Old aircraft keep going… and going…

[Swoop]

Hog – 2028! BUFF – 2040!!:shit:

That is a serious lifespan for technology, upgrades and good, basic engineering to begin with.


In Afghanistan, the most requested ground support aircraft is the U.S. A-10. It's been that way since 2002, and there was similar A-10 affection in Iraq. Troops from all nations quickly come to appreciate the unique abilities of this 1970s era aircraft, that the U.S. Air Force has several times tried to retire. Now, over 300 remaining A-10s are being upgraded, so that they can fly until 2028. This includes new electronics as well as structural and engine refurbishment.
A-10s are worked hard. An A-10 squadron has a dozen aircraft and 18 pilots. Pilots often average about a hundred hours a month in the air. That's about twenty sorties, as each sortie averages about five hours. The aircraft range all over southern Afghanistan, waiting for troops below to call for some air support. The A-10, nicknamed "Warthog", or just "hog", could always fly low and slow, and was designed, and armoured, to survive lots of ground fire. The troops trust the A-10 more than the F-16, or any other aircraft used for ground support.
For the last three years, pilots have been flying a new version of the A-10, the A-10C. The air force has been upgrading A-10s to the "C" model for most of the past decade. The new goodies for the A-10C equip the pilot with the same targeting and fire control gadgets the latest fighters have. The new A-10C cockpit has all the spiffy colour displays and easy to use controls. Because it is a single-seat aircraft, that flies close to the ground (something that requires a lot more concentration), all the automation in the cockpit allows the pilot to do a lot more, with less stress, exertion and danger.
The basic A-10 is a three decade old design, so the new additions are quite spectacular in comparison. New commo gear is installed as well, allowing A-10 pilots to share pix and vids with troops on the ground. The A-10 pilot also has access to the Blue Force Tracker system, so that the nearest friendly ground forces show up on the HUD (Head Up Display) when coming in low to use the 30mm cannon. The A-10 can now use smart bombs, making it a do-it-all aircraft for troops support. The air force is also upgrading the engine and structural components on the A-10s, which may cost another $10 million per aircraft. But this extends the service life of each aircraft to 16,000 hours.
The newly equipped A-10s are so abundant enough now, that only A-10Cs are flying in combat zones. But it will take several more years to upgrade all 350 A-10s in service. Beyond that, the air force will continue to upgrade the engines and structures of the 1970s era aircraft. All the upgrades will cost about $13 million per aircraft.
The A-10 is a 23 ton, twin engine, single seat aircraft whose primary weapon is a multi-barrel 30mm cannon originally designed to fire armoured piercing shells at Russian tanks. These days, the 1,174 30mm rounds are mostly high explosive. The 30mm cannon fires 363 gram (12.7 ounce) rounds at the rate of about 65 a second. The cannon is usually fired in one or two second bursts. In addition, the A-10 can carry seven tons of bombs and missiles. These days, the A-10 goes out with smart bombs (GPS and laser guided) and Maverick missiles. It can also carry a targeting pod, enabling the pilot to use high magnification day/night cameras to scour the area for enemy activity. Cruising speed is 560 kilometres an hour and the A-10 can slow down to about 230 kilometres an hour. In Afghanistan, two drop tanks are usually carried, to give the aircraft maximum time over the battlefield.


Then... Mr BUFF.
Without any fanfare, the U.S. Air Force recently announced that it would spend $11.9 billion to keep its remaining B-52 bombers in service until they are all retired by 2040. At that point, the last ones will have served over 70 years. The new "sustainment program" will cost over $150 million per aircraft, which is about twice what they cost to build (accounting for inflation).
The reason for this investment in half century old aircraft has a lot to do with the fact that the B-52 is very capable, reliable, and cheap to operate. This is especially true compared to the aircraft built to replace it (the B-1B). The U.S. Air Force has been having a hard time keeping its 67 B-1B bombers ready for action. Two years ago, the availability rate (aircraft you can send into action) was about 51 percent. Seven years ago it was 56 percent. Progress is being made, but the B-52 is still more reliable. The B-1Bs are used to drop smart bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are particularly popular in Afghanistan, because you can put one in the air, and it can cover the entire country. While the B-1B is twice as expensive to operate (per hour in the air) than the B-52, the B-1B can more quickly move to a new target over Afghanistan.
B-52s are not only cheaper to maintain, they have a higher availability rate (65 percent.) As a result, the air force wants to keep 76 B-52s in service (despite a Congressional mandate to reduce that number to 56.) With the development of GPS guided bombs (JDAM), heavy bombers have become the most cost-effective way to deliver support to ground forces. The B-52 is the cheapest American heavy bomber to operate, and the oldest.
The new sustainment program includes continuing upgrades that are already in progress. This includes replacing the 30 year old APQ-166 strategic radar. The B-52 users would prefer to have a modern AESA (phased array) type radar, but the air force is reluctant to spend that much. That's because the radar upgrade will accompany the addition of new communications gear, to allow the B-52s to participate in the Internet like network the air force is creating for its aircraft. This also allows the warplanes to communicate with similar networks being built by the army and navy. The new sustainment program may give the B-52s even more advanced equipment after all.
The B-52 has had a lot of competition. In the last sixty years, the air force has developed six heavy bombers (the 240 ton B-52 in 1955, the 74 ton B-58 in 1960, the 47 ton FB-111 in 1969, the 260 ton B-70 in the 1960s, the 236 ton B-1 in 1985, and the 181 ton B-2 in 1992.) All of these were developed primarily to deliver nuclear weapons (bombs or missiles), but have proved more useful dropping non-nuclear bombs. Only the B-70 was cancelled before being deployed. The successors to the B-52 were more complex and expensive since they were designed to penetrate ever more formidable air defences. The B-52 needs none of these improvements for the bombing missions against foes with no air defences against high flying aircraft. Moreover, defence is now more a matter of electronics than higher speed or stealth. So the B-52 is still competitive, even against defended targets.
The well maintained and sustained B-52s are quite sturdy and have, on average, only 16,000 flying hours on them. The air force estimates that the B-52s won't become un-maintainable until they reach 28,000 flight hours. The B-1 and B-2 were meant to provide a high tech replacement for the B-52, but the end of the Cold War made that impractical. The kinds of anti-aircraft threats the B-1 and B-2 were designed to deal with never materialized. This left the B-52 as the most cost effective way to deliver bombs. The B-1s and B-2s are getting some of the same weapons carrying and communications upgrades as the B-52, if only because these more modern aircraft provide an expensive backup for the B-52.
The B-1B and B-2 are more expensive to operate because they haul around a lot of gear that is not needed for the current counter-terror operations. The B-1B can travel at high speed and very low altitude, to evade enemy air defences. The B-2 is very difficult to detect on radar, but this ability is achieved with some expensive to maintain design features. Back in the 1950s, when the B-52 was designed, air warfare was a lot simpler and so was the BUFF (Big, Ugly, Fat Fucker, as the B-52 has long been known.) There are still potential enemies out there with Cold War grade air defences, and the B-1s and B-2s are maintained to deal with that eventuality in mind.



