Author Topic: Vulcan Bottle failure  (Read 20669 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Trev

  • phpBB Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 16
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
« Reply #30 on: October 13, 2015, 11:08:30 PM »

As always Ron an in-depth and reasoned response.

So great to hear from you again after all these years

Regards Trev

Offline Rover3500

  • phpBB Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 23
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
« Reply #31 on: October 13, 2015, 11:22:23 PM »
I'm curious about how the management of  the   engines has changed from the RAF days to the present.
I presume RR set a much more stringent requirement   when they changed over from flying time to cycle monitoring ?. 

The public display Vulcans presumably had the same maintenance requirements as all the other Vulcans?. What was acceptable in 1993 doesn't seem to be allowed in 2015.  but I guess that could be as much to do with better understanding of rotor fatigue as any increasing aversion to risk .

So the  engines that were overhauled and stored in 1981 were rated for 2000 hours use - it would be interesting to see how this compares to the 1200 cycle limit imposed on the trust.
I presume if engine life is now almost expired, 1200 cycles must allow less than  400 flying hours.

I'm aware of the 2 Vulcans that were lost because of engine failure ...and other accounts of pilots needing to shut down engines because of turbine/bearing failure etc. after which the aircraft was able to land safely. I don't know how bad this record is keeping  in mind the  100,000's of hours the Vulcan fleet flew but the incidents are shocking.
By all accounts, later  Vulcans had the areas surrounding the engine protected to prevent engine failure causing wing damage.

 Is the Olympus 202 any worse for reliability  than other comparable engines of that era such as the Avon and Spey which was still used by the RAF transporters  until recently ?.


Offline ascot5046

  • Regular User
  • *****
  • Posts: 97
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
« Reply #32 on: October 13, 2015, 11:51:06 PM »
Hi FFM and great to see you emerge to try and pour some sense onto the trouble emotional waters that have flowed over the past few weeks.




 


Offline Vulcanatic

  • Regular User
  • *****
  • Posts: 97
  • Gender: Male
  • Vulcan Fanatic
    • View Profile
Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
« Reply #33 on: October 14, 2015, 12:52:45 AM »
I'm curious about how the management of  the   engines has changed from the RAF days to the present.
I presume RR set a much more stringent requirement   when they changed over from flying time to cycle monitoring ?. 

The public display Vulcans presumably had the same maintenance requirements as all the other Vulcans?. What was acceptable in 1993 doesn't seem to be allowed in 2015.  but I guess that could be as much to do with better understanding of rotor fatigue as any increasing aversion to risk .

So the  engines that were overhauled and stored in 1981 were rated for 2000 hours use - it would be interesting to see how this compares to the 1200 cycle limit imposed on the trust.
I presume if engine life is now almost expired, 1200 cycles must allow less than  400 flying hours.

I'm aware of the 2 Vulcans that were lost because of engine failure ...and other accounts of pilots needing to shut down engines because of turbine/bearing failure etc. after which the aircraft was able to land safely. I don't know how bad this record is keeping  in mind the  100,000's of hours the Vulcan fleet flew but the incidents are shocking.
By all accounts, later  Vulcans had the areas surrounding the engine protected to prevent engine failure causing wing damage.

 Is the Olympus 202 any worse for reliability  than other comparable engines of that era such as the Avon and Spey which was still used by the RAF transporters  until recently ?.

Hi Rover 3500,

I think you're asking a lot of pertinent questions.
Not everyone on here is ex-RAF or an engineer.
I think that it's sad that the more informed in the community, who should know better, seek to belittle you with unpleasant personal attacks.

I think there is a bigger issue here, beyond fatigue indexes on the airframe as it stands & hours / cycles left on these engines as they stand.

XH558 is a heritage asset which has absorbed considerable public money in the form of grants & money from individual donors.
For the past 5 years it has been 'ticking over' on around £2.5M a year which is a lot of money but not in terms of running an operation of this nature.
As is obvious to see XH558 enjoys unprecedented levels of public support & adulation.
We are continually seeing horrendous amounts of public money wasted on arts projects / theatre with low or no popular support.  Governmental waste running into many tens of £Billions, £100M+ alone EVERY YEAR on abortive IT schemes which never reach completion.
Buck House is due for a revamp at £150M, the Westminster renovation is due to come in at £7Bn
My guess is that all of XH558 's ills could be sorted out for £5M perhaps? That buying another 8 or 10 years of displays.
How much does it cost to keep the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight in the air each year?
I think that GB OWES it to the brave servicemen & women of the Cold War to keep this living memorial aloft for as long as possible, well who christened XH558 "Spirit of Great Britain"?

Yes VULCAN as a breed is bordering on perilous, I think that during development & service nearly 18% of all the VULCAN's built fell out of the air, crashed or went up in flames.  I personally think that with CAA oversight XH558 is probably operating as safely as any VULCAN ever has.

No-one wishes to see air-crew put in harms way but by the same token I don't see anyone getting into XH558 with a gun to their head, (if the Trust offered me a flight in a back seat tomorrow with a 99% chance of crashing I'd take that flight!)

As for those who say, "Good while it lasted, over now, move on!" Some of these people may understand VULCAN in technical & engineering terms but I feel they don't 'get' VULCAN.  You obviously do.

I think that this has to be be about;
What is best for this aeroplane as a heritage asset for the UK.
  &
What do the people of Great Britain want of XH558 going forward.

I am wondering if bolder & more imaginative leadership is needed here?

Regards,
Chris
(btw) I had the 3500 in P5B Coupe, P6 & SD1
Chris

Offline leslie

  • Club Member
  • Serious User
  • *****
  • Posts: 766
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
« Reply #34 on: October 14, 2015, 07:00:09 AM »
Engine hours in terms of cycles depends entirely on how the crew use the engines, an engine cycle is from idol -100% and back to idol, that rarely happens in display flying, 100%-50%-75%-40%-100% the trick is using these part cycles efficiently to maximize the full cycle usage, which is why the crew use alot of momentum rather than power to fly displays, less cycles, over the last 2 season non display takeoffs were at a low power settings, to conserve cycles. Current on wing time about 200 hours, that doesn't mean there is 1800 hours missing life, RR said they would support the engines for 1200 cycles irrespective of previous RAF usage, the trust have had numerous conversation with RR about increasing the number of available cycles, but the answer has always been no 1200 is what you have mo more no less.

Offline Rover3500

  • phpBB Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 23
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
« Reply #35 on: October 14, 2015, 11:02:01 PM »

Hi Rover 3500,

I think you're asking a lot of pertinent questions.
Not everyone on here is ex-RAF or an engineer.
I think that it's sad that the more informed in the community, who should know better, seek to belittle you with unpleasant personal attacks.

I think there is a bigger issue here, beyond fatigue indexes on the airframe as it stands & hours / cycles left on these engines as they stand.

XH558 is a heritage asset which has absorbed considerable public money in the form of grants & money from individual donors.
For the past 5 years it has been 'ticking over' on around £2.5M a year which is a lot of money but not in terms of running an operation of this nature.
As is obvious to see XH558 enjoys unprecedented levels of public support & adulation.
We are continually seeing horrendous amounts of public money wasted on arts projects / theatre with low or no popular support.  Governmental waste running into many tens of £Billions, £100M+ alone EVERY YEAR on abortive IT schemes which never reach completion.
Buck House is due for a revamp at £150M, the Westminster renovation is due to come in at £7Bn
My guess is that all of XH558 's ills could be sorted out for £5M perhaps? That buying another 8 or 10 years of displays.
How much does it cost to keep the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight in the air each year?
I think that GB OWES it to the brave servicemen & women of the Cold War to keep this living memorial aloft for as long as possible, well who christened XH558 "Spirit of Great Britain"?

Yes VULCAN as a breed is bordering on perilous, I think that during development & service nearly 18% of all the VULCAN's built fell out of the air, crashed or went up in flames.  I personally think that with CAA oversight XH558 is probably operating as safely as any VULCAN ever has.

No-one wishes to see air-crew put in harms way but by the same token I don't see anyone getting into XH558 with a gun to their head, (if the Trust offered me a flight in a back seat tomorrow with a 99% chance of crashing I'd take that flight!)

As for those who say, "Good while it lasted, over now, move on!" Some of these people may understand VULCAN in technical & engineering terms but I feel they don't 'get' VULCAN.  You obviously do.

I think that this has to be be about;
What is best for this aeroplane as a heritage asset for the UK.
  &
What do the people of Great Britain want of XH558 going forward.

I am wondering if bolder & more imaginative leadership is needed here?

Regards,
Chris
(btw) I had the 3500 in P5B Coupe, P6 & SD1
[/quote]

I don't mind when people say unpleasant things,  I'm used to it after working in troubleshooter type roles in   what's left of British manufacturing industry all my working life. Heard it all.
 But people all have egos and going around questioning assumptions can be misinterpreted   ..not the best way of winning friends even if you mean well.

In the US and Japan I find people much more open to new ideas and having their assumptions challenged. 
In Britain it's all a lot more cliquey with decisions often  based on who shouts loudest and has the most influence. Promotions are too often based on 'whose  face fits' rather rather   than results and competence which I find very depressing.
Group-think is absolutely rife in my view.

You may recall the scrapping of the MRA4 Nimrod in 2010.
Some very distinguished people   failed to realise that the 1960's Comet airframes on which it was to be built were   essentially 'coach built' to a non uniform standard . Something should have told them from the start it was a bad idea - but the decision had been taken and nobody wanted to rock the boat by saying 'hey wait a minute this is a terrible idea'.

 Unfortunately this made it almost impossible to fit the all new wings to the Comet fuselage - some of the mounting points differed by up to 4 inches!.

The point is that a handyman with a £2.99 tape measure could have spotted this - but the senior people  did not and in the end  4 billion pounds had to be written off. So I always check facts for myself  and if someone tells me  an argument is settled..well double check the facts  and assumptions made.

So no I would never dismiss somebody less experienced  by saying they don't know what they are talking about, are motivated by bitterness,  or need to 'move on'  - the best, the great and the good  can and do get it spectacularly wrong. Sometimes the most obvious mistakes are the hardest to spot by people at the core of a project. 

Lovely car the P5B but's for me it's got to be the   SD1 3500  with the  manual gearbox :)




Offline Vulcanatic

  • Regular User
  • *****
  • Posts: 97
  • Gender: Male
  • Vulcan Fanatic
    • View Profile
Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
« Reply #36 on: October 15, 2015, 12:12:07 AM »
Re. Lovely car the P5B but's for me it's got to be the   SD1 3500  with the  manual gearbox :)

I hope it's the Vitesse.  If it's twin plenum they're getting as rare as hens teeth these days!
Chris

Offline Rover3500

  • phpBB Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 23
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
« Reply #37 on: October 15, 2015, 12:13:31 AM »
Engine hours in terms of cycles depends entirely on how the crew use the engines, an engine cycle is from idol -100% and back to idol, that rarely happens in display flying, 100%-50%-75%-40%-100% the trick is using these part cycles efficiently to maximize the full cycle usage, which is why the crew use alot of momentum rather than power to fly displays, less cycles, over the last 2 season non display takeoffs were at a low power settings, to conserve cycles. Current on wing time about 200 hours, that doesn't mean there is 1800 hours missing life, RR said they would support the engines for 1200 cycles irrespective of previous RAF usage, the trust have had numerous conversation with RR about increasing the number of available cycles, but the answer has always been no 1200 is what you have mo more no less.

Thanks for the additional information - I can see the rationale in changing to cycle based monitoring to reflect changing temperatures and loads. Commercial airline jets running at steady loads for long periods  must have a much easier life.

If RR's 1200 cycle limit only corresponds to around 200 Vulcan flying  hours that's only 10% of the hours that the engine would have been permitted  to run  in the 80's and 90's. It would be interesting to see the reasoning for such a drastic reduction. RR quote a  0.00001% chance   of a 'hazardous  engine failure' per flying hour for an engne operating  less than 1200 cycles...that's about the same chance as me being killed as a pedestrian next year ie acceptably low.  Are all CAA certified aircraft held to this standard  ?

http://www.riskcomm.com/visualaids/riskscale/datasources.php

I remember in 1993 it was reported in the press that XH558 was at the end of it's airframe life ...engine life wasn't mentioned then as far as I know as a factor.   

Perhaps RR use a different and more stringent  risk assessment for engines certified by the  CAA  compared to those certified for  military use ?.   Certainly RR felt able to support the elderly  Spey and Conway series engines on the MR2 Nimrod and VC-10 fleet up until 2007 and  2013 so the expertise must not be entirely extinct.


Offline Rover3500

  • phpBB Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 23
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
« Reply #38 on: October 15, 2015, 12:28:30 AM »
Re. Lovely car the P5B but's for me it's got to be the   SD1 3500  with the  manual gearbox :)

I hope it's the Vitesse.  If it's twin plenum they're getting as rare as hens teeth these days!

No just a 3500  Vanden Plas unfortunately...much nicer car than that awful re-badged Honda thing!
I would love a Vitesse twin plenum   ..but then I wouldn't have a pair of twin Stromberg carburettors to play with on Sunday mornings and it still makes a lovely noise!.

Offline PhillyJ

  • Club Member
  • Serious User
  • *****
  • Posts: 645
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
« Reply #39 on: October 15, 2015, 09:07:54 AM »
..but then I wouldn't have a pair of twin Stromberg carburettors to play with on Sunday mornings and it still makes a lovely noise!.
Off topic I know, but I had an Austin Maxi 1750HL with twin SU Carbs!

Offline StAthan lecky

  • Club Member
  • Expert User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1953
    • View Profile
Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
« Reply #40 on: October 15, 2015, 01:06:57 PM »
I had an Austin Princess !! does that count in the hall of fame,it was a lovely car and felt like a limo to drive

 :)

Mike
1000+ Posts and not a Newbie

Freddie Mercury and Queen Will Live Forever

Another "Kind Of Magic"

Rick Steer

  • Guest
Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
« Reply #41 on: October 15, 2015, 01:52:59 PM »
Morris Marina 1.8TC Coupe - great in a straight line, but cornering at speed was........an experience :-)

Offline eddief

  • Club Member
  • Serious User
  • *****
  • Posts: 634
    • View Profile
Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
« Reply #42 on: October 15, 2015, 10:56:20 PM »
Sorry - totally off topic!

Morris Marina 1.8TC Coupe - great in a straight line...

Ha!  Only so long as you didn't touch the brakes  ;)  Mine used to constantly surprise me by trying to overtake me with its rear-end whenever I braked hard!

These days, my 'old' cars are the Citroen CXes still waiting for me to get them back on the road.  Maybe next summer now the airshow circuit is going to be so sterile...  :(
985 posts on last forum - so I get the \'hallowed 1000\' for just 15 on this one (yippee!)

Offline PhillyJ

  • Club Member
  • Serious User
  • *****
  • Posts: 645
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
« Reply #43 on: October 15, 2015, 11:41:55 PM »
These days, my 'old' cars are the Citroen CXes still waiting for me to get them back on the road.  Maybe next summer now the airshow circuit is going to be so sterile...  :(
Exactly Eddie, perhaps I'll get my Firebird back on the road!

Offline Rover3500

  • phpBB Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 23
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Vulcan Bottle failure
« Reply #44 on: October 15, 2015, 11:49:30 PM »
I had an Austin Princess !! does that count in the hall of fame,it was a lovely car and felt like a limo to drive

 :)

Mike

I'm sure I was talking about an aeroplane or summat need to get back on track. Ah Austin Princess...

Ooof no that space is reserved for the Austin Ambassador ..mine was  a Y reg in beige :)