Author Topic: Chinook stuck in the mud  (Read 8726 times)

TimC

  • Old blerk sometimes onabike.
Re: Chinook stuck in the mud
« Reply #75 on: 17 January, 2021, 04:31:47 pm »
To deflect the Chinook topic even further :)   is the VC10 still flying, though officially retired?

Today I saw a (military looking) large jet, swept back wings, 4 engines at the tail, quite noisy.  Too far away to see any details but as in Oxfordshire looked to be headed for Brize Norton, was pointing that way anyway.

Or are there other makes with that configuration?

The VC10 last flew in September 2013. I spent a large part of my professional life between 1994-98 teaching people the fine art of sticking things up the VC10's arse. Sport of kings!

The RAF eventually owned 36 of the 54 VC10s that were built, though only around 22 flew in RAF colours - the rest were bought from trade and reduced to spares, mostly at RAF Abingdon (as was). It was a nice aeroplane to fly, and among the very fastest subsonic airliners, but by god it was thirsty. It burned the same amount of fuel (about 10 tonnes/hour) as a 747-200, despite being much less than half the size.

Edit: to answer your question, you didn't see a VC10. I doubt you saw an IL62 either, but I don't know where you were. That info might help identify what you saw.

Edit 2: doh, TimC, RTFQ!! Yeah, as PB says below, B1B is most likely, going to Fairford.

TimC

  • Old blerk sometimes onabike.
Re: Chinook stuck in the mud
« Reply #76 on: 17 January, 2021, 04:36:50 pm »
There is (was) a Russian lookalike.

Ilyushin Il-62.

According to the al-Wiki scrolls, it's still in use with the governments of North Korea and Sudan, plus the Russian Air Force:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-62#Current_operators

ETA - the only other aircraft with four engines mounted in pairs at the rear of the fuselage is the Lockheed Jetstar, but that is business jet-sized, and only in use as a corporate/private jet these days.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_JetStar

In my early years on the C130, we used to see Aeroflot IL62s in Gander as they nightstopped on their way to Cuba. The rear fuselage support wheel always amused me - the aeroplane could not stay on an even keel if it was empty, so it needed this extra support.

The Jetstar isn't flying any more.

ElyDave

  • Royal and Ancient Polar Bear Society member 263583
Re: Chinook stuck in the mud
« Reply #77 on: 17 January, 2021, 04:50:54 pm »
To deflect the Chinook topic even further :)   is the VC10 still flying, though officially retired?

Today I saw a (military looking) large jet, swept back wings, 4 engines at the tail, quite noisy.  Too far away to see any details but as in Oxfordshire looked to be headed for Brize Norton, was pointing that way anyway.

Or are there other makes with that configuration?

Wasn't a B1-B by any chance? That has swept wings and 4 engines towards the rear, if not actually "at the tail"

https://images.app.goo.gl/SQzSNxAbTRQRs9UE6
“Procrastination is the thief of time, collar him.” –Charles Dickens

orraloon

  • I'm trying Ringo, I'm trying real hard
Re: Chinook stuck in the mud
« Reply #78 on: 17 January, 2021, 05:15:13 pm »
To deflect the Chinook topic even further :)   is the VC10 still flying, though officially retired?

Today I saw a (military looking) large jet, swept back wings, 4 engines at the tail, quite noisy.  Too far away to see any details but as in Oxfordshire looked to be headed for Brize Norton, was pointing that way anyway.

Or are there other makes with that configuration?

The VC10 last flew in September 2013. I spent a large part of my professional life between 1994-98 teaching people the fine art of sticking things up the VC10's arse. Sport of kings!

The RAF eventually owned 36 of the 54 VC10s that were built, though only around 22 flew in RAF colours - the rest were bought from trade and reduced to spares, mostly at RAF Abingdon (as was). It was a nice aeroplane to fly, and among the very fastest subsonic airliners, but by god it was thirsty. It burned the same amount of fuel (about 10 tonnes/hour) as a 747-200, despite being much less than half the size.

Edit: to answer your question, you didn't see a VC10. I doubt you saw an IL62 either, but I don't know where you were. That info might help identify what you saw.

Edit 2: doh, TimC, RTFQ!! Yeah, as PB says below, B1B is most likely.
This was on the Harwell RAL / Diamond Light campus site, about 2pm ish.  The aircraft was heading NW.  I first heard it (much rumbling) then saw it coming towards.  By the time I got brain engaged and stopped, it had flown past.  Def the 2x2 engines right at the tail.  Not like the B1B image.  Just looked old school hence the 'gosh was that one of...?' thoughts.   Are there similar configuration but smaller aircraft, as had no means of scaling?

