Discussion
aeropilot said:
They didn't need to fly slower to limit airframe stress, it was about flying a more constant speed to limit g-induced fatigue. With the FI 'reclocked' with the airframe mod, the need for a constant speed display is removed, so it can be 'chucked around' a bit more, but those engine cycles are critical given the engine situation.....so there still won't be a return to the type of display seen by '558 when flown by the RAF.
Not sure. It is about the transit speed - was told yesterday that they flew slower to reduce buffet but as the Vulcan is not speed stable at 180 knots this required constant changes to engine power to maintain the speed. At 240 knots the aircraft is speed stable so can maintain the speed without changing the throttle settings, albeit with greater airframe stress.Still limited to 2G, which is why the PR9 gives a different display.
Would someone be kind enough to summarise the situation with the engine rotation ?
I understand that they started operating XH558 with a pool of 8 zero houred engines.
1 was removed from the rotation fairly early due to excessive amounts of copper found in the lubricating oil, but I think I heard this was subsequently deemed acceptable and the engine returned to the operational pool.
I know of the 2 that were written off in the silica bag incident.
Have lost touch of what's happended since. The talk of remianing flying life now being limited by engine rather than airframe hours suggests that we're maybe down to less than a pool of six.
Be grateful for a quick summary or a link to the same.
I understand that they started operating XH558 with a pool of 8 zero houred engines.
1 was removed from the rotation fairly early due to excessive amounts of copper found in the lubricating oil, but I think I heard this was subsequently deemed acceptable and the engine returned to the operational pool.
I know of the 2 that were written off in the silica bag incident.
Have lost touch of what's happended since. The talk of remianing flying life now being limited by engine rather than airframe hours suggests that we're maybe down to less than a pool of six.
Be grateful for a quick summary or a link to the same.
This from today's newsletter:
Available engine life is one of the scarce resources that will determine how long XH558 can keep flying. Over the season, we will be continuing to work with Rolls-Royce on a management programme to ensure we can extract the best possible life out of our remaining engine stock from the hours they have available.
We have been monitoring XH558’s engines since the start of engine testing in August 2007, and the records we have allow Rolls-Royce to calculate how much life is remaining on each unit. On a jet engine, life is consumed when the throttles are adjusted, so we have been looking at ways to reduce the number of throttle changes necessary during flight.
As we obtain more data over the various flights this season from the RPM data logger installed on XH558, we will be able to more accurately forecast how much more flying we can do. Your support of this Engine Management share enables us to liaise with Rolls-Royce on a regular basis as we aim to maximise XH558’s flying life.
Available engine life is one of the scarce resources that will determine how long XH558 can keep flying. Over the season, we will be continuing to work with Rolls-Royce on a management programme to ensure we can extract the best possible life out of our remaining engine stock from the hours they have available.
We have been monitoring XH558’s engines since the start of engine testing in August 2007, and the records we have allow Rolls-Royce to calculate how much life is remaining on each unit. On a jet engine, life is consumed when the throttles are adjusted, so we have been looking at ways to reduce the number of throttle changes necessary during flight.
As we obtain more data over the various flights this season from the RPM data logger installed on XH558, we will be able to more accurately forecast how much more flying we can do. Your support of this Engine Management share enables us to liaise with Rolls-Royce on a regular basis as we aim to maximise XH558’s flying life.
yellowjack said:
XL317 - Delivered June 1962, Scrapped 1987
318 went to Hendon in 1982 and 319 to North East Aviation Museum, Sunderland in '83. It appears to still be there, albeit looking rather sorry for itself, stood outside in all weathers.
XL319 has recently been repainted according to their Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/AvroVulcanXL319?fref=ts318 went to Hendon in 1982 and 319 to North East Aviation Museum, Sunderland in '83. It appears to still be there, albeit looking rather sorry for itself, stood outside in all weathers.
spitfire-ian said:
XL319 has recently been repainted according to their Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/AvroVulcanXL319?fref=ts
That is good to see. It might be an idea for them to actually update their museum website with a mention of that, though. Not all of us have facebook, or can find the time to follow everything we'd like to. When I searched for images, and looked on googlemaps, the exterior of XL319 appeared to be in a terrible state, panels damaged, bits missing, paint faded, etc. It's tough looking after a big beast like that outside. I know that at least two have been cut up for scrap after having been 'saved' by museums 
spitfire-ian said:
XL319 has recently been repainted according to their Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/AvroVulcanXL319?fref=ts
I visited a few years ago when she broke her tail due to excessive snow buildup on the wings over the winter .. was quite a sight seeing her pointing up at 45 degrees over the trees, then I saw she was covered in snow and the front nosewheel was in the air.Later that afternoon she was supported on jacks
V8LM said:
Yes, it does but they acknowledge that a great part of the appeal and draw of the Vulcan is the unique howl so it will still be there in the display to some extent. The CAA have agreed to non-100% power take-offs from Doncaster so things around the base will be quieter, but as they no longer need to fly slowly to limit airframe stress, transits and arrivals at displays will be faster, up from 180 to 240 kts I believe.
Can you tell the caa that the people of doncaster can handle a Vulcan at 100% once a month FFs Pesty said:
V8LM said:
Yes, it does but they acknowledge that a great part of the appeal and draw of the Vulcan is the unique howl so it will still be there in the display to some extent. The CAA have agreed to non-100% power take-offs from Doncaster so things around the base will be quieter, but as they no longer need to fly slowly to limit airframe stress, transits and arrivals at displays will be faster, up from 180 to 240 kts I believe.
Can you tell the caa that the people of doncaster can handle a Vulcan at 100% once a month FFs 
sorry caa.Stuck In A Lift said:
Why can't they use the engines from the Vulcan that does taxi runs?
A couple 558's old engines went to XL426 in Southend during the return to flight stage. XM655 uses Olympus 301 engines which won't fit in 558 as that uses 201s. Besides, the ground running Vulcans can use engines not certified for flight whereas obviously 558 can't do that.Stuck In A Lift said:
Why can't they use the engines from the Vulcan that does taxi runs?
Different rules for flight use. Hours-expired engines can be run on the ground until they eat themselves, basically. If engines fall apart during a display or transit flight there is potential for loss of life, both to the crew, and persons on the ground.There are quite a few engines out there that could be used to extend the flying life of '558, but sadly almost all of them have lost the vital paper trail which proves that mods, servicing, and repair have been done to required standards. Once there's a gap in the history of an engine, I don't think it can be certified as safe to fly.
As I'm not involved in either the '558 gig, or aviation in general, I'm happy to be corrected by someone more knowledgeable, but that's what I was led to believe from reading on the subject and speaking to people involved.
keo said:
Sorry if this has been answered, but why can't the engines be re built? I understand parts must be scarce, but new parts could be custom made? Obviously cost would be a massive factor. Just a thought
Custom made parts would never be accepted by the CAA unless you've got a few million pounds to spare. The CAA would only accept Rolls Royce refurbishing the engines. Rolls Royce can't refurbish the engines, as the tooling were destroyed decades ago.Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff