Classic British Flight Sim

Well, I think it's had its fair share of praise, but it COULD and should ave been a world beater, as there was no competition at the time.

Although it was an obvious commecial success, 444 built (I think) doesn't sound a huge number even then somehow.

Perhaps SOME Airlines demoted their Piston fleet for short haul, and then replaced them with DC-9s etc, thus bypassing the Viscount.

Actually 444 was a very high number for a none American airliner production run until Airbus.

It did have competition.....the Apollo.

Garry

I think the fundamental problem with a new airframe/new engine combination is the enormous amount of 'unknowns'. Obviously, a new airframe (especially prior to the high-tech world we now live in with computer models e t c) is going to be new to everyone despite the amount of hours wind tunnel testing. Using a new powerplant too compounds the problems as was the case with the Vanguard. Engines started breaking and the test program was halted to a large degree until RR came up with a solution. While there are variables in using a proven engine in a completely new airframe, these are a lot less complicated as you know exactly (by and large) how the engine performs.

ATB

DaveB

Bearing in mind the engine supplies all the electric juice for the airframe as well as moving it through the air, the main advantage of using a proven engine in a new airframe is that you know why things have gone wrong. The majority of the engine's failure modes will be known so it's much easier to diagnose problems, i.e. if the engine decides f*** it I've had enough or goes into some sort of revisionary mode where it won't supply amps it's much easier to say 'It's the airframe' or 'Speys do that sometimes' rather than going 'What the f*** caused that?!!?!' Plus you can't exclude the way the engine's been installed in the airframe as a source of problems, e.g. not enough air, cooling etc. The airframe and engine are never really two separate systems, but they can be tested as such which makes life easier.

Of course if you add tactical systems it gets even more complicated, Merlin HM.1 I'm looking at you...

Garry Russell wrote:Poor ole Snoopy

Could've been worse for Snoopy...

I don't think we'd shagged the C-130K fleet within an inch of its life in early 2005, so scrapping may have been on the cards.

Originally, on retirement she was supposed to be reconverted to a tardard Herk for the Belgians but perphaps the cost was prohibitive Maybe by doing this kept another machine untouched

I wonder what those porps sound like when thee are four of them

Garry

One of the reasons for Lyneham's closure was because the A400 couldn't be based there for 'logistical' reasons...What exactly do they mean, I wonder?

Garry Russell wrote:Originally, on retirement she was supposed to be reconverted to a tardard Herk for the Belgians but perphaps the cost was prohibitive Maybe by doing this kept another machine untouched

Now you mention it, she indeed it was. I'd completely forgotten. All I knew is that I turned up at work one day and she'd gone!