Looking at the first picture, she's running a bit rich :-\
Looking at the first picture, she's running a bit rich :-\
I think Vulcans were some of the most beautiful aircraft ever designed. Much better looking than Concorde.As you probably know, a Vulcan was used for testing the Concorde engines. I Can't remember where it is, but I'm sure I've seen it.
I saw another Vulcan today, on a runway near Wellesbourne. Just looked it up, and apparently it was parked there in '84, and they still rev it up and taxi it.
I think Vulcans were some of the most beautiful aircraft ever designed. Much better looking than Concorde.As you probably know, a Vulcan was used for testing the Concorde engines. I Can't remember where it is, but I'm sure I've seen it.
The Mirage is pretty generic, could be confused for a load of different planes.
Christ, there's loads of them. Convair F102 Delta Dagger to start with (1950)
I see your Mirage and raise you a Lightning
The Vulcan has curves like a sexy woman.
I always knew you weren't really a homo, Reg.
;)
and finally swept majestically off back to Lincolnshire.
(http://www.alfiecat.co.uk/yetacf/Vulcan_7.jpg)
When I was a nipper living in the Cerne Valley in Dorset
When I was a nipper living in the Cerne Valley in Dorset they used to regularly thunder down the valley. Awesome sight!!
In fact, probably because of the Cerne Giant, we used to get all sorts of stuff flying over, even A10 Warthogs from Bentwaters in Suffolk.
When I was a nipper living in the Cerne Valley in Dorset
I'll bet it was you who carved the CDC on the once decent giant. ;D
You jest but it is suspected that originally the giant had a navel and a slightly smaller cock.
Yes, the French have some humour
Yes, the French have some humour
Le Benny Hill!!!
I showed the photos to a friend and a tear came to his eye. He said "I do like these magestic old timers. You can't beat an old bird, noisy, undercarriage deployed, flaps down, venting noxious trails of exhaust."
Marvelous.
My school was next to Bitterswell Aerodrome where, in the 70's, lots of aircraft came to be fettled/rebuild/tested.
You'd be in class enjoying Double Hard Sums when suddenly someone would take off in an early jet of a Spitfire or something. I'm now not very good at hard sums.
They would also run the engines up to test them on jets like the Vulcan and it was v noisey. It's a wonder we're not all deaf.
Pardon?
That would be XA903.I think Vulcans were some of the most beautiful aircraft ever designed. Much better looking than Concorde.As you probably know, a Vulcan was used for testing the Concorde engines. I Can't remember where it is, but I'm sure I've seen it.
There's a pretty good chance my dad knows at least half of the people in that picture. I shall have to ask him.That's a lot better than I can recall, which is limited to 2 names & a few faces (not including my own).
Was it Filton?It was indeed, though we always referred to the 'engines' site and the north side of the runway as Patchway.
Haynes manual now available (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06/23/vulcan_manual/). :)
Assembly is the reverse of disassembly
QuoteAssembly is the reverse of disassembly
What? Unspank it with a big hammer? ???
The aircraft in formation with the Vulcan look like RAF two seat Tucano trainers.
I wouldn't want to fly so close to a Vulcan, with the sort of vortices those wings generate. I suppose they know what they're doing.
and it has been declared fit to fly today, so will fly for it's last active year.
Catch it if you can!
I'm booked to see it at an early season display. Can't wait.
and it has been declared fit to fly today, so will fly for it's last active year.
Catch it if you can!
I'm booked to see it at an early season display. Can't wait.
Last active year? Is it knackered?
My dad actually worked at Barnoldswick then Derby, but was often down in Bristol. Though back then, he was just part of the team, he went on to be Chief Metallurgist & Head of Labs, so testing stuff was his thing.
Yes to both. And now FICorr, FIP and many more.
I knew it was a complex operation, although I hadn't quite grasped how complicated the refueling was - with tankers refuelling tankers mid-air, just so the tankers had the range to refuel the Vulcan...
I just saw a documentary on telly about the bombing of Stanley airport. I knew it was a complex operation, although I hadn't quite grasped how complicated the refueling was - with tankers refuelling tankers mid-air, just so the tankers had the range to refuel the Vulcan...
But the thing that really gobsmacked me was that apparently the RAF didn't have a chart of the South Atlantic. The navigator used one of the North Atlantic, turned it upside down and re-labeled the Azores...
I just saw a documentary on telly about the bombing of Stanley airport. I knew it was a complex operation, although I hadn't quite grasped how complicated the refueling was - with tankers refuelling tankers mid-air, just so the tankers had the range to refuel the Vulcan...The bombs were dropped from an incredible height too - it's amazing that they got that one on target. The apprach run was low but the bombs were dropped from several thousand feet, IIRC.
