S_Hok, I'll grant you that, but to the extent that the whole system needs rebuild?

Certainly within 00-56, the non-MOD safety community has something to answer for in its development . So do you include The Professor in that?

I think that competent people can make the current system work, and can identify the weaknesses in it such that it can be improved. The trouble is getting that over to those a) who need to hear it and b) who aren't competent.

sw

BOI Fuel Leaks
 

The BOI report makes reference (2-34) to the fact that following a number of sorties, prior to the XV230 accident, fuel was seen dripping from the bomb bay and there was evidence of fuel in No.1 blow-off exit pipe. Also, a limitation was placed on the the amount of fuel held in No.1 tank at 15K. Does anyone, who was out there, know how these defects were carried (ADF/Lims) and who signed them off?

PM your comments if you wish.

DV

Having been at Waddo when XV246 was being packaged up for the flight to Woodford, I was surprised at the state of the fuselage. It had considerable corrosion throughout and there was evidence of heat exposure at both wing roots. This might have been quite normal of course, however....

I cannot help thinking that it must be easier, quicker and cheaper (and safer??) to start with a brand new build for both the fuselage and the wings etc.Therefore, can anyone explain why the air force (and BAe) went for such a 'hotch potch' decision to refurbish a (very) old airframe/fuselage and stick 'new' wings onto it?

Happy New Year to All
TSM

I think para 2 to Serial 2187 gives a fair clue to the reasoning.

Happy New Year TSM

As usual I'm probably missing the Big Picture, but could it possibly have been anything to do with the 'much cheapness, squire' tender price?

Never mind, when it all goes pete tong, at least we know there's plenty of these hanging around - and fully acclimatised for the desert. Bonus! :sad:

http://www.combatreform2.com/a4skyha...monthanafb.jpg

TheSmiter,

And a happy new year to you Sir!

I am sure there was a big element of 'cheapness' in the decision, and of course this Air Force will ALWAYS choose the cheapest option (never mind quality/expected life of item blah) cheapest is best!!

However, I am still surprised that it is cheaper to modify what they've got rarther than build new from scratch. Maybe as the numbers of freamews needed were so pitifully small, it wasn't worth setting up a new jig for them eh?

I'm sure one of our MR4 friends will enlighten us though.
Kind regards
TSM

The last sentence in your para 3 sums it up well. Even using the de Havilland way of jigging a fuselage, it would be very expensive and add to that the new pressings for the formers. Even machining them out of billet by CNC wouldn't be cheap on a small production run.

TSM warmest regards to all at Waddo from ISK

The whole sorry saga of Nimrod2000 / MRA4 will probably merit a book of its own in years to come, however to precis from Naval-technology.com

IIRC there were not many in the maritime operating community in the 90's who thought that rebuilding Norman was the best way forward (other than the obvious 4 puffs are better than 2 fans variety) I think the simplistic argument at the time was that, if buying a new car, you wouldn't re-engine and digitize your knackered old Morris Minor, especially as those Morris Minors were all bespoke vehicles with different dimensions! As I say, simplistic, but even aircrew can follow that logic - however economics and political expediency overruled common sense and here we are, 11, yes ELEVEN years later still with no operational aircraft!

I do applaud the tenacity and ingenuity of all at Warton to try and make this jet work against all the odds but, as tucumseh so patiently and eloquently explains, those odds are mighty high. Meanwhile those responsible sit happily, perhaps polishing their new gongs (Dimmer Switch, I wasn't including you! BTW Happy New Year to you and Mrs Switch)while the current breed of aircrew and groundcrew coax the MR2 into the air and hope that it lasts for the next few years without any further dramas.

It may have been the cheapest bottom line option, but in the long term?

If my memory serves me right, was there not a considerable restraint placed on the original tendering process, in that any replacement had to fit into the existing hangarage?
Beggars belief, we could have had a really good brand-new aircraft to do the job, but for the fact that they (the budget holders) wouldn't factor in an extra £5M (a guess on my part) for new-build hangars!!!! :ugh::ugh:

Presumably the loss of '230 led to the need to put '246 into the programme?

Wasn't she supposed to be a 'spareframe' and bounce bird for 51?

Was she really unflyable - even for a one off to Woodford - or was an An-124 delivery economically preferable?

Here we go again.
How many times must this thread drift off of 230 and into - shall we bash MRA4 and Waste of Space even though we know nothing, have no facts but do know a mate who knows somebody and who may have said something but will spout figures and numbers with no reference to where they came from.
How many times must it be said...
The Nimrod in service is NOT a refurbished Comet
The MRA4 is not an MR2 fuselage with a couple of new wings and new engines.
It has been suggested that the airframe sent to BAE, presumably for conversion, is worn out. Can anyone point to the bits that are worn out or corroded on the pictured airframe and then say which parts are being reused?
As to the idea of buying P3s from the desert. Well the P3 fleet was grounded yet again just before Xmas and if those in the desert are so inviting why don't the US refurb them instead of very costly repairs to the existing fleet?

Happy New Year to you Headstone

Please, lets resolve this year not to descend into acrimony :)

I believe this drift started because someone had some superb video of the lumbering Russian beast coming into Woodford with 46 in its belly. As to the relevance of MRA4 to the loss of 230 - well, it could be argued that had we had the one, as advertised and on time, we wouldn't be debating the other. As to why we didn't - I can't answer that, I'm not an expert. I just believe what I'm told - correction, believed. If there had been transparency in the whole project then more people would have had faith in it. The intent was obviously there at the start - I can't be the only one who remembers the regular MRA4 Newsletters - they didn't last long, did they?

However, to answer your other points :
AGREED

OK you may have lost me on that one, but I'm prepared to be enlightened

Quite prepared to believe the airframe experts on this one - they (the fuselages!) are spring chickens compared to other aircraft of a similar vintage.

:rolleyes: Obviously mate, your hangover precluded you from noticing the banter caption winking in the background! I'll let you off that one!

My pot of cynicism overflowed long ago.

We'll either get 'some' MRA4's sometime in the future ........
or NOTHING. I'm quite prepared to accept either option from this Govt.

Headstone
23rd Febuary 2006
STI/NIMROD/899
Fuselage; Skin Lap Joints-Cracking

TSM
I have just read your post re XV246 with "considerable interest" to say the least. I have to say that your opening paragraph is, lamentably, rather misleading.

You say you were at Waddo when the a/c was being packaged...fine..but then refer to the extensive corrosion on the fuselage. I have to say this was not the case sir.

There was evidence of exfoliation at the frame adjacent to the Air Eng's panel...minor...but other than that, the overall condition was excellent. A testimony in fact to the original build.

The reason I know this is that I was a participant in this excercise, well a bit more than a participant actually, and would thus be interested to learn how and when ( given the restrictions we imposed on access to the site ) you were able to make such a detailed assessment please. True, the working hours were 0700 / 1900 Mon-Thurs and 1500 on Friday, and we did allow numerous people to visit, but I am intrigued as to how you determined the "extensive corrosion" you speak of. I can only assume we would have met at some point and possibly you may care to PM me as to when in this case?.

There was some evidence of corrosion elsewhere on the airframe, but this was clearly visible prior to the detailed strip.

And finally, as an aside, my personal thanks to all those whom I met at Waddo and who made the event both interesting and enjoyable. It was a pleasure meeting you all......with one exception that is ! ( not you TSM btw whoever you may be ).

KnC

The last time I saw 246 was the day before it left Waddo, and I stand by what I said in my earlier post. Whether the corrosion was because it had stood outside for a time I don't know, but there was considerable corrosion.

I can only liken it to when we, as aircrew, used to go over to the NMSU at ISK and see the state of the jets when they removed the skin from the fuselage - it was shocking! as anyone who witnessed it would confirm.

XV246 wasn't as bad as that, but there was widespread corrosion.

I notice you didn't comment on the scortch marks at the wing roots? Do you agree with me on that point at least?

If I ever get to understand how to put pictures on here, then I'll post a couple and let others make their own judgement. In the meantime, if you look at the link to some of the other pictures, you'll see what I mean

http://www.edendale.co.uk/ANW/WFD.801.5.11.html

Regards
TSM

TSM,

So you saw 246 when she was parked, overnight, at the Run bay adjacent to the Flying club.......yet you made reference to the "extensive corrosion"....I have to say that, as somebody who witnessed and overviewed the strip first hand, both internally and externally, there was relatively little corrosion other than on the areas I have mentioned. Consequently, the aircraft had not been exposed to the elements in the way you infer other than in it's former operational role of course. Believe me TSM, we all had a damn good look at the structure as we stripped the a/c....and there was a wealth of engineering experience on the team I assure you.

I will reiterate therefore that, the internal and indeed external structure was not, as you say, extensively corroded. With regard to the wing box section which you display, again, a close inspection will reveal that the level of corrosion you imply to be present, simply wasn't. You may be interested to learn that, when the wings were cut off,the state of the internal structure was as sound as when it was constructed, as was the PRC.

In this instance TSM, whilst I am normally in agreement with your posts, I have to say you are mistaken in your perceptions.

I was told, many years ago, that the reason for keeping the same fuselage and wingplan (although the wings are made of new materials) is to avoid airworthiness certification of a new design within contemporary legislation. ie. in terms of aerodynamics, it is no more than a modification of an existing aircraft. Yes, the politicians and BAe execs will say its a new aircraft with new systems, but its still the same old design/shape and it will be a Nimrod, but this time a later mark.

If it had a new fuselage and new wings it would, by law (so I was told), be a new design and, as such, the longitudinal stability problem caused by the modification would not exist, because an aircraft designer would not have drawn up such a piece of sh....

We reap what we sow...

Thats how I understand it.

Ed Sett

Bearing in mind how emotional this Thread can get, wouldn't direct discussion over the MK4 be more appropriate to, say;

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...=nimrod+trials

(all the others seem to have been locked)?

KnC,

Genuine question - why wasn't XV246 simply flown from Waddington to Woodford before being stripped down? Why go through all the pain and expense of stripping it at Waddington, then getting an An-124 to fly it to Woodford?

Speedial,

Thank you for the question. In all honesty, I really do not know the answer as to why.