I must go and check up on the DC-3...


221187221186

[pzkpfw]

I don't understand the people who think the A-10 is "ugly".

Awesome craft.

All my books on the topic say "soon to be retired".

Ha!

[mashman]

Ok, so there's BILLIONS of $$$ for war upgrades and BILLIONS of $$$ to bail banks out, but f'all for every day normal folk... what a HUGE feckin waste :yes:

Sorry :shifty:

Cool planes though :)

[Swoop]

General Horner thought the A-10 was seriously ugly. His son decided to fly them and he was regularly quoted as saying "oh, I don't think I have a son anymore".

When the Hogs were saving everyones arse in the 2nd gulf war, he stated that "I take back every bad word I've said about the A-10, they are saving our arses!"

[White trash]

I don't understand the people who think the A-10 is "ugly".

Awesome craft.

All my books on the topic say "soon to be retired".

Ha!

A-10 can be called whatever people want, but it's one of those designs that screams "DONT FUCK WITH ME PUNK!" when ya look at it sideways :)

[EJK]

Same goes with Apachi (on helicopter side). What will replace Apachis?

[avgas]

And the Americans think they are better than the Russians....
221189

In saying that I do have a soft spot for the A10
221190

[Mully]

I love the BUFF

Especially when they say "X was replaced, then they were reskinned, then Y was replaced"

It's a bit like grandad's axe......

[nudemetalz]

The B-52's have been in active service since 1955 and by the time they get retired in 2040, that will be 85 years !!!! :gob:

[Spazman727]

I saw a thing on youtube that the pilots could actually feel the plane slov down when they fired the minigun, and the pilots wife knew when the pilot had fired it 'cos she could smell it on him.

Fucking insane planes those A10s, and I can see why they are called Warthogs.

[MisterD]

Fucking insane planes those A10s, and I can see why they are called Warthogs.

I just love the way the front wheel's off-centre - a constant reminder that the whole thing is built entirely around that gun

[Swoop]

Managed to find the Gooney Bird article.


2009. Colombia lost one of its AC-47 gunships, apparently to mechanical malfunction. The aircraft carried a five man crew to handle the sensors and weapons. Over the last five years, Colombia paid about $20 million to convert five World War II era C-47 (DC-3) transports to gunships (armed with night vision sensors and a three barrel .50 caliber machine-gun, and some bombs). Such gunships first appeared, using World War II era C-47 transports, in the 1960s over Vietnam. The troops called the gunships, which liked to operate at night, "Spooky."
The DC 3 (or C-47 or "Dakota" in military usage) continues to fly in commercial service into the 21st century. Several hundred DC 3s are still flying worldwide, mostly owned by small domestic carriers in the U.S. and by some Third World air transport companies. A state of the art aircraft in the mid-1930s (during which only 500 were built), over 35,000 DC 3's were produced for use during World War II. The DC-3 was, in fact, the most widely manufactured aircraft of the war.

When allied paratroopers jumped, it was usually from a DC 3 (which could carry 28 troops, but over sixty people were squeezed in during emergencies). With a maximum range of 3,400 kilometers and a top speed of 296 kilometers per hour, the DC 3 was the common cargo carrier (up to 3.5 tons) and general purpose "flying truck." It still is.

