 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Models / May 2008Vulcan news
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/7350861.stm  SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/7350861.stm > > -- > Enzo > > I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. What's this got to do with Mr. Spock? (:> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/7350861.stm >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What's this got to do with Mr. Spock? (:> If the groundcrew went about their bfs in a logical manner, they wouldn't have these problems. ;-) SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. >>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/7350861.stm >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >If the groundcrew went about their bfs in a logical manner, they wouldn't >have these problems. ;-) to quote mr spock, the universe tends to the perverse. it may not be logical, but it is true. >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/7350861.stm >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >What's this got to do with Mr. Spock? (:> mr spock wishes he could fly in one. i'm glad they got the old girl airborn. wish i had some spare cash to donate. > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/7350861.stm > > -- > Enzo > > I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. we canna continue th flight captain we do nah have th powerrrr > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/7350861.stm I do love the Vulcan but not trying to create a Hornets nest, I do believe there is an original Lancaster that pre-datates the BBMF one but which is allowed to taxi but not fly?? As long as the type meets current flying conditions/legislation I do not foresee any problems, & even then are there not enough original WW2 aircraft flying around under company/personal ownership to display the great care & responsibility organisers make before undertaking public displays? I just thank all those dedicated individuals for allowing me to view such historical aircraft within there natural environment rather than the normal museum piece (which I still admire but nothing compares to hearing engines & such actually flying) Hopefully I'll make a Duxford Flying Legends show again in the next few years. Cheers, Stephen On Apr 16, 6:37 pm, "SL" <stephenles...@norubbishblueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/7350861.stm > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Cheers, > Stephen Hi there. There is a museum just outside of Hamilton, Ontario, Canada (Mt. Hope Airport) that has a flying Lancaster "Minarski's Lancaster". Cheers from Peter >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/7350861.stm >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Hopefully I'll make a Duxford Flying Legends show again in the next > few years. I also have my reservations about keeping this Vulcan flying. I can see it turning into a huge money pit. The owners already reckon that they will require a million pounds to pay for it throughout the airshow season. After the season is over, how much will they require to pay for maintenance? This will repeat every year until the aircraft requires major maintenance, when no doubt they will be looking for ten million quid. Because the aircraft is so high-profile, not doubt they will get the moeny they require. Some of it will probably come from lottery funding. However, that money could be used for dozens of smaller but no less important restiration projects that will now languish away in dusty hangars somewhere. I think the owners should try to find some way of making the Vulcan pay for itself. Maybe they could offer flights in the aircraft, similar to the Lightnings, Buccaneers and Hunters of Thunder City. SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. >I think the owners should try to find some way of making the Vulcan pay for >itself. Maybe they could offer flights in the aircraft, similar to the >Lightnings, Buccaneers and Hunters of Thunder City. Hire themselves out to small governments? (Delivery; you give us the package, we drop it off where you want. No questions asked.) Signature-Jack > Because the aircraft is so high-profile, not doubt they will get the moeny > they require. Some of it will probably come from lottery funding. However, > that money could be used for dozens of smaller but no less important > restiration projects that will now languish away in dusty hangars somewhere. > This brings up the other problem in relation to doing this; if it crashes, there's one less Vulcan that could have been preserved in a museum collection for people to see for many years into the future. > I think the owners should try to find some way of making the Vulcan pay for > itself. Maybe they could offer flights in the aircraft, similar to the > Lightnings, Buccaneers and Hunters of Thunder City. > 50 skydivers at a time in the bomb-bay; that's the key. ;-) Pat >> Because the aircraft is so high-profile, not doubt they will get the >> moeny they require. Some of it will probably come from lottery funding. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Pat That's two times work commitments have prevented me making the very short trip to Brunty to watch the Vulcan take to the skies then. Bugger. Hopefully I can catch it at the shows this year, assuming it makes it. Fingers crossed. One Bruntingthorpe resident that won't be making it is the airworthy Lightning F6 that regularly makes very loud anti det runs. The CAA (Campaign Against Aviation) won't allow it to fly as it represents a fire hazard. (Shakes head in disbelief). > One Bruntingthorpe resident that won't be making it is the > airworthy Lightning F6 that regularly makes very loud anti det runs. The CAA > (Campaign Against Aviation) won't allow it to fly as it represents a fire > hazard. (Shakes head in disbelief). Well, when you're flying at twenty feet under full afterburner.... ;-) Seriously, trying to get replacement parts for the Vulcan must be a real pain. Does Britain have anything like our Davis-Monthan AFB with old aircraft hulks lying around? I always assumed that the older aircraft were scraped, sent to museums, or used as gunnery targets. Neither the Vulcan or Lightning were considered "simple" and low maintenance aircraft (like the Vampire or Canberra for example), and one suspects they both need a fair amount of upkeep and parts replacement from time-to-time, particularly the Vulcan. I'd love to see a Vulcan takeoff; the design was a classic, and one of the most striking aircraft designs that was ever put into service anywhere in the world. Even by today's standards, it would look modern (stick a "V" tail on it and it would look like a stealth bomber). In fact, a model of a Vulcan follow-on redesigned for stealth would be fun to do. I may do a three-view drawing of that concept. AVRO Vigilant? AVRO Vanquisher? Pat >> One Bruntingthorpe resident that won't be making it is the >> airworthy Lightning F6 that regularly makes very loud anti det runs. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Pat Ah, 30 year old Vulcans converted in the 1980s to the BAe Veritas. (Very Expensive, Refurbished Inside, The Airframe's Shot). There's a what-if project. >>> One Bruntingthorpe resident that won't be making it is the >>> airworthy Lightning F6 that regularly makes very loud anti det runs. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Ah, 30 year old Vulcans converted in the 1980s to the BAe Veritas. > (Very Expensive, Refurbished Inside, The Airframe's Shot). LOL In the days when Tornado was called MRCA, people used to say that the acronym stood for "Must Refurbish Canberra Again". SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. > LOL > > In the days when Tornado was called MRCA, people used to say that the > acronym stood for "Must Refurbish Canberra Again". > Remember those God-awful smoky engines on the first ones? It looked like they were burning crude oil. It's a horrible thing to blame that design on Barnes Wallis' influence, but it's very close to some of his late 1950's-early 1960's VG designs as shown in the "Project Canceled" book. Ah, that Canberra; now that was a _great_ plane. They actually did manage to make a jet-powered equivalent to the Mosquito. Considering its great success both in RAF and foreign service, it's been surprisingly under-represented in model kits. Very rare thing when the USAF purchases a foreign aircraft design for licensed production, but the Canberra was a world-beater from the word go. You just take one look at that design, and you can tell that it's going to handle like a dream. Put Sidewinders and a Vulcan cannon on it in a stripped down B-57 variant, and NV MiG-17s might have had to watch out. :-) Pat >> LOL >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Mosquito. Considering its great success both in RAF and foreign > service, it's been surprisingly under-represented in model kits. Airfix have just released a 1/48 kit of the B(I)8 version, which is apparently flying off the shelves. They will be producing new-tool 1/72 versions of all marks over the next couple of years. I'll be buying 'em... > Very rare thing when the USAF purchases a foreign aircraft design for > licensed production, but the Canberra was a world-beater from the > word go. You just take one look at that design, and you can tell that > it's going to handle like a dream. I used to be acquainted with the CO of 39 Sqn, which was the last RAF squadron, flying the PR9. He reckoned that the PR9 was universally loved by air and groundcrews. He also reckoned that the reason they lasted so long in RAF service was that they simply didn't acrue much fatigue. At operational altitude with the engines at cruise power, the