ElyDave

  • Royal and Ancient Polar Bear Society member 263583
Re: Chinook stuck in the mud
« Reply #79 on: 17 January, 2021, 06:23:48 pm »
To deflect the Chinook topic even further :)   is the VC10 still flying, though officially retired?

Today I saw a (military looking) large jet, swept back wings, 4 engines at the tail, quite noisy.  Too far away to see any details but as in Oxfordshire looked to be headed for Brize Norton, was pointing that way anyway.

Or are there other makes with that configuration?

The VC10 last flew in September 2013. I spent a large part of my professional life between 1994-98 teaching people the fine art of sticking things up the VC10's arse. Sport of kings!

The RAF eventually owned 36 of the 54 VC10s that were built, though only around 22 flew in RAF colours - the rest were bought from trade and reduced to spares, mostly at RAF Abingdon (as was). It was a nice aeroplane to fly, and among the very fastest subsonic airliners, but by god it was thirsty. It burned the same amount of fuel (about 10 tonnes/hour) as a 747-200, despite being much less than half the size.

Edit: to answer your question, you didn't see a VC10. I doubt you saw an IL62 either, but I don't know where you were. That info might help identify what you saw.

Edit 2: doh, TimC, RTFQ!! Yeah, as PB says below, B1B is most likely, going to Fairford.

Ahem, ED, not PB. :P
“Procrastination is the thief of time, collar him.” –Charles Dickens

TimC

  • Old blerk sometimes onabike.
Re: Chinook stuck in the mud
« Reply #80 on: 17 January, 2021, 07:46:41 pm »
To deflect the Chinook topic even further :)   is the VC10 still flying, though officially retired?

Today I saw a (military looking) large jet, swept back wings, 4 engines at the tail, quite noisy.  Too far away to see any details but as in Oxfordshire looked to be headed for Brize Norton, was pointing that way anyway.

Or are there other makes with that configuration?

The VC10 last flew in September 2013. I spent a large part of my professional life between 1994-98 teaching people the fine art of sticking things up the VC10's arse. Sport of kings!

The RAF eventually owned 36 of the 54 VC10s that were built, though only around 22 flew in RAF colours - the rest were bought from trade and reduced to spares, mostly at RAF Abingdon (as was). It was a nice aeroplane to fly, and among the very fastest subsonic airliners, but by god it was thirsty. It burned the same amount of fuel (about 10 tonnes/hour) as a 747-200, despite being much less than half the size.

Edit: to answer your question, you didn't see a VC10. I doubt you saw an IL62 either, but I don't know where you were. That info might help identify what you saw.

Edit 2: doh, TimC, RTFQ!! Yeah, as PB says below, B1B is most likely, going to Fairford.

Ahem, ED, not PB. :P

Doing well today, aren't I!

TimC

  • Old blerk sometimes onabike.
Re: Chinook stuck in the mud
« Reply #81 on: 17 January, 2021, 07:50:32 pm »
To deflect the Chinook topic even further :)   is the VC10 still flying, though officially retired?

Today I saw a (military looking) large jet, swept back wings, 4 engines at the tail, quite noisy.  Too far away to see any details but as in Oxfordshire looked to be headed for Brize Norton, was pointing that way anyway.

Or are there other makes with that configuration?

The VC10 last flew in September 2013. I spent a large part of my professional life between 1994-98 teaching people the fine art of sticking things up the VC10's arse. Sport of kings!

The RAF eventually owned 36 of the 54 VC10s that were built, though only around 22 flew in RAF colours - the rest were bought from trade and reduced to spares, mostly at RAF Abingdon (as was). It was a nice aeroplane to fly, and among the very fastest subsonic airliners, but by god it was thirsty. It burned the same amount of fuel (about 10 tonnes/hour) as a 747-200, despite being much less than half the size.

Edit: to answer your question, you didn't see a VC10. I doubt you saw an IL62 either, but I don't know where you were. That info might help identify what you saw.

Edit 2: doh, TimC, RTFQ!! Yeah, as PB says below, B1B is most likely.
This was on the Harwell RAL / Diamond Light campus site, about 2pm ish.  The aircraft was heading NW.  I first heard it (much rumbling) then saw it coming towards.  By the time I got brain engaged and stopped, it had flown past.  Def the 2x2 engines right at the tail.  Not like the B1B image.  Just looked old school hence the 'gosh was that one of...?' thoughts.   Are there similar configuration but smaller aircraft, as had no means of scaling?