[Jantar]

The Warthog was designed for a purpose and to a spec. It was to operate at low level and low speed to give plenty of time to aquire and stay on target, while being fast enough to get to and from the battle ground quickly. It was to protect the pilot from ground fire, and have the engines positioned to make it difficult for shoulder fired IR SAMs to get a lock. And if a missile should hit an engine it would be far enough away from the fuselage to minimise any collateral damage while still being able to fly and fight on a single engine.

Its a pity modern designers don't follow the same principles.

[Grasshopperus]

$150 million to keep a B52 flying for another 30 years? Damn!

Probably still cheaper than servicing a Ducati for that long.

[Swoop]

Probably still cheaper than servicing a Ducati for that long.
The electronics will still be more reliable than those of a Ducati.:yes::facepalm:

[Kickaha]

he whole thing is built entirely around that gun

GAU-8 Fuck yeah:woohoo:

[jonbuoy]

$150 million to keep a B52 flying for another 30 years? Damn!

Probably still cheaper than servicing a Ducati for that long.

Thats probably only a scratch on the real running costs 40,000 gallons of fuel to fill up at 5$ a gallon would soon add up over the years.

[marty]

The Warthog was designed for a purpose and to a spec. It was to operate at low level and low speed to give plenty of time to aquire and stay on target, while being fast enough to get to and from the battle ground quickly. It was to protect the pilot from ground fire, and have the engines positioned to make it difficult for shoulder fired IR SAMs to get a lock. And if a missile should hit an engine it would be far enough away from the fuselage to minimise any collateral damage while still being able to fly and fight on a single engine.

Its a pity modern designers don't follow the same principles.

Word has it they dropped off a gun and ammo weighing 8000 kilos at Lockeed and said 'build a plane that can carry this please'

[pete376403]

Pic of B52s stored in the desert prior to scrapping. They must have built a shitload of these things. Hard to comprehend how much money was spent building, maintaining and finally destroying these.

[pzkpfw]

They destroyed them out in the open as much so that Soviet spy sats could "watch".

(They used huge guillotine (sp?) things to snick the wings off...)

It was part of the verification process both sides used when arms limitation talks resulted in agreements to cut down the numbers of bombers.

[marty]

Thats probably only a scratch on the real running costs 40,000 gallons of fuel to fill up at 5$ a gallon would soon add up over the years.

I've got a 4 year old $40000 vehicle that I've done 200000kms in. It has averaged 10.1 litres of fuel/100km in that time. At a conservative $1.50/l of fuel, that's just over $30k in fuel.

If I continue to do 50k kms/year in it for the next 10 years, at $7500/year in fuel, it will easily cost twice more than the purchase price.

the cheapest part of a plane is buying it.

AirNZ paid about $50mil for its first 747-400 back in 1991. It did 90000hrs before being broken up. Burned about 10 tonnes of Jet-A/hour for its whole life. Carries about 64000 gallons/250000 litres. Jet-A is currently sitting at US$85/barrel (42 gallons/168 litres).

someone do the math please :)

[pete376403]

90,000 hrs x 10 t/hr = 900,000 t x 2240 = 201600000 lbs / 6.82 (Jet A1 6.82lbs/gall)= 29560117 gall / 42 (gal/bbl) = 703812 bbl x $85 /bbl = $59,824,046 and change.

I think so,anyway

Then there were the maintenance costs.

[far queue]

Word has it they dropped off a gun and ammo weighing 8000 kilos at Lockeed and said 'build a plane that can carry this please'I guess Lockheed couldn't manage it then since it was build by Fairchild Republic.

[marty]

that would have hurt my brain after today's effort @ work.

[Spazman727]

Pic of B52s stored in the desert prior to scrapping. They must have built a shitload of these things. Hard to comprehend how much money was spent building, maintaining and finally destroying these.

Such a shame to go and destroy all those planes. I would've had one.

[Gremlin]

And the Americans think they are better than the Russians....
221189
The russians always build them bigger... like the Ekranoplan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lun-class_ekranoplan

[Swoop]

Beautiful sound!
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1Gj4vChtVyE?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1Gj4vChtVyE?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[MisterD]

Then again some aircraft don't...it was announced overnight that the UK are scrapping HMS Ark Royal and with her the remaining Harrier "Jump Jets".

Sad, sad, day.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WRfDsSnLtE4?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WRfDsSnLtE4?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Swoop]

Then again some aircraft don't...it was announced overnight that the UK are scrapping HMS Ark Royal and with her the remaining Harrier "Jump Jets".

Sad, sad, day.
Presumably to "assist" the need for the HMS Queen Elizabeth II carrier class.
The F-35 is supposed to be the aircraft used on the new carriers, but they are growing out of control (financially) and the US is losing orders for them.

NZ should get the Harriers. Much more appropriate for the NZ environment.

[jonbuoy]

Presumably to "assist" the need for the HMS Queen Elizabeth II carrier class.
The F-35 is supposed to be the aircraft used on the new carriers, but they are growing out of control (financially) and the US is losing orders for them.

NZ should get the Harriers. Much more appropriate for the NZ environment.

UK government is skint - NZ should make a good cash offer. Sad days.

[portokiwi]

They had an old Valcan being used in Afghanistan when I was there.
that was only a few years ago. 2007
It had the brit markings on it.

[Swoop]

They had an old Valcan being used in Afghanistan when I was there.
that was only a few years ago. 2007
It had the brit markings on it.
There is only one Vulcan flying (XH558) and that is part of a "historic" flying organisation that rebuilt it for airshows, etc.
Doubt it was what you saw, but perhaps a Victor tanker?

[MisterD]

but perhaps a Victor tanker?

Victors left service in 1993. The only thing I can think of that's big, old-looking and British would be the Nimrod.

[pzkpfw]

Victors left service in 1993. The only thing I can think of that's big, old-looking and British would be the Nimrod.

Which'll be gone soon too: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6957920.ece

(For a while...)


P.S. Wow, they still buy Chinook's.

[Swoop]

Victors left service in 1993. The only thing I can think of that's big, old-looking and British would be the Nimrod.
I wondered about them as well.
The mystery continues...

[MisterD]

Mind you, talking of aircraft that keep going and going, the Nimrod is in essence just a development of the Comet so that's 60 years of service...

[imdying]

Going and going after the military quietly reskinned them. Which nimrod decided on square windows on such a large pressurised vessel? :laugh:

[pete376403]

Victors left service in 1993. The only thing I can think of that's big, old-looking and British would be the Nimrod.

Speaking of big (but not british, or too old)


http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2008-2-9-Il76-in-Australia.wmv
The e-mail that this link was attached to said the take off weight was 1,000,000 pounds - 446 tons. Is that possible??

[marty]

the IL76 is nowhere near 1 million lbs, but the An225 has a take off weight of 1.3 million lbs. A 747F MAUW is near 1 miilion

[nadroj]

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/il76/

http://www.enemyforces.net/aircraft/an124.htm

[MisterD]

Going and going after the military quietly reskinned them. Which nimrod decided on square windows on such a large pressurised vessel? :laugh:

I've seen an interview somewhere with an old Boeing bloke who basically said they were lucky that the Comet made that mistake because they got to learn from it too...

[Swoop]

I've seen an interview somewhere with an old Boeing bloke who basically said they were lucky that the Comet made that mistake because they got to learn from it too...
Boeing learnt quite a lot from others. During the cold war they had a secret meeting with Russian engineers regarding "how to work titanium". They were having major problems and the Russians gave them a hand... in exchange for information on podded engines (engines hung under the wing - like on the 747).

[Swoop]

20 October, 2010: In the past two years, the U.S. Air Force retired 252 elderly A-10s, F-15s and F-16s to the "bone yard" (a desert storage area where many American warplanes are stored when retired, just in case they are needed later.) Sometimes the air force is just saving money, by mothballing and decommissioning a number of active duty airplanes to free up money for upgrades and maintenance on the rest of the fleet. Thus not all the aircraft in the bone yard are old and worn out. In fact, nearly all aircraft sent to the bone yard can fly again; otherwise they would just be scrapped in place. For example, last year, the air force retired the last of its 384 F-15A fighters. Long flown only by reserve units, these are old aircraft, all built in the 1970s. Air force reserve units got the F-15As in the 1980s and 1990s, as active duty units got the new F-15C. But now the F-22 is entering service, and more F-15Cs are going to the reserves. Many of those F-15A’s flew for over 30 years, and have all made their last flight to the bone yard.
Two years ago, the air force retired the last of its F-117 light bombers. Long called the "stealth fighter," the F-117 was designed from the start as a bomber. But the aircraft was 27 years old. It's really 1970s technology that, after years of effort, was made to work in the 1980s. But better stuff is out there, and the stealth technology of the F-117 is obsolete when it comes to some of the more recent sensor developments. The new F-35 will be a direct, and more effective, replacement for the F-117 as a light bomber. Plus, the F-22 can also perform these bombing missions, in addition to being a superior fighter. The F-117s made their last flights going to the bone yard.
Since World War II, most military aircraft ended up being scrapped, not shot down. Some nations, particularly the United States, have an intermediate status; storage. The main such site in the United States is AMARC (Aerospace Maintenance and Recovery Centre). This is the bone yard, and aircraft stored at AMARC would, if armed and operational, be the third largest air force in the world. This facility, at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base out in the Arizona desert, stores nearly 5,000 military aircraft no longer needed for active service. Every year, some are recalled, refurbished and sent back to work. But most get "harvested" for spare parts, until what's left is chopped up and sold for scrap.
AMARC isn't the only storage site, just the largest (in the world). Many other air bases in dry climates have room for some aircraft that might be needed again. The U.S. Marine Corps recently took an old AV-8 Harrier vertical takeoff fighter that had been in storage for sixteen years at one of its air bases, and restored it to duty as a two seat trainer. The marines didn't think they would need that old AV-8. But the new F-35B, which is to replace the AV-8, is late in arriving, and operations in Afghanistan have worn down the existing AV-8s. So reinforcements have been called up from storage sites.
This points out one of the major problems with modern warplanes; that some models have remained in service far longer than anyone expected. This happened partly because modern aircraft are built to last, and used engineering advances that worked out better than expected. Engineers tend to overbuild when they can.
For example, commercial transports are very sturdy beasts, as they have to fly up to 12 hours a day for weeks at a time. Military aircraft fly less often, although their sturdiness is also meant to deal with the violent manoeuvres of combat. But heavy bombers and transports can go on and on, as they don't fly as much as the civilian transports and the basic technology they are based on hasn't changed much. The best example is the B-52 bomber, which entered service half a century ago and the ones still flying were built over forty years ago. There are also over a hundred, 70 year old, DC-3 civilian transports still in the air as well.
Most warplanes are in production for a decade or less. Once the manufacturing stops, it starts to become difficult to get spare parts. The tools and equipment used to make the aircraft components are usually scrapped. Making the parts from scratch is so expensive that it is often cheaper to scrap aircraft and buy a new design. But a new aircraft is often more than the budget can bear as well. The solution to this problem is cannibalization. That is, using some aircraft, either those wrecked in accidents or older models retired to the "bone yard", just for spare parts. This has been a practice in combat from the very beginning of military aviation. Especially during World War I, when more aircraft were lost to bad landings and takeoffs than to enemy action, the wrecks became a source of replacement parts for airframes and engines of aircraft still in service. Thus the most efficient bone yard in the world is Americas AMARC. While some of the aircraft stored there are recalled to active service every year, all are liable for disassembly to provide parts for aircraft that are still flying.
AMARC fills 500-2,000 spare parts orders each month. Not just for American military aircraft, but for those of allies as well. Australia keeps its 1960s era F-111's flying with spare parts from old U.S. F-111s stored at AMARC. The U.S. Air Force A-10, built in the 1970s, and not a popular air force candidate for a new model, is kept flying (because it's so damn useful) with parts from AMARC. Even when parts are still in production, a wartime surge, as was experienced during the Afghanistan campaign, will outstrip the manufacturer’s ability to produce them. In this case, AMARC delivered parts for the F-18.
AMARC was set up in 1985, consolidating bone yard operations already there and from other locations in the United States. In that first year, it delivered spare parts worth half a billion dollars. While the airframes, stripped of all their more valuable parts, are worth only about 25 cents a pound as scrap, some of the parts are worth their weight in gold. Engines, which often comprise a third (or more) of an aircraft's value, are the most valuable single items. And each engine consists of thousands parts, some of which are worth quite a bit, even if the engine is no longer in use by any aircraft. Other nations cannibalize their retired or obsolete warplanes, but few have organized the operation as efficiently as the United States.

[portokiwi]

:facepalm: I have a photo somewhere.... it could be the vulcan. it was old thats for sure. When I find the phot I will put it up.

[marty]

The Vulcan was decommisioned after the Falklands. A couple were converted to re-fuellers, but the rest were parked up.

There has been huge dramas with the (that's THE - the only one flying) Vulcan, including an unscheduled flight while on a high speed taxi check.

There's no way it was in Afganistan in the current theatre - maybe in the mid-70's, but not the 2000's.

The surviving flying specimen (XH558) flies only very occasionally - it is hoped that it will do a fly-past at the London Olympics opening ceremony - a long way from flying to Afganistan for a jolly :)

[Swoop]

Vulcan to the sky.

http://www.vulcantothesky.org/

[MikeL]

Going and going after the military quietly reskinned them. Which nimrod decided on square windows on such a large pressurised vessel? :laugh:

One of the factors that led to the structural failure of the Comet 1 was the low thrust of the only available engines (de Havilland Ghost). To ensure decent performance the weight of the airframe had to be kept down, which meant the skin was thinner than it would otherwise have been. The difference between square and round or oval windows would have been less important if thicker metal had been used. By the time the Comet 3 and 4 (and subsequently the Nimrod) were produced, much more powerful engines were available, and weight was no longer critical. The Comet 4, by the way, is undeniably one of the most beautiful civil aircraft ever built. I never unfortunately got to fly in one.

[SPman]

There has been huge dramas with the (that's THE - the only one flying) Vulcan, including an unscheduled flight while on a high speed taxi check.

That was the HP Victor - the guy acting as co pilot for the "high speed taxi" didn't chop the power back when requested.......luckily they had enough room left to get it down again (Bruntingthorp, I think), otherwise it could have got real interesting.......

[imdying]

The Comet 4, by the way, is undeniably one of the most beautiful civil aircraft ever built. I never unfortunately got to fly in one.No doubt :yes:

[nudemetalz]

That was the HP Victor - the guy acting as co pilot for the "high speed taxi" didn't chop the power back when requested.......luckily they had enough room left to get it down again (Bruntingthorp, I think), otherwise it could have got real interesting.......

Here's some awesome footage of it !!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3HaeYVlBw8

[far queue]

While we're talking Vulcan's, did you know that the RNZAF had one of it's very own in 1972?

[SPman]

The one that was "zapped" by groundcrew overnight..........XH562 on 2nd March 1972

[far queue]

The one that was "zapped" by groundcrew overnight..........hehehe, yep that's the one :yes:

Pic 1

A spectacular shot taken by some tourists in Milford Sound when the Vulcan roared up past them. It was flying up the fiord below the tops. Sadly the quality of the original could have been better but still a great pic.

Pic 2

Crew Chief Chf Tech Bill Pearsey poses next to Avro Vulcan B2 XH562 of the NEAF Bomber (Akrotiri) Wing at RAF Masirah in March 1972. 562 was returning from a trip to New Zealand where it had been most spectacularly 'zapped' by personnel of the RNZAF. The squadron badge on the nose wheel door is that of No 75 Squadron RNZAF. Bill Pearsey remembers:

"The 'vandalism' was done at Ohakea. Even the station commander was involved. We threatened to fly under Sydney Harbour Bridge on the way back. We had arrived at Ohakea on the Monday; the following day we were taken on a trip to Rotorua in a VIP Dakota. They were just removing the steps that they used to paint the kiwi as we arrived back in the evening. On the Wednesday we flew down to Christchurch. Some Yanks came to ask us how long us Kiwis had been operating Vulcan’s and my mate told them that 562 was the first of 94 that we were getting. Some months after I arrived back in Akrotiri I received a very large envelope containing a photo of a squadron of 9 Kiwi Vulcan’s flying over Ohakea control tower. It was definitely the best trip I ever did."

Avro Vulcan, XH562, of 9 Squadron was at Christchurch on 2 March 1972 with 'zapped' roundel.

[nadroj]

My partners uncle Rex Cording (now of Christchurch but previoously Wanganui) flew the Catalina and Vulcan whilst in the RAF. He returned from the UK to study at uni - http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/915

[Mental Trousers]

My partners uncle Rex Cording (now of Christchurch but previoously Wanganui) flew the Catalina and Vulcan whilst in the RAF. He returned from the UK to study at uni - http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/915

Now that looks like a facinating read.

[marty]

That was the HP Victor - the guy acting as co pilot for the "high speed taxi" didn't chop the power back when requested.......luckily they had enough room left to get it down again (Bruntingthorp, I think), otherwise it could have got real interesting.......


I always thought it was the Vulcan - I stand corrected!

[EJK]

Messerschmitt 109, 163, 262 and JU-87.

Aaah those were the good ole days, ja?

[bikemike]

I still love the functional design of the Thunderbolt II - one of the planes I put on a pedestal when I was younger, along with the Harrier, Spitfire, and Mosquito.

However, knowing that gun runs DU ammunition kind of tanks the already debatable, philosophical appeal of the A-10.

My son's book on same published in 2006 already indicated that the EOL is 2028. After that it will do spotting - and it's role will be filled by unimaginably sophisticated UAVs and drones.

[bungbung]

Old planes keep flying. At the South Pole, I was suprised to see a Basler conversion DC3, of course we flew in and out on an LC130 which is hardly modern.228042228043

[vifferman]

While we're talking about Vulcans - my uncle was a test pilot for the RNZAAF, flew all sorts of planes, including the Vulcan.
I'd love to see him and talk about his flying career, but unfortunately I haven't seen him for a very long time, and don't even know if he's still alive (would be in his 80's now).

[Swoop]

Bugger it, time to dredge a thread to enliven things around here.


A great little film that showed some sense of humour back in '53!

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vQL9Kxxd88s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Swoop]

Well, it seems the Orion fleet has come to the end of its life.

NZ has placed an order for (up to four) P-8 Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft to re-equip with. Commonality with Australia might have influenced this, since they operate this type now too.
A very capable airframe. A bit pricey though - but labour will probably come along and see them as "too war-ey" and fuck everything up.

[pritch]

but labour will probably come along and see them as "too war-ey" and fuck everything up.

Maybe not. I can't recall mention of an Orion actually finding a submarine in a warlike situation. Can remember hearing many mentions on the news of rescue missions though. Presumably rescue is good.

Peacekeeping is OK too, even when there was no peace to keep and peacemakers might have been a better term. Of course the hard left would be happier with no military at all.

[Zedder]

Illegal fishing reduction Indonesian style:http://www.reuters.com/news/picture/indonesia-blows-up-illegal-fishing-boats?articleId=USRTX33UDI

[jasonu]

Well, it seems the Orion fleet has come to the end of its life.

NZ has placed an order for (up to four) P-8 Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft to re-equip with. Commonality with Australia might have influenced this, since they operate this type now too.
A very capable airframe. A bit pricey though - but labour will probably come along and see them as "too war-ey" and fuck everything up.

The chances of Labor getting any power to do anything in the foreseeable future is unlikely.

[Banditbandit]

Of course the hard left would be happier with no military at all.

Why would you think that? All Communist countries have large armies ..


The chances of Labor getting any power to do anything in the foreseeable future is unlikely.

But getting more likely each passing hour ..

[pritch]

Why would you think that? All Communist countries have large armies ..


Ah yes but the loony left here haven't noticed that. There have been people in Parliament here who have stated their aim was to have no military. Just as there are people there who think there should be no guns at all, and yet others who would like to do away with motorcycles.

Fortunately the lunatic fringe don't usually get too much say.

[Swoop]

It's interesting to see that the P-8 does not meet RAF requirements.
There is insufficient tea-making facilities aboard!

Also, the microwave makes a "ting!" sound that is exactly the same as detecting something on the system's radar, meaning great excitement by the radar plotter which is followed by even greater excitement in working out his pie is now at an edible temperature!





But getting more likely each passing hour ..
Not at this precise hour though, as the emergency meeting to sort out the list MP's seems to have unravelled another bout of in-fighting.

[R650R]

Is the P3 still available new, googled and found they had wing remanufacturing available in 2015.
Cant see the logic in operating a two engine jet in marine environment safety wise. Jets are efficient at high altitudes.
Most of our P3 work is at low altitude doing resue sAR which props are good for.

[FJRider]

... Fortunately the lunatic fringe don't usually get too much say.

They do in these forums ... <_<

[FJRider]

Maybe not. I can't recall mention of an Orion actually finding a submarine in a warlike situation. Can remember hearing many mentions on the news of rescue missions though. Presumably rescue is good.

They do / can ... find a few subs "in warlike situations" ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fincastle_competition

But Fisheries patrol is their main tasking. The 200 km declared waters of NZ takes a bit of guarding ...

They do plenty of searches for missing boats at sea ... and usually the first to go looking if one is reported missing. Or a distress call has been heard.



Of course the hard left would be happier with no military at all.

But who do they call to haul their asses out of a disaster zone ... ???

[Swoop]

Cant see the logic in operating a two engine jet in marine environment safety wise. Jets are efficient at high altitudes.
Most of our P3 work is at low altitude doing resue sAR which props are good for.

I wondered that some years ago too.
The "loiter time" could be an issue, but the jet can get to an area much quicker at altitude and then descend to the search area, meaning that time on-station is essentially the same.
Low level work isn't an issue, as many countries have found out with the P-8.

[pritch]

They do / can ... find a few subs "in warlike situations" ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fincastle_competition

But Fisheries patrol is their main tasking. The 200 km declared waters of NZ takes a bit of guarding ...



Spoken like a politician.

The primary role of any military force is not to do exercises, although the exercises are good while waiting for the main event. Those exercises probably didn't involve any japanese squid boats either.

The Orion is designed to be a submarine hunting aircraft. Fisheries patrolling? They could probably be used to move a VIP too, but that is not what they are for.

[FJRider]

Spoken like a politician.

The primary role of any military force is not to do exercises, although the exercises are good while waiting for the main event. Those exercises probably didn't involve any japanese squid boats either.

The Orion is designed to be a submarine hunting aircraft. Fisheries patrolling? They could probably be used to move a VIP too, but that is not what they are for.

They are to be whatever the government of the day .. decides they can and will do for the benefit of all tax paying citizens of NZ. I have ridden in an Orion ... and the politicians (or other VIP's) would prefer a 757. If one is airworthy when they want to fly.

They did send an Orion to the Gulf at one stage ... and did you know the Orion is nuclear capable .. ??

To train for "The Main Event" ... those exercises are required. The sub hunting exercises are training for the sub crews too ... and they do their best not to get found.

[pete376403]

Just watched the Last Flight of the Vulcan Bomber with Guy Martin. He gets around some nice stuff. Magnificent plane, from an era when Britain could still do stuff. [in 1992, the RAF sold off the last airworthy Vulcan, XH558, and it was bought for £25,000 by a private owner]
Guy Martin: Twenty-five thousand pounds! You do think, initially "God. Pay £25,000 and get a Vulcan bomber. Great." But then you've got to think "How am I gonna explain that to the missus".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5256700/

[pzkpfw]

...
Cant see the logic in operating a two engine jet in marine environment safety wise. Jets are efficient at high altitudes.
Most of our P3 work is at low altitude doing resue sAR which props are good for.

Very late but just noticed this.

A thing I once read about the RAF Nimrod (based on the Comet) is that the jet engines were much less easy to detect than turbo prop engines, by the subs they are trying to hunt.

[Moi]

Just watched the Last Flight of the Vulcan Bomber with Guy Martin. He gets around some nice stuff. Magnificent plane, from an era when Britain could still do stuff. [in 1992, the RAF sold off the last airworthy Vulcan, XH558, and it was bought for £25,000 by a private owner]
Guy Martin: Twenty-five thousand pounds! You do think, initially "God. Pay £25,000 and get a Vulcan bomber. Great." But then you've got to think "How am I gonna explain that to the missus".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5256700/

Was a good watch... a slightly sinister aircraft and that "howl"!


There was one at the opening pageant for Auckland International in 1966... had to check, it was an RAF Vulcan.

I want to know if Spook flew one? :facepalm:

[pzkpfw]

Was a good watch... a slightly sinister aircraft and that "howl"!


There was one at the opening pageant for Auckland International in 1966... had to check, it was an RAF Vulcan.

I want to know if Spook flew one? :facepalm:

Have you heard of this one? http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/capital-life/73052311/wellington-airports-1959-gala-opening-a-bumpy-ride--150-years-of-news

[T.W.R]

Was a good watch... a slightly sinister aircraft and that "howl"!

Must have been a daunting prospect for the pilots who flew them, with the no manual override if anything went wrong (basically just fell out of the sky :shit:)
And knowing if they were scrambled into action the fact was that by the time they reached Norway the UK had been hammered by nukes, as the flight commander said "it was a case of do to them what they've already done to us" :facepalm:

[Moi]

Have you heard of this one? http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/capital-life/73052311/wellington-airports-1959-gala-opening-a-bumpy-ride--150-years-of-news


Not only did the Vulcan touch the ground, so did a RNZAF Sunderland...

[pritch]

:apumpin:
Not only did the Vulcan touch the ground, so did a RNZAF Sunderland...

That's the one I remembered.

I see the Evening Pest says that was the biggest ever air pageant. It may have been but they would say that, the London Christchurch Air Race a few years earlier was getting up there though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_aRwxQsEwM

[jim.cox]

the London Christchurch Air Race a few years earlier was getting up there though.



Who needs a plane? flapping those RAF moustaches would be all any aircrew needs to stay airborne

[Delerium]

Maybe not. I can't recall mention of an Orion actually finding a submarine in a warlike situation. Can remember hearing many mentions on the news of rescue missions though. Presumably rescue is good.

Peacekeeping is OK too, even when there was no peace to keep and peacemakers might have been a better term. Of course the hard left would be happier with no military at all.

Its happened. and 4 P8's wont be enough to replace the orions.

[BuzzardNZ]

Just watched the Last Flight of the Vulcan Bomber with Guy Martin. He gets around some nice stuff. Magnificent plane, from an era when Britain could still do stuff. [in 1992, the RAF sold off the last airworthy Vulcan, XH558, and it was bought for £25,000 by a private owner]
Guy Martin: Twenty-five thousand pounds! You do think, initially "God. Pay £25,000 and get a Vulcan bomber. Great." But then you've got to think "How am I gonna explain that to the missus".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5256700/


That was a good watch. There's another doco on youtube about how they were used during the Falklands war which was really interesting, highly recommend watching it.

[jasonu]

That was a good watch. There's another doco on youtube about how they were used during the Falklands war which was really interesting, highly recommend watching it.

This one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2Yl8ntVS-4

[pete376403]

:apumpin:

That's the one I remembered.

I see the Evening Pest says that was the biggest ever air pageant. It may have been but they would say that, the London Christchurch Air Race a few years earlier was getting up there though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_aRwxQsEwM

I can vaguely recall being in the car with the family, parked on the side of the road somewhere in the hills above Rongatai,along with huge crowds watching . 1959 so would have be 6 years old

[BuzzardNZ]

I can vaguely recall being in the car with the family, parked on the side of the road somewhere in the hills above Rongatai,along with huge crowds watching . 1959 so would have be 6 years old

My mum saw that too, she was up at Victoria uni and saw it fly in over the harbour. It almost crashed when it attempted to land ...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/capital-life/8420667/Retired-wing-commander-remembers-near-miss

[ellipsis]

For a second or two when I first saw one of the lumbering beasts on a slow fly by I thought my head was going to pop with the noise and that it was sliding backwards.

[AllanB]

What a friggen load of money!

[TheDemonLord]

A thing I once read about the RAF Nimrod (based on the Comet) is that the jet engines were much less easy to detect than turbo prop engines, by the subs they are trying to hunt.

Very true. Apparently the P3 Orion can be heard "further away than you would think"

[Berries]

Couldn't find the fly past thread so this will have to do.

Needs volume.


Lancaster-bomber-flies-over-eyebrook-reservoir-in-leicestershire (http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-england-leicestershire-44167590/lancaster-bomber-flies-over-eyebrook-reservoir-in-leicestershire)

[ellipsis]

...every year for years, at the British F1 GP, the Vulcan nearly stalled, the Lancaster roared through it's four Merlin sideshow, the Hurricane kept wing and the Spitfire tore your heart out, ...at one of them, I could just about feel the pulses of the Vulcan as it slid overhead...P51 is still my perfect baby, by far...

[husaberg]

Managed to find the Gooney Bird article.


2009. Colombia lost one of its AC-47 gunships, apparently to mechanical malfunction. The aircraft carried a five man crew to handle the sensors and weapons. Over the last five years, Colombia paid about $20 million to convert five World War II era C-47 (DC-3) transports to gunships (armed with night vision sensors and a three barrel .50 caliber machine-gun, and some bombs). Such gunships first appeared, using World War II era C-47 transports, in the 1960s over Vietnam. The troops called the gunships, which liked to operate at night, "Spooky."
The DC 3 (or C-47 or "Dakota" in military usage) continues to fly in commercial service into the 21st century. Several hundred DC 3s are still flying worldwide, mostly owned by small domestic carriers in the U.S. and by some Third World air transport companies. A state of the art aircraft in the mid-1930s (during which only 500 were built), over 35,000 DC 3's were produced for use during World War II. The DC-3 was, in fact, the most widely manufactured aircraft of the war.

When allied paratroopers jumped, it was usually from a DC 3 (which could carry 28 troops, but over sixty people were squeezed in during emergencies). With a maximum range of 3,400 kilometers and a top speed of 296 kilometers per hour, the DC 3 was the common cargo carrier (up to 3.5 tons) and general purpose "flying truck." It still is.

The plane that replaced the C47 the C130 is also still in widespread use and they have not been able to find a better platform to replace its versatility.
there was a video when someone tried to tell john McCain that the A10 was replaceable by F16s and f35s


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_up7IHd3LDs

[SaferRides]

The plane that replaced the C47 the C130 is also still in widespread use and they have not been able to find a better platform to replace its versatility.
there was a video when someone tried to tell john McCain that the A10 was replaceable by F16s and f35s


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_up7IHd3LDsYeah, the list of possible replacements for the RNZAF C130's includes the C130.