Classic British Flight Sim

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

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

Brian

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

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

Nice one Garry

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

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

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

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...

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.

Hi Ben

From what I remeber, the loitering was a major factor