In short, no, there's no other aircraft with 4 engines at the tail. The only one still flying is the IL62. You should be able to trace whether there was one in UK airspace at the time on Flightradar 24. As spesh's Wiki link shows, the very last Jetstar exec jet with that config last flew last month in the USA, and I think it's been a good while since there were any over here, and the VC10s have long gone.

Gattopardo

  • Lord of the sith
  • Overseaing the building of the death star
Re: Chinook stuck in the mud
« Reply #82 on: 17 January, 2021, 07:55:55 pm »
Am I the only one that has been in a chinook crash  ;)

I’ve helped prevent one cutting itself in two.

Gearbox failure?

orraloon

  • I'm trying Ringo, I'm trying real hard
Re: Chinook stuck in the mud
« Reply #83 on: 17 January, 2021, 07:59:42 pm »
Did check FlightRadar.  There was a small Bombardier went over about 1400 heading for Oxford.  But unless my eyes were doing double vision, and def didn't clock double distance on the ride, there were 4 not 2 tail engines.  And this looked and sounded big and vintage.  Perhaps a military not tracked inbound to Brize Norton?

TimC

  • Old blerk sometimes onabike.
Re: Chinook stuck in the mud
« Reply #84 on: 17 January, 2021, 08:09:59 pm »
It's very unlikely it wasn't tracked, if it was flying IFR in UK airspace. About the only IL62s that are potential visitors to Brize would be something like Polish Air Force (if they still have them - I haven't looked). But they would be operating as GAT and would be tracked. Nothing else of any size with rear-mounted engines, vintage or otherwise, is flying.

The Bombardier Global Express or CRJ is probably the largest twin-engined aircraft with rear-mounted engines flying these days. The RAF uses the Raytheon Sentinel, which is a electronic reconnaissance aircraft based on the Global Express. It has a lot of extraneous aerialage, which does confuse the outline somewhat, and it is of a nature which might mean it's not tracked at times, but Brize isn't where it would be going (they're based at Waddington). Not that they wouldn't visit Brize, but they would be traceable on regular training flights.

orraloon

  • I'm trying Ringo, I'm trying real hard
Re: Chinook stuck in the mud
« Reply #85 on: 17 January, 2021, 08:15:13 pm »
Oh well.  Now if I were a kid glued to my phone I would have taken a video.  But I'm not.  Thanks though anyway.

TimC

  • Old blerk sometimes onabike.
Re: Chinook stuck in the mud
« Reply #86 on: 17 January, 2021, 08:17:24 pm »
It'll have to remain a mystery! Gave me cause to look up some nice photos, though.

Just for interest, this is the last visit to UK I can find evidence of of an IL62 - at Doncaster in 2018 (former RAF Finningley, where I was based from 1987-91)

https://youtu.be/8ciLyaheuSo

LittleWheelsandBig

  • Whimsy Rider
Re: Chinook stuck in the mud
« Reply #87 on: 17 January, 2021, 08:18:09 pm »
Any cargo 727s or MD80s operating in the UK?
Wheel meet again, don't know where, don't know when...

TimC

  • Old blerk sometimes onabike.
Re: Chinook stuck in the mud
« Reply #88 on: 17 January, 2021, 08:24:57 pm »
Any cargo 727s or MD80s operating in the UK?

Good point. There are very few of either left in Europe, but Oil Spill Response operate a couple of 727s - again out of Doncaster, I think. The only MD80s I can think of that might come here are Danish, and I'm not sure if they still fly. Can't remember the operator.

ElyDave

  • Royal and Ancient Polar Bear Society member 263583
Re: Chinook stuck in the mud
« Reply #89 on: 17 January, 2021, 08:25:21 pm »
I think there are still some DC-10s out of Stansted, but not likely to be that low over Oxfordshire, surely? Also three engines, not four.

KC-10s also still around? I'm trying to think of the last time I saw one of those overhead round here. EDIT not according to their website.
“Procrastination is the thief of time, collar him.” –Charles Dickens

ElyDave

  • Royal and Ancient Polar Bear Society member 263583
Re: Chinook stuck in the mud
« Reply #90 on: 17 January, 2021, 08:27:09 pm »
Any cargo 727s or MD80s operating in the UK?

Good point. There are very few of either left in Europe, but Oil Spill Response operate a couple of 727s - again out of Doncaster, I think. The only MD80s I can think of that might come here are Danish, and I'm not sure if they still fly. Can't remember the operator.

Possibly also Southampton for ORSL  from memory?
“Procrastination is the thief of time, collar him.” –Charles Dickens


TimC

  • Old blerk sometimes onabike.
Re: Chinook stuck in the mud
« Reply #92 on: 17 January, 2021, 08:29:15 pm »
Any cargo 727s or MD80s operating in the UK?

Good point. There are very few of either left in Europe, but Oil Spill Response operate a couple of 727s - again out of Doncaster, I think. The only MD80s I can think of that might come here are Danish, and I'm not sure if they still fly. Can't remember the operator.

Possibly also Southampton for ORSL  from memory?

Yes, quite possibly. Last I heard (a mate works for them) they were home-based at Donny, but I'm sure they operate out of any coastal airfields in UK.

ElyDave

  • Royal and Ancient Polar Bear Society member 263583
Re: Chinook stuck in the mud
« Reply #93 on: 17 January, 2021, 08:32:42 pm »
I seem to remember multiple places, plus spotter aircraft, oriented around the Channel and other strategic points. I only know this from numerous lengthy discussions on oil spill plans by offshore operators.
“Procrastination is the thief of time, collar him.” –Charles Dickens

Re: Chinook stuck in the mud
« Reply #94 on: 17 January, 2021, 09:34:44 pm »
Am I the only one that has been in a chinook crash  ;)

I’ve helped prevent one cutting itself in two.

Gearbox failure?

I think it was something to do with the rotor brake.
Rust never sleeps

PaulF

  • "World's Scariest Barman"
  • It's only impossible if you stop to think about it
Re: Chinook stuck in the mud
« Reply #95 on: 17 January, 2021, 10:31:11 pm »
Am I the only one that has been in a chinook crash  ;)

I’ve helped prevent one cutting itself in two.

Gearbox failure?

I think it was something to do with the rotor brake.

Close. The “droop stop” which prevents the rotors from hitting the fuselage had fallen off. Whilst I was improvising a ramp to flip the rotor over the fuselage a pilot was in another aircraft practising using the brake to stop the rotor in time. Ramp in position we were ready to go and the pilot managed to bring the offending rotor to a halt just before it hit the ramp.

orraloon

  • I'm trying Ringo, I'm trying real hard
Re: Chinook stuck in the mud
« Reply #96 on: 17 January, 2021, 10:31:42 pm »
It'll have to remain a mystery! Gave me cause to look up some nice photos, though.

Just for interest, this is the last visit to UK I can find evidence of of an IL62 - at Doncaster in 2018 (former RAF Finningley, where I was based from 1987-91)

https://youtu.be/8ciLyaheuSo
It was that sort of profile, def the 4 engines clustered on the rear.  The youtube angles weren't as I saw overhead so no direct comparison of the wing sweep (non tech speak  :)) And it was noisy.  #scratcheshead

Mr Larrington

  • A bit ov a lyv wyr by slof standirds
  • Custard Wallah
    • Mr Larrington's Automatic Diary
Re: Chinook stuck in the mud
« Reply #97 on: 18 January, 2021, 01:14:06 am »
It's very unlikely it wasn't tracked, if it was flying IFR in UK airspace. About the only IL62s that are potential visitors to Brize would be something like Polish Air Force (if they still have them - I haven't looked). But they would be operating as GAT and would be tracked. Nothing else of any size with rear-mounted engines, vintage or otherwise, is flying.

Wikinaccurate says the only remaining operators of IL-62s are Russia, North Korea, Sudan and Rada.  No, not the school for luvvies but an airline from Belarus, who apparently still have two.
External Transparent Wall Inspection Operative & Mayor of Mortagne-au-Perche
Satisfying the Bloodlust of the Masses in Peacetime

TimC

  • Old blerk sometimes onabike.
Re: Chinook stuck in the mud
« Reply #98 on: 18 January, 2021, 09:23:51 am »
The one in the video at Donny is RADA, and is a cargo aircraft. I wonder if they visited Brize recently? It's possible.

Edit: but sadly not. The last time either of their aircraft was in UK was 24 December 2020, at Doncaster again. Neither has flown since 4 Jan 21.

Regulator

  • That's Councillor Regulator to you...
Re: Chinook stuck in the mud
« Reply #99 on: 18 January, 2021, 03:41:06 pm »
Talk of the Devil...  we've just had a Chinook fly over.  First one in ages.
Quote from: clarion
I completely agree with Reg.

Green Party Councillor