Talk:Avro Vulcan

Trivia

Added a breif about the RNZAF painting NZ roundels on a Vulcan they repaired - don't know if this is that interresting for others, I quite liked the story. Also, not sure whether the roundels were the modern Kiwi type, or a silver fern in red centre variety, (the Ohakea museum has a note asking for a photo of the repainted aircraft). Winstonwolfe 05:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I remember it coming back to us, but I don't remember any NZ roundels. Perhaps they got told to take them off again Chevin 08:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sadly I have removed this story in recent days. I enjoyed it, but it needed validation of where the story came from, a valid source listed. I couldn't uncover one, so it was cut. Kyteto (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a good story and probably true. Even a photo of the aircraft so marked would be a worthwhile source, if one could be found. - Ahunt (talk) 23:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a Vulcan legend that happens to be true. It happenned to XH562 in 1972 though was nothing to do with a RNZAF repair. No doubt confused with repair to XH498 at Ohakea in 1959 which I believe was done by a contractor's working party. Photo and details at http://www.avrovulcan.org.uk/vulcan_people/562_kiwi.htm . XJ784 (talk) 10:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Still not really a reliable source per WP policies. - BilCat (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly true as I know one of the guys who brought it back from NZ. Nevertheless, this is just one of numerous incidents which could fill volumes and is not really relevant to WP. Just happy to link to the image as requested. XJ784 (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Tailless or not

In aeronautics, the term "tailless" indicates an aeroplane lacking any horizontal stabiliser (back or front). It makes no reference to any vertical stabiliser. The Vulcan is a tailless design in the proser sense. -- Steelpillow 21:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry in aeronautics tailless refers to both vertical and horiontal surfaces, the B-2 is tailless the Vulcan is not and has never been refered to as tailless. I will remove the cat back and put the article back to as was. MilborneOne 21:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Think about it. The term "tailless delta" is widely used (not opinion, fact - google it if you don't beileve me). Delta-winged craft without vertical fins are very rare. The term "tailless delta" refers to a delta-winged craft with no horizontal stabiliser, with or without a fin. If you still do not believe me, then we need some sort of arbitration. -- Steelpillow 21:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you are using a tailless cat not a tailless delta cat, the article already has a delta wing cat. MilborneOne 21:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, a tailless delta is both a delta and tailless, right? The alternative would be to create a 'Tailless delta' cat, but that would lead on to endless combination cats such as 'tailless cropped delta', 'tailless swept wing', 'canard delta', 'canard swept wing', 'canard straight wing' and on and on and on. I feel it best to just plonk each page in the relevant basic cats. But I guess this is the wrong place for such a discussion. -- Steelpillow 22:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

In the UK 'tailless' always referred to a lack of tailplane, most of the so-called designs such as the Me 163, DH 108 and the Vulcan were described as-such although they all had a fin and rudder. The presence of a fin/rudder has nothing to do with an aircraft being 'tailed'. The Vulcan was properly described as a 'tailless delta'. The Gloster Javelin used a delta wing but also had a tailplane, so unlike the Vulcan, it wasn't 'tailless'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.249.208 (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Quite so. Though not always reliable, the WP entries for tailless aircraft and the delta wing both acknowledge the Vulcan as a "tailed delta". Perhaps entirely reliable is the testimony of Mr JAR Kay MRAeS, a director of A V Roe who wrote in 1955, "The concern of this article, however, is the choice of the tailless delta for a high altitude bomber, the Avro Vulcan." (Reproduced Laming p 14.) To read in para 2 of "Development" that the Vulcan has a "full tail" suggests the Vulcan has a tailplane or empannage, which it does not. It is true that types exist that have no fin such as the X-36 which have been described as "tailless" but that usage does not overwrite a description that has been around for 60-odd years. A "tailed delta" is a design that happens to have both a delta wing and a tailplane, eg the MiG-21. XJ784 (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Further to this, the Pilot's Notes to the Avro 707A reads: "The Avro 707A is [] designed primarily for research into the control and stability characteristics of the tail-less aircraft of delta planform." Is this statement disputed? XJ784 (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

