Is that 94% new build by cost or mass. Seems an easy stat to spin.

regards

retard

Yes, Tuc, I think that it was I who wrote that. Even though the wings are new, they are, to all intents and purposes, the same shape and size of the ones on the MR2. By keeping to the the original Nimrod wingplan design, with only a few minor changes, the MRA4 is legally a modification that does not require the degree of certification that a new design would need.

No-one has told me what causes the porpoising, so I can only guess. The MR2's CG envelope (to maintain straight and level by trimming the elevators) is huge. The 2 aircraft are the same shape and size and the kit inside the MRA4 cannot be so heavy or displaced (they would have moved it, if it is the cause) to reduce the CG envelope to what it is now. So, I reckon its the engines: they are bigger and heavier and perhaps slightly aft of the Speys. Who knows, but, as someone has already said, this is a schoolboy error.

Regards
Ed

LFFC. On the other hand; http://www.lep.co.uk/news/Bosses-at-...out.3949044.jp

Out of interest, a similar report in the Stockport Express Website has now disappeared.

The MRA4 wings have around a 20% larger wing area than the MR2. The inner section is thicker to accommodate the BR710 engines as well.
The fuselage length and tailplane area are unchanged from the MR2.

rather unfortunately, an announcement was made at kinloss ,to the effect that all personel should not listen to the tittle tattle of any press reports, so all personel didnt and went online and read the report themselves .....verbatim...the rest you know, its at defence reports .mod.co.uk......and its exactly as the media reported:{:{:{

<<an announcement was made at kinloss ,to the effect that all personel should not listen to the tittle tattle of any press reports,>>

NOW HEAR THIS. THERE IS NO CAUSE FOR ALARM. WE REPEAT, THERE IS NO CAUSE FOR ALARM

Couldn't find anything on the MoD site, dogrobber.

Where exactly, and what did it say?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7324964.stm

The expense of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, combined with several major programmes for new equipment, have left the MoD with an estimated shortfall of at least £2bn over the next three years.

We're here to stay after 90 years, and we will be here for 90 years to come

But the crash of a Nimrod surveillance aircraft over Afghanistan in September 2006 - which was probably caused by a fuel leak and killed 14 people - has led to questions about whether the RAF is receiving enough cash to maintain the military requirements of the government.
"We never put the safety of one of our aircraft in jeopardy," says Sir Glenn.
"Older aeroplanes need more work to maintain the same standards we require - that's inevitable.
"We never undermine the safety of our aircraft. I'm not going to fly in an unsafe aeroplane and I'm not going to let my people do that either."

Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy

"We never put the safety of one of our aircraft in jeopardy"

"We never undermine the safety of our aircraft".


So, he disagrees with AVM Sir Clive Loader (and other BoI reports)? His testimony to the Inquest and Review will be interesting, given SoS has already sided with Sir Clive. At least he'll have Ainsworth on his side.



"Older aeroplanes need more work to maintain the same standards we require - that's inevitable".

Assuming he actually understands this (and when did the penny drop?), thereby disagreeing with quite a number of more junior officers and beancounters over the years, has he told the Broons of the logical conclusion - more funding is necessary to maintain airworthiness and operational capability?

Air Chief Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy
 

"......what we're doing on behalf of the government."
Interesting comment. I thought that what the Armed Forces do is on behalf of the country, though at the behest of the Government. Am I being nit picking or is this a Freudian slip? I have no doubt that Sir Glenn fills each waking hour fulfilling the diktats of his political masters, but supposedly in the interests of his country. I wonder though....
As to being around for the next 90, given the rate of contraction one can almost follow the line down to zero. Perhaps Trenchard knew something that we don't when he spoke of a 100 year experiment!

Having established the link between MR2 and MRA4 in configuration control terms I think it wise to study the QC’s remit.

It has already been reported that this is confined to “Nimrod MR2” and “RAF”. Clearly, this very constricted boundary is designed to hide the wider problems in MoD.

On the assumption that Mr Hadden-Cave reads this (I’m told he does) may I suggest, sir, that you take advantage of this configuration link and include an assessment of the implications of what has happened on the MR2 for the MRA4. In pure configuration control terms, this would be justified as the General Assembly drawings for MR2 will (should) have (at the very least) “call ups” relating to MRA4. That is, including MRA4 is unavoidable.