Author Topic: Flying the Vulcan!  (Read 21933 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Paddy Langdown

  • Serious User
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Flying the Vulcan!
« on: August 05, 2010, 08:56:33 AM »
The opportunity to post the first "Former Aircrew" post is too great to miss! :lol:

Flying a Vulcan was, and no doubt still is, a fantastic experience. Just before I joined the RAF I had always wanted to fly Spitfires and it was a great disappointment to me when they phased them out, but I lived near Farnborough & actually watched Roly Falk do his famous barrel roll on take-off in 1955! I changed my mind on the spot & you can imagine how thrilled I was to be posted to Finningley in 1963.  :D  :D  (Those were the days when kids knew what they wanted to do before they left school - now they don't know, even after they have left University!) She is so responsive for a big aircraft that it is hard to believe and had all the power you need to do anything that was required of her when she was in active service, especially when they brought in the 300 series engines. I only had the pleasure of performing one display, in XM652 at Bentwaters in 1968, but I did land XJ825 at Biggin Hill in 1967. It's a long time ago but I think the minimum runway length required was 4500ft. I understand that the pilot who took off afterwards (and that was not me!) might have made the odd pothole in the runway but that could be just a rumour! :twisted:
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Guest »

Offline Mags

  • Club Member
  • Expert User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
    • View Profile
Re: Flying the Vulcan!
« Reply #1 on: August 05, 2010, 11:27:52 AM »
Hmmm- potholes in runway almost sounds like a cartoon opportunity!

Was the 300 series very different to the 200 to fly?
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Guest »

Offline Paddy Langdown

  • Serious User
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Flying the Vulcan!
« Reply #2 on: August 05, 2010, 11:51:02 AM »
Is a 3 litre car very different to a 2.5 litre car? It enable us to take-off with a higher all-up weight but the speed & height restrictions remained the same. I suppose the straight answer would be "not a great deal". I cannot honestly remember the difference in things like fuel consumption but, no doubt, one of our "techies" will tell us!
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Guest »

Offline speedy

  • Volunteer Group
  • Expert User
  • *
  • Posts: 2728
    • View Profile
    • http://www.airshowphotographs.co.uk
Re: Flying the Vulcan!
« Reply #3 on: August 05, 2010, 12:32:05 PM »
Quote from: "Mags"
Hmmm- potholes in runway almost sounds like a cartoon opportunity!

There's a vid on YouTube of (I think) 558 leaving Biggin Hill and her tail getting very close to the runway.  A comment implied that it was so close the surface was damaged by the heat and had to be repaired before anything else could take off.  But then, a lot of comments on YouTube are complete tosh!

Was it not that uncommon for an accidental touch?  Macrick pointed out to me that there were lights in the cockpit linked to what looks like some sort of lever under the tail that warns the crew they're getting rather close, I'd never noticed that before!
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Guest »
“If anybody ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me: it's all balls.” — R. J. Mitchell

Government.  If you think the problems they create are bad, you should see their solutions.

Offline 10680

  • Club Member
  • Serious User
  • *****
  • Posts: 412
    • View Profile
Re: Flying the Vulcan!
« Reply #4 on: August 05, 2010, 01:31:13 PM »
Quote from: "speedy"
Quote from: "Mags"
Hmmm- potholes in runway almost sounds like a cartoon opportunity!

There's a vid on YouTube of (I think) 558 leaving Biggin Hill and her tail getting very close to the runway.  A comment implied that it was so close the surface was damaged by the heat and had to be repaired before anything else could take off.  But then, a lot of comments on YouTube are complete tosh!

Was it not that uncommon for an accidental touch?  Macrick pointed out to me that there were lights in the cockpit linked to what looks like some sort of lever under the tail that warns the crew they're getting rather close, I'd never noticed that before!

I remember  a show, I thought it was North Weald, but may have been Biggin, when the tarmac was taken off the runway and she couldn't land back. I believe Mayfly confirmed this on a previous topic.
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Guest »

Offline stevieboy

  • Volunteer Group
  • Regular User
  • *
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Re: Flying the Vulcan!
« Reply #5 on: August 05, 2010, 08:05:10 PM »
It was Biggin Hill and I was there.  I've got a link to a piccie somewhere of her taking bits of paving up. :geek:

It's taken a while but here it is:

« Last Edit: September 15, 2010, 09:12:16 PM by stevieboy »
Stephen Smith.

That's it.  You people have held me back long enough.  I'm going to clown college.

Offline Nickolas

  • Serious User
  • *****
  • Posts: 729
    • View Profile
    • http://www.reedsom.co.uk
Re: Flying the Vulcan!
« Reply #6 on: August 05, 2010, 09:02:15 PM »
Did it at North Weald too...........
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Guest »
Patron Saint of \'The Winter Festival\', Christmas to you, me and those in the REAL world.

