charles wrote in
:

In article 2,
DerbyBorn wrote:
charles wrote in
:

The engines for the Vulcan were developed long before Concorde was
even thought of. There was one Vulcan which was adapted as a test
bed for Concorde engines, though, One engine on one side of the
plane instead of the usual two. In the same way that there was a
Shackelton with a Vulcan engine underneath the fuselage, flying out
of Bitteswell in the 1950s.



Correct.(But I thought the Concorde Engine was under the bomb bay for
flight testing) The Vulcan and the Victor were also used to carry our
nuclear deterrant - the Blue Steel Missile. The missile (there were
over 50 of them) carried a nuclear warhead. They were an air launced
cruise missile with a guidance system that used valves (it predated
the invention of the transistor)

You could be correct about "under the bomb bay", I wasn't sure. But
valves v transisitors, no. Blue Steel's guidance system might have
predated the serious use of the transistor, which were "invented" in
1947. The first prototype Vulcan flew in 1952. Blue Steel was called
for in 1954 and entered service in 1964.


I guess the guidance system would have been based around well tried and
tested modules - hence valves.

No, I think was the B-36.

Regards

Syke

On 09/06/2014 08:29, PeterC wrote:
On 8 Jun 2014 19:52:02 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

I remember a cartoon in a book of Falklands military humour (still have
it somewhere):

Argentine soldiers watching a Vulcan drop a bomb on (well, near) the Port
Stanley runway:

"Caramba, Pedro [or some such]: If that's the size of their planes, how
big are their aircraft carriers??"

Didn't the USAF refer to them as "aluminium overcast?.

On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 10:52:07 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article sting.com,
Jabba wrote:

It cost over a £1million for every bomb that hit the runway, when the
fleet had the same bombs available for their aircraft, which were
several thousand miles closer to the target. The operation was
performed to wind up the RN, in an attempt to prove that aircraft
carriers have no use. Looks like they won as we don't have any
carriers now and all the aircraft the navy used have been scrapped.

It's more important for Britain to have a Navy - with carriers - almost
than anything else, defence-wise.

looks sceptical

But, regardless of anything else, did you listen to R4's History of the
Royal Navy?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b046czzn

In article 6,
DerbyBorn wrote:
charles wrote in
:

In article 2,
DerbyBorn wrote:
charles wrote in
:

The engines for the Vulcan were developed long before Concorde was
even thought of. There was one Vulcan which was adapted as a test
bed for Concorde engines, though, One engine on one side of the
plane instead of the usual two. In the same way that there was a
Shackelton with a Vulcan engine underneath the fuselage, flying out
of Bitteswell in the 1950s.



Correct.(But I thought the Concorde Engine was under the bomb bay for
flight testing) The Vulcan and the Victor were also used to carry our
nuclear deterrant - the Blue Steel Missile. The missile (there were
over 50 of them) carried a nuclear warhead. They were an air launced
cruise missile with a guidance system that used valves (it predated
the invention of the transistor)

You could be correct about "under the bomb bay", I wasn't sure. But
valves v transisitors, no. Blue Steel's guidance system might have
predated the serious use of the transistor, which were "invented" in
1947. The first prototype Vulcan flew in 1952. Blue Steel was called
for in 1954 and entered service in 1964.


I guess the guidance system would have been based around well tried and
tested modules - hence valves.

Most likely true, Interstingly, the wiki page on Blue Streak suggests the
guidance system was more advanced that that of either the Vulcan or Victor.

Of course, Beyond The Fringe suggested that it would be delivered by a team
of highly trained runners and renamed "Greased Lightning".

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

and tested modules - hence valves.

Most likely true, Interstingly, the wiki page on Blue Streak suggests
the guidance system was more advanced that that of either the Vulcan
or Victor.

Of course, Beyond The Fringe suggested that it would be delivered by a
team of highly trained runners and renamed "Greased Lightning".


I heard that the bomber pilots could somehow link into the missile
navigation system because of its better performance.

I guess the guidance system would have been based around well tried
and tested modules - hence valves.

I don't know about valves but we were told it used germanium transitors.
(The RAF bod seemed not to have cottoned on that would not impress
teenagers whose trannies were in regular use for Radio Caroline.)

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

I guess the guidance system would have been based around well tried
and tested modules - hence valves.

Most likely true, Interstingly, the wiki page on Blue Streak suggests
the guidance system was more advanced that that of either the Vulcan
or Victor.

Of course, Beyond The Fringe suggested that it would be delivered by a
team of highly trained runners and renamed "Greased Lightning".


Apologies for poor focus:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yobh8llas8...2015.06.34.jpg

On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 09:48:23 +0100 (BST) Dave Liquorice wrote :
Not sure I'd like that much noise. We get fast jets through here
close enough to see the pilots at times. They are loud but up, past
and gone in less than a minuet. Chinooks just make the windows
rattle, Black Hawks nervous, having no real requirement to be
streamlined, they just look like the killing machines they are.