design was such so that there were simply no components anywhere near their resonant frequency. Apparently the aircraft went almost perfectly quiet. He wasn't nealy as complimentary about the T4 version though. He used to refer to it as "the bastard bitch from Hell". The story goes that during the Canberra's heyday, an experienced Canberra pilot was undergoing a requalification flight. As he taxied his T4 towards the flightline, the aircraft was momentarily lined up on another T4. "What would you do if the brakes failed at this moment?" asked the instructor. The pilot replied "I'd open the throttles and write two of the bastards off!" SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. > > LOL > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Pat At one time I had two Italeri kits, the B-57B model and the 'G' along with the still unfinished Frog B(I).8, Matchbox PR.9 and the original Airfix version. I did contemplate adding an ancient Frog PR.7 but the asking price was too steep. I also had the Revell 1/85th 'B' in SEAC camo. I liked the plane and still do. Shame we still don't have Oxmoron with us as he flew the thing in the AF. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. > Ah, 30 year old Vulcans converted in the 1980s to the BAe Veritas. (Very > Expensive, Refurbished Inside, The Airframe's Shot). There's a what-if > project. I'm trying to figure out how to do this...you aren't going to get F-117/B-2 levels of stealth, but you might be able to match the B-1B. Vertical tail has to go in favor of the butterfly tail of composite construction (given the small area of the original fin, these two fins could each be quite small in overall area). Wing leading and trailing edges need the pie-slice type of radar absorbers added, like the A-12/SR-71. The four individual engine exhausts need to be replaced by two wide engine exhausts with a lot of exterior air added via NACA scoops atop the aircraft to lower exhaust temperature, and extensions under their lower trailing edges to hide them from IR detection from below (this ties in with the pie-slice extension to the wing's trailing edge nicely). Engines replaced by high-bypass turbofans to lower exhaust temperature and up range (maybe just two engines?). Forward fuselage has to be flattened and blended into the wing leading edge. Same with wing trailing edges and blending of junction of the front and rear of the butterfly tail to the fuselage. Cockpit forms into upper fuselage, has gold-plated windscreen panels of triangular shape. Nose navigation radar goes bye-bye, gets replaced by a inertial navigation system and downward-facing radar for final targeting navigation. Wing kink gets smoothed out into a smooth leading edge curve, or return to original un-kinked wing. RAM "Ironball" paint over entire exterior. All access doors and landing gear doors on the underside get F-117 style "sawtooth" edges. Intakes need to have radar-blocking RAM/radar reflecting inserts, ala the B-1B (since the design is subsonic, internal F-117 style intake grids are usable also). Commonality with a stock Vulcan structure would be around 50%; stock structure being primarily internal (new structure would be a sort of "glove" fitted over the main Vulcan airframe structural members with the exception of nose, engine exhausts, and rear fuselage, and primarily made of low-weight composites). Increase in wing area, new turbofan engines, and smoother aerodynamic form should result in significantly increased range or weapons weight capacity. This would be one spectacular looking aircraft, cruising towards its target at around 40-50,000 feet at around Mach .9 and descending to fairly low altitude once enemy territory was approached and it came within radar range. With the modern turbofans taken into account, unrefueled range could be increased by 1/2 to nearly doubled if fuel was carried in the bomb-bay. Although capable of carrying a extremely large nuclear weapon or cruise missile payload, it would likely use most of its bomb-bay for extra fuel capacity unless on a "Black Buck" type conventional bombing strike. About the time these things that looked like giant black Manta Rays started coming out of the sky at them over Goose Green, the Argentinian junta's troops would have been rethinking any further aggressions against any British-controlled territory. :-) Speaking of Manta Rays, retractable canards on the forward fuselage would significantly reduce takeoff runs or allow greater takeoff weights. They could also help deal with low level flight in gusty or high thermal bump air conditions. Right now, the shades of my Irish ancestors are cursing me... "Did you raise him as a damned Orangeman or what? Oh, his mother was a _Episcopalian_, was she? That explains a lot, doesn't it? Back to Purgatory for you, son." :-D >> Ah, 30 year old Vulcans converted in the 1980s to the BAe Veritas. >> (Very