God Helps them that Help Themselves but God Help them that gets Caught Helping Themselves

Chief Constable of the Off Topic Police.....


3083 posts on the last forum............

Offline speedy

  • Volunteer Group
  • Expert User
  • *
  • Posts: 2728
    • View Profile
    • http://www.airshowphotographs.co.uk
Re: Flying the Vulcan!
« Reply #7 on: August 05, 2010, 09:25:12 PM »
P93 of the Haynes manual.  Yes, it's a landing, but the tail is extremely close to the ground!
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Guest »
“If anybody ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me: it's all balls.” — R. J. Mitchell

Government.  If you think the problems they create are bad, you should see their solutions.

Offline Paddy Langdown

  • Serious User
  • *****
  • Posts: 585
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Flying the Vulcan!
« Reply #8 on: August 05, 2010, 09:31:47 PM »
All I can say is that I am glad it was not me!   :D  :D  I know who he was though!!!! :twisted:  :twisted:
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Guest »

Offline Mayfly

  • Club Member
  • Expert User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1442
    • View Profile
Re: Flying the Vulcan!
« Reply #9 on: August 05, 2010, 09:32:31 PM »
Quote from: "10680"

I remember  a show, I thought it was North Weald, but may have been Biggin, when the tarmac was taken off the runway and she couldn't land back. I believe Mayfly confirmed this on a previous topic.

I can never remember which airfield it was but 'we' don't talk about it!!!  :lol:
« Last Edit: September 15, 2010, 09:38:24 PM by Mayfly »

Offline Nickolas

  • Serious User
  • *****
  • Posts: 729
    • View Profile
    • http://www.reedsom.co.uk
Re: Flying the Vulcan!
« Reply #10 on: August 05, 2010, 09:42:33 PM »
Quote from: "Mayfly"
Quote from: "10680"

I remember  a show, I thought it was North Weald, but may have been Biggin, when the tarmac was taken off the runway and she couldn't land back. I believe Mayfly confirmed this on a previous topic.

I can never remember which airfield it was but 'we' don't about it!!!  :lol:

Oh, I wonder why?????????????????
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Guest »
Patron Saint of \'The Winter Festival\', Christmas to you, me and those in the REAL world.

God Helps them that Help Themselves but God Help them that gets Caught Helping Themselves

Chief Constable of the Off Topic Police.....


3083 posts on the last forum............

Offline nickwilcock

  • phpBB Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 39
    • View Profile
Re: Flying the Vulcan!
« Reply #11 on: August 10, 2010, 11:41:55 PM »
Quote
Was the 300 series very different to the 200 to fly?

For most of their lives, the 300-ser aircraft were derated and had the 'take-off / cruise' JPT datum selector wire-restrained to 'cruise', giving them the same thrust as the 200-ser aircraft had in 'take-off'.  There were slightly different engine anti-icing procedures before take-off, but that was about it.  There weren't any handling differences, although the 200-ser engines were nicer.

For OP. CORPORATE, the 300-ser engines had their original full thrust rating restored.  Which must have been fun!
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Guest »

Offline speedy

  • Volunteer Group
  • Expert User
  • *
  • Posts: 2728
    • View Profile
    • http://www.airshowphotographs.co.uk
Re: Flying the Vulcan!
« Reply #12 on: August 11, 2010, 11:50:53 AM »
Am I imagining things, or did I read somewhere that for times when some extra 'ooomph' was required (ie taking off for O.C with 21 1000lbs, full fuel and the other extra kit) that the 300s could be run at 103%?  I would assume that this would be a very strictly controlled situation though?
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Guest »
“If anybody ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me: it's all balls.” — R. J. Mitchell

Government.  If you think the problems they create are bad, you should see their solutions.

Offline stevieboy

  • Volunteer Group
  • Regular User
  • *
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Re: Flying the Vulcan!
« Reply #13 on: September 15, 2010, 09:15:03 PM »
558 taking lumps out of the runway on take off at Biggin Hill in 1992:

« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Guest »
Stephen Smith.

That's it.  You people have held me back long enough.  I'm going to clown college.

Offline Gully

  • Global Moderator
  • Serious User
  • *****
  • Posts: 846
    • View Profile
Re: Flying the Vulcan!
« Reply #14 on: September 15, 2010, 10:50:05 PM »
Quote from: "speedy"
Am I imagining things, or did I read somewhere that for times when some extra 'ooomph' was required (ie taking off for O.C with 21 1000lbs, full fuel and the other extra kit) that the 300s could be run at 103%?  I would assume that this would be a very strictly controlled situation though?

I've read that this referred to them being de-restricted from their usual 200 series parity performance (classed as 100%) to designed limit (103%). From recollection, the reduction in top-end performance also reduced stress on the slightly more fragile 300 series engines (much as the current restricting of '558's engines has been designed to do).

Gully
« Last Edit: January 01, 1970, 01:00:00 AM by Guest »
Vulcan To The Sky Club Secretary