Nimrod's Non-Airworthy
Discussion
... and never have been since they entered RAF service in 1970, according to the Coroner after his inquest into the RAF Nimrod crash in Afghanistan. He states that from day one they have had problems with their air-to-air refuelling system.
The thing is, Nimrods were only modified for air to air refuelling after the Falklands War in 1982.
Hmmm... is he talking through his bottom and trying to garner some spectacular headlines for himself I wonder?
The thing is, Nimrods were only modified for air to air refuelling after the Falklands War in 1982.
Hmmm... is he talking through his bottom and trying to garner some spectacular headlines for himself I wonder?
non-airworthy, is that the same as not airworthy, un-airworthy, not fit for purpose or just plain dangerous 
. Either way I doubt it has been as long ago as their first introduction.
I would hazard a guess they are probably not fit for purpose and have been for few years now. However its costs money to sort that out and no real new money has been made available to the forces for quiet a few years now under this shower of slackers and wasterals.
. Either way I doubt it has been as long ago as their first introduction. I would hazard a guess they are probably not fit for purpose and have been for few years now. However its costs money to sort that out and no real new money has been made available to the forces for quiet a few years now under this shower of slackers and wasterals.
How embarrassing for BAE. They went millions over budget during the Nimrod refits due to the...bespoke nature (for want of a better word)...of each aircraft. They received a royal shoeing from MoD because of their overspend IIRC.
From what I remember each aircraft was virtually unique in terms of routing for avionics and control systems. I'm sure some of the structural stuff was unique to each aircraft to.
From what I remember each aircraft was virtually unique in terms of routing for avionics and control systems. I'm sure some of the structural stuff was unique to each aircraft to.
But only a really serious issue during refuelling, which in the pre air to air capability days, would have ben taking place on the ground - so it IS linked to the air to air refuelling requirement.
And as for the government doing nothing about it, that's not altogether true as I'm sure you know that there is a long term project to completely rebuild the entire remaining fleet using brand new engines and avionics. Unfortunately, this has turned out to be a amuch more difficult task for the reasons mentioned above - namely the fact that the original Nimrods were essentially hand built aircraft and there were problems using components from one airframe in another airframe. Even the wings didn't match up.
And as for the government doing nothing about it, that's not altogether true as I'm sure you know that there is a long term project to completely rebuild the entire remaining fleet using brand new engines and avionics. Unfortunately, this has turned out to be a amuch more difficult task for the reasons mentioned above - namely the fact that the original Nimrods were essentially hand built aircraft and there were problems using components from one airframe in another airframe. Even the wings didn't match up.
Surely it has to be more effective to kit out an airbus rather than try and keep the Nimrods in the air. They are ancient now. I don't see what the benefit is of sticking with that airframe.
[i]"The Nimrod, like the Hercules, underwent a rapid modification to allow in-flight refueling. BAe was given the go-ahead on 14 April to begin modifications, and work began four days later. On 27 April, a modified Nimrod flight-tested the aerodynamics of the aircraft and its newly installed refueling probe (which had been removed from a Vulcan bomber). These tests revealed a yawinstability problem that was later solved by installing finlets near the aircraft's tail.44 The first Victor/Nimrod linkup occurred 30 April, and the first completely modified aircraft was available on 2 May.45
The Nimrod modification consisted of a refueling probe attached above the cockpit with a fuel hose extending down to the cabin floor. This canvas-on-rubber, flexible bowser hose then ran along the cabin floor for two-thirds the length of the fuselage.46 "[/i]
Sounds like a very quick fix to me. Look at the dates. You have to respect the ingenuity, but I'm told that this design remained with the aircraft.
[i]"The Nimrod, like the Hercules, underwent a rapid modification to allow in-flight refueling. BAe was given the go-ahead on 14 April to begin modifications, and work began four days later. On 27 April, a modified Nimrod flight-tested the aerodynamics of the aircraft and its newly installed refueling probe (which had been removed from a Vulcan bomber). These tests revealed a yawinstability problem that was later solved by installing finlets near the aircraft's tail.44 The first Victor/Nimrod linkup occurred 30 April, and the first completely modified aircraft was available on 2 May.45
The Nimrod modification consisted of a refueling probe attached above the cockpit with a fuel hose extending down to the cabin floor. This canvas-on-rubber, flexible bowser hose then ran along the cabin floor for two-thirds the length of the fuselage.46 "[/i]
Sounds like a very quick fix to me. Look at the dates. You have to respect the ingenuity, but I'm told that this design remained with the aircraft.
rhinochopig said:
How embarrassing for BAE. They went millions over budget during the Nimrod refits due to the...bespoke nature (for want of a better word)...of each aircraft. They received a royal shoeing from MoD because of their overspend IIRC.
From what I remember each aircraft was virtually unique in terms of routing for avionics and control systems. I'm sure some of the structural stuff was unique to each aircraft to.