Expensive, Refurbished Inside, The Airframe's Shot). There's a [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > navigation. Wing kink gets smoothed out into a smooth leading edge > curve, or return to original un-kinked wing. Not a good idea. Both operational versions of the Vulcan had kinked wings. The B1 had a "Phase 2" wing that allowed it to actually manoeuvre without suffering buffetting. The Vulcan prototypes which had a straight leading edge were dangerous in a high speed turn. The wing kink on the B2 was more pronounced than that of the B1 to allow major redesign of the engine bays without reducing the wing area. SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. > Not a good idea. Both operational versions of the Vulcan had kinked wings. It's trickier to do from the stealth viewpoint; ideally you want as much of the wing to have a straight leading and trailing edge as possible, and match all leading and trailing edge angles into as few directions as you can, so that radar return is high when things line up exactly flat-edge on to the radar. Such a situation is pretty much instantaneous, and having it move even a degree or two off of a perfect parallel intercept angle to the radar signal reflects it away. But this isn't supposed to have B-2 style features like that, (I was shooting for a design using something along the lines of 1965-1975 technology in regards to stealth ideas) but rather radar-reduction smoothed edges like the A-12/SR-71 or D-21 drone; so unless the leading edge kink of the Vulcan wing needs be that abrupt (and if it did, you'd expect some sort of a upper wing fence in relation to it) a smoother transition should work as well in relation to critical Mach number of the airflow over the wing leading edge, and would indeed be more optimized in regards to smooth airflow over the whole wing leading edge along its length. > > The B1 had a "Phase 2" wing that allowed it to actually manoeuvre without [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > without reducing the wing area. > The "Super Vulcan" would have enough interior wing area area to allow uprated engines to be installed without major moldline changes, in much the same way the the XB-35 was converted to the YB-49 without much change to its wings, despite moving from piston to jet engines. Going to high-bypass turbofans for propulsion would mean moving the engines forward in the wing till the fan section itself was located in the thickest portion of the wing, leading to longer exhaust ducts behind the engines to the trailing edge; but that does allow better mixing of external air with the exhaust, leading to lower and more uniform exhaust temperatures as the exhaust exits the wide "platypus" nozzle over the trailing edge of the wing. Also, the Venturi effect as the high speed air traveling over the top of the wing enters the NACA intake exhaust cooling ducts located over and ahead of the long exhaust ducts results in increased exhaust mass flow via entrainment, while at the same time decreasing ambient air pressure over the top of the wing, and generates a smoother, more nearly laminar air flow over the wing roots - increasing lift and reducing overall wing wetted-surface airflow friction drag. Pat > The "Super Vulcan" would have enough interior wing area area to allow > uprated engines to be installed without major moldline changes, in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > uniform exhaust temperatures as the exhaust exits the wide "platypus" > nozzle over the trailing edge of the wing. But you don't want to move the engines *too* far forward, otherwise the first stage compressor becomes visible. Can you imagine the radar return from a head-on lock on a Harrier? SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. > But you don't want to move the engines *too* far forward, otherwise the > first stage compressor becomes visible. Can you imagine the radar return > from a head-on lock on a Harrier? > Yeah, it's going to need some sort of intake goodies like the B-1B to hide the fan section. The Harrier's intakes always looked like the perfect thing for someone to get sucked into and sliced into luncheon meat. I once read something about a VTOL Vulcan derivative with a hoard of RR RB.108 engines in the bomb bay. About the time that engine was made, Britain went completely off its rocker over VTOL projects. Pat >> But you don't want to move the engines *too* far forward, otherwise >> the first stage compressor becomes visible. Can you imagine the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The Harrier's intakes always looked like the perfect thing for someone > to get sucked into and sliced into luncheon meat. I never saw a person get sucked in, but I saw all sorts of other stuff. We had one jockey who was a bit of a publicity whore. He spent all his time looking for photo ops. Whenever he went on landaway, he would take his uniform hat in the cockpit with him. As he taxied in to the line at his destination, he would take off his bone-dome, don his hat and Maverick-style shades and wave to any cameras he could see. At one airshow he taxied in wearing his hat and shades past a row of spotters with cameras. Like an idiot, he stuck his head out of the cockpit and the airflow picked his hat and shades right off his head and sucked them into the intake. The engine coughed and spluttered as you would expect. The jockey was so disoriented that he flailed around a bit in the cockpit. Of course with his bone-dome perched on his nees, he got himself tangled up. Having lost concentration, he then taxied into the rear end of a parked F-16! While waiting for the subsequent board of inquiry, he spent months as squadron Auth and was never again allowed to go to airshows. The intake was at just the right height to make a handy ledge to place things. Lineys would put tools in there while they were working in the nosewheel bay. Sometimes the tool would slip backwards and disappear into one of the slots for the blow-in doors. As it wasn't immediately apparent, tools would sometimes get forgotten. It wasn't too much of a problem as normal procedure always required a tool muster as part of the walkround checks for every aircraft. If a tool was found to be missing, firstly the liney would be given a good slap upside the head and secondly a quick check of intakes would usually bring the tool to light. The major problem used to arise with jockeys who would put their maps and folders in the intake while checking the blow-in doors themselves. They would then forget them and replace the inflatable intake blanks with the maps still in the intake, so pushing them backwards into the blow-in door areas. As you can imagine this could cause all sorts of complications on start up. Normal procedure was for the jockey to signal "blanks out" requesting engine start. The liney would pull the blanks out and check the blow-in doors yet again, just in case. All it required was a quick push of the doors from outside to make sure that they still operated. This led to the characteristic "ker-plunk, ker-plunk, ker-plunk, ker-plunk!" sounds which sometimes became "ker-plunk, ker-plunk, oh for ****'s sake!" as the liney found the maps and folder! SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. >> But you don't want to move the engines *too* far forward, otherwise >> the first stage compressor becomes visible. Can you imagine the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > RR RB.108 engines in the bomb bay. About the time that engine was > made, Britain went completely off its rocker over VTOL projects. The only VTOL bomber project of the period I've seen was the "low altitude bomber" which had six centrally mounted lift engines but only stub wings. It didn't look anything like a Vulcan and the whole project was dropped when STOL* was incorporated into the TSR2 spec causing all kinds of problems for the latter. *STOL in this case was defined as the ability to use the same take-off distance as a DC3 Given the relatively large wing area of the Vulcan I would have thought a pair of huge lift fans in the wings was a more realistic approach á la Mirage. (kim) >>> But you don't want to move the engines *too* far forward, otherwise >>> the first stage compressor becomes visible. Can you imagine the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > thought a pair of huge lift fans in the wings was a more realistic > approach á la Mirage. I reckon that the only time VTOL with a usable payload will become feasible is after someone invents an anti-gravity engine. SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. Here is one for you .......Its even in 1:72 scale (:> http://www.geocities.com/unicraftmodels/germ/fockevtol/fockevtol.htm > Here is one for you .......Its even in 1:72 scale (:> > > http://www.geocities.com/unicraftmodels/germ/fockevtol/fockevtol.htm > Unlike a lot of other German "Luft 46" projects, that was a serous proposal for a VTOL aircraft, not someone scribbling on a napkin down at the beer hall in early 1945. It would probably be very hard to make it stable without some sort of pretty involved autopilot that would constantly be moving the control vanes on the underside. That protective grill over the top of the lift props looks like it's a good idea, but it's not... not only is it going to generate a lot of drag on the incoming air, thereby decreasing the airflow to the lift props and reducing their efficiency...but as Short found out the hard way with their SC.1 VTOL aircraft the grills can become blocked by debris and cause the aircraft to lose lift. They had that happen at a airshow when the SC.1 came in to land (or was it taking off?) on freshly mowed grass; its lift engines stirred up the grass clippings which promptly