But the thing that really gobsmacked me was that apparently the RAF didn't have a chart of the South Atlantic. The navigator used one of the North Atlantic, turned it upside down and re-labeled the Azores...
Chris got really quite excited when we saw abig noisy black dota Vulcan fly past yesterday. I just don't get it.
I wanted to add something by saying how much I enjoyed visiting the RAF museum at Hendon* last week and watching the dystopian cold-war video of big and noisy bombers taking off, that they've got running in the Vulcan's bomb-bay (Vulcans look a lot bigger on the telly, don't they?), but after the mutual respect about each others' head-of-metallurgy dads, I've come over with a wave of inferiority and can't really add much to the discussion. Save for the fact that with actually flying one of the f*ckers over the S Atlantic with an upside-down map during the Falklands War, I hereby declare TimC the winner of this thread.
*God. That Buccaneer in Gulf I rig-up's a sexy looking thing.
PS What's a graticule?
Yes, they flew low to gauge position, then 5,000ft to drop the bombs a bit safer.
I was driving Hercules, not Vulcans, but the nav techniques were the same. So I'll have to decline your thread-winner award!
Embarrassed the Navy no end when we told them how far off track they were...
A fuzzy black dot between Thorne and Selby.
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3702/8754383304_eb362cfd74.jpg)
Maybe you had to be there? (Or have a much better camera, and not be snapping from a moving bicycle.)
Yes, they flew low to gauge position, then 5,000ft to drop the bombs a bit safer.
I wonder why they didn't use those evil-looking Hunting Engineering devices that are designed to knock out a runway?I was driving Hercules, not Vulcans, but the nav techniques were the same. So I'll have to decline your thread-winner award!
War and Vulcans apart, it still sounds incredibly exciting.
A fuzzy black dot between Thorne and Selby.
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3702/8754383304_eb362cfd74.jpg)
Maybe you had to be there? (Or have a much better camera, and not be snapping from a moving bicycle.)
Apparently the Argies filled the crater within a day,to a good enough standard for a Hercules. Mind you, they can land on fairly rough airstrips.
Yes, they flew low to gauge position, then 5,000ft to drop the bombs a bit safer.
I wonder why they didn't use those evil-looking Hunting Engineering devices that are designed to knock out a runway?I was driving Hercules, not Vulcans, but the nav techniques were the same. So I'll have to decline your thread-winner award!
War and Vulcans apart, it still sounds incredibly exciting.
The JP233 wasn't in service in 1982, and it wasn't designed as a bomb-bay weapon, so the Vulcan couldn't carry it. As a conventional bomber, the Vulcan was barely more advanced than the Lancaster - it even used the same targeting radar the Lanc had in the latter years of WW2. Hence the need to bomb from 10000ft (not 5000), in a 'stick' of bombs at an angle to the runway. This made it more likely to get a hit, and that any near misses could undermine a runway's foundations. That worked very well at Stanley, and we had trouble with that bit of runway for some years afterwards!
As a conventional bomber, the Vulcan was barely more advanced than the Lancaster - it even used the same targeting radar the Lanc had in the latter years of WW2. Hence the need to bomb from 10000ft (not 5000), in a 'stick' of bombs at an angle to the runway. This made it more likely to get a hit, and that any near misses could undermine a runway's foundations. That worked very well at Stanley, and we had trouble with that bit of runway for some years afterwards!
One way.
Bloody hell, scary times. My parents moved to SW London when my Pop got a job in London on the basis that the prevailing wind was from the SW, so any fallout would likely blow away from them when central London was bombed.
Incidentally, the '15 tankers' gig was to get a Vulcan the 4000 miles from Ascension to the Falklands with enough fuel on board to make the return trip. It does not reflect the Cold War situation.
Moscow to Mongolia must be several times as far as UK to Moscow. Maybe with a bit of luck they could have made it as far as Kazakhstan - which is where the Soviet nukes where tested, so they wouldn't necessarily have been much better off!One way.
Bloody hell, scary times. My parents moved to SW London when my Pop got a job in London on the basis that the prevailing wind was from the SW, so any fallout would likely blow away from them when central London was bombed.
A friend of mine was active in CND in the 80s in the Cheltenham area. With GCHQ, it was considered quite a target. Apparently some folk reckoned they'd be fine, because they lived on the other side of Cleeve Hill, so the bomb wouldn't affect them.
As a kid, I went through a period of terror after our school took us to see a theatre production of When the Wind Blows. For a few nights I didn't sleep, and went cold everytime I heard a plane going over.
I heard a story that the advice given to Vulcan crews was to keep going after they dropped their load, and find nice Mongolian girls to settle down with (but I don't know if Mongolia was in their range).
So that means that fighter needs more runway than a Hercules? Why's that, I would have assumed it would be the other way round - bigger plane needs longer take off?Apparently the Argies filled the crater within a day,to a good enough standard for a Hercules. Mind you, they can land on fairly rough airstrips.
They did. The runway was 4100ft long, and the crater was about 500ft from the western end, so pretty much irrelevant to short-range C130 operations. But it put paid to any plans to base fighters there.
Edit: as Torslanda said above!
So that means that fighter needs more runway than a Hercules? Why's that, I would have assumed it would be the other way round - bigger plane needs longer take off?Apparently the Argies filled the crater within a day,to a good enough standard for a Hercules. Mind you, they can land on fairly rough airstrips.
They did. The runway was 4100ft long, and the crater was about 500ft from the western end, so pretty much irrelevant to short-range C130 operations. But it put paid to any plans to base fighters there.
Edit: as Torslanda said above!
So that means that fighter needs more runway than a Hercules? Why's that, I would have assumed it would be the other way round - bigger plane needs longer take off?Apparently the Argies filled the crater within a day,to a good enough standard for a Hercules. Mind you, they can land on fairly rough airstrips.
They did. The runway was 4100ft long, and the crater was about 500ft from the western end, so pretty much irrelevant to short-range C130 operations. But it put paid to any plans to base fighters there.
Edit: as Torslanda said above!
Some might already know through our webpages and social media feeds, that unfortunately on Wednesday we had to make the announcement of a decision to cancel all further flight planning this season.
This was on the basis of a report we received earlier in the day on the condition of the leaking No.5 tank from specialists FPT Industries in Portsmouth.
Given that more than one leak and other signs of deterioration were found, and that the tank is itself over 30 years old, we had concluded that, if repaired, the tank would remain vulnerable to further leaks.
We have therefore decided that repair of the tank would not prove economical and, if reinstalled on the aircraft, could prove to be unreliable.
There is no airworthy spare available; so we have accordingly commissioned a new tank to be manufactured immediately.
With an estimated 16 week lead time for manufacture, it will not be possible to return the aircraft to flight again in 2013. XH558 has therefore sadly made her last public appearance this year.
So that means that fighter needs more runway than a Hercules? Why's that, I would have assumed it would be the other way round - bigger plane needs longer take off?Apparently the Argies filled the crater within a day,to a good enough standard for a Hercules. Mind you, they can land on fairly rough airstrips.
They did. The runway was 4100ft long, and the crater was about 500ft from the western end, so pretty much irrelevant to short-range C130 operations. But it put paid to any plans to base fighters there.
Edit: as Torslanda said above!
The Hercules is specifically designed to be a short take-off/landing aircraft, with a wing designed to give very high lift at low speed. In full tactical mode, it lands and takes off at around 85kts, and needs around 1500ft to take off and as little as 700ft to land (still air - the US Navy trials gave around 45kts wind-over-deck, allowing not just landings on deck, but starting the take-off run from where it stopped after landing!). Further, propellor-driven aircraft can accelerate much faster than jets in the low speed range. A fighter has a wing optimised for much higher speeds, and generally takes off at a much higher proportion of its maximum all-up weight. Take-off and landing speeds of a Mirage or Super Etendard would be around 170kts, and would normally need a runway of at least 7000ft. Stanley's runway, undamaged, would only have allowed very limited-range fighter operations, but that would still have been better than mainland-based ops.
Final season confirmed.I plan to be in Eastbourne for the air show, for that very reason.
Catch it flying this year, while you can.
Last year I trained and biked it and parked myself on the grassy bit just to the west of Old Shoreham Road. Plenty of others did too. But it wasn't so crowded that I couldn't nip into Shoreham to get some chips, and I could still find a place to park myself when I returned.
Here:
https://goo.gl/maps/x3bFc
I'll be going on the Sunday - no Typhoon on the Saturday :(
This year I think I might take the Brommie on the train.
Needless to say Shorem station was busy after the last display of the day.
In fact I might ride the 5 or so miles to Worthing, where I won't be fighting for a seat on the train.
Seewotimeen?I do.
At the heart of Shoreham Airshow is a large showground full of many different traders and attractions. The airshow welcomes applications from all traders and charities wishing to exhibit at the airshow. PLEASE NOTE: The on-site catering is provided by franchise and individual applications cannot be accepted.
The recreation ground along there looks like it might have potential.
I suspect I am not the only person to have had that idea.....
A celebratory national tour, XH558’s most ambitious ever, is being planned for Saturday 10th and Sunday 11th October.
It will bring her flying career to a spectacular close in two sorties to cover the north and south, giving as many people as possible a final opportunity to see the dramatic sight of a Vulcan in the air.
In saluting that remarkable period of intense British innovation that XH558 so powerfully embodies, the tour will include fly-pasts of several sites famous for British aviation excellence, as well as other well-known locations chosen to provide good vantage points for supporters.
The flight plan and viewing options on the ground are yet to be confirmed, so please continue to read our email newsletters, Facebook, Twitter and postal mailings for further details.
Spectacular Final Cross-Country Tour
Chief Pilot Martin Withers is spending time optimising the North and South Tours planned for October 10 and 11 so that as many people as possible can see her fly at least one more time. “Both flights are now amongst the longest she has undertaken since the restoration,” says Martin. “We will be releasing the routes next week as soon as they are approved by all the relevant external authorities.”
Flight information via Twitter and Facebook will be the main mechanisms for ensuring that XH558’s supporters know where she is and where she is heading. Do please try to witness these wonderful final cross-country flights, rather than travelling to Doncaster. It is hoped that, weather allowing, the final few flights will be after the tour, later in October.
For the avoidance of doubt, contrary to speculation seen on the internet, there will be no Vulcan sortie on Sunday 18th October.
“It is absolutely imperative that we show the airport and the emergency services that XH558’s supporters are responsible, understand the safety needs of the airport and will willingly forego attempts to see a take-off or landing at Doncaster,” concludes Robert Pleming. “We must start immediately, with this weekend’s flight, and show the authorities that we should be allowed to continue to fly this remarkable aircraft as long as we are able to delight all her supporters across the country.”
We are busy adding even more locations to the tour and seeking final permissions.
Look out for our special National Tour alert which will be packed with information about where to see XH558 flying this weekend. Dropping into your email box early tomorrow evening, it will include flight plans and a map to help you find the nearest place for you and your family and friends to see her.
The tour routes on Saturday and Sunday, with lots of other related information, will now feature in a DEDICATED ‘NATIONAL TOUR’ NEWSLETTER EDITION. This will be sent to all our usual newsletter subscribers by 6pm tomorrow evening WEDNESDAY 7th October.
...Found out after we had all dispersed that she cam back to the bridges. :'(
...
Still, as Flaatuus said, it is almost impossible the beat the take off on the Saturday of this year's RIAT.
saw it yesterday looking very brooding over mackerel sky at Farnborough, probably the very last time for me
haven't seen any more details but in theory does she have another 3 weekends to display?
Who's been a bit naughty then? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-34712346)
Although the video looks a little dubious.
Who's been a bit naughty then? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-34712346)
Although the video looks a little dubious.
Who's been a bit naughty then? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-34712346)
Although the video looks a little dubious.
Downright bloody dodgy if you ask me. If it rolled and someone filmed it then why not post the footage?
That just looks like stop frame animation.
Photographed in time-lapse, as video camera not available.
Heads up! :)
Guy Martin: Last Flight of the Vulcan Bomber Sun 29th Nov @ 7.30pm
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/guy-martin-last-flight-of-the-vulcan-bomber
Guy restores a Vulcan, reveals its story... and gets to try and wheelie one along a runway
Boeing's test pilot, Tex Johnson, turned the 707 prototype umop 3p1sdn over Seattle...
The aircraft was very ‘stealthy’ front-on, the smooth lines and small engine inlets making it difficult to detect on radar at low-level, but its fuel-hungry Olympus engines rather spoiled the effect. “We were out in Oman one time, and we were doing exercises off the southern coast of Iran back when we were friends with them, and we decided to come back to the airfield at Masirah and do a dummy attack,” he says. “We were flying really low, about 300ft. And then suddenly we get this message from the control tower at Masirah, when we were still about 25 miles away: ‘I can see you, I can see you.’ They could see the smoke from our engines from 25 miles away.”
An interesting story on BBC Future.QuoteThe aircraft was very ‘stealthy’ front-on, the smooth lines and small engine inlets making it difficult to detect on radar at low-level, but its fuel-hungry Olympus engines rather spoiled the effect. “We were out in Oman one time, and we were doing exercises off the southern coast of Iran back when we were friends with them, and we decided to come back to the airfield at Masirah and do a dummy attack,” he says. “We were flying really low, about 300ft. And then suddenly we get this message from the control tower at Masirah, when we were still about 25 miles away: ‘I can see you, I can see you.’ They could see the smoke from our engines from 25 miles away.”
