[Sussex] OT - Vulcan to fly again....

[Richie Jarvis]

Stephen Williams wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 20:32 +0100, John Crowhurst wrote:
>   
>> On Mon, September 4, 2006 20:16, Stephen Williams wrote:
>>     
>>> I find the enthusiasm for getting the Vulcan flying again hard to
>>> understand. To my generation of R.A.F. pilots the Vulcan (the Aluminium
>>> Hair Shirt) was the second least favoured pilot posting after the
>>> Shackleton (Shacking Great Fu*klebomber or 20,000 Rivets Flying in Close
>>> Formation). For a pilot it had nothing like the kudos of stovepipes or
>>> even egg beaters.
>>>       
>> In your generation, what was the most favoured pilot posting? Assuming you
>> can mention it? (Offical Secrets and all that)
>>
>>     
>
> Generally Fast Jet postings were regarded as the pick of the crop. Most
> pilots had their individual preferences - fast jets like the Phantom,
> Lightning and Harrier were most sought after, but the most demanding
> fast jets were the single seat ground attack aircraft.
>
> In order of difficulty, most demanding first:
>
> 1. Harrier - Single seat ground attack, vertical take off -
>    Very popular, generally regarded as the epitome of flying tours.
>    GR3 had very short range and was not very fast, contrary to poular
>    myth. GR5 and later versions are very useful machines.
> 2. Jaguar - Single seat strike and attack, complex avionics -
>    Not popular, very demanding to fly and operate, rugged and
>    under-rated aircraft.
> 3. Lightning - Very limited endurance, very primitive avionics -
>    Very popular - complete hooligan's machine - rocket powered sports
>    car.
> 4. Tornado Ground Attack - all weather strike and attack, easier to fly
>    Not popular except with ex-Vulcan crews. Very capable machine.
> 5. Buccaneer - horrible museum piece, loved by crews, very long range -
>    Not popular, but engendered a strange affection in its crews. A
>    complete nightmare to fly, and even worse, maintain.
> 6. Phantom - easy job, brute of an aeroplane -
>    Popular but over-rated aircraft, a triumph of thrust over
>    aerodynamics.
> 7. Tornado Air Defence - easy job, easy aircraft to fly.
>    Not popular, seen as a bit of a bastard child of the ground attack
>    version in a role for which it was not suited. Very, very fast by all
>    accounts, but handicapped initially by overly complex and unreliable
>    radar.
>
> Helicopters were something of a law unto themselves. Guys who flew them
> swore by them and wouldn't rate anything fixed wing. All helicopter jobs
> appeared to be great fun, provided you didn't mind living out of tents
> and working for the Army.
>
> Multi engined aircraft were not so demanding and generally regarded as
> less kudos enhancing than fast jets or helicopters. There were quite a
> lot of different types, and on the transport squadrons you did get to
> see a lot of the world, conversion to civvy licences was easier and it
> was good preparation for an airline job.
>
> The aircraft generally regarded as the worst flying tour was the
> Shackleton AEW aircraft. The fact that this was still flying
> operationally when I left the R.A.F. in 1988 was a searing indictment of
> UK defence procurement policy. Now we have the Sentry AEW aicraft,
> generally regarded as top drawer and an excellent piece of kit.
>
> In my day the choice in multis was:
>
> 1. Hercules, particularly tactical support.
> 2. VC 10.
> 3. VIP stuff - Royal Flight etc.
> ....
>
> ....
> 4th. from last. Victor tankers - very dull but vital job.
> 3rd. from last. Nimrod maritime patrol - even duller job, just as vital.
> 2nd. from last. Vulcans - tankers and maritime reconnaisance - most dull
> Last. Shackleton AEW - What did you do to deserve this? The only good
> thing about this was that it was good preparation for flying the Battle
> of Britain Memorial Flight Lancaster.
>
> I haven't mentioned training tours here because most instructors showed
> a commendable loyalty to previous types flown. There were some first
> tourist instructors who had no previous operational experience - known
> as "Creamed Off" Instructors, or "Creamies" for short - generally
> regarded with suspicion.
>
> There were some tours that were unique. The tactical weapons units,
> flying the Hawk, were great fun. And whose ego could fail to be massaged
> by selection for the Red Arrows?
>
> A quick, tongue-in-cheek snapshot of R.A.F. flying service in the 80's.
>
> Hope that enlightens and amuses.
>
>
>   
Very interesting Steve...  Didn't know u were ex-RAF until u said (u 
hide that well! ;) )

So which did you have the honour of flying??

Richie