At what cost to retrofit? Anyway, Rivet Joint is a pile of junk and an accident waiting to happen!

Waddo Airshow
 

Went on the sunday (post recovering from being best man at mates wedding the day before :cool:) and took pics of the first fly by

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...ps9793a8b8.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...psd7d830f7.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...ps6901a2b4.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...pscd2237b0.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...ps8500e23f.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...ps07287426.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...psb40f9c77.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...ps44e136a1.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g2...ps698f31a6.jpg

Cheers

Voyager with boom
 

It wouldn't be a refit. The last ac are not yet built.

Can't we just be pleased that 51 are airborne again? !!! Looks good :)

51 Sqn did not stop flying.

Couldn't agree more. Less negativity required.
The RJ is a good news story, despite its teething problems, but as with any aircraft entering service, its to be expected.

Great job 51

It's arrived

Let's get on with using it

but not forget it may have serious issues eventually

Waddington display
 

So what's the story behind the display take-off where the nose was raised, lowered back onto the runway, and then raised again for an embarrassingly long take-off run? And the shut down on the runway on return with ground tow back to dispersal?

SS

no idea re the departure but have experienced a shutdown and recovery from the runway at an airshow before (in MR2) - that was to avoid effects of jetwash on the exhibitors/spectators etc. No idea if that was the case in this instance. Maybe someone from A-flt can let us know?

Is Rivet Joint classified as an "Historic Aircraft" by MoD? One of the criteria for such a designation is (or used to be, circa 2002) "incomplete design or testing information, or when maintenance records are missing"; which would seem to apply.

SS

Rivet Joint was not cleared to taxi via the southern loop at Waddo because of potential FOD issues - the engines sit slightly lower than an E-3 and the risk of ingestion on Echo dispersal was deemed too great, hence the shutdown and tow at the end of the runway.

It would appear that RJ has started work.



http://news.sky.com/story/1319633/uk...ance-operation

Perhaps someone will query why the RAF cannot refuel its own RC-135s?

Certainly some of the Voyagers still to be delivered should be boom-equipped - so that the UK could support its own C-17s and RC-135s?

Plus the Poseidon P-8 if the UK ever gets back into the MPA game?

Airworthiness/certification rears it's head again...
 

UK launches new Rivet Joint flight test programme - IHS Jane's 360

-RP

New Tanker?
 

Interesting, the article quotes Air to Air refueling by the UK KC135, have I missed something?

Presumably the third KC-135 airframe before it enters the conversion programme

Was the Whistleblowing Yanky correct at POST #504?
 

Airworthiness/certification rears it's head again...
UK launches new Rivet Joint flight test programme - IHS Jane's 360

(EXCERPT from Chapter 21)
“ I intended to post the remaining sixty-three pages of my Congressional disclosure to this chapter, but the remaining sixty-three pages contain aircraft technical data protected by either the Export Administrations Act of 1979 (Title 50) or the Arms Export Control Act (Title 22). Absent this technical data, the remaining sixty-three pages would inaccurately reflect the other substantiated aircraft maintenance problems of the 55th Wing [RC-135s].”

It is possible that the MAA petitioned the U.S. Congress for the remaining sixty-three pages of the whistleblowers' 2008 disclosure. The USAF utilizes a computer based aircraft maintenance data collection system named “CAMS” an acronym for "Consolidated Aircraft Maintenance System". The maintenance history of every RC-135, as well as the maintenance history of 64-14827, 64-14828, and 64-14829 is accessible through CAMS. CAMS is a useful instrument to those who know how to use it properly. Research of Work Unit Code (WUC) 42210 could be interesting.

AQ I think the author refers to UK-based USAF KC 135s. Not even the RAF would take the ac from the desert and make it back into a tanker and then convert it again, still you never know!

Alternatively why would the USAF take a UK-based frontline KC-135 and instrument it and then de-instrument it rather than use a KC already destined to be gutted and modified at the same location that is undertaking all the trials and instrumentation activity?

Still, knowing the procurement world anything could happen but the KCs destined for RJ conversion are not from the desert, they have come directly from the in-use USAF tanker fleet.