RE: Vulcan to be grounded
Discussion
jhfozzy said:
^^^ 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?
It won't be flying at all next year unless £800k is raised to cover the costs for the next 12 months.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?
£400k is needed by the end of December to allow the Winter service to take place, then another £250k by the end of March!
http://www.vulcantothesky.org/
You can find more info there, and dates for next year will appear once the Winter Service is complete, and dates are then confirmed.
Great British engineering at its best and put to use using Great British ingenuity in the Falklands - be a shame not to be able to see and just as imprtantly hear it fly again - my boys were in awe of this at GFOS and RIAT this year... if you haven't read Vulcan 607 you really should -
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Vulcan-607-Rowland-White/d...
Off to donate to the fund for the second time...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Vulcan-607-Rowland-White/d...
Off to donate to the fund for the second time...
I'm not sure if its been mentioned here but we only have this fabulous plane still flying because of The Walton family who own Bruntingthorpe airfield. They initially rescued it before the Trust took over, they are real petrolheads who owned the original TVR Mongoose, Monica bits, Honda S800 with an Alfa engine, race Lotus 7 as a road car, a batch of Atoms, xj220, maybe Pistonheads can ask all followers for a donation ? I certainly would send in £20.
I've seen it fly overhead when I was walking my dog in a wood, no other sound, just this awesome sound that probably hasn't been repeated since the age of the dinasaurs. Seeing it, listening to it, it was a machine that seeing it take off on a mission would have spelt the final act upon an enemy. It has been the deterrant to our foes, the salvation of our lands.
I've seen it fly overhead when I was walking my dog in a wood, no other sound, just this awesome sound that probably hasn't been repeated since the age of the dinasaurs. Seeing it, listening to it, it was a machine that seeing it take off on a mission would have spelt the final act upon an enemy. It has been the deterrant to our foes, the salvation of our lands.
DamienB said:
Eric Mc said:
Re Damien's comments - of all the aircraft listed the only ones that could seriously damage the fleet were the Aermacchis - yet they don't feature often in the reports on the attacks on the ships. All the footage and reports I've ever seen seemed to show or refer to Skyhawks, Daggers and Étendards - and they only operated from the mainland.
You have a slightly tunnel vision way of looking at the situation if you don't mind me saying, Eric. It wasn't all about the ships; without the C-130 supply operations, the Argie troops would have been unable to fight for so long and the war would have been shorter - thus ships lost later on may not have been lost of course. Without the MB339s providing recce, the attacks on Ardent/Antelope/San Carlos would not have been so successful. Without the Pucaras, we'd have lost fewer helos thus had a faster ground war - and so on.The simple facts are that as a runway denial mission it didn't actually work as the runway was operational again within hours. As a demonstration of willpower and the ability to strike the Argie mainland, it was a master stroke and certainly had an effect re withdrawal of Mirage CAPs for quite a long period.
Eric Mc said:
And, of course, one of the reasons why the runway at Port Stanley was bombed was to ensure that they couldn't operate those faster jets out of the place.
The runway was never long enough to safely operate bombed-up fast jets like the Dagger in the first place - the Argies planned to extend it using PSP but their supplies of that were onboard a ship that turned back to the mainland after the Belgrano was sunk.Regular naval gunfire missions against the airfield caused the aborting of lots of supply flights and were part of the reason - along with the submarine threat and Sea Harrier CAPs in the area - why the Argies did not press the matter of getting that PSP extension in place.
If you want to boil it down to a simple RAF vs RN argument then yes I happen to believe the RN did more to harm Argie air ops from Stanley than the single Vulcan-delivered bomb did.
Eric Mc said:
I agree that STOL transports and light ground attack aircraft did continue to fly out of Port Stanley. How effective were the Pucaras in the ground attack role?
Not very once naval gunfire, Sea Harrier bombs and SAS teams had destroyed many of them and rendered most of the others unserviceable as their maintenance gear and hangar was blown up...Eric Mc said:
Is Damien saying that the Vulcan raids shouldn't have happened?
Is he claiming they were a waste of effort or resources?
Is he claiming that Roland White's book is nonsense?
Was there some better way the RAF could have contributed to the Falklands War?
Clearly I'm not. If you are asking these questions, which I guess you are, then I'd say a disproportionate amount of effort was put into them (one or two would have been enough for the "keeping the Mirages away" effect). Rowland's book is an excellent account - as is Sharkey Ward's. Different viewpoints of course but both thumping good reads. As for the RAF's contribution, they made an excellent one without the Vulcan raids - Harrier GR.3s (and some RAF pilots in SHARs), transport and logistics, recce, and so on. It could not have been won without the RAF - just a shame that so many people boil it down to an RAF vs RN battle when actually it was a UK vs Argie battle.Is he claiming they were a waste of effort or resources?
Is he claiming that Roland White's book is nonsense?
Was there some better way the RAF could have contributed to the Falklands War?
Its nice to see such a well balanced none rose tinted view,
To everyone who has posted up about the Vulcan 607 book.
Can I highly reccomend the read.
Tells the story of the ground troops and the accurate first hand account from a group of reporters who were attached to 2para and 3commando.
