The Comet in me

[Garry Russell]

As we all know the Nimrod was a Comet with an extra bit hanging from the fuse separate to the main structure

A few pics show this well during building or scrapping

This pic taken of MR 4 PA-04 in 2000 (using the shell of MR2 XV251) is one the best I've seen for this

http://www.edendale.co.uk/ANW/WFD.801.6.1.html

[FlyTexas]

Great shot! Underneath all those bumps and bits she's still a beauty.

Brian

[Archer]

The rest of those photos are pretty depressing, they show the scrapping process of the MRA4s. Anyway, these too show the Comet underneath: http://www.edendale.co.uk/ANW/WFD.801.24.html

[airboatr]

Ouch.... feel a burning sensation did you?

Nice one Garry

[FlyTexas]

I'll never forget seeing a Nimrod (the only time I've actually seen one ) flying a display at a Confederate Airforce show in Midland Texas. The Nimrod did a flyby with its ordinance bay doors open. Holy cow! You could park a couple of buses in that bay!!

Brian

[Chris558]

Even that nose-wheel leg is as long as a Comet one. You tend to think they were shorter.

[Garry Russell]

Indeed ...a modified Comet unit and all hapens inside.

This just proves what we know yet find it hard to believe sometimes...it really was just a Comet with a few extra holes drilled and some bits bolted on

A superb adaption into what has been very useful for a long time

[Chris558]

I think the question of why the Comet was chosen over, say, the VC10 has been covered before, but is it a safe assumption that the Comet was considered a stronger airframe for the vigours of low level maritime flying?

Certainly after the Mk 1 disasters, de havilland must have overly beefed up the structure for the Mk 4.

The VC10 may well have been a bit too big...

[TSR2]

I think it was to do with the ability to loiter for extended periods of time. I may be wrong, but with a rear engined aircraft such as the VC10 it would have been difficult to control on one engine.

[Garry Russell]

Hi Ben

From what I remeber, the loitering was a major factor