There's an interesting programme about the Avro Vulcan here on YouTube [1] that some of you might find useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"sometimes referred to as the Hawker Siddeley Vulcan"

Just an explaination on the talk page on this issue: the phrase Hawker Siddeley Vulcan is less commonly used today, the Avro Vulcan name is earlier and certainly more well known. However, some official sources use the former name, such as the RAF Cosford Museum's own website,(which is already a listed ref), the name is also included in 'Jane's all the world's aircraft' in 1967, and in this article in Flight International in 1969. I've even seen period posters of Hawker Siddeley promoting their company with images of the Vulcan with this name bourne below. Certainly Avro Vulcan should be the name of the article, but the alternative and lesser used name is historically and formally accurate, in lesser circulation, and officially made use of. A brief mention in the introduction, so that somebody confused as to if the Hawker Siddeley Vulcan may have been a different aircraft entirely, seems justified. Kyteto (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The Vulcan later became a Hawker Siddeley aeroplane as did the Blackburn Buccaneer. Similarly, the English Electric Lightning later became the BAC Lightning. Strangely, I've never heard of the English Electric Canberra being referred-to as the 'BAC Canberra', although technically, for a time it was. As regards the Vulcan, I would go by who designed the aircraft and whether it entered service under that name (which it did), but then again I've seen old Flight International advertisements for Hawker Siddeley from the 1960s-70s promoting the Vulcan, so I suppose it depends on what period one is mentioning and under which name it is better known. The same goes for the Avro 748 - although most were made after it had become Hawker Siddeley and it is probably better known as the Hawker Siddeley 748. Leaving the article as it is, with the statement in the opening para that it was later made by HS is probably best - after all, it was. But it was Avro that designed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.78.10 (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree entirely, Avor is the primary name the article should bare, they designed, developed, and got the Vulcan into operation, and produced most of them too. They're the primary historically and popularly recognised name too, so it should stick. My response was on somebody removing the "also known as" line from the introduction, as popular period alternative names should get mentioned, and the HS name is an officially used secondary name, though less popular it doesn't deserve to be removed (else uninformed people might think two seperate companies had two seperate planes by the same name, Vulcan; which wouldn't be the first time [the Lightening name is bad for this!]). Hence why I readded it and then justified my action here. Kyteto (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It was I who removed that comment. I have since found a few references to the HS Vulcan, so I was perhaps a little hasty! Good point aboutthe multiple use of the same name as per Lightning! Thanks for the clarification above. regards, Lynbarn (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Rockin' n' Rollin'

As someone was kind enough to relate that the Vulcan could be rolled in the Boeing 367 article, just reciprocated and added the info on the 707 prototype's roll to this article. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.164.201 (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I have removed it cant see mention of a foreign airliner being rolled has any relevance to the Vulcan. MilborneOne (talk) 08:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The point anyway is not that it could be rolled (see List of surprisingly large aircraft that have been rolled), but that Roly Folk managed to do so having barely cleared the wheels off the tarmac. Probably whilst wearing a three-piece suit too. It says more about the engine power available than about the airframe alone. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I put it back, the same could be claimed about mentioning the Vulcan in the context of the Boeing 367. Surely, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.164.201 (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I was going to remove it again, but somebody else beat me to it! It isn't relevant here, and I'm not sure the Vulccan reference on the Boeing 367 article is really relevant either. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Entering into an editwar over minor issues is also not a good choice. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC).

Good, then I reentered it so that the information in both articles is now consistent. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.164.201 (talk) 07:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Reentered it again - if it is vandalism to remove it from the 367 article, why isn't it vandalism to remove the identical information from this one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.164.201 (talk) 10:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You behaviour now is aiming straight for a block for edit warring.

I'm sorry if you're offended by its inclusion under the Dash 80. I haven't seen that, wouldn't support the Vulcan's addition there. However repeated re-adding of disputed content like this is not how we do things. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The context between the two articles is unequal. In one, there is a large section devoted to discussing the barrel roll, I guess it felt pertinant to mention that another large four engined jet aircraft had already pulled off that stunt earlier on, the Vulcan. However, here we do not have a section on The Barrel Roll incident, and it is mentioned in passing as a prt of the wider Development information. In this context, excessive information on Barrel Rolls hardly seems justfied, it is trivia, and dozens if not hundreds of jet aircraft have performed this stunt since the Vulcan did it, but just like nobody remembers what Buzz Aldren said when he stepped on the moon because he was second rather than first, it loses it's significance as it is no longer unique or a world-first, just a repetition of something braver, earlier men did beforehand. The comment certainly doesn't belong here, it doesn't fit in with the narritive of the section at all. Kyteto (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with both Andy and K's reasoning and the fact that we have a troll on a mission, makes this whole issue irrelevant and destructive. Making a WP:Point by disrupting two articles and dragging in a legion of other editors is positively nonproductive- go write an article instead! Bzuk (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

And now we have the worst of both worlds, where an already poor article on the Vulcan goes further down the toilet, by presenting the Vulcan's roll as just a copy of the Dash 80s, when the reality was anything but. Way to go. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It does appear that the consensus of 4/5 editors to remove the reference has been overruled. I didn't think the article was that poor though, I did put quite work work into refurbishing it as best I could with what I had available. Kyteto (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

What's included isn't too bad, but there's so much that's missing. Engines / thrust development over time and the impact on performance. The real B1/B2 performance differences. Describing Black Buck One as aborting due to a pressurization failure. The Vne and whether it was supersonic or not (and why). Avionics, crew & crew roles. It doesn't even say how many seats there were. There's still a lot wrong with this article. 18:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Am I considered the 5th or 6th editor? I'm certainly not the IP! And I welcome a Checkuser to prove it. - BilCat (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The addition has been challenged and I cant see any consensus to include it, so I have removed it can we close this now. MilborneOne (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Only if you'll remove the Vulcan mention BZuk has insisted on adding to the Dash 80 article. Otherwise I will continue to raise the issue civilly. - BilCat (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of all the shenanigans that took place, this was never formally set out as a consensus issue and I was heading off the editwar that was brewing. The issue as others have framed it, is a very minor event, being crusaded by an IP with a cause. FWiw Bzuk (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC).

OK thats the issue closed then the Boeing article is a different issue. MilborneOne (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

By "closed" you mean the article is left with a claim that barrel rolls over-stress the airframe, supported by a ref that's an interview with a 707 pilot. I don't much care whether either article mentions rolls, or mentions the other aircraft being rolled. However if there is any mention in either, it should be a sufficiently detailed mention to actually indicate the real situation. Rolling an empty Vulcan with no bomb load and minimal fuel load was never any problem whatsoever and no _credible_ source would claim that. Rolling a 707 with long narrow wings and a design for civilian stresses only is quite another thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually asked about that last point on the Dash 80 page, but Bzuk dismissed it. I still think neither article needs to mention the other aircraft, and that the details and mention of both should be covered in the Barrel roll article. - BilCat (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Tex Johnston was told not to roll the 367-80 on the grounds that it was considered a dangerous manoeuver, although he insisted that the "barrel roll" flight was safe. No one is making any convergent points here. The SBAC according to one source was miffed that the Vulcan was flown in an "unseemly" manner but the aerobatics that the company and RAF pilots delighted in doing were put to an end because of a safety concern. Tony Blackman's article on test flying the Vulcan that appeared in Aeroplane chronicles the lengthy period of aerobatic and demonstration use of the type that was curtailed in 1958. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC).