Every year or so our army Black Hawks do training over Melbourne city
centre, flying between the skyscrapers and hovering over target
buildings. Very impressive.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com

Tim Streater scribbled...


In article
sting.com, Jabba
wrote:

harryagain scribbled...

It cost over a £1million for every bomb that hit the runway, when the
fleet had the same bombs available for their aircraft, which were
several thousand miles closer to the target. The operation was
performed to wind up the RN, in an attempt to prove that aircraft
carriers have no use. Looks like they won as we don't have any carriers
now and all the aircraft the navy used have been scrapped.

Er. We are building new ones.

One may not be built, if it is, it will be mothballed immediately. The
second might be in service in 6 years time. So we would have been
without a carrier for almost 10 years - they're not exactly vital to our
defence are they?

Going back to the Falklands, we had 2 carriers and they were not used
well. The admiral in charge was a prat. I've read a couple of books by
harrier pilots and none have a good word for Woodward. His ****ups put
pressure on the Navy afterwards.

What sort of things were they complaining about?


Not doing anything about the Hercules refuelers used by the
Argentinians. Keeping 2 aircraft on standby, on deck, throughout the
war, when they should have been used in action. Not sharing out the
raids sensibly between the carriers. Not putting Stanley airport out of
action - properly. Keeping the carrier fleet too far away from the
Falklands during the day, which meant aircraft were only able to provide
limited CAP over the landings.

On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 07:15:34 +0000, Bob Martin wrote:

in 1315784 20140609 001436 Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jun 2014 22:55:35 +0100, Theo Markettos wrote:

Robin wrote:
We had a CCF camp at RAF Waddington in the 1960s when it was home to
the nuclear deterrent Vulcans. One was loud but a flight taking off
on one of the quick-response exercises was awesome. But not as
awesome as sitting in the rear gunner's turret of the last flying
Lancaster.

Living on the flightpath for both Cambridge Airport (home of unusual
maintenance contracts like RAF Tristars) and IWM Duxford, we get
rather spoiled. Last week sitting in the garden it was the Red Arrows
in full display mode, the week before it was the only B17 Flying
Fortress in Europe,
doing training circuits around my house.

All we got here was lots of Dreamliner test flights last summer. Coming
over at about 2000 feet.

You also had BA's A380 training flights last summer.

Yes, indeed. Flightradar24 came in very useful.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
My posts (including this one) are my copyright and if @diy_forums on
Twitter wish to tweet them they can pay me £30 a post
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

Tim Streater scribbled...


In article
sting.com, Jabba
wrote:

It cost over a £1million for every bomb that hit the runway, when the
fleet had the same bombs available for their aircraft, which were
several thousand miles closer to the target. The operation was
performed to wind up the RN, in an attempt to prove that aircraft
carriers have no use. Looks like they won as we don't have any carriers
now and all the aircraft the navy used have been scrapped.

It's more important for Britain to have a Navy - with carriers - almost
than anything else, defence-wise.


Only if we keep on going to war.

On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 08:26:41 +0100, PeterC wrote:

On Sun, 08 Jun 2014 19:23:23 +0100, Corporal Jones wrote:

On 08/06/2014 19:08, ARW wrote:
Today I was working at Finningley the home of this

http://www.vulcantothesky.org/

Just after 3pm it it went into the sky.

The first thing you notice is the noise. It makes more noise just
taxiing down the runway than a commercial jet makes on lift off!

It then flew towards the house (the floor vibrated) and blew the fumes
from it's exhaust into the house as it made it's turn. It smelt like a
an old petrol engine with a manual choke that was too far out.

Awesome - but totally OT.

When I was a lad I used to stay at my Uncles farm during the summer
holidays near Retford, one day whilst combining in the field a Vulcan
flew very low overhead, apart from seeing every detail of it's
undercarrage I think I have been somewhat deaf eversince.

Barry

Same here - but a different 'plane: cycling past the end of the runway
at RAF Upper Heyford, a Merkinjet took off and went into full climb
directly over me.
For some daft 'reason', when I saw/heard it approaching I tried to get
past the runway - stopping and covering my ears would have been far
better.

Had a similar experience driving past Manston when they were rehearsing
the air show. I was driving down the road just outside the perimeter -
with the sunroof open.

Then a Harrier did a vertical takeoff just inside the perimeter - the
"sit on its backside and let loose" sort.

I nearly went off the road.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
My posts (including this one) are my copyright and if @diy_forums on
Twitter wish to tweet them they can pay me £30 a post
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 09/06/2014 09:48 Dave Liquorice wrote:

Few years back three fighter jets had a dog fight over this area, now
that was something to watch and listen to, didn't go super-sonic but
flat out vertical climbs aren't quiet.

