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

[Colin Pickard]

I found it fascinating, and had to send it my Dad, who retains a
fondness for Vulcans since working for Hawkey-Siddeley (and later BAe)
in a building beside a runway from where Vulcans used to take off
vertically and very loudly.  The resulting hearing trouble has now has
not dimished this!

Of perhaps more interest, he also worked on the afore-mentioned
Nimrods, and has a small claim to fame as one of probably only two
people to have played noughts and crosses on the big tactical radar
thingy screens on board a Nimrod - probably one of the Nimrod MR2s
like the one that crashed near Kandahar on Saturday.

Of course, hacking on a multi-million pound state of the art military
system back in the 70s is only really bragging rights in select
company!  But it cerrtainly impressed me a small child.

Colin

On 9/4/06, Stephen Williams <sdp.williams at btinternet.com> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The Shackleton can be seen here at the Gatwick Aviation Museum:
> > http://www.gatwick-aviation-museum.co.uk/shack/shack.html
> >
> > --
> > John
> >
> > __
> > Sussex mailing list
> > Sussex at mailman.lug.org.uk
> > E-mail Address: sussex at mailman.lug.org.uk
> > Sussex LUG Website: http://www.sussex.lug.org.uk/
> > https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/sussex
>
>
> __
> Sussex mailing list
> Sussex at mailman.lug.org.uk
> E-mail Address: sussex at mailman.lug.org.uk
> Sussex LUG Website: http://www.sussex.lug.org.uk/
> https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/sussex
>
>
>