Sorry to Andy I didnt see the Boeing reference I have been to busy adding content to the article instead! - I still dont see any need to reference the Boeing. MilborneOne (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at BZuk's latest changes to the Dash 80 article, and I'm fine with the way he addressed the issue there. I'll drop the stick now, as the horse starting to stink. :) - BilCat (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The contention that barrel rolls were unsafe in large aircraft can be linked to the restriction that was placed on the 367-80, although the Vulcan was demonstrably able to perform the feat, eventually all low-level aerobatics with the type were banned in 1958, when a leading edge failure led to a crash. See Blackman's description of aerobatic flying in the Vulcan. Bzuk (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC).

Performed properly a barrel roll imposes no great additional stress on an aircraft, as when done properly the airframe only experiences more-or-less the same +G as when in straight and level flight. That's why comparatively large aircraft have been barrel rolled. Done like this it's possible to make a roll so gentle that the occupants aren't even aware of it, unless they happen to be looking out the canopy/window. The trick is to use the elevators to keep the normal +1G throughout the roll. This is why the barrel roll manoeuvre is more common than the 'proper' roll by piston-engined light aircraft without inverted fuel systems - the normal +1G should keep the fuel flowing.

BTW, I know it's often referred to as a 'barrel roll' but the Vulcan roll performed by Falk wasn't - it was a 'proper' 360-degree roll, with the aeroplane rotating about its longitudinal axis. You can see this on the video of the roll on YouTube. A 'barrel roll' possesses the rocking motion observed in a rolling (e.g. beer) barrel, with the nose and tail of the aeroplane describing opposing circular paths around the axis, hence the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Dispersed sites

I have added a bit about the dispersed sites used for the Vulcan but it needs some refs, anybody have anything that can be used to expand as it was an important aspect of Vulcan operations. Laming has a list of 26 airfields but it is not clear if they were all used for Vulcans, I do remember being on a sleepy flying training base somewhere in England one night when four vulcans suddenly appeared from nowhere! so I know at least one of them is OK from original research. MilborneOne (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

A teeny bit of information has been added by me, not really significant though. Kyteto (talk) 01:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

List of losses

XA897 October 1, 1956 Heathrow. Crashed on approach

VX770 September 20, 1958 Syerston. Structural failure

XA908 October 24, 1958 Michigan. USA Electrical failure

XA891 July 24, 1959 Near Hull. Electrical failure

XA894 December 3, 1962 Patchway. Ground fire

XH477 December 12, 1963 Scotland. Not known

XH535 May 11, 1964 Near Andover. Not known

XA909 July 16, 1964 Anglesey. Engine explosion

XM601 October 7, 1964 Coningsby. Crashed on landing

XM576 May 25, 1965 Scampton. Crash-landed

XM536 February 11,1966 Wales. Crashed on TFR trial

XL385 April 6, 1967 Scampton. Ground fire

XM604 January 30, 1968 Cottesmore. Engine failure, loss of control

XM610 January 8, 1971 Wingate. Engine bay fire

XJ781 May 23, 1973 Shiraz, Iran. Crash-landed

XM645 October 14, 1975 Zabbar, Malta Explosion

XM600 January 17, 1977 Near Spilsby. Engine bay fire

XL390 August 12, 1978 Glenview, USA. Crashed during air display

--palmiped |  Talk 

Do you have a point most of them are already in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No --palmiped |  Talk  21:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there any reason why B1A XA904 is excluded? It crash-landed at Waddington 1 Mar 1961. Though not totally destroyed, it was damaged enough to be beyond economic repair. The cabin was saved as 7738M and used as a crew escape trainer. In a similar fashion, B2 XH556 was never repaired after its landing gear collapsed on start-up at Finningley on 19 Apr 1966. Since the section is titled 'Accidents and Incidents' then the 1959 incident to B1 XH498 at Auckland, subsequent crash landing at Ohakea, and repair deserves mention. Also the incident to VX777 at Farnborough on 27 July 1954. Also B1 XA894 destroyed in a fire at Filton 3 Dec 1962 (mentioned above). XJ784 (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Are XA904, XH556 and XA894 incidents of particular note? Where they due to particular problems with the Vulcan? Did anything change as a result of these accidents? GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

In the case of 904, new operating procedures were introduced concerning minimum landing fuel -- in my day (mid 70's) this was 10000lb which I understand had been increased from 8000lb. The 894 incident is properly related to the development of the engine to power the TSR2 but suggest that any accident or incident that led to any Vulcan being written off or struck off charge may be of note. Certainly you have to draw a line. XJ784 (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

"Stealth" capabilities

I have removed a sentence ascribing "stealth" capabilities to the Vulcan. It possesses a large radar signature, and the idea that the shape of the Vulcan somehow conferred stealth ability, at whatever level, seems to have taken hold. See, for example, p113 of the Vulcan manual for further details. Sarahburge (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually for its size the Vulcan did have a small RCS. It wouldn't be classed as stealthy as the compressor faces of the engines and the radome gave a strong return. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Not one but two articles published in New Scientist ("The Bomber that radar cannot see" March 1982, "Sound Strategies for Survival" Oct 1986) noted that a certain angles of approach, the Vulcan would be invisible to the radar completely: "The Avro Vulcan...who's shape makes it astonishingly hard to detect on radar". If an RS source states that to be the case, it becomes quite difficult to overrule. The Vulcan was by no means a 'stealth plane', but it gave a smaller radar return than one would expect for an aircraft of that scale, albiet by accident rather than design. In addition to the New Scientist links, one already included in the article, Doug Richardson's "Stealth Warplanes" accredits the Vulcan as having being difficult to aquire on radar. The official summary at the North East Aircraft Museum, housing one of the remaining Vulcans states that the aircraft had a 'low RCS'. "Understanding radar systems" by Simon Kingsley and Shaun Quegan highlight the importance of the Vulcan in demonstrating early on that it was shape as well as material that could reduce the RCS of aircraft; and thus recognising that the shape of the Vulcan was indeed benefitial to incurring a reduction in observability. It isn't a stealth aircraft by the modern definition, but noteworthily, and unusually low for the era, as remarked by multiple commentators? I would say yes. Kyteto (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I also question the assertion that the sentence was ascribing any 'stealth' claims to the Vulcan. The deleted statement is as follows: "In addition to an extensive electronic countermeasures suite, the Vulcan had a small radar cross-section, aiding its deterrent role by evading detection and therefore increasing the likelihood of penetrating Soviet airspace and deploying its weapons load successfully". The word Stealth does not even appear in its content. A reader could project from the multiple reliably sourced statement of the Vulcan having a low RCS that it could be considered a crude/early stealth aircraft, but that is interpretation of the statement rather than direct implication. A critic could reason that the Vulcan having a low RCS for its size doesn't necessarily mean it came anywhere close to the levels of Ultra-Low Observability to qualify as a stealth aircraft, which it likely did not; the fact that it has a low RCS for what is a fairly massive aircraft doesn't have to be scrubbed because some people jump to that conclusion. Kyteto (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The Vulcan has a small RCS compared to a Bear. It has a small return from the forward quarters, thanks to the blended fuselage and wing (compared to a slab-sided B52). However face-on there's a large return from the pressure bulkhead behind the radome and an even bigger one from the compressor faces. Side-on the massive vertical stabiliser gives a 'barn door' return. So it illustrates some of the principles of stealth, without actually achieving much for the overall aircraft. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The section remains in the main text though removed from the lead. A combination of flying, radar profile and the countermeasures may explain its performance in Operation Skyshield I and II. Skyshield isn't in the text at the moment is it, though it is possibly the closest the Vulcan got to its nuclear role. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, fair points above. I think it's best left in the main text, not the lead though.Sarahburge (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Skyshield wasn't a success because the Vulcan had a low RCS, but because the RAF at this time had an ECM capacity the USAF still hadn't recognised the need for. That, and it was flown by a squadron of browned-off Prunes who'd been told that their Vulcans were to be axed, post-Skybolt - which in RAF terms means carry on as normal, only at half the altitude. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I note that this contentious issue is still featured in the lead text as well as the main. In my own experience: [1] At the bottom of the 'article' page, there is a link to a photograph of a silvered model Vulcan used in RCS trials using a light analogy. I was demonstrated this kit whilst training. Silvered model aircraft on sticks were placed at the back of a darkened tunnel and lit by a spotlamp. The models were rotated and the reflected light measured. Guess which model gave the greatest reflection???!! [2] Having been on the Vulcan force for some years, no one ever mentioned how curious it was that the aircraft disappeared off the radar scope.

But don't take my word for it. I can commend Sarahburge's posting on this topic (the first) and spell out part of the citation from Price, Blackman and Edmonson (Haynes Manual). The writer is Dr Alfred Price FRHistS, an ECM expert and ex Vulcan AEO: "In truth, the Vulcan, like other large aircraft of its time, posessed a large radar signature. In its day it was a great aircraft, but we do not enhance its reputation by ascribing to it capabilities it never had."

Since the matter of a low RCS is disputed, then it should be removed. If not, a caveat will need to be added that the matter is disputed. XJ784 (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe under the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, we should cover both sides of the debate. Dr Alfred Price's viewpoint should be added to those given in Note 3l which generally documents opinions on this matter. This would allow what is verified on the issue as being noteworthy points of view on the issue of contention to be documented and displayed to those interested; rather than pretending no such conversations have taken place at all. Wikipedia:Verifiability states we should include verified opinions on an issue, even if they don't fully agree with each other on the degree of the issue in question, rather that attempt to divine a 'truth' out of it. That is not to say Price is wrong, we just aren't qualified to say one way or the other; it is perhaps more important to document the dissention and the debate on the issue that the 'true' answer; in a similar manner to political debates in Parliament or academics on the validity of two rivalling scientific theories, the arguement's process and existence becomes as important as the real answer, if that is known at all. At least, that's my thinking on it. Kyteto (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

But why change the note which is not necessarily read. The main text has to be neutral. It presently reads "Despite its large size, it had a relatively small radar cross-section (RCS) as it had a fortuitously stealthy shape apart from the tail fin; at certain angles, it would vanish from the radar altogether." This text has cited a text in the New Scientist which says "The Vulcan could virtually vanish from radar screens at certain angles". These are not the same. Where does the NS article claim that it had relatively small RCS or that it had a fortuitously stealthy shape apart from the tail fin? Who actually disputes that from most angles, the Vulcan had anything less than an ordinary RCS? The best you could say is that "Some commentators have claimed that from certain angles, the Vulcan could virtually vanish from radar screens<reference> but this was not materially significant in its operations<reference>."

This is of academic interest perhaps but when you consider that nowhere in this article does it mention the huge ongoing effort to give crews low-level training from Goose Bay in Labrador (where an RAF Unit was especially established) or from Offutt AFB in Nebraska (where there was a permanent RAF Vulcan servicing detachment), then why are we getting bogged down with such curiosities? XJ784 (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

"Some commentators have claimed that from certain angles, the Vulcan could virtually vanish from radar screens<reference> but this was not materially significant in its operations<reference>." The problem I have with this wording, is that it is POVish. It takes a side and assumes that side is right. To be neutral, it should say something more along the lines of: "Some commentators have claimed that from certain angles, the Vulcan could virtually vanish from radar screens,<reference> however others have argued that this factor was immaterial to operations<reference>." Both are commentators and arguments, rather than elevating the position of naysayers to fact while leaving the (more numberous) pro-sources as 'claimed' alone; both should be put as claims of weight, rather than giving the final say a factual and automatically-right air of authority denied to the opposing viewpoints, the very essense of WP:NPOV. Kyteto (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

As for why we're getting bogged down in such matters, why not? This section of the talk page was made for discussing this factor, it is hardly a suprise that its content is dedicated to its topic. There's nothing in this debate that's blocking other such matters from being discussed or worked on. Kyteto (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

