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

Tue Sep 5 18:44:44 UTC 2006

Richie,

On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 16:02 +0100, Richie Jarvis wrote:
> 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??
> 

Jaguar G.R.1, Hawk and Jet Provost.

> Richie
> 
> __ 
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/sussex/attachments/20060905/bfccc077/attachment.pgp 