Not sure if it still does, but a Tornado used to show at the British
Grand Prix at Silverstone. The near supersonic level flight in towards
the track, then the almost instantaneous transition to vertical,
followed by it climbing at an amazing rate to almost out-of-sight was
awe inspiring and deafening. It was so loud that car alarms across the
car parks went off in unison!

--
F

In article , Robin
scribeth thus
I guess the guidance system would have been based around well tried
and tested modules - hence valves.

I don't know about valves but we were told it used germanium transitors.
(The RAF bod seemed not to have cottoned on that would not impress
teenagers whose trannies were in regular use for Radio Caroline.)


And valves were much better at standing up to the electromagnetic pulse
released by a nuclear explosion...

Thats why the soviets used then in their aircraft!..


http://www.onesecondafter.com/pb/wp_..._d10e87d9.html
--
Tony Sayer

On Monday, June 9, 2014 1:07:30 PM UTC+1, F wrote:
On 09/06/2014 09:48 Dave Liquorice wrote:



Few years back three fighter jets had a dog fight over this area, now

that was something to watch and listen to, didn't go super-sonic but

flat out vertical climbs aren't quiet.



Not sure if it still does, but a Tornado used to show at the British

Grand Prix at Silverstone. The near supersonic level flight in towards

the track, then the almost instantaneous transition to vertical,

followed by it climbing at an amazing rate to almost out-of-sight was

awe inspiring and deafening. It was so loud that car alarms across the

car parks went off in unison!



--

F

Typhoon demo at East Fortune Air Show had it standing still in the air, on its tail with the dancing diamonds in the afterburner glow, almost as noisy as the Vulcan....

In article sting.com,
Jabba wrote:
Tim Streater scribbled...


In article
sting.com, Jabba
wrote:

harryagain scribbled...

It cost over a £1million for every bomb that hit the runway, when
the fleet had the same bombs available for their aircraft, which
were several thousand miles closer to the target. The operation
was performed to wind up the RN, in an attempt to prove that
aircraft carriers have no use. Looks like they won as we don't
have any carriers now and all the aircraft the navy used have
been scrapped.

Er. We are building new ones.

One may not be built, if it is, it will be mothballed immediately.
The second might be in service in 6 years time. So we would have
been without a carrier for almost 10 years - they're not exactly
vital to our defence are they?

Going back to the Falklands, we had 2 carriers and they were not used
well. The admiral in charge was a prat. I've read a couple of
books by harrier pilots and none have a good word for Woodward. His
****ups put pressure on the Navy afterwards.

What sort of things were they complaining about?


Not doing anything about the Hercules refuelers used by the
Argentinians. Keeping 2 aircraft on standby, on deck, throughout the
war, when they should have been used in action. Not sharing out the
raids sensibly between the carriers. Not putting Stanley airport out of
action - properly. Keeping the carrier fleet too far away from the
Falklands during the day, which meant aircraft were only able to provide
limited CAP over the landings.

Sounds to me as though the pilots have never heard of tactics. All aircaft
out on patrol and what is left for close defence. Did the two carriers
have identical aircrat on board? I though there were RAF Harriers as well
as FAA ones. They had different roles, Did the Navy have suitable bombs to
deal with the runway at Stanley? and could they have got past theair
defences (missiles). The last one was to keep the carriers out of Exocet
range. I imagine an Exocet would make a nasty mess of a carrier.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 11:58:29 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

It's more important for Britain to have a Navy - with carriers -
almost than anything else, defence-wise.

looks sceptical

Why you sceptical about that?

I'm no military expert, far from it, but it strikes me that the vast
majority of military action that this country's been involved in over the
last century or so has been primarily land-based, with naval and air
support. Which, to me, seems to suggest that the most important service
is the Army, with the Navy and RAF as essential backups.

On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 13:07:30 +0100, F wrote:

Not sure if it still does, but a Tornado used to show at the British
Grand Prix at Silverstone. The near supersonic level flight in towards
the track, then the almost instantaneous transition to vertical,
followed by it climbing at an amazing rate to almost out-of-sight was
awe inspiring and deafening. It was so loud that car alarms across the
car parks went off in unison!

I remember standing in a Heathrow hotel carpark in the early '90s, as an
Aeroflot plane took off. That set all the car alarms off, too, with a
stink of unburned fuel in it's wake.

But I think that was sheer sheddiness rather than sheer power.

On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 21:46:53 +1000, Tony Bryer wrote:

Every year or so our army Black Hawks do training over Melbourne city
centre, flying between the skyscrapers and hovering over target
buildings. Very impressive.