They banned themselves from changing anything or editing any diary entries the book is "as writ at the time from the falklands". The book is written as a diary with some quite wrong yet hilarious results.
"Since leaving Ascension 2Para are training hard doing laps of the ship. The cadence of "Napalm sticks to Spics" fills the morning air."
What about a campaign to allow her to do a barrel roll ah la Rolly Falk for the last display season?
"Roll out the Vulcan..."
Would the CAA allow just one last salute to all those who supported her? Bow out in style. It does not overstress the airframe according to the book on Rolly Falk.
"Roll out the Vulcan..."
Would the CAA allow just one last salute to all those who supported her? Bow out in style. It does not overstress the airframe according to the book on Rolly Falk.
Edited by Scotty2 on Monday 15th October 19:08
Ali Chappussy said:
will261058 said:
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.
We never modified the spars at Bitteswell, we changed them!RedLeicester said:
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?They started it up, but no-one had removed the bags, so the engines swallowed them, which wrecked 2 engines - which had to be replaced. The only spares they had were the last two serviceable units. Parts for the engines are no longer made and new production isn't going to happen.
pic of the engine intake, gel bags are the white things under the engineer
Crafty_ said:
On the intake side of the engiines they put bags of silica gel to keep damp away (I presume).
They started it up, but no-one had removed the bags, so the engines swallowed them, which wrecked 2 engines - which had to be replaced. The only spares they had were the last two serviceable units. Parts for the engines are no longer made and new production isn't going to happen.
Thank you! Seriously noddy mistake, and an extremely costly one, literally. I knew they were down to only a couple left, but couldn't figure out how they'd lunched them so quickly.... Big oops.They started it up, but no-one had removed the bags, so the engines swallowed them, which wrecked 2 engines - which had to be replaced. The only spares they had were the last two serviceable units. Parts for the engines are no longer made and new production isn't going to happen.
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
RedLeicester said:
Seriously noddy mistake
More like Criminal Negligence!Who the hell places FOD in an engine intake on purpose and, having done so, fails to record it accurately?
Know of a lot worse than that under much easier conditions being ingested.
wooooody said:
How do you know how well it was documented?
Because:1. I have read the Incident Report.
and
2. If it had been properly documented then it wouldn't have been left in the intake now would it? ie there would have been a paper trail to prevent just such an occurrence happening, such as an entry in the F703 (or whatever the Civie equivalent is).
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
wooooody said:
How do you know how well it was documented?
Because:1. I have read the Incident Report.
and
2. If it had been properly documented then it wouldn't have been left in the intake now would it? ie there would have been a paper trail to prevent just such an occurrence happening, such as an entry in the F703 (or whatever the Civie equivalent is).
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
wooooody said:
How do you know how well it was documented?
Because:1. I have read the Incident Report.
and
2. If it had been properly documented then it wouldn't have been left in the intake now would it? ie there would have been a paper trail to prevent just such an occurrence happening, such as an entry in the F703 (or whatever the Civie equivalent is).
Shouldnt the pilot have carried out a walkround prior to starting up? including sticking his head in the intakes to check for things such as this?
Its a mandatory part of any preflight in the civil world and from my RAF days was mandatory part for the pink and fluffy bit to check on their walkround too!
Today's (Monday 15th Oct) Daily Telegraph report about the impending grounding stated that the only action seen by XH558 was when it bombed Stanley airfield in the Falklands war.
Am I right in thinking that it wasn't actually XH558 which did that bombing run?
In fact, I seem to have it in mind that it was the Vulcan now on display at the North East corner of RAF Waddington which did the bombing.
Am I right in thinking that it wasn't actually XH558 which did that bombing run?
In fact, I seem to have it in mind that it was the Vulcan now on display at the North East corner of RAF Waddington which did the bombing.
TinyCappo said:
Shouldnt the pilot have carried out a walkround prior to starting up? including sticking his head in the intakes to check for things such as...
Not practical for most of the things that need checking. How can the pilot check, for instance, whether control surfaces move correctly? You need the PFCUs running before they'll move - and thus power on and crew already onboard. They rely on the ground crew.The rumour I have heard from well placed sources was so surprising given their previous adherence to safety procedures that I don't think it warrants repeating - however I would like to see an official report on the incident. G15 - you're one of the few who's seen any such report if so - are you involved with VTTS?
Indeed.
On every type I flew I made sure to look in the intake(s) to ensure they were FOD free.
However, that's a wee bit difficult on a Vulcan given the fact that the intakes are so far above eye level.
ERGO Vulcan crews were/are dependent upon the Groundcrew checking the intakes - which clearly didn't happen in this case.
Having said that, IMO anyone who places FOD in an engine intake for whatever reason is a bloody fool because Sod's Law means that it is just asking for trouble!
On every type I flew I made sure to look in the intake(s) to ensure they were FOD free.
However, that's a wee bit difficult on a Vulcan given the fact that the intakes are so far above eye level.
ERGO Vulcan crews were/are dependent upon the Groundcrew checking the intakes - which clearly didn't happen in this case.
Having said that, IMO anyone who places FOD in an engine intake for whatever reason is a bloody fool because Sod's Law means that it is just asking for trouble!
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff