Classic British Flight Sim

Yep, words (at least polite ones) are failing me here... Was this all another political stunt in the TSR-2 mode or just another blunder? Whatever it is heads should be demanded for this

Brian Franklin wrote:Yep, words (at least polite ones) are failing me here... Was this all another political stunt in the TSR-2 mode or just another blunder? Whatever it is heads should be demanded for this

Presumably BAe Systems heads, they who were a decade late, several billion over budget and had failed to produce an aircraft anyone could certify as airworthy*. Because throwing more money at that in the hope of a miracle happening would have been a real crime. A lot of UK work went into the P-8 mission system anyway, which is the important bit.

*I know it flew, that doesn't make it airworthy. Airworthy is when you have a comprehensive safety case that let's you know what all the likely failure modes are and their likelihood.

I would say that the problem with Nimrod was not its Airworthiness as the airframe & flying systems were well known & documented, it was the electronics systems & software, which I would suggest are not a flight safety issue, that were the problem. The UK RAF & MoD keep updating the requirements during development which make the cost escalate, whereas the US will put a brake at a certain point in the programme then like M$ update as required.
At least though the UK will get more aircraft & as long as there is some work for the UK in the programme thats a good thing.
Keith

airframe & flying systems were well known & documented

You'd hope, but actually they weren't, if you read the Haddon-Cave review it turns out the people who'd written the safety case for the MR2 had lied about the work they'd done. For instance they said Dry Bay 5 wasn't a fire zone, despite having high pressure hot air, fuel and electrical junctions all in the same area. Consequently the lack of fire detection or suppression in the area wasn't considered an issue, which was a shame*.
You'd like to think the safety case was written a long time ago, but it was only at the start of the 21st Century and by BAe Systems themselves and was supposed to inform the MRA4 safety case. So you had the situation where the people who were supposed to produce the safety case for the MRA4 had demonstrably lied, with fatal consequences, in the production of what was intended to be one of the source documents.
Now put yourself in the position of the individual who is personally legally responsible for the Risk to Life on the platform and has to sign it off as safe to operate. Would you or would you want a better level of proof? How long would that take to get? What if you found it wasn't tolerably safe?

*In fact it turned out no one was 100% sure of the design specs for the gaskets in the fuel connections, on the grounds there wasn't much call for something made with a ~1940s quality rubber compound.

Dev One wrote:I would say that the problem with Nimrod was not its Airworthiness as the airframe & flying systems were well known & documented, it was the electronics systems & software, which I would suggest are not a flight safety issue, that were the problem. The UK RAF & MoD keep updating the requirements during development which make the cost escalate, whereas the US will put a brake at a certain point in the programme then like M$ update as required.
At least though the UK will get more aircraft & as long as there is some work for the UK in the programme thats a good thing.
Keith

I suspect at least half the problem (other than BAES) was that it was called Nimrod, a name, which post Haddon-Cave, that was covered in mud. As for P-8, it seems a good airframe, quick to procure and gives interoperability with several nations. It'll be interesting to see if it comes with a TR for the ATPL holders though, and whether RAF manning issue robust enough terms of service for those graduating the 737-"850" (sorry, P-8) OCU apparently going to Lossie (back in my day of ME training, there weren't many volunteers for the Scottish Jet)!

Skippy, thanks for that info, I have not seen the report, so assumed the history was OK. I can now see why it ended up on the scrap heap.
As for the Fuel couplings I was fitting similar things to Valiants back in the 50's as an apprentice. They had 'fireproof' steel coverings over them where they passed under the jet pipes! The rubber joints were very easy to badly fit over the pipe beads so could leak, & I can imagine that if the distance between each pipe end was not quite right then expansion or more importantly contraction of the pipe would break the seal.
Keith