RE: Vulcan to be grounded

[mrloudly]

Davep24 said:

mrloudly said:

Davep24 said:

The Olympus engine is still supported, there are at least 12 installed across 3 nuclear power stations in the UK alone and hundreds were exported which are still in service. Most of these were the 200 series engines which are the same as 588, so there is no shortage of engines or spare.


As someone said previously its probably a ploy to get more funding

I very much doubt the power station jobbies are certified to the same level as the aircraft type. Unfortunately aircraft fly on paperwork...

The gas turbines at the nuclear stations have to be extremely reliable and start on demnd as they provide essential electrical supplies during reactor trips. Without this things would get very hot very quickly. The gas turbines form part of the stations safety case, so much so that they could not operate without them.

As for being different, the ones at the station I work at are Olympus mk201 which I believe are the same as the vulcans

If they've got the right paperwork that'll be fine then, sad thing is, I doubt they have...

[longshot]

mrloudly said:

Davep24 said:

mrloudly said:

Davep24 said:

The Olympus engine is still supported, there are at least 12 installed across 3 nuclear power stations in the UK alone and hundreds were exported which are still in service. Most of these were the 200 series engines which are the same as 588, so there is no shortage of engines or spare.


As someone said previously its probably a ploy to get more funding

I very much doubt the power station jobbies are certified to the same level as the aircraft type. Unfortunately aircraft fly on paperwork...

The gas turbines at the nuclear stations have to be extremely reliable and start on demnd as they provide essential electrical supplies during reactor trips. Without this things would get very hot very quickly. The gas turbines form part of the stations safety case, so much so that they could not operate without them.

As for being different, the ones at the station I work at are Olympus mk201 which I believe are the same as the vulcans

If they've got the right paperwork that'll be fine then, sad thing is, I doubt they have...

Non flying gas turbines tend to be different to their flying siblings.
Because their weight does matter to a greater extent you find that the cases and other parts are more robust.

[PascalBuyens]

Absolutely love this plane ever since I saw it at an air show beginning of the 90's.

Sad that it'll finally have to be grounded completely...

[Skater12]

I grew up as the son of an RAF senior officer, which meant i not only spent a lot of time on RAF bases around the world, but also attended many airshows.
My very first memories of military aircraft are of the Vulcan, the sound, the sheer presence and a passion surrounding those who worked to keep the bird flying.
I am actually surprised the powers that be have allowed her to keep flying for this long, but I am glad they have so that more young children over the years can experience what i remembered or the first time.
My step son is 11 years old now, and has only been to a couple of small airshows down in Sussex, but i'm going to try to make sure he gets to see this amazing bit of cold-war pig-iron before it's too late.

[messcotti]

I remember, as an 8 year old, going to Leuchars airshow and watching grown men throw themselves to the ground when the Vulcan made a fly past....the ground shook and the skies roared and this little boy fell in love with that V-Wing Bomber....lovely stuff.

[richb77]

Daggers89 said:

Gizmoish said:

If I won the lottery, would it be this or a Concorde that I chose to restore? And how long would even £100m keep either in the air? The world moves on, sadly.

Regarding Concorde - Richard Branson did try and buy (at least one) IIRC, British Airways refused to sell though, from what I understand :-/

BA refused because Branson offered to pay what BA did for them when new.

It was something ridiculous like £1 or £5 as the government of the day subsidised the aircraft as no-one was buying.

Damn BA for grounding the aircraft rather than admit defeat to beardy Branson. Tossers.

[RedLeicester]

Bradgate said:

The sad news about XH558 being grounded for good comes as no surprise following the avoidable destruction of two engines earlier this year.

That's been said a couple of times now, what happened?

[anonymous-user]

richb77 said:

BA refused because Branson offered to pay what BA did for them when new.

It was something ridiculous like £1 or £5 as the government of the day subsidised the aircraft as no-one was buying.

Damn BA for grounding the aircraft rather than admit defeat to beardy Branson. Tossers.

I don't think Branson had any intention of operating any of them, I thought it was just publicity.

[Oddball RS]

Back on topic from what i understand the engine issue 'could' be got around, its the airframe that seems to be the financial deal breaker.

Come on you hundreds of multi millionaires out there man up and off load a few crappy paintings.....

