Air Platforms Inc of Lakeport, California.

That article about the altitude record is a very interesting read.
Only 10k short of a U2.
What would it have taken to get the Canberra to FL80?
Lengthened wings - even moreso than the RB-57D?
Or would the airframe need to have been completely redesigned due to coffin corner restrictions?

EDIT - my question answered:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin...Specifications

Would not want to have a EFATO on that beast - bad enough on lower powered models

We had a RB-57F operating out of Tengah in the late 60s ... take-off was always conducted on "partial power", and full power only applied at about 300' agl or so. At that point it then went up rather steeply!

reduced power take off
 

It was normal practice on the 9 to set 85% for take off and only apply full power once airborne above safety speed with the gear up. 85% RPM gave about half thrust

Ah, those big over-powered gliders, eh? :D

Interesting parallel ... thanks for that snippet. :ok:

Thanks GeeRam

V1

Air Platforms Inc went bust a good many years ago, and both Canberra's are now registered to High Altitude Mapping Missions Inc. of Spokane, WA, and both have still current FAA certs., valid until 2018 according to the FAA Registry, so both could still be airworthy..??

So that's the spares source sorted then.......;)

World War Two fanatic puts Worcestershire hoard up for auction - BBC News

Usual editorial accuracy from the beeb.

POST EDITED - To prevent stupid rumours I heard getting spread.

Very.....:ok:

Unfortunately there is no truth in this at all. VTTST had the last eight Olympus 202 engines that were acceptable to RR; it was the lack of willingness of the latter to support them post 2015 (due they said to a lack of sufficient competence within the company) that grounded the Vulcan.

Fair enough, I will hold hands up and say I was stupid enough to believe a mate of a mate story.

wonderboysteve, this is actually only partly true. Martin Withers was asked the exact reason for ceasing flying in an event I attended and this is what he said as I recall.

It was Marshalls who were unwilling to continue OEM support beyond 2015. VTTS did find an alternative company (Cranfield) who were willing to assume the role, but Cranfield were not acceptable to RR. So you could argue it was Marshall's that pulled the plug rather than RR, as RR were willing to continue further if Marshalls had not withdrawn. The remaining engines, through careful management, had sufficient life for a few more seasons.

What was the mtbf on the engines at the end of their Service life or VTTS? In early days IIRC it was well below 1000hrs.

It depends, whether with or without added silica gel

The engines hours were irrelevant as RR insisted VTTS operated their engines up to a maximum number of cycles. A cycle being going from throttle fully closed to fully open and back again - or incrementes thereof.

In the early years VTTS were using engine cycles at an unsustainable rate due to the sort of flying they were doing, but adapted how they flew transit flights and even displays to essentially try and leave the throttles alone and in the same position as much as possible. To this end they were managing to get a lot more "hours" from the engines and had sufficient cycles remaining for a few more seasons beyond 2015.

The engines destroyed by the silica gell were reportedly very nearly at their end of their allowed cycles anyway. Even if they were not it turned out this error wasn't to cause the end of flying. Of course this is just the official line VTTS have reported.

Gsxr, if you were answering my question it was not what I was asking.

IIRC the expected time between failures resulting in a shut down and engine change was 1000 hrs. However I know many cases where the engines got nowhere near that with 300 hours, perhaps one year's use before an unscheduled change.

Did this improve over the following 15 years?

I believe that the silica gel practice came about as a result of VTTS failing to prevent corrosion on turbine discs by proper storage. RR's first reaction to the degree of corrosion was to scrap them. I think they did get around to some form of recovery eventually. While I wasn't involved, I believe RR was not too happy about the competence of VTTS which may have coloured their view of the change from Marshalls. I believe the CAA would have also had to approve the change to Cranfield; did they have any issues?

EAP