|
|
Post by seanegdl on Mar 30, 2011 13:57:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan K. Hansen on Mar 30, 2011 14:15:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by garryrussell on Apr 4, 2011 9:47:11 GMT
Amazing how the reflection is different to the aeroplane  |
|
|
|
Post by Dan K. Hansen on Apr 4, 2011 14:00:22 GMT
Yes isn't it  .... I wonder which one the request goes on ... |
|
|
|
Post by christrott on Apr 4, 2011 14:50:46 GMT
The RC-135W has the same antenna arrangement as the RC-135V. The reason for the difference for the two is what they were originally. The RC-135V's were modified from RC-135C's, and the RC-135W's were modified from RC-135M's.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan K. Hansen on Apr 5, 2011 10:35:05 GMT
I would rather say that the reflection show markings that are not there on the subject reflected, and I'm sure that is also what Garry noticed  |
|
|
|
Post by garryrussell on Apr 5, 2011 11:12:51 GMT
Exactly Dan ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by railrunner130 on Apr 10, 2011 6:44:23 GMT
Isn't that the Nimrod replacement? I figured that would be a sore subject with the Brits here.
|
|
|
|
Post by hitperson on Apr 10, 2011 11:29:47 GMT
Isn't that the Nimrod replacement? I figured that would be a sore subject with the Brits here. was a different government and many years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Apr 10, 2011 19:43:25 GMT
My understanding of the NIMROD v KC135 affair .... is that the RAF were only too well aware/clear regarding what they considered to be their best option for this categeory of aircraft and operations .... which I understand to have been the KC135 right from the very beginning. I understand that it was the government of the day which forced the issue in favor of NIMROD development. Garry RUSSELL might be able to brief us more thoroughly regarding this   As far as the "NIMROD The Mighty Hunter" (Norman The Mighty Grunter) is concerned .... I guess it did the job it was intended to do, but, not quite as well as the KC135 would have and has done it. At least the NIMROD resulted in the basic COMET airframe remaining airborne well after the very last operational COMET's were retired .... I suppose is the purely nostalgic and non-political way of looking at it Mark C AKL/NZ |
|
|
|
Post by garryrussell on Apr 10, 2011 21:34:19 GMT
Not sure about the Boeing being wanted or capable for MR work but for the surveillance the Boeing would always have been better.
The problem with the Nimrod is that it was outdated before it started. There was no US option allowed and the choice was between a Trident or Comet based platform
The Comet was chosen as it could fly at low level and loiter and also there were two built and unsold Comet 4C's with no customer in prospect.
They were adopted, and then shortened to Mk 4 standard and converted so a bit of make it up from what you have situation
Given it's potential limits...wing root engines mean total redesign of the wing to take a different engine, a lesson you'd think they'd learned for developing the V bombers and avoided like the plague.
They went ahead and the Nimrod was a superb example of making the best out of something and served well
The AEW3 and MR4 were mistakes..it was well past it my then, but having gone so far with the MR4 they should have continued and have it serve for the 15-20 years it would take them to get another project in service....whatever the reality of capability it would have ben better than nothing and in fact as good or better than could be reasonably expected given task in hand. The MR4 was superb..in the end...it just would have been better and cost a lot less if they had used a modern airframe. They didn't but all may not have been lost
They could then have left the martime with the MR4 and the R1's be replaced by the Boeings.
They could maybe have done a similar thing the the Hercules where to compromise they delivered each machine to Marchalls as C-130E and then they were gutted and Anglised effectively making it a unique British version.
Maybe a rebuilt Airbus could have done, even an old A.300, or A.310
It is a pity the the British were not interest in the Bristol Britannia MR which went off to Canada and was the basis for the redesign that emerged as the Argus
Perhaps the Britannia MR with Bristol Orions would have been a viable machine and in service much sooner to relieve the Shackletons. The British Government had the choice of backing the Orion due to be fitted to the Britannia 400, CL-44 and TCA Vanguard fleet or the troublesome and less capable Tyne...they chose the wrong one.
The RAF may well have wanted Boeings throughout but that is no different to BEA who wanted Boeing 727s...they were never going to get them.
As it stood the RAF liked the MR4 and wanted it, they should have had it.
|
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Apr 11, 2011 2:58:50 GMT
In respect of the initial NIMROD develpment .... didn't they run into issues with "weight" which caused problems during taxiing .... and also issues concerening "equipment overheating" due to the confines/space limitations of the NIMROD fuselage .... as opposed to what the Boeing fuselage might/would have promoted ? I could be wrong .... BUT .... I think I remember reading someting about this as an extention to the COMET story. Mark C AKL/NZ |
|
|
|
Post by railrunner130 on Apr 11, 2011 6:43:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by garryrussell on Apr 11, 2011 7:13:33 GMT
Hi Mark
I don't remember over heating being an issue with the development but it certainly was the case with the AEW3 in the confined space.
The MR4 had even more electronics but the mass miniaturization of electronics that had taken place since the AEW meant there was no space or overheating probs due to lack of space.
Personally I always thought the Comet ugly and the Nimrod an improvement. It had a sort of homely function look and was alway exciting to see one in the air
Garry
|
|
|
|
Post by hitperson on Apr 11, 2011 7:39:49 GMT
surely though an advantage the nimrod has over the RC-135 would be that it can drop ordinance?? E: according to this and the above link it appears that the one that crashed was in fact the first nimrod. more |
|
.... I wonder which one the request goes on ...