Embarrassing for BAE an MoD retrofit to enable them to take the planes to the Falklands wasnt done properly?From what I remember each aircraft was virtually unique in terms of routing for avionics and control systems. I'm sure some of the structural stuff was unique to each aircraft to.
Nigh on all military aircraft are bespoke to some extent, thats the very nature of inservice mods and what you get when the MoD ultimately take charge. Especially prevelant on small fleets like the Nimrod where aircraft stationed on different bases are equipped differently to fit their specific roles.
None of the "structure" was unique to each aircraft, nor the routing of the avionics.
Eric Mc said:
But only a really serious issue during refuelling, which in the pre air to air capability days, would have ben taking place on the ground - so it IS linked to the air to air refuelling requirement.
And as for the government doing nothing about it, that's not altogether true as I'm sure you know that there is a long term project to completely rebuild the entire remaining fleet using brand new engines and avionics. Unfortunately, this has turned out to be a amuch more difficult task for the reasons mentioned above - namely the fact that the original Nimrods were essentially hand built aircraft and there were problems using components from one airframe in another airframe. Even the wings didn't match up.
I really don't see why they persist with the Comet surely there are enough modern airliners out there that can be bought as shells and converted easier. At least they will be uniform in their 'fit and form' so upgrading them for military use would be easier to plan and implement, or is there not enough money in that route for BAe. And as for the government doing nothing about it, that's not altogether true as I'm sure you know that there is a long term project to completely rebuild the entire remaining fleet using brand new engines and avionics. Unfortunately, this has turned out to be a amuch more difficult task for the reasons mentioned above - namely the fact that the original Nimrods were essentially hand built aircraft and there were problems using components from one airframe in another airframe. Even the wings didn't match up.
The poor old gal is past her sell by date and that's all there is to it I'm guessing.
I read that the airframe was never intended to encounter the extremes of temperature they now experience or the extended hours flown and it is the continual expansion and contraction of the plumbing that is causing these issues, and pretty dangerous issues too.
The war in the Gulf and Afghanistan is putting a hell of a strain on these old birds and we need a replacement PDQ
I read that the airframe was never intended to encounter the extremes of temperature they now experience or the extended hours flown and it is the continual expansion and contraction of the plumbing that is causing these issues, and pretty dangerous issues too.
The war in the Gulf and Afghanistan is putting a hell of a strain on these old birds and we need a replacement PDQ
Eric Mc said:
It was a strange decison to be honest. Surplus A300s and A310s are now available for conversion - this is one of the reasons why freight companies like DHL have now got large A300 freighter fleets. They must have had their reasons but I'm not sure what they were.
But wouldn't it require major structural rework to retrofit an A300/A310 with a weapons bay like the Nimrods ? As major a reconstruction as that originally involved in turnint Comets into Nimrods Eric Mc said:
... and never have been since they entered RAF service in 1970, according to the Coroner after his inquest into the RAF Nimrod crash in Afghanistan. He states that from day one they have had problems with their air-to-air refuelling system.
The thing is, Nimrods were only modified for air to air refuelling after the Falklands War in 1982.
Hmmm... is he talking through his bottom and trying to garner some spectacular headlines for himself I wonder?
I think you have to understand who a coroner is. I sometimes cringe when I hear a coroner comment on medical matters because they don't have to medically qualified, in fact most of them aren't. I suspect you have the same problem here.The thing is, Nimrods were only modified for air to air refuelling after the Falklands War in 1982.
Hmmm... is he talking through his bottom and trying to garner some spectacular headlines for himself I wonder?
MartG - you're probably correct actually. It's a lot more complicated to convert an airliner into a sub-hunter compared to converting it into an air to air tanker.
That was probably the main reason they decided to stick with the Nimrod airframe. The only alternative would have been to get hold of some Lockheed Orions from the Davis Monthan storage facility. But the Orion is actually SMALLER than the Nimrod and therfore less capable of carrying all the stores the Nimrod can.
Should not a Coroner aquaint himself/herself with the facts before making comment - irrespective of the subject matter?
That was probably the main reason they decided to stick with the Nimrod airframe. The only alternative would have been to get hold of some Lockheed Orions from the Davis Monthan storage facility. But the Orion is actually SMALLER than the Nimrod and therfore less capable of carrying all the stores the Nimrod can.
Should not a Coroner aquaint himself/herself with the facts before making comment - irrespective of the subject matter?
Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 23 May 13:54
MartG said:
Eric Mc said:
It was a strange decison to be honest. Surplus A300s and A310s are now available for conversion - this is one of the reasons why freight companies like DHL have now got large A300 freighter fleets. They must have had their reasons but I'm not sure what they were.
But wouldn't it require major structural rework to retrofit an A300/A310 with a weapons bay like the Nimrods ? As major a reconstruction as that originally involved in turnint Comets into Nimrods Edited by HarryW on Friday 23 May 14:53
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff