Guy Martin and the Vulcan

[FourWheelDrift]

Lincsblokey said:

227bhp said:

EagleMoto4-2 said:

I have noticed that everyone on these Guy Martin things always has to say how great he was at the jobs he was given. You begin to wonder whether they are encouraged to blow smoke up his arse or not.

I'm always suspicious of how people are portrayed versus how they actually are in real life, but I have met some people who have worked with him on one of the episodes, I did specifically ask what he was like and they had nothing but good things to say about him, hardly conclusive I know as they were hardly going to tell me he was proper dick, but still....

Anyhow, why did he not get a ride? Too dangerous, insurance issues, not enough seats or something else? I bet he was a bit pissed he didn't get to fly in it.

First hand, couldnt say a bad thing about him, or his whole family, his enthusiasm comes from being taught from a very early age to build not buy, Ian was and is a brilliant engineer in his own right, and Guy grew up from a very early age doing things the old fashioned way. Always have a good chuckle when we bump into one another.

He is also a great supporter of several charitys, as well as being immensely fast on a bike. Maybe not had the luck at the TT, but dont let that fool those that dont follow road racing closely, multiple ulster gp wins, most succesful rider around the Southern 100 etc...

I'm sure part of it is that he joins in and carries on when the cameras aren't rolling unlike other presenters. Listens to what's being said, understands and takes the same amount of care and attention over the job as they are.

He is the anti-Fogle.

[kurt535]

Have to take the programme for what it is which is light entertainment for a mass audience. If it was geekified too much, majority of people would lose interest and turn over meaning Ch4 don't get advertising revenues next time.

Inaccurate hangar and various other lean-with-the truth statements are annoying but so much part of media stuff these days. I think Guy's programmes could go a lot deeper in content and hopefully he will develop it when he appreciates the following he now has. Overall, it was enjoyable and great to see the cockpit up close, etc.

[Willy Nilly]

It seemed to take ages to fire the plane up, so if the Ruskies were heading this way with a load of bombs, would they have been able to get one in the air any quicker?

[LordHaveMurci]

Willy Nilly said:

It seemed to take ages to fire the plane up, so if the Ruskies were heading this way with a load of bombs, would they have been able to get one in the air any quicker?

We did the Vulcan tour at Yeovilton air day, chatting to the bloke & I'm sure he said they were ready to take off in 4mins?

Very interesting chap to talk to, can't believe everybody else buggered off & missed out!

[FourWheelDrift]

Willy Nilly said:

It seemed to take ages to fire the plane up, so if the Ruskies were heading this way with a load of bombs, would they have been able to get one in the air any quicker?

There was a rapid start system during the Cold War.

Here we go, QRA - http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?7415...

[NM62]

Willy Nilly said:

It seemed to take ages to fire the plane up, so if the Ruskies were heading this way with a load of bombs, would they have been able to get one in the air any quicker?

From my fading memory (speaking to crews at Finningley 1977 who demonstrated a 4 ship QRA and when on ATC camp at Scampton) - they were supposed to be airborne within 4 minutes of receiving the signal to go.

[Kitchski]

Willy Nilly said:

It seemed to take ages to fire the plane up, so if the Ruskies were heading this way with a load of bombs, would they have been able to get one in the air any quicker?

I think they were kept in a state of QRA by groundcrew back in the days, and I know all three variants of V-Bomber had 'quick-start' systems, where you could fire all up four and be moving very quickly.
They probably don't keep the three remaining running Vulcans in a state of QRA. They probably enjoy faffing about for hours getting the thing ready each time

[Ali Chappussy]

Simpo Two said:

Vulcan evidently has no manual thingy to lower u/c by hand.

But it does have a switch to hit and some compressed air/nitrogen to do an 'emergency drop' Used to love doing these when I was servicing the undercarriage. Wait until you have a few in the bomb bay doing some work, break the copper wire holding down the flap on the emergency drop switch and waiting for the cries of "you ba**ard"

Happy days.

[aeropilot]

Simpo Two said:

An interesting observation was how Spitfires etc could be kept flying almost indefinitely because the technology was simpler. I wondered if a simpler Vulcan could have been built.

It was.....


It was called the Lancaster (or even the Lincoln if you want something a tad newer)

And as far as jets go, the Canberra qualifies as well, hence the CAA being happy (relatively speaking) with these on the civvie register.
Pretty much everything designed after the Hunter/Canberra era is 'complex'

[Hooli]

Kitchski said:

Willy Nilly said:

It seemed to take ages to fire the plane up, so if the Ruskies were heading this way with a load of bombs, would they have been able to get one in the air any quicker?

I think they were kept in a state of QRA by groundcrew back in the days, and I know all three variants of V-Bomber had 'quick-start' systems, where you could fire all up four and be moving very quickly.
They probably don't keep the three remaining running Vulcans in a state of QRA. They probably enjoy faffing about for hours getting the thing ready each time

All the faffing about had been done before they went on QRA, the plane was sat waiting for them to hit the starter button.

[FourWheelDrift]

Here we go, engines all started at the same time by the ground crew, flight crew arrive in and airborne within 2 minutes.

Cue plumbey voice - http://www.britishpathe.com/video/scramble-in-2-mi...

[Nigel_O]

My two sons treated me (and themselves) to a Vulcan VIP hangar tour and an awful lot of what was said by Guy was near-verbatim of what we were told on our visit (and BTW, its well worth a visit to Robin Hood to really close - awe-inspiring)

The bit about the rear seat occupants having to bail out of the lower hatch and try to avoid the gear was spot-on - slide down the ladder, grab the hydraulic strut and pivot around to avoid being smashed into the landing gear - the Vulcan was clearly designed long before Health & Safety was a major concern...

I thought the C4 programme was a good balance between geekery and entertainment - certainly a lot more technical and background / historical info than some of his other (shorter) programmes - great to see the footage of the testing barrel-roll

I was also surprised that our lounge got a bit dusty at times, especially when they played a few clips of it making the trademark howl - even Guy appeared to be genuinely emotional about the presence of it all (especially after he landed following the close-formation flying)

I simply MUST go to one of the engine test days, just to hear that noise again....

[aeropilot]

FourWheelDrift said:

Here we go, engines all started at the same time by the ground crew, flight crew arrive in and airborne within 2 minutes.

Done for the last time during the RAF Finningley Battle of Britain Airshow in 1981.

[FourWheelDrift]

aeropilot said:

FourWheelDrift said:

Here we go, engines all started at the same time by the ground crew, flight crew arrive in and airborne within 2 minutes.

Done for the last time during the RAF Finningley Battle of Britain Airshow in 1981.

From about 1min onwards (after the Lightning has done it's stuff) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBDhloLk5qY

[RichB]

RichB said:

For those still interested in the Vulcan there's a good piece here on the BBC from 10:22 onwards for about 10 mins. Includes some excellent footage and old B&W footage from the 50s.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b06n5sk3/insi...

I posted this link a week ago but I think it got lost in the other stuff. You can hear the howl at 12:30 and see a roll 30 seconds later in the piece.

[RicksAlfas]

Nigel_O said:

My two sons treated me (and themselves) to a Vulcan VIP hangar tour and an awful lot of what was said by Guy was near-verbatim of what we were told on our visit (and BTW, its well worth a visit to Robin Hood to really close - awe-inspiring)

I can second that. I took my Dad for his birthday. There was just the two of us and an ex-fitter showing us round. Brilliant few hours!

[Yertis]

RichB said:

I posted this link a week ago but I think it got lost in the other stuff. You can hear the howl at 12:30 and see a roll 30 seconds later in the piece.

It's interesting how this "howl" has become 'a thing'. I don't remember it ever being commented upon back at the time.

[anonymous-user]

aeropilot said:

Simpo Two said:

An interesting observation was how Spitfires etc could be kept flying almost indefinitely because the technology was simpler. I wondered if a simpler Vulcan could have been built.

It was.....


It was called the Lancaster (or even the Lincoln if you want something a tad newer)

And as far as jets go, the Canberra qualifies as well, hence the CAA being happy (relatively speaking) with these on the civvie register.
Pretty much everything designed after the Hunter/Canberra era is 'complex'

In the grand scheme of things, the Vulcan isn't a "High tech" device. But it is complex by nature of its size and number of engines/systems. A Spit has 1 engine, basic hydraulics and manual flying controls and is relatively easy to inspect and maintain for a "sensible" cost.

A Vulcan is not cheap or easy to maintain to a realistic required standard. Added with which a lot of its subsystems come from a period in the development of aircraft where those systems were evolving rapidly, and where technology and production limitations results in rather non-optimum solutions.

For example, the laser ring gyro, developed in the late 1960's is effectively a solid state device, and is highly robust. Compare that to an early 1960's mechanical inertial gyro, full of bearings, motors, slip rings, rheostats and miles of wiring and supporting analogue electronics. Keeping these "mid evolution" subsystems running is a LOT harder than with more complex, but more modern stuff!

[RichB]

Max_Torque said:

... For example, the laser ring gyro, developed in the late 1960's is effectively a solid state device, and is highly robust. Compare that to an early 1960's mechanical inertial gyro, full of bearings, motors, slip rings, rheostats and miles of wiring and supporting analogue electronics. Keeping these "mid evolution" subsystems running is a LOT harder than with more complex, but more modern stuff!

OOI cannot these earlier pieces of equipment be replaced with more modern units? Rather like some owners of classic cars replace the points and contact breakers with electronic ignition or replace dynamos with alternators?

[dr_gn]

RichB said:

Max_Torque said:

... For example, the laser ring gyro, developed in the late 1960's is effectively a solid state device, and is highly robust. Compare that to an early 1960's mechanical inertial gyro, full of bearings, motors, slip rings, rheostats and miles of wiring and supporting analogue electronics. Keeping these "mid evolution" subsystems running is a LOT harder than with more complex, but more modern stuff!

OOI cannot these earlier pieces of equipment be replaced with more modern units? Rather like some owners of classic cars replace the points and contact breakers with electronic ignition or replace dynamos with alternators?

A lot of equipment not essential for display flying was removed from XH558 and replaced with ballast.
Upgrading anything of any significance necessary for flight would probably require re-certification, and that would be a hugely expensive and ultimately pointless exercise.