[jimbobsimmonds]

Oddball RS said:

Back on topic from what i understand the engine issue 'could' be got around, its the airframe that seems to be the financial deal breaker.

Come on you hundreds of multi millionaires out there man up and off load a few crappy paintings.....

Or Haymarket could sponsor it for a year... Just slap a giant PH Smiley on it and fly it over Silverstone on F1 weekend(preferably a low pass up the final straight during the final stages of Saturday Qually, and on the warm up lap for race day... Bound to be millions watching, therefore millions of new PHs from around the world, advertising revenues go through the roof, Vulcan payed for! I challenge any of the numerous company directors on here to pick a hole in my business model).

Or if this fails we can all have a whipround and claim joint ownership. Since I put £10 forward I think its right that I get first passenger flight...

[Domf]

A sad day when the Vulcan is grounded but as one of the V bombers of the 50's time is catching up with her.
Comments on here about the cost of keeping her flying well even our allies across the pond with their multi billionaires can't keep their SAC (Strategic Air Command) nuclear bombers in the air. Both the remaining B36 Peacemaker and the B47 Stratojet aircraft are ground displays. Only the B52 is still flying with the USAF could be in the air until 2040, making it a near 90 year old design!
For those not familiar with the B36 '6 turning 4 burning' how it ever got off the ground is worth seeing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wvEzhyY9F4

[dingocooke]

A sad day but I guess inevitable; historic multi enjine big jets must be many times more difficult to keep airworthy than historic piston engined aircraft?

I have very fond memories of going to the first RAF Waddington open day in the mid seventies with my dad (before air display crwod rules!) The red arrows had just run infront of the crowdline at maybe 200 feet in diamond nine, then vertical climb and split; startlingly loud and impressive.

Not to be outdone, 617sqdrn, who were equipped with Vulcans and based at Waddington, followed the Red Arrows, same flight path, same stunt, with nine Vulcans; you have to witness nine vulcans in vertical climb on full reheat to appreciate 'loud' and impressive. I have never sen anything remotely as good at an air display since!!!

Sorry to digress..

[British Beef]

wedgeinald said:

aeropilot said:

jason61c said:

Eric Mc said:

Nothing "supposed" about it.
Read this book -

Well thats the thing, the runway was totally useable for the duration of the conflict, 90% of bombs missed.

Suggest you spend some time reading up on the facts before posting drivel.

Or talk to Martin Withers, he is often to be found at the Vulcan Village, (unless he is flying the Delta Lady at the time), and I'm sure he'd be happy to chat about his first hand experience of the raids. Even if it might be for the X,000th time for him. He is (in stiff upper lip RAF parlance) a "nice chap", and quite approachable, but obviously can be a little busy on display days as well.

I'm sure he is as happy to be still flying a Vulcan as we are to see it in the air.

Sad news but inevitable, the scale and cost of keeping this thing flying is quite scary. Every airshow I have attended since being a kid, the Vulcan has always been my personal favorite and highlight - just a stunning piece of engineering!!

I had a chat with Martin at Leuchars, like you say nice chap, knowledgeable and very approachable. Some great stories about the plane and the bombing runs.

[wooooody]

el stovey said:

richb77 said:

BA refused because Branson offered to pay what BA did for them when new.

It was something ridiculous like £1 or £5 as the government of the day subsidised the aircraft as no-one was buying.

Damn BA for grounding the aircraft rather than admit defeat to beardy Branson. Tossers.

I don't think Branson had any intention of operating any of them, I thought it was just publicity.

This.

THe amount of non-understanding surrounding the Concorde retirement is outstanding.

Concorde stopped flying because the OEM (BAE) pulled the plug. Without OEM support it could not fly (as earlier in the thread, aircraft fly on paperwork). Add to that, there are longer the overhaul & test facilities for the engines (they were not done by RR as far as I am aware) and it's a no.

Branson spun that one so well nearly 10 years down the line people still beleive the crap he came out with.

[Oddball RS]

British Beef said:

wedgeinald said:

aeropilot said:

jason61c said:

Eric Mc said:

Nothing "supposed" about it.
Read this book -

Well thats the thing, the runway was totally useable for the duration of the conflict, 90% of bombs missed.

Suggest you spend some time reading up on the facts before posting drivel.

