The very last Vulcan Display @ Cosford Airshow 2015 - YouTube
Printable View
Sad end to a great aircraft
I took these photos in Aug 1977 while this Vulcan was at the Glenview Naval Air Base for the Air Show in ChicagoAttachment 63830Attachment 63831Attachment 63832
The bombing of the airstrip in the Falklands war is among one of the greatest feats of airmanship in the annals of Bomber Command as carried out by a Vulcan, I think the Argentine Airforce was using Super Entards from memory and I think the Pucura rings a bell has been a few years since I read the book the Falklands War by The Times. Pity the CWS systems were not developed at that stage to stop the exocets would have saved the warships or at the very least given them a chance.......
Three set off from the UK, with I believe 11 Victor Tanker Refuelers. Number one Vulcan went down unserviceable in flight and returned to Ascension, and it was number two that actually did the deed.
I found it absolutely stunning work by all concerned regardless of how effective the end result was (ie bombs missed the runway) however, it certainly made the Argentinians think twice about our capability THEN in 1982!!!
They built craters with diggers piling the earth in circles during daylight hours for RAF Reconnaissance photos to think it was a great targetted success, and cleared them at night for their aircraft to land and resupply........now that was clever if true!
The bomber Vulcan above was scrapped at RAF Abingdon along with loads of the other odds and ends of the era. It sat outside going green with mould for ages along with the the BA VC10's the RAF acquired for parts. Alas, by then the civilian VC10's were so different from the RAF troopers/freighters/tankers (that's versitality for you) that the spares were useless
Dead right there Peter, I knew someone on the procurement team who used to fly regularly around the world hunting down the parts:rolleyes::rolleyes:
I watched the documentary & interviews with the crews of that mission, and (all of) the aircraft were functionally obsolescent and in limited operational usefulness already at that time....there seemed to be some question about them being capable of bombing western Europe...let alone surviving an "eastern" mission...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gil Boyd
They just barely pulled it off....so really both sides were "faking it" at the time.
Supposedly there was 1 or 2 follow on missions which also had limited success.
I got to see that Flat-iron perform at Yeovilton a few years ago. Hadn’t seen one for around 50 years. Back then it carried the Blue Steel missile and was very impressive.
The one I always wanted to fly was the English Electric Lightning.
Yes the Lightning was a powerhouse and could really scoot along, then again the Starfighter could too the saying in the case of the Starfighter "was like strapping a man to a rocket" the Germans tried a zero launch system for them another rumour I heard a few years ago another classic may be coming back the venerable SR-71 upgraded this time to a purported Mach - 5 status what a designer was Kelly Johnson.
Speaking of old jet aircraft, NASA is still flying a Canberra. I see it flying quite often. NASA Martin B-57 Canberra makes its First Flight in 41 Years
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHtD0A32Q0Q
Vincent,
Where I live, we were blessed with the various series of Canberras for many years buzzing around, and I was fortunate to have a close relationship with 39 Squadron for one reason or another, and a cursory glance at the fireplace I look down at the electric start shell case that each engine needed to fire the start sequence. Everybody that see's it thinks its a 25 pounder case.
I wonder who supplies them with their cartridges, or perhaps they have changed the Rolls Royce Avon Mk 1 engines for a U.S alternative that doesn't need them anymore. The above photo looks like a PR9 version with a new cockpit added to take two........I may be wrong
Getting back to guns. A few years ago at Farnborough I was being introduced to the XH558's chief engineer by the director of Vulcan to the Sky. He said to the Engineer that we were both pistol shooters and so when the government took our pistols off us, he went out and got a nuclear bomber instead. (He was also my boss many years ago.)
And back to aeroplanes. The Royal Air Force kept their Canberras on for so long because the RAF did not have anything else that could fly so high. (Reference: conversations at RAF Fairford.) I reckon that in the end, rather than replace them, they just did away with the requirement.
A great deal of influence the airframe had, was its stability and also to creat an effective gyrostabilised photographic platform, which no other fast jet could compare at the time, probavbly why NASA still have theirs, testing out cameras.
The Tornado was a far off second when the Canberra got demobbed
ARGH a Canberra great clouds of black smoke on start up that's like placing a flag pole up with here we are on it!!!! :lol:
A RAAF number once told me those great clouds of black smoke from Canberra starts were caused by starter cartridges fired to get the turbines moving or something. Is that correct?
Really, the notion that a group of private individuals with certain financial backing could restore and run a Vulcan was never really going to be a winner. Even the Daily Mail, a great supporter admitted that it was a money pit. I think they commented that the way to become a poor Vulcan owner was to start out as a rich Vulcan owner. Or were they commenting on our membership of the EU? Come to think of it, both are equally deep money pits!
Any of those even more beautiful H-P Victors preserved? I heard that McD-D modeled the Phantom on those sinister Victor lines. Droop big nose and slender drooped wings
There was a Victor at Bruntingthorp. I don't know if it's still there.
I think the B-52 "Stratofortress" is probably the oldest bomber still in service. It went into service in 1955, a year before the Vulcan. We have third generation pilots flying them and they are projected to continue in service to 2040.
Paual,
Yes as that is what they fire those electric start shells into the engine to do, in simple terms.
Well you asked for it and here is the definitive answer:
The Coffman engine starter (also known as a "shotgun starter") was a starting system used on many piston engines in aircraft and armored vehicles of the 1930s and 1940s. The Coffman system was one of the most common brands; another was the Breeze cartridge system, which was produced under Coffman patents. Most American military aircraft and tanks which used radial engines were equipped with this system. Similarly, the British Supermarine Spitfire used the Coffman system to start its Rolls-Royce Merlin engine.[1] The Hawker Typhoon also used the Coffman system to start its Napier Sabre engine.
A derivation of the Coffman starter was used on a number of jet engines, including such engines as the Rolls-Royce Avon, which were used in the English Electric Canberra and Hawker Hunter.
The Coffman device used a large blank cartridge containing Cordite that, when fired, pushed a piston forward. A screw thread driven by the piston engaged with the engine turning it over.[2] This was in contrast with other type of cartridge starter which acted directly to drive the engine piston down and so turn the rest of the engine over, such as those used on the Field Marshall agricultural diesel engines.
The other systems used during the period were electric motors (such as those used in automobiles today), inertia starters (cranked either by hand or an electric motor) and compressed-air starters, which operated much like Coffman starters but were powered by pressurized air tanks.
Shotgun starters are composed of a breech, into which the cartridge is inserted, which is connected to the motor by a short steel pipe, which acts like a gun barrel. The blank cartridge fits into the breech, and is triggered either electrically or mechanically. When the aircraft's ignition is turned on and the cartridge is fired, high-velocity, high-pressure gas (~1000 psi at ~600 ft/s) shoots down the pipe, forcing the motor to spin and engage the starter ring gear on the engine, which is attached to the crankshaft.
Shotgun starters had several advantages over other starting systems in use at the time. Electric starters required large, heavy, and often troublesome batteries to be carried on board, or external charging equipment had to be located at every place where the vehicle was anticipated to operate. Inertia starters used a heavy wheel, usually made of brass, which was spun by a hand crank or electric motor, causing the spinning wheel to engage the starter ring gear. The Coffman system was more lightweight and compact than inertial starters or internal batteries, and it did not require any special auxiliary equipment, an important feature when operating in remote areas.
The primary disadvantages of the shotgun starter are the need to keep a stock of cartridges, one of which is used for each attempt to start, and the short time that the motor is spun by each cartridge. Compressed-air starters, which use the same type of motor, are usually recharged by an engine-driven compressor, negating the need to carry cartridges, but adding requirements for the compressor and air tank. Hybrid systems can be made simply by adding a cartridge breech or an air tank to an existing system. Air tanks can also be recharged from an external source in an emergency, such as a hand pump or a portable air compressor.
The Coffman starter was the most common brand of cartridge starters during the mid-1930s, and the name was used as a generic description. Some modern military diesel engines still use this device, but advances in battery technology have made shotgun starters obsolete for most uses. :super::super:
Cash was not really the problem - initially - however see later. The major hurdle was the CAA. They were worried that it would fall out of the Sky and needed convincing that the people running the project were professionals not just a group of aeroplane nutters. They still needed to rip out the 1950s technology and replace it with up to date avionics (not cheap) and have the aircraft professionally serviced by Marshall of Cambridge. (Even less cheap.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
As a small time pilot (3.000 hours on motorgliders, Cubs and Austers) I´m happy to have experienced the glory days of aviation and now its demise. All that´s left is an otiose conglomeration of cumputerised stove pipes. The V-bombers were the culmination and I´m proud they were British.
The Canberra in Vince's thread, 11, doesn't look like any Canberra that I would recognise as such! Mind you, my only experience of them is seeing pictures and maybe building an Airfix model of one as a lad.
It looks like NASA are making extra use of the Canberra's really high service ceiling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Peter,
Agreed, but it has clearly undergone major refinement for high altitude work and also developed a dual cockpit. The wings look like they have come off a TRI spy plane, wonder if they too need dolly wheels that drop off on take off?
Further to Villiers thread 21; AUSTERS. There were a couple of these old Austers in Malaya attached to the small RA Battery in Malacca(?). Generally all air movement was by single and twin Pioneers and Beavers I saw one of the Austers set alight and used for fire-fighting practice by 38 Army Fire Service and a couple of old open back Bedford QL and closed cab RL fire engines. What a shame............ Doused in petrol and set alight while we all watched. Mind you it burned well. They used the occasional old Land Rovers, Triumph and BSA motor bike too. The Austers were VERY quiet for some unexplained reason
Peter, The ones the RAF had were the English Electric Canberras. It was also built in the US by Martin under license from English Electric. The ones NASA has are based at the Johnson Space Center, about 10 miles from our house. They are WB-57F models, the end of the series and considerably modified from the original B57. The engines are 16,000 lbf high by-pass turbofans built by Pratt & Whitney (no cartridge starter). It's quite powerful compared to 6,700 lbf Rolls-Royce Avon engine on the old EE Canberras.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Yes, those were the days. But it's nice to have a bomber like the B-2.Quote:
Originally Posted by villiers
Attachment 63910
You never know when you might have to reach out and touch someone.