causing the fire.

The St Mawgan incident was as follows:

Shortly after takeoff from RW 31 a 5" recce flare fell off its carrier. Due to shortcomings in the fusing mechanism (as a result of incremental modification over many years) the flare ignited in the bomb bay. This led to a Bomb Bay Fire and a number of consequent failures as a result of the damage sustained. The crew performed a very swift 180 in Watergate Bay and landed downwind in RW 13. The captain, Go***n Sm**h, was awarded the Air Force Cross and the AEO D**e H**ns (who did a superb job) a Queen's Commendation. Subsequent exination of the aircraft confirmed that the decision not to turn downwind for RW 31 to be absolutely correct. It was deemed that it was extremely unlikely that they would have made it.

That was the last occasion on which the 5" recce flare was carried. It was temporarily withdrawn pending the BoI and subsequently removed from the inventory.

The aircraft was later repaired by a contractor's working party (CWP) to permit one flight to Woodford for full repair.

IIRC the flight lasted less than 5 minutes in total. Somewhere in the loft I still have a annotated transcript of the incident.

BTW I watched it land.

YS

NLH

You may well be correct. The difficulty was that the precise cause was never fully established, the armourer concerned was adamant that he had carried out his task correctly. The real problem was that the thing should have been incapable of going of in the bomb bay either on or off the carrier and as the BoI and the Board of Ordinance established this wasn't the case.

I was glad to see the back of them, nasty things.

YS

The Churchill plug was a twin bayonnet with the diameter of the end half (about 15 mm) twice as wide as the shank. I am not sure how it worked but based on logic, when the weapons release pulse was transmitted via the 'biscuit' distributor card an energising voltage was made available to the Churchill plug.

The fat ends of the prongs would not have been 'in circuit' and the thin shanks would not have been in contact with the weapon socket.

As the weapon fell away, it was not ejected, the fatter part of the plug would be snatched passed the contacts in the weapon and the weapons safety device would be disabled.

If, as suggested, the plug was not fully home then it would suggest that an arming voltage would have been applied to the weapon, whether or not the weapon actually released from the carrier.

And Churchill probably because it was two-pronged.

Although the Nimrod was spawned from a De Haviland design it was actually created with many off-the-shelf components in the Avro shop. The Nimrod shared parts of the bomb distributor system fitted to the earlier Avro bombers including Shackleton, Vulcan and Lincoln. It even had the same pillar lamps as fitted to the Lancaster. The Churchill plug was from a different era when Prime Ministers smoked cigars.

Bit of triv - XV230, the first MR2 to have colour Searchwater. Had a good couple of weeks in Sig on the first det.

sw

Apologies if this post is off thread but the individual in question is an utter twerp who has plagued the Chinook thread with his idiotic inaccuracies, another of which I wish to highlight here.

ASM posted the following:-

The Operation details would and SHOULD be a secret so other operations are not compromised.
Hence the cover story.

With Special Forces people on board it is likely the aircraft could have been operating at any height. Afghani reports say the aircraft was high 10,000ft (see quote above)That is within the range of a Stinger missile. The flares could have been trying to decoy a number of missiles being fired by the Taliban.

Latest reports say the Nimrod had just refuelled. Why is this piece of information suddenly added ?

Cazatou then chimpishly berates him with following:-

I feel that you are somewhat deluded regarding your concept of UK Military Operations and totally ignorant with regard to British Military Aircraft and their capabilities.

The only way you would be able to deploy "Special Forces" from a Nimrod would be to load them in the Weapons Bay and drop them out at what seemed a suitable moment: this, of course, would be totally against the "Health & Safety at Work Act"and would require several months of negotiation, training and assessment by the various regulatory bodies introduced over the last few years before even a limited assessment of required modifications to both Men and Equipment could be forthcoming yadda yadda yadda.

I have already asked Caz to explain to me where in ASM’s post does he allude to the SF guys being deployed from the Nimrod because I sure as hell can’t see it and I would bet my mortgage no one else can either:rolleyes: .

Caz you are not only an arse but an ignorant and ill informed arse at that, a fact that you have proved time and time again on the Chinook thread. I KNOW of at least two types that regularly carry “special” people for the specific purpose of liaising with their peers via “special” comms during Op’s and I suspect this is exactly what ASM, bearing in mind it was also suggested by the media, was getting at:ugh:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced