RE: Vulcan to be grounded
Discussion
There is a nice Vulcan at the Solway Aviation Museum infact the whole place is well worth a visit and the staff will bend over backwards to help you and show you around. I took some Belgian friends over during the summer and they had a great visit hosted by David Kirkpatrick, Big Thanks once again David great tour!
XJ823
Going up the entrance ladder
Radio op/Navigator/Bomb aimer stations
Cockpit instrumentation
Pilots view forward
http://www.solway-aviation-museum.co.uk/ Well worth a visit if you are in the Carlisle area
XJ823
Going up the entrance ladder
Radio op/Navigator/Bomb aimer stations
Cockpit instrumentation
Pilots view forward
http://www.solway-aviation-museum.co.uk/ Well worth a visit if you are in the Carlisle area
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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?
swanny200 said:
I love looking at the one at east fortune XM597, but it is just sitting there and rotting, I couldn't see any info on the plane and the fact that it is one of the most famous vulcans after XH558, it just sits there kind of forgotten about (mind you it was a good 3 years ago when I was there).
The concorde gets more exposure at East Fortune whereas another plane on a par with the concorde in terms of technical achievement in my opinion is left to sit in the open forlornly.
For those that don't know the history of 597, it was one of the planes that was supposed to be involved in the Falklands bombing runs, however it only made one successful run the other two were plagued with problems, the last of which could have started a diplomatic incident with Brazil when during midair refuelling the probe snapped off and 597 had to divert to Rio de Janeiro. As it was, the Vulcan had to climb into thinner air so as to conserve as much fuel as possible. The two missiles she was carrying were launched to reduce weight and drag, but one of these stuck. Mission orders and other important documents were jettisoned into the sea via the crew hatch. After a "Mayday" signal was sent to the Brazilian authorities clearance was given to XM597. The captain, Neil McDougall, landed the aircraft with only 2000lb of fuel remaining.
Not enough to complete a circuit of the airfield!
The Brazilian authorities impounded XM597 until the 10th of June but during their stay in Brazil both crew and aircraft were treated well. However the Brazilians did request the "jammed" missile as a souvenir of the Vulcan's visit.
I agree with you completely. I was at east Fortune in August this year and XM597 was still outside and showing more corrosion. I saw 597 take off for all of the Black Buck raids, I was part of the Nimrod force that also took part and was there for the duration of the conflict. I saw her land back from Rio minus her probe nozzle, it was good to see her back. After the conflict I didnt see 597 again for many years until visiting East Fortune back in the 90's.The concorde gets more exposure at East Fortune whereas another plane on a par with the concorde in terms of technical achievement in my opinion is left to sit in the open forlornly.
For those that don't know the history of 597, it was one of the planes that was supposed to be involved in the Falklands bombing runs, however it only made one successful run the other two were plagued with problems, the last of which could have started a diplomatic incident with Brazil when during midair refuelling the probe snapped off and 597 had to divert to Rio de Janeiro. As it was, the Vulcan had to climb into thinner air so as to conserve as much fuel as possible. The two missiles she was carrying were launched to reduce weight and drag, but one of these stuck. Mission orders and other important documents were jettisoned into the sea via the crew hatch. After a "Mayday" signal was sent to the Brazilian authorities clearance was given to XM597. The captain, Neil McDougall, landed the aircraft with only 2000lb of fuel remaining.
Not enough to complete a circuit of the airfield!
The Brazilian authorities impounded XM597 until the 10th of June but during their stay in Brazil both crew and aircraft were treated well. However the Brazilians did request the "jammed" missile as a souvenir of the Vulcan's visit.
I am saddened that 588 may be grounded and hope some miracle will happen that will allow her to continue. I see some people on here seem to think it is better that she is grounded than allowed to fly in an unsafe condition. That is not possible as the aircraft must meet stringent conditions at all times which deem her to be airworthy and it is these conditions which will ground her when she can no longer meet them. She will never knowingly be allowed to fly in an unsafe condition.
I'm kinda with Eric here re:Damien's contribution.
It misses the point that the raid did discourage the use of Stanley by larger, faster aircraft.
I'm fairly sure GG15G could put a Herky down on the tail ramp of the one in front, short field operations is Albert's forte.
And of course the point of the thread, it's a very sad but equally inevitable fact of life, all things must pass.
558 has served us all very well long after the RAF was compelled to give up on her, I'm fairly sure that VTTS will look after her on-ground future too.
Otherwise I'd better check to see whather I won the Eurozillions last night...
It misses the point that the raid did discourage the use of Stanley by larger, faster aircraft.
I'm fairly sure GG15G could put a Herky down on the tail ramp of the one in front, short field operations is Albert's forte.
And of course the point of the thread, it's a very sad but equally inevitable fact of life, all things must pass.
558 has served us all very well long after the RAF was compelled to give up on her, I'm fairly sure that VTTS will look after her on-ground future too.