stuck to the protective grills over the engines, causing the aircraft to "grow a haystack on its back". Pat >I reckon that the only time VTOL with a usable payload will become feasible >is after someone invents an anti-gravity engine. Helicopters do it all the time... ...or... It's a lot less bovver in the hovver... Wulf > The only VTOL bomber project of the period I've seen was the "low altitude > bomber" which had six centrally mounted lift engines but only stub wings. It > didn't look anything like a Vulcan and the whole project was dropped when > STOL* was incorporated into the TSR2 spec causing all kinds of problems for > the latter. > I'll see if I can dig up any info on it. Did you ever see the Short P.17D VTOL carrier for the P.17A attack bomber? It was intended to arise out of a forest clearing with the P.17A riding on its back, get going forward to lift-off speed, and launch the P.17A. That's a fairly odd idea, but who knows, maybe they could have made it work, although fuel consumption per minute on the P.17D would have been staggering. The P.17D was insane; 44 RB.108 engines aimed straight down, 16 RB.108s in swiveling mountings, and 10 RB.108 or RB.145 engines pushing it forward - grand total: 70 engines! Imagine for a second what that would sound like with all of its engines running. The whole forest would be shaking with dead birds and squirrels falling from the the trees, bleeding from their ears. Starting the engines would have been quite the operation; one assumes they were started in some sort of sequence rather than all at once, as otherwise the electrical power need to crank them all up at once would have been formidable indeed. Of course one could just fire 70 starter cartridges, and use the resulting huge smokescreen to hide the aircraft's ascent, assuming that all the engines don't just re-ingest the smoke and quit. But the really crazy part comes at the end of the P.17A's mission...again the P.17D would rise into the air, and the P-17A would alight on its back in mid-air! How exactly the P.17D was going to react to a 75,000 pound aircraft suddenly ending up atop it is a good question...I assume they flew as a biplane letting the P.17A's wings generate lift while slowing down and increasing lift thrust till once again they were hovering over the forest clearing. > *STOL in this case was defined as the ability to use the same take-off > distance as a DC3 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Mirage. > Which Mirage? The VTOL Balzac and it follow-on Mirage III-V used lift engines in the body. We did a design with lift fans in the wings, the GE-Ryan XV-5A "Vertifan". Pat >> One Bruntingthorpe resident that won't be making it is the >> airworthy Lightning F6 that regularly makes very loud anti det runs. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > aircraft hulks lying around? I always assumed that the older aircraft > were scraped, sent to museums, or used as gunnery targets. In theory, there should be plentiful spares available for the engines. Afterburning versions of the Olympus were used by Concorde and there are numerous ships in the Royal Navy which use marine turbine versions of the engine. > I'd love to see a Vulcan takeoff; the design was a classic, and one of > the most striking aircraft designs that was ever put into service > anywhere in the world. We look at a Vulcan, and we always hink that it is huge. Nowever, that's not so. During the final week of Vulcan Display Flight operations in 1992, XH558 toured pretty much ever RAF unit in the country, giving a display at each. It made the tour in company with a C-130 Hercules. On arrival, the two aircraft would fly past in formation. I was surprised to see that the C-130 dwarfed the Vulcan. Both aircraft are almost identical in length, but the Herc has a greater wingspan and is so much bulkier that it makes the Vulcan look like a toy in comparison. > Even by today's standards, it would look modern (stick a "V" tail on > it and it would look like a stealth bomber). > In fact, a model of a Vulcan follow-on redesigned for stealth would be > fun to do. The Vulcan actually had stealth features, although they were a purely inadvertant result of the design. When flying at altitide, the vertical tail was masked by the wing and the aircraft presented a surprisingly low RCS. The ECM systems were very effective as well. In October 1961, NORAD decided to test its air defences with Exercise Skyshield II. Nos 27 and 83 Sqn Vulcans took part, penetrating from Lossiemouth in the north and Kindley AFB, Bermuda from the south. The Vulcan forces caused consternation at NORAD. The northern force flew too high to be intercepted by the defending F-101s and even is the F-101s had been able to fly that high, they couldn't have locked on. The first Vulcan in the stream reported a transient lock but the remainder sailed through unscathed. The southern wave played things sneaky. They penetrated on a broad front using full ECM jamming. Then just before contact with the defending F-102s, the southernmost aircraft turned north and flew along the East Coast. Having overflown Washington DC, Philadelphia, New York and Boston - all completely undetected - it eventually landed at Plattsburgh AFB. SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. > In theory, there should be plentiful spares available for the engines. > Afterburning versions of the Olympus were used by Concorde and there are > numerous ships in the Royal Navy which use marine turbine versions of the > engine. > I'd be more concerned about cockpit instrumentation, avionics, or hydraulics and what-not. A lot of the internal systems on the aircraft would no longer be in production, as they are obsolete by today's standards. > >> I'd love to see a Vulcan takeoff; the design was a classic, and one of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > We look at a Vulcan, and we always hink that it is huge. It's still a fairly large aircraft, not a B-52 by any means, but at least a B-58. > Nowever, that's > not so. During the final week of Vulcan Display Flight operations in 1992, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > inadvertant result of the design. When flying at altitide, the vertical tail > was masked by the wing and the aircraft presented a surprisingly low RCS. You'd think that given its "delta flying-wing" design. Though not as capable or stealthy, I've always had a soft spot for the HP Victor in my heart also, because it's fuselage has a "Flash Gordon" rocketship look about it, particularly the windscreen fairing into the fuselage. Ah, I remember those Lindberg models of both as a kid. One thing about the Lindberg kits; they may not have been the most detailed or accurate models you ever built, but boy did they go together well and easily, and always gave a good-looking model when finished. They also avoided the curse of the giant rivets in most cases, and were pretty consistent in quality....which is more than one could say about Aurora... In fact, I remember Lindberg having better fit and fewer sink marks than most kits of that vintage. > > The ECM systems were very effective as well. In October 1961, NORAD decided [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the remainder sailed through unscathed. > That's why SPECTRE wanted one in "Thunderball". That was the first time I ever saw one, and fell head-over-heels in love with the plane at first sight. The RAF never came up with the perfect plane in the looks department to escort the Vulcan. They should have bought Saab Drakens...those would have looked _great_ escorting Vulcans. That would have put the commies off on attacking Britain right from the get-go. "Comrade! Flying wings escorted by supersonic lifting bodies! These degenerate imperialists have stolen even more Nazi secrets than we did!" ;-) > The southern wave played things sneaky. They penetrated on a broad front > using full ECM jamming. Then just before contact with the defending F-102s, > the southernmost aircraft turned north and flew along the East Coast. > Having overflown Washington DC, Philadelphia, New York and Boston - all > completely undetected - it eventually landed at Plattsburgh AFB. > Anyway, I'm having a ball turning one into a stealth bomber. I don't know if I'll build a model of one, but I've _got_ to do some plans of one just to see how the thing would look. Hell of a lot easier than the stealth B-52 version I came up with around two decades back on a very drunken night in regards to a bet. That thing looked _hideous_. That was one of the most horrible looking planes imaginable. Pat >> The Vulcan actually had stealth features, although they were a purely >> inadvertant result of the design. When flying at altitide, the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Though not as capable or stealthy, I've always had a soft spot for the > HP Victor The Victor was actually *more* capable than the Vulcan. It was faster and although its clean range was shorter, the huge slipper tanks on the B2 version gave it an equivalent range. The weapons bay was cavernous. Conventional 1000lb bombs intended for use on the V-bombers were loaded to a Seven Store Carrier. The carrier was loaded in the bomb dump and shipped out to the aircraft as a unit, where it was winched into the weapons bay. The Vulcan could carry three seven-stores, giving a total of 21 one-thousand pounders. Impressive! But then, the Victor could carry *five* seven-stores! Thirty-five one-thousand pound bombs! There were fuel tanks that could be fitted in the weapons bay, so a Victor that carried three seven-stores would have the same striking power as a Vulcan but twice the range. The Vulcan wing was stronger than that of the Victor and more suited to the low-level role where the