I was in Melbourne for Australia Day about ten years ago - with military
jets coming down the river at full welly and somewhere around bollock-all
altitude.

In message , charles
writes
In article sting.com,
Jabba wrote:
Tim Streater scribbled...


In article
sting.com, Jabba
wrote:

harryagain scribbled...

It cost over a £1million for every bomb that hit the runway, when
the fleet had the same bombs available for their aircraft, which
were several thousand miles closer to the target. The operation
was performed to wind up the RN, in an attempt to prove that
aircraft carriers have no use. Looks like they won as we don't
have any carriers now and all the aircraft the navy used have
been scrapped.

Er. We are building new ones.

One may not be built, if it is, it will be mothballed immediately.
The second might be in service in 6 years time. So we would have
been without a carrier for almost 10 years - they're not exactly
vital to our defence are they?

Going back to the Falklands, we had 2 carriers and they were not used
well. The admiral in charge was a prat. I've read a couple of
books by harrier pilots and none have a good word for Woodward. His
****ups put pressure on the Navy afterwards.

What sort of things were they complaining about?


Not doing anything about the Hercules refuelers used by the
Argentinians. Keeping 2 aircraft on standby, on deck, throughout the
war, when they should have been used in action. Not sharing out the
raids sensibly between the carriers. Not putting Stanley airport out of
action - properly. Keeping the carrier fleet too far away from the
Falklands during the day, which meant aircraft were only able to provide
limited CAP over the landings.

Sounds to me as though the pilots have never heard of tactics. All aircaft
out on patrol and what is left for close defence. Did the two carriers
have identical aircrat on board? I though there were RAF Harriers as well
as FAA ones. They had different roles, Did the Navy have suitable bombs to
deal with the runway at Stanley? and could they have got past theair
defences (missiles). The last one was to keep the carriers out of Exocet
range. I imagine an Exocet would make a nasty mess of a carrier.

They got pretty close - but missed and hit the Atlantic Conveyor
instead.
--
bert

On 09/06/2014 06:51, Jabba wrote:

It cost over a £1million for every bomb that hit the runway, when the
fleet had the same bombs available for their aircraft, which were
several thousand miles closer to the target. The operation was
performed to wind up the RN, in an attempt to prove that aircraft
carriers have no use. Looks like they won as we don't have any carriers
now and all the aircraft the navy used have been scrapped.


They are building some proper aircraft carriers ATM, not the tidily
helicopter carriers we have just scrapped.

In message 6,
DerbyBorn writes
charles wrote in
:

In article 2,
DerbyBorn wrote:
charles wrote in
:

The engines for the Vulcan were developed long before Concorde was
even thought of. There was one Vulcan which was adapted as a test
bed for Concorde engines, though, One engine on one side of the
plane instead of the usual two. In the same way that there was a
Shackelton with a Vulcan engine underneath the fuselage, flying out
of Bitteswell in the 1950s.



Correct.(But I thought the Concorde Engine was under the bomb bay for
flight testing) The Vulcan and the Victor were also used to carry our
nuclear deterrant - the Blue Steel Missile. The missile (there were
over 50 of them) carried a nuclear warhead. They were an air launced
cruise missile with a guidance system that used valves (it predated
the invention of the transistor)

You could be correct about "under the bomb bay", I wasn't sure. But
valves v transisitors, no. Blue Steel's guidance system might have
predated the serious use of the transistor, which were "invented" in
1947. The first prototype Vulcan flew in 1952. Blue Steel was called
for in 1954 and entered service in 1964.


I guess the guidance system would have been based around well tried and
tested modules - hence valves.
Early ICBMs used valves.
--
bert

On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 14:43:11 +0100, charles wrote:

They are building some proper aircraft carriers ATM, not the tidily
helicopter carriers we have just scrapped.

They were small, but they were equipped with Sea Harriers.

Exactly. And once the Harriers were retired, there was nothing but
helicopters could use the carriers.

In article m,
dennis@home wrote:
On 09/06/2014 06:51, Jabba wrote:

It cost over a £1million for every bomb that hit the runway, when the
fleet had the same bombs available for their aircraft, which were
several thousand miles closer to the target. The operation was
performed to wind up the RN, in an attempt to prove that aircraft
carriers have no use. Looks like they won as we don't have any carriers
now and all the aircraft the navy used have been scrapped.


They are building some proper aircraft carriers ATM, not the tidily
helicopter carriers we have just scrapped.

They were small, but they were equipped with Sea Harriers.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

In article , bert ] wrote:
In message , charles
writes
In article sting.com,
Jabba wrote:
Tim Streater scribbled...


In article
sting.com, Jabba
wrote:

harryagain scribbled...

It cost over a £1million for every bomb that hit the runway,
when the fleet had the same bombs available for their
aircraft, which were several thousand miles closer to the
target. The operation was performed to wind up the RN, in an
attempt to prove that aircraft carriers have no use. Looks
like they won as we don't have any carriers now and all the
aircraft the navy used have been scrapped.

Er. We are building new ones.

One may not be built, if it is, it will be mothballed immediately.
The second might be in service in 6 years time. So we would have
been without a carrier for almost 10 years - they're not exactly
vital to our defence are they?

Going back to the Falklands, we had 2 carriers and they were not
used well. The admiral in charge was a prat. I've read a couple
of books by harrier pilots and none have a good word for Woodward.
His ****ups put pressure on the Navy afterwards.

What sort of things were they complaining about?


Not doing anything about the Hercules refuelers used by the
Argentinians. Keeping 2 aircraft on standby, on deck, throughout the
war, when they should have been used in action. Not sharing out the
raids sensibly between the carriers. Not putting Stanley airport out
of action - properly. Keeping the carrier fleet too far away from the
Falklands during the day, which meant aircraft were only able to
provide limited CAP over the landings.

Sounds to me as though the pilots have never heard of tactics. All
aircaft out on patrol and what is left for close defence. Did the two
carriers have identical aircrat on board? I though there were RAF
Harriers as well as FAA ones. They had different roles, Did the Navy
have suitable bombs to deal with the runway at Stanley? and could they
have got past theair defences (missiles). The last one was to keep the
carriers out of Exocet range. I imagine an Exocet would make a nasty
mess of a carrier.

They got pretty close - but missed and hit the Atlantic Conveyor instead.

which had a significant number of Chinooks as its main cargo.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 09/06/2014 13:06, Bob Eager wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 08:26:41 +0100, PeterC wrote:

On Sun, 08 Jun 2014 19:23:23 +0100, Corporal Jones wrote:

On 08/06/2014 19:08, ARW wrote:
Today I was working at Finningley the home of this

http://www.vulcantothesky.org/

Just after 3pm it it went into the sky.

The first thing you notice is the noise. It makes more noise just
taxiing down the runway than a commercial jet makes on lift off!

It then flew towards the house (the floor vibrated) and blew the fumes
from it's exhaust into the house as it made it's turn. It smelt like a
an old petrol engine with a manual choke that was too far out.

Awesome - but totally OT.

When I was a lad I used to stay at my Uncles farm during the summer
holidays near Retford, one day whilst combining in the field a Vulcan
flew very low overhead, apart from seeing every detail of it's
undercarrage I think I have been somewhat deaf eversince.

Barry

Same here - but a different 'plane: cycling past the end of the runway
at RAF Upper Heyford, a Merkinjet took off and went into full climb
directly over me.
For some daft 'reason', when I saw/heard it approaching I tried to get
past the runway - stopping and covering my ears would have been far
better.

Had a similar experience driving past Manston when they were rehearsing
the air show. I was driving down the road just outside the perimeter -
with the sunroof open.

Then a Harrier did a vertical takeoff just inside the perimeter - the
"sit on its backside and let loose" sort.

I nearly went off the road.

One of the most impressive (and in some ways scary) things I ever saw
was a harrier at one of the Southend air shows about 20 years ago. If
did a couple of fly pasts, and then did a third one slower and slower
until finally coming to a "stop" in front of the main crowd. It was
flying at about 50' and hence was below most of the audience standing on
the Westcliff "cliffs". It then did its normal side to side, nodding,
and backwards flying displays. Before finally starting to ascended with
the planes attitude level to start, but slowing rotating toward the nose
up vertical - all the time gaining vertical speed until it is on full
afterburner, flying straight up, until it vanished through the cloud
base. Awesome display of power and control.

The scary bit (aside from the incredible body shaking noise) was it did
its display over the water - the tide was in. There was a couple of dozy
muppets in a rowing boat that thought it might be a good idea to get
under the plane and so rowed out into its jet thrust which you could see
whipping up the surface of the water. Obviously they then suddenly
realised it was really not a very good idea at all, and were trying like
mad to get out of the way, but by this time the side to side and forward
/ backward part of the demo was taking place. The thrust was basicically
playing a game of tiddlywinks with them - skitting the boat first one
way then the other - I was amazed it did not sink or get capsized under
the shear force being excreted on it.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article , Tim Streater
scribeth thus
In article , Adrian
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 11:58:29 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

It's more important for Britain to have a Navy - with carriers -
almost than anything else, defence-wise.

looks sceptical

Why you sceptical about that?

I'm no military expert, far from it, but it strikes me that the vast
majority of military action that this country's been involved in over the
last century or so has been primarily land-based, with naval and air
support. Which, to me, seems to suggest that the most important service
is the Army, with the Navy and RAF as essential backups.