Otherwise I'd better check to see whather I won the Eurozillions last night...
will261058 said:
I agree with you completely. I was at east Fortune in August this year and XM597 was still outside and showing more corrosion. I saw 597 take off for all of the Black Buck raids, I was part of the Nimrod force that also took part and was there for the duration of the conflict. I saw her land back from Rio minus her probe nozzle, it was good to see her back. After the conflict I didnt see 597 again for many years until visiting East Fortune back in the 90's.
I am saddened that 588 may be grounded and hope some miracle will happen that will allow her to continue. I see some people on here seem to think it is better that she is grounded than allowed to fly in an unsafe condition. That is not possible as the aircraft must meet stringent conditions at all times which deem her to be airworthy and it is these conditions which will ground her when she can no longer meet them. She will never knowingly be allowed to fly in an unsafe condition.
I would have loved to have been in your shoes, the planes of our childhood have been replaced by rubbish in my opinion. I am saddened that 588 may be grounded and hope some miracle will happen that will allow her to continue. I see some people on here seem to think it is better that she is grounded than allowed to fly in an unsafe condition. That is not possible as the aircraft must meet stringent conditions at all times which deem her to be airworthy and it is these conditions which will ground her when she can no longer meet them. She will never knowingly be allowed to fly in an unsafe condition.
The Jaguars, Lightnings, V bombers, Concorde, even the Nimrods are mostly static displays now, even the harriers are being binned, before everyone goes on about the Tornado i would be one of the first to agree that they are good planes, from a few guys that I know who have flown them and worked on them, the old ones were the best, in the words of one guy "you could get a feel for the old planes, now you don't know when a bloody computer is going to kick in".
The only plane that the RAF really kept past it's time was the Canberra which was still as far as I know being used as a recon platform till the mid 2000s and are still being used by NASA at over 50 years old.
Surely the number of ex-MIL planes that are simple enough to be flown by non governmental agencies is in sharp decline now? There can't be many planes designed and built after about 1970 that are suitable to be supported, maintained and flown by enthusiasts, due to the quantum leap in the complexty and specialisation of their systems, especially the avionics etc?
Max_Torque said:
Surely the number of ex-MIL planes that are simple enough to be flown by non governmental agencies is in sharp decline now? There can't be many planes designed and built after about 1970 that are suitable to be supported, maintained and flown by enthusiasts, due to the quantum leap in the complexty and specialisation of their systems, especially the avionics etc?
That applies to aircraft built well before your 1970 deadline - the Lightning for example.IanMorewood said:
Usable for short field opps only so you could fly a C130 in and out Like the Argies did, but you couldn’t stick a squadron of Daggers there to act as air defence which would have given the Sea Harriers a serious problem.
The Sea Harriers made mince meat of the Mirage IIIs and so would have not been troubled by the inferior IAI Daggers.The attack on Stanley IMHO was a morale booster for the British and a shock for the Argentinians. It did damage the airfield but as has been said, it made them think that the mainland was next...
Steve
Although I have about 1000 hrs of flight time piloting Vulcans and am a regular contributor to VTST, the sad fact is that the latest news is not really all that surprising.
Expecting people to cough up more money when there still hasn't been a formal report published concerning the wholly avoidable destruction of two priceless engines earlier this year is perhaps taking the mickey rather.
Were lessons learned? What about supervision? And is there any assurance that it cannot happen again....
Expecting people to cough up more money when there still hasn't been a formal report published concerning the wholly avoidable destruction of two priceless engines earlier this year is perhaps taking the mickey rather.
Were lessons learned? What about supervision? And is there any assurance that it cannot happen again....
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?
nickwilcock said:
Although I have about 1000 hrs of flight time piloting Vulcans and am a regular contributor to VTST, the sad fact is that the latest news is not really all that surprising.
Expecting people to cough up more money when there still hasn't been a formal report published concerning the wholly avoidable destruction of two priceless engines earlier this year is perhaps taking the mickey rather.
Were lessons learned? What about supervision? And is there any assurance that it cannot happen again....
Since I only read the gossip on the internet I know less than anybody else. However I do know that as humans we will all make mistakes and cock it all up from time to time. I’m just glad that the incident that led to the destruction of two engines did not cost anyone there health or life. It could have been worse. I guess what I’m trying to say is that we all make mistakes and whatever procedures you put in place it will happen again somewhere someday, just hopefully a very long time away. Expecting people to cough up more money when there still hasn't been a formal report published concerning the wholly avoidable destruction of two priceless engines earlier this year is perhaps taking the mickey rather.
Were lessons learned? What about supervision? And is there any assurance that it cannot happen again....
From what I have read they, someone, have/has made 1 small error, somehow, which has had major ramifications.
I would like to ask the question, how is it possible that this incident has occurred and the CAA have not investigated it or will the CAA only take an interest if the aircraft had been flying at the time?
kdri155 said:
Such a shame but I like many understand why another piece of British engineering glory is coming to an end of its career, I have been lucky enough to witness it flying and is truly is a wonderful sight and sound.
Have a look at this clip and you will come away with goosebumps;
http://youtu.be/Djd1pPQZ_LE
that video rendered me incapable of intelligent speech, only sweary words came out! awesome.Have a look at this clip and you will come away with goosebumps;
http://youtu.be/Djd1pPQZ_LE
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 :-/ Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff