OT: Vulcan bomber flying at last

Have you read the referenced book ? Since I am sitting in Incheon Airport in Korea atm, I can't look up my copy, but from (fallible) memory, primary source there claims that the inflight refuelling system was built in the way I described, from parts that had been discarded. Maybe my memory is wrong, or they were not trying to lay down the entire administrative paperwork chain in the interests of the narrative, rather as I was by using the word "junk" I'll re-read the book when I get back anyway - seeing the Vulcan fly again makes it relevant

You must work in ISO 9000 - talk about nitpicking.

Steve

In message , " snipped-for-privacy@thetaylorfamily.org.uk" writes

[penny drops]

Ah, I think you have crossed wires. There were some rushed

*modifications* made to various aircraft, which included "bolting on" the Sidewinder AA missile rails to such beasts as the Nimrod and, I think, even the Vulcan. Now someone might have described that in the manner you say.

Nope, not even close.

Nope, I read the book and they were specifically referrring to the in-flight refuelling system, IIRC a valve assembly near to the probe that was eventually found lying around somewhere.

In message , Darren Griffin - PocketGPSWorld. Com writes

Well now, it seems they used the proper factory-made component, not junk after all. They may have had to 'rob' a valve from another plane (even from a scrapped plane) which is routine or get one from another station (e.g. Scampton scrounged one from Waddington) but that's hardly 'recycling junk' is it? No, it's reusing the proper component.

Yes, in times of war, sometimes one has to improvise and things can be achieved in days when red tape normally means years (bolting the Sidewinder to Nimrod was an example). Whereas your OP implied that people were scavenging in skips for pieces of 'junk' to keep the Vulcan fleet aloft. Twas never so. As Elmer Keith said, "Hell, I was there."

And I think we've probably thrashed this particular deceased equine sufficiently now. Can we get back to Land-Rovers?

In current times, it's referred to as "cannibalisation", not "robbing". There was a change in terminology some 5 years back. The Nimrod refuel probe was a classic c*ck-up in its day, developed by BAe but rejected by the MoD on cost grounds, then hurriedly installed (in about

30 hours per airframe!) for the Falklands Conflict, along with the Sidewinder pylons. The probe sat on a carved hardwood support block at its rear, panelled over, and with 2 support struts just forward of this, but the major lash-up was the routing of the 2 fuel feed pipes right through the inside of the aircraft, strapped down to the floor with aluminium strips bent to suit and weaving their way down through all the crew seating positions! This was in the days when smoking was still permitted on military aircraft as well....!!! The system was finally redesigned in the late 80's and modified across the fleet to put the main run of the pipe outwith the crew compartment by about 1996. There is ongoing debate as to whether this system played any part in the loss of a Nimrod last year over Afghanistan. Badger.

Brilliant mission? I thought the bombs missed the runway, the whole point of the long flight was to knock out the airport at Port Stanley, wasn't it? So all the effort was in vain as the airport was easily brought back into service, according to newspaper reports at the time.

In message , Jonathan Spencer writes

Quite. Now, if I have two Land Rovers and I take parts from one to get the other to work in order to go to my independent supplier, am I recycling junk or re-using a component or does that depend on whether one Land rover is subject to a SORN?

One crater in the runway, and never filled well enough to operate fast jets. That made a huge difference to what the Argentine military could do.

On or around Thu, 25 Oct 2007 08:06:51 +1000, Duracell Bunny enlightened us thusly:

it was mostly about propaganda, I think - making the point that Britain could and would send a tactical bomber that far. Presumably, the implication was that we could equally well have bombed Buenos Aires.

Nope. One bomb put the runway out of action and it was never fully repaired.

The original idea was to fly along the length of the runway, bombing as they went but, for operational reasons, it was decided to fly across the runway at an angle of 60 (?) deg, a pattern which had been used with success during the second world war.

The logic is, if you're slightly out when flying along the runway, all your bombs can be off to one side and cause no damage at all; a 60deg angle means at least one bomb will hit the runway, possibly two

Lying around in stores somewhere, you mean

According to my copy (page 111) the 4-inch non-return refuelling valves had long ago been filled with sealant but the RAFs new computerised spares system found 20 such valves 'lying around' on a shelf in a warehouse at RAF Stafford.

They were by no means 'recycled junk' though, being current parts from an RAF store

There's this persistent myth around that it was BA who killed off Concorde.

1. The Concorde support was provided by Airbus (who had taken it on from the original manufacturers over the years during the French aviation industry mergers)
2. Airbus increased the price of this support to Air France and BA significantly - double is a figure I heard.

3 Air France weren't prepared to pay this for their fleet of 5 so decided to ground them 4 The full cost of the support organisation then fell on BA who were unable and unwilling to pay this massive increase.

So it's Airbus who killed off Concorde. Branson would not have had the support from Airbus even if BA had let him have them. Branson would not have even acquired the maintenance expertise for day-to-day flying. All those engineers, many of whom had spent much of their aviation careers with BA working on it, were not about to give up their nice pay and pensions to work for significantly less for Branson. Likewise the pilots.

The spares are all long gone and dispersed around the world. All but one Concorde has sat around and deteriorated to the extent that they are not airworthy. It would take more than a Vulcan's millions to make one airworthy. And there's the spares situation again. The one possibility is one in France which has been kept hangared and systems working in the hope that one day it may fly. Depending upon money, support, spares, money, engineers, crew, money

Mike Evans

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services

---------------------------------------------------------- ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **

----------------------------------------------------------

The one currently sat idle at Filton is, according to BAe Systems, in almost as good nick as the day it landed there. Considerable sums of money have been spent to maintain the airframe against the ravages of the weather. Preventative measures have been taken to ensure that engines and hydraulic systems can be restored rather than replaced ~ something the French have not done.

Personally, I doubt we'll ever see one fly again but am happy to have donated to it's upkeep and will continue to do so as long as I have the means to do so. If only the local councils would get off their arses and agree on a permanent site for a museum ...........