Not followed the Battle of the Atlantic, then. We barely won that, and
it needed a lot of help from Ultra. As it was they sank 5000 merchant
ships in WW1 and 5000 ships in WW2. In WW2, we sank 1100 U-boats.

Also not followed the Pacific war either, I'd guess. That would have
been a non-starter for the Yanks without a Navy.

Without the Navy, Adolf could have invaded quite easily, and his
surface ships and subs would have strangled our imports. We'd have lost
in pretty short order.


Quite;!....

--

"England expects that every man will do his duty"

Tony Sayer

In article , tony sayer
writes

And valves were much better at standing up to the electromagnetic pulse
released by a nuclear explosion...

Thats why the soviets used then in their aircraft!..

I think that's mainly a puff of chaff, aircraft don't need to be
particularly rad hard as they get blown over and wiped by blast long
before the electronics pop.

Pretty much the same applies in flight.

--
fred
it's a ba-na-na . . . .

On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 15:20:49 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

It's more important for Britain to have a Navy - with carriers -
almost than anything else, defence-wise.

looks sceptical

Why you sceptical about that?

I'm no military expert, far from it, but it strikes me that the vast
majority of military action that this country's been involved in over
the last century or so has been primarily land-based, with naval and
air support. Which, to me, seems to suggest that the most important
service is the Army, with the Navy and RAF as essential backups.

Not followed the Battle of the Atlantic, then.

You notice where it says "...vast majority of...", rather than saying
"...absolutely every single last piece of..."?

Tim Streater scribbled...


In article , Adrian
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 11:58:29 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

It's more important for Britain to have a Navy - with carriers -
almost than anything else, defence-wise.

looks sceptical

Why you sceptical about that?

I'm no military expert, far from it, but it strikes me that the vast
majority of military action that this country's been involved in over the
last century or so has been primarily land-based, with naval and air
support. Which, to me, seems to suggest that the most important service
is the Army, with the Navy and RAF as essential backups.

Not followed the Battle of the Atlantic, then. We barely won that, and
it needed a lot of help from Ultra. As it was they sank 5000 merchant
ships in WW1 and 5000 ships in WW2. In WW2, we sank 1100 U-boats.


It didn't help that the Royal Navy codes had been broken by the Germans
and it took some time for the RN to work that out.


Also not followed the Pacific war either, I'd guess. That would have
been a non-starter for the Yanks without a Navy.

Without the Navy, Adolf could have invaded quite easily, and his
surface ships and subs would have strangled our imports. We'd have lost
in pretty short order.

As you may be aware, Jellicoe at Jutland was the only commander of any
sort of either side who could have lost the war in an afternoon.

Navy ships take quite a while to build, although the Yanks got the
business of building merchant ships during WW2 down to production line
rates. Fighters of the WW2 type are much quicker to build, and grunts
with rifles can be turned out by the bushel in quick time.


"It takes three years to build a ship, but 300 years to build a
tradition," Admiral Cunningham.

On 09/06/2014 10:06, charles wrote:
In article 2, DerbyBorn
wrote:
charles wrote in
:

The engines for the Vulcan were developed long before Concorde was even
thought of. There was one Vulcan which was adapted as a test bed for
Concorde engines, though, One engine on one side of the plane instead
of the usual two. In the same way that there was a Shackelton with a
Vulcan engine underneath the fuselage, flying out of Bitteswell in the
1950s.



Correct.(But I thought the Concorde Engine was under the bomb bay for
flight testing) The Vulcan and the Victor were also used to carry our
nuclear deterrant - the Blue Steel Missile. The missile (there were
over 50 of them) carried a nuclear warhead. They were an air launced
cruise missile with a guidance system that used valves (it predated the
invention of the transistor)

You could be correct about "under the bomb bay", I wasn't sure.

Do a google image search for Vulcan XA903 Olympus. I remember seeing it
in a book about the Vulcan a few years ago in our local library.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-R...ma_Olympus_593 has info
about the development of the Olympus.

Jethro_uk scribbled...


On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 15:20:49 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

Navy ships take quite a while to build, although the Yanks got the
business of building merchant ships during WW2 down to production line
rates

By all accounts they weren't very good though ....


Tell that to -

"...John Fredriksen, John Theodoracopoulos, Aristotle Onassis, Stavros
Niarchos, Stavros George Livanos, the Goulandris brothers, and the
Andreadis, Tsavliris, Achille Lauro, Grimaldi and Bottiglieri families
were known to have started their fleets by buying Liberty ships..."

In article sting.com,
Jabba wrote:
Jethro_uk scribbled...


On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 15:20:49 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

Navy ships take quite a while to build, although the Yanks got the
business of building merchant ships during WW2 down to production line
rates

By all accounts they weren't very good though ....