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20151023-how-the-cold-war-vulcan-bomber-flew-again
An interesting story on BBC Future.QuoteThe aircraft was very ‘stealthy’ front-on, the smooth lines and small engine inlets making it difficult to detect on radar at low-level, but its fuel-hungry Olympus engines rather spoiled the effect. “We were out in Oman one time, and we were doing exercises off the southern coast of Iran back when we were friends with them, and we decided to come back to the airfield at Masirah and do a dummy attack,” he says. “We were flying really low, about 300ft. And then suddenly we get this message from the control tower at Masirah, when we were still about 25 miles away: ‘I can see you, I can see you.’ They could see the smoke from our engines from 25 miles away.”
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20151023-how-the-cold-war-vulcan-bomber-flew-again
It was a bugbear of most military aircraft of the era - the RR Spey-powered Phantom being probably the worst offender.
I read that the team's next project is to restore a Canberra to flying service. A bomber of even older vintage, they should do well with it. It was the first jet plane Airfix kit I made, mainly because I loved the Mosquito and this seemed to be the natural successor :thumbsup:
The BBC have published this interesting snippet about NASA still flying them: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160309-why-nasa-still-flies-an-old-british-bomber-design (http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160309-why-nasa-still-flies-an-old-british-bomber-design)
I read that the team's next project is to restore a Canberra to flying service. A bomber of even older vintage, they should do well with it. ...
I thought WK163 had the civil registration G-BVWC? Last flew in 2007 with the Air Atlantique Classic Flight at Coventry, but took a bird down an engine and hasn't flown since.
I thought WK163 had the civil registration G-BVWC? Last flew in 2007 with the Air Atlantique Classic Flight at Coventry, but took a bird down an engine and hasn't flown since. ...
... I'm not sure why it was changed. ...
I read that the team's next project is to restore a Canberra to flying service. A bomber of even older vintage, they should do well with it. It was the first jet plane Airfix kit I made, mainly because I loved the Mosquito and this seemed to be the natural successor :thumbsup:
The BBC have published this interesting snippet about NASA still flying them: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160309-why-nasa-still-flies-an-old-british-bomber-design (http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160309-why-nasa-still-flies-an-old-british-bomber-design)
Midair squadron have a beautiful pair of Canberra / Hunter; haven't seen them for a couple of years though.
Now XH558 is grounded what's everyone's fave?
Sea Vixen FTW 8)
All the above, and
Chipmunk
Chipmunk
Are there no flying Chipmunks left ?
[edit]
The BBMF has two in flying condition they use for conversion training.
Loads in private hands still flying. The RAF went through over 700 of them.
[/edit]
All the above, and
Chipmunk
Are there no flying Chipmunks left ?
[edit]
The BBMF has two in flying condition they use for conversion training.
Loads in private hands still flying. The RAF went through over 700 of them.
[/edit]
Now XH558 is grounded what's everyone's fave?
Sea Vixen FTW 8)
All the above, and
Chipmunk
Are there no flying Chipmunks left ?
[edit]
The BBMF has two in flying condition they use for conversion training.
Sea Vixen now grounded prolly for the rest of the season :( flappy bit borked at Eastbourne on Sunday:( Hope this can be resolved.
Sea Vixen now grounded prolly for the rest of the season :( flappy bit borked at Eastbourne on Sunday:( Hope this can be resolved.
Not sure she is. I believe there are some privately owned F100 Super Sabres in private ownership in the US. I may be wrong.
Minor whinge. Why the FOOK do journos insist on calling the Avro Vulcan a 'Vulcan bomber'? And for the matter of that they do the same with the bloody Lancaster, too!
Is the Noo F-35 Jump Jet (another awful 60s press term!) called a Lightning II after the P-38 (which I get confused with the Westland Whirlwind, not the chopper of the same name) or the EE version? and should it be a Lightning III?
and it looks more like a Dyson than a Harrier in hover mode
I can't help thinking that even after another expensive repair it might be curtains for her flying career.
Here's a non-Sun report: https://theaviationist.com/2017/05/27/sea-vixen-does-wheels-up-emergency-landing-at-duxford/Jets maybe. They are considerably more complicated and more difficult to keep airworthy than the piston engined stuff that preceded them. Isn't that what's grounded XH588 and why the chances of restoring a Concorde to flying condition are practically nil?I can't help thinking that even after another expensive repair it might be curtains for her flying career.
I agree - this incident, even though it was a landing that the pilot could walk away from, will only add to the post-Shoreham twitchiness about vintage military aircraft.