In a plane that size from that altitude when you are bombing a long thin strip of land like a runway you bomb across it not parallel to it, otherwise you would never hit it, hence 90% missed! one landed nicely on the centreline though, it also knackered the tower and most of the comms kit, yes you could still use the airstrip if you had a microlight................ but would you want to when you knew what had just happened (The impossible) and where would you park your kite of choice when you weren't using it? near the big crater or at the other end?


Or talk to Martin Withers, he is often to be found at the Vulcan Village, (unless he is flying the Delta Lady at the time), and I'm sure he'd be happy to chat about his first hand experience of the raids. Even if it might be for the X,000th time for him. He is (in stiff upper lip RAF parlance) a "nice chap", and quite approachable, but obviously can be a little busy on display days as well.

I'm sure he is as happy to be still flying a Vulcan as we are to see it in the air.

Sad news but inevitable, the scale and cost of keeping this thing flying is quite scary. Every airshow I have attended since being a kid, the Vulcan has always been my personal favorite and highlight - just a stunning piece of engineering!!

I had a chat with Martin at Leuchars, like you say nice chap, knowledgeable and very approachable. Some great stories about the plane and the bombing runs.

[myhandle]

dingocooke said:

A sad day but I guess inevitable; historic multi enjine big jets must be many times more difficult to keep airworthy than historic piston engined aircraft?

I have very fond memories of going to the first RAF Waddington open day in the mid seventies with my dad (before air display crwod rules!) The red arrows had just run infront of the crowdline at maybe 200 feet in diamond nine, then vertical climb and split; startlingly loud and impressive.

Not to be outdone, 617sqdrn, who were equipped with Vulcans and based at Waddington, followed the Red Arrows, same flight path, same stunt, with nine Vulcans; you have to witness nine vulcans in vertical climb on full reheat to appreciate 'loud' and impressive. I have never sen anything remotely as good at an air display since!!!

Sorry to digress..

Sounds absolutely brilliant, except that a Vulcan doesn't have reheat. The Olympus in Corcorde did though.

[Ali Chappussy]

Jasper Gilder said:

Looks to me as though a bit of thinking out of the box is required. I bet a friendly college doing apprenticeships in aero engineering would jump at the chance of doing half the work, especially getting the drawings done. How about finding a sponsor for the engines - great project for Rolls Royce apprentices, same for BAE and the wings.

New starters in the industry need something to work on - what more worthwhils ( other than a Concorde and that would be just daft!)

Nice suggestion but, sadly, not possible. Having worked on these for 10 years in a previous job, the kind of work that would need to be done needs to be undertaken by fully qualified engineers. I'm guessing that the front spars might need changing, there's no way an apprentice could do this.

For an aircraft that was designed as a 50000ft bomber to be changed to a 200ft 500kt aircraft, I'm amazed it's lasted as long as it has.

[will261058]

Davep24 said:

The Olympus engine is still supported, there are at least 12 installed across 3 nuclear power stations in the UK alone and hundreds were exported which are still in service. Most of these were the 200 series engines which are the same as 588, so there is no shortage of engines or spare.


As someone said previously its probably a ploy to get more funding

The Olympus engines that are used in power stations are a world away from the Olympus engines in the Vulcan, they wont even look similar! The power station version is designed to run at a more or less constant speed at sea level with more or less constant air density around room temperature while sitting in a static box. The aero version has to provide rated thrust at ground level while stationary at normal temperatures and pressure and also work up in the air at speeds up to the max for the aircraft(high subsonic in the Vulcan)and at a temperature which can be as low as -57 degrees C with wildly varied pressure and density. You can see that they fill different requirements and are not interchangeable.

The main spar of an aircraft can be likened to the Keel of a ship. The rest of the structure is built round it and it is the spar which takes the weight of the aircraft while airborne and on the ground. To change the spar would be impossible in most cases and prohibitively expensive in others.

The modification to the spar in XH588 is probably a very precisely positioned reinforcing plate to an area identified by Non Destructive Testing/Fatigue monitoring as required to extend the Fatigue life.

[jhfozzy]

hora said:

When and where?

^^^ This.

I haven't been to an airshow for years due to one thing and another and would really love to get a chance to see this fly.

Does anyone know what show(s) it may be going to?

[Eric Mc]

The airshow season for 2012 is virtually over now.

And the calendar for 2013 will not be set until earkly 2013 I would guess.