Tell that to -

"...John Fredriksen, John Theodoracopoulos, Aristotle Onassis, Stavros
Niarchos, Stavros George Livanos, the Goulandris brothers, and the
Andreadis, Tsavliris, Achille Lauro, Grimaldi and Bottiglieri families
were known to have started their fleets by buying Liberty ships..."

The fundamental problem with the Liberty Ships was that the steel used went
brittle in the sub-zero temperatures of the North Atlantic in the winter.
As they were all welded, for speed of construction and crack went right
through the ship - many sank for, at the time, unexplained reasons.
Operate them in warmer waters and I'm sure they were fine.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 09/06/14 18:15, charles wrote:
In article sting.com,
Jabba wrote:
Jethro_uk scribbled...


On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 15:20:49 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

Navy ships take quite a while to build, although the Yanks got the
business of building merchant ships during WW2 down to production line
rates

By all accounts they weren't very good though ....


Tell that to -

"...John Fredriksen, John Theodoracopoulos, Aristotle Onassis, Stavros
Niarchos, Stavros George Livanos, the Goulandris brothers, and the
Andreadis, Tsavliris, Achille Lauro, Grimaldi and Bottiglieri families
were known to have started their fleets by buying Liberty ships..."

The fundamental problem with the Liberty Ships was that the steel used went
brittle in the sub-zero temperatures of the North Atlantic in the winter.
As they were all welded, for speed of construction and crack went right
through the ship - many sank for, at the time, unexplained reasons.
Operate them in warmer waters and I'm sure they were fine.

they fixed the problem in due course


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 18:00:23 +0100, Jabba wrote:

Not followed the Battle of the Atlantic, then. We barely won that, and
it needed a lot of help from Ultra. As it was they sank 5000 merchant
ships in WW1 and 5000 ships in WW2. In WW2, we sank 1100 U-boats.

It didn't help that the Royal Navy codes had been broken by the Germans
and it took some time for the RN to work that out.

....and following that line of logic could easily lead to the conclusion
that cryptography and communications are more important, even, than the
Navy.

On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 18:05:04 +0100, Jabba wrote:

Navy ships take quite a while to build, although the Yanks got the
business of building merchant ships during WW2 down to production
line rates

By all accounts they weren't very good though ....

Tell that to -

"...John Fredriksen, John Theodoracopoulos, Aristotle Onassis, Stavros
Niarchos, Stavros George Livanos, the Goulandris brothers, and the
Andreadis, Tsavliris, Achille Lauro, Grimaldi and Bottiglieri families
were known to have started their fleets by buying Liberty ships..."

I'm not sure how much that says about the quality of the ships, tbh. Just
that they still _existed_ at the end of the war, when there was one hell
of a need for ships.

On Monday, 9 June 2014 18:03:08 UTC+1, Part timer wrote:
On 09/06/2014 10:06, charles wrote:

In article 2, DerbyBorn

wrote:

charles wrote in

:



The engines for the Vulcan were developed long before Concorde was even

thought of. There was one Vulcan which was adapted as a test bed for

Concorde engines, though, One engine on one side of the plane instead

of the usual two. In the same way that there was a Shackelton with a

Vulcan engine underneath the fuselage, flying out of Bitteswell in the

1950s.







Correct.(But I thought the Concorde Engine was under the bomb bay for

flight testing) The Vulcan and the Victor were also used to carry our

nuclear deterrant - the Blue Steel Missile. The missile (there were

over 50 of them) carried a nuclear warhead. They were an air launced

cruise missile with a guidance system that used valves (it predated the

invention of the transistor)



You could be correct about "under the bomb bay", I wasn't sure.



Do a google image search for Vulcan XA903 Olympus. I remember seeing it

in a book about the Vulcan a few years ago in our local library.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-R...ma_Olympus_593 has info

about the development of the Olympus.

In June 1966, a complete Olympus 593 engine and variable geometry exhaust assembly was first run at Melun-Villaroche, Île-de-France, France. At Bristol, flight tests began using a RAF Avro Vulcan bomber with the engine and its nacelle attached below the bomb-bay. Due to the Vulcan's aerodynamic limitations, the tests were limited to a speed of Mach 0.98 (1,200 km/h). During these tests, the 593 achieved 35,190 lbf (157 kN) thrust, which exceeded the requirements of the engine.[5]

could be true

Jim K

Rather unfortunate spelling mistake there!

Syke


On 09/06/2014 16:27, John Rumm wrote:
On 09/06/2014 13:06, Bob Eager wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 08:26:41 +0100, PeterC wrote:

On Sun, 08 Jun 2014 19:23:23 +0100, Corporal Jones wrote:

On 08/06/2014 19:08, ARW wrote:
Today I was working at Finningley the home of this

http://www.vulcantothesky.org/

Just after 3pm it it went into the sky.

The first thing you notice is the noise. It makes more noise just
taxiing down the runway than a commercial jet makes on lift off!

It then flew towards the house (the floor vibrated) and blew the fumes
from it's exhaust into the house as it made it's turn. It smelt like a
an old petrol engine with a manual choke that was too far out.

Awesome - but totally OT.

When I was a lad I used to stay at my Uncles farm during the summer
holidays near Retford, one day whilst combining in the field a Vulcan
flew very low overhead, apart from seeing every detail of it's
undercarrage I think I have been somewhat deaf eversince.

Barry

Same here - but a different 'plane: cycling past the end of the runway
at RAF Upper Heyford, a Merkinjet took off and went into full climb
directly over me.
For some daft 'reason', when I saw/heard it approaching I tried to get
past the runway - stopping and covering my ears would have been far
better.

Had a similar experience driving past Manston when they were rehearsing
the air show. I was driving down the road just outside the perimeter -
with the sunroof open.

Then a Harrier did a vertical takeoff just inside the perimeter - the
"sit on its backside and let loose" sort.

I nearly went off the road.

One of the most impressive (and in some ways scary) things I ever saw
was a harrier at one of the Southend air shows about 20 years ago. If
did a couple of fly pasts, and then did a third one slower and slower
until finally coming to a "stop" in front of the main crowd. It was
flying at about 50' and hence was below most of the audience standing on
the Westcliff "cliffs". It then did its normal side to side, nodding,
and backwards flying displays. Before finally starting to ascended with
the planes attitude level to start, but slowing rotating toward the nose
up vertical - all the time gaining vertical speed until it is on full
afterburner, flying straight up, until it vanished through the cloud
base. Awesome display of power and control.

The scary bit (aside from the incredible body shaking noise) was it did
its display over the water - the tide was in. There was a couple of dozy
muppets in a rowing boat that thought it might be a good idea to get
under the plane and so rowed out into its jet thrust which you could see
whipping up the surface of the water. Obviously they then suddenly
realised it was really not a very good idea at all, and were trying like
mad to get out of the way, but by this time the side to side and forward
/ backward part of the demo was taking place. The thrust was basicically
playing a game of tiddlywinks with them - skitting the boat first one
way then the other - I was amazed it did not sink or get capsized under
the shear force being excreted on it.

In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 09/06/14 18:15, charles wrote:
In article
sting.com, Jabba
wrote:
Jethro_uk scribbled...


On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 15:20:49 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

Navy ships take quite a while to build, although the Yanks got the
business of building merchant ships during WW2 down to production
line rates

By all accounts they weren't very good though ....


Tell that to -

"...John Fredriksen, John Theodoracopoulos, Aristotle Onassis, Stavros
Niarchos, Stavros George Livanos, the Goulandris brothers, and the
Andreadis, Tsavliris, Achille Lauro, Grimaldi and Bottiglieri families
were known to have started their fleets by buying Liberty ships..."

The fundamental problem with the Liberty Ships was that the steel used
went brittle in the sub-zero temperatures of the North Atlantic in the
winter. As they were all welded, for speed of construction and crack
went right through the ship - many sank for, at the time, unexplained
reasons. Operate them in warmer waters and I'm sure they were fine.

they fixed the problem in due course

yes, by changing the type of steel used.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 08:26:41 +0100, PeterC wrote:

On Sun, 08 Jun 2014 19:23:23 +0100, Corporal Jones wrote:

On 08/06/2014 19:08, ARW wrote:
Today I was working at Finningley the home of this

http://www.vulcantothesky.org/

Just after 3pm it it went into the sky.

The first thing you notice is the noise. It makes more noise just
taxiing down the runway than a commercial jet makes on lift off!

It then flew towards the house (the floor vibrated) and blew the fumes
from it's exhaust into the house as it made it's turn. It smelt like a
an old petrol engine with a manual choke that was too far out.

Awesome - but totally OT.

When I was a lad I used to stay at my Uncles farm during the summer
holidays near Retford, one day whilst combining in the field a Vulcan
flew very low overhead, apart from seeing every detail of it's
undercarrage I think I have been somewhat deaf eversince.

Barry

Same here - but a different 'plane: cycling past the end of the runway
at RAF Upper Heyford, a Merkinjet took off and went into full climb
directly over me.
For some daft 'reason', when I saw/heard it approaching I tried to get
past the runway - stopping and covering my ears would have been far
better.

Had a similar experience driving past Manston when they were rehearsing
the air show. I was driving down the road just outside the perimeter -
with the sunroof open.

Then a Harrier did a vertical takeoff just inside the perimeter - the
"sit on its backside and let loose" sort.

I nearly went off the road.


Sometimes the RAF practice dogfights next to Filey Brig. That's a
worthwhile free show.

--
Adam