immense range of the Victor wouldn't be a factor anyway. The huge fuel capacity of the Victor when the weapons bay was filled with fuel tanks made it ideal as a tanker. SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. > The Vulcan wing was stronger than that of the Victor and more suited to the > low-level role where the immense range of the Victor wouldn't be a factor > anyway. The huge fuel capacity of the Victor when the weapons bay was filled > with fuel tanks made it ideal as a tanker. > Was there a maintenance requirement difference between the two that favored the Vulcan as the bomber, and the Victor as the tanker? It would seem that any range in excess of that to hit Moscow from Britain would be superfluous for the intended mission. In fact, that needed to be only a one-way mission, as there probably would be very little left of Britain to return to in that scenario. Certainly, a war off of the coast of Argentina probably didn't enter into the minds of the designers of the "V" bombers when they were drawing up their specs. Jorge Luis Borge had the best quote about that war I ever heard: "Two bald men fighting over a comb." :-D Pat >> The Vulcan wing was stronger than that of the Victor and more suited >> to the low-level role where the immense range of the Victor wouldn't [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It would seem that any range in excess of that to hit Moscow from > Britain would be superfluous for the intended mission. The Victor was somewhat unsuited to the low-level role for the same reason that the Valiant was. The Vulcan wing structure was milled out of a solid chunk of metal and so was built like the proverbial brick ****house. SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. > The Victor was somewhat unsuited to the low-level role for the same reason > that the Valiant was. The Vulcan wing structure was milled out of a solid > chunk of metal and so was built like the proverbial brick ****house. > I was looking at a large large cutaway of one earlier today in my "Rand McNally Encyclopedia Of Military Aircraft" and the fuel tanks in the wing are unusual in design; five ovoid tubes rather than a "wet" wing. That wing has great deal of internal framework in it; it looks very strong, but also very time-consuming to build. Pat >>The Victor was actually *more* capable than the Vulcan. It was faster and >>although its clean range was shorter, the huge slipper tanks on the B2 >>version gave it an equivalent range. They are both capable and look stunning. The two best 1950s designed bombers > I'd love to see a Vulcan takeoff; the design was a classic, and one of > the most striking aircraft designs that was ever put into service > anywhere in the world. The most striking feature of the take-off was the immediate rendezvous with a waiting tanker. My dad was told they used half their fuel load just getting off the ground and I have no reason to doubt that. (kim) >> I'd love to see a Vulcan takeoff; the design was a classic, and one >> of the most striking aircraft designs that was ever put into service [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > their fuel load just getting off the ground and I have no reason to > doubt that. That sort of thing is an eduring characteristic of British aircraft. The first Tornados in squadron service used to empty their fin tank getting off the deck. SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. on 4/18/2008 2:53 PM Enzo Matrix said the following: > >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > That's also the way it's done on US Aircraft Carriers, to cut the weight down on the catapult launch. SignatureBill In Hamptonburgh, NY To email, remove the double zeroes after @ > on 4/18/2008 2:53 PM Enzo Matrix said the following: >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > That's also the way it's done on US Aircraft Carriers, to cut the weight > down on the catapult launch. ...when we first took the T-45A to the boat, they had to design an new set of steam baffling for the cat in order to keep the stroke from ripping the thing apart, it's so light in comparison to anything else on the deck. Signature- Rufus > That sort of thing is an eduring characteristic of British aircraft. The > first Tornados in squadron service used to empty their fin tank getting off > the deck. > That fin looks way too big for the aircraft (it looks like it's the size of a wing); it certainly can't help RCS from the side. I'm surprised they didn't look into a twin vertical fin layout. Pat >> That sort of thing is an eduring characteristic of British aircraft. The >> first Tornados in squadron service used to empty their fin tank getting [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Pat No no no. Looks like a shark from a distance. Scares the enemy more that way, you see. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.