"Where does the NS article claim that it had relatively small RCS or that it had a fortuitously stealthy shape apart from the tail fin? Who actually disputes that from most angles, the Vulcan had anything less than an ordinary RCS?" Both of these things are covered in Note 3; I could cross-duplicate the references across if that would make it more clear, I had originally felt it to be overlinking/spam. J. Seddon, E. L. Goldsmith, Simon Kingsley, Shaun Quegan, from my reading of the cited works of theirs, seemed to hold the view that the RCS low, or to be more precise, lower than typical for an era nuclear bomber of such size and low enough to make reference to it in work concerned more with RCS and radars than British bombers, brought up specifically because they thought there was something mentionable and noteworthy about the RCS that they brought it up. The Vulcan may have had a bigger RCS compared with a Spitfire or a Harrier, but it is also many times bigger than either of those aircraft, from what the sources seemed to say, proportionally there was something interesting going on and there was a noticable corresponding impact on radar systems; just don't jump to the conclusion that it must be the impervious B-2 bomber level of evasive capability. The effect appeared unreliable and not deliberate; and reliant on chance angles to the radar's position (then again, the 'stealthy' F-35 becomes visible to radar when not making a frontal approach, even stealth technology today had wildly fluctuating RCS values depending on the angle). Kyteto (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Stealth is not *invisibility*, so if the RCS is low, then it would be already a 'stealth' by radar operators POV. Evidently, it was difficult to track from some aspects, just like the 'flying wings' (B-35 and 49). Another thing: the turbine blades, as i can see, were totally couvered by air intakes, and so they did nothing to augment the RCS. If the Vulcan had a low RCS, while it cannot be a 'stealth bomber' like the B-2, it was already a result. Sadly, there is too much fashion in aeronautics and therefore, 'stealth' is F-117/B-2/F-22 and nothing else, while in truth, even the SR-71 was made like it was properly to make more difficult track it with radars. So yes, Vulcan was basically a stealth aicraft, atleast compared with its contemporaries and with the ECMs available. Not because it was meant so, but because some aircraft projects, like the Ho-229 and YB-49 were effectively characterized by a low RCS, no matter if they were meant to be so stealthy.Stefanomencarelli (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Leading vs. trailing edge typo?

The article currently contains a couple of description including the phrase "straight leading edge". I am guessing that these are just typos because most of the photos show planes with straight *trailing edges* and strongly swept leading edges. I'm no expert so I don't want to simply change it but if someone more familiar with these planes would address this, I would appreciate it. Cutelyaware (talk) 04:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Two prototype Vulcans (called model B.1) had truly straight leading edges. See the photograph of prototype "VX770 in 1954", and the photograph of the two prototypes accompanied by four Avro 707 research aircraft. Testing of these prototypes disclosed some undesirable aerodynamic effects that necessitated a fix. The results were various extensions to the aerofoil near the leading edge, causing the leading edge to lose its truly straight line and acquire a slightly kinked appearance. Read Avro Vulcan#Development and see any of the photographs of the production Vulcans. Dolphin (t) 04:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Swept can also be straight. IIRC the pre-production models had more of a pure delta with a simple straight swept leading edge, and the later planes had a kink in it, no? --John (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

A 'straight leading edge' is different to a 'straight wing' and describing the early Vulcan design as being a delta with a straight leading edge is accurate. There were three 'phases' of wing: (a) the original with the straight leading edge, (b) the B1 wing with a moderate leading edge kink, and (c) the B2 wing which was thinner and had the more-pronounced leading edge kink. At least two B1s first flew with straight leading edges before being retrofitted with the kinked leading edge - it was not a major rebuild. The second prototype flew with all three profiles during its life. The first prototype retained its original straight leading edge. XJ784 (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The 'kinked' leading edge was designed to eliminate buffeting during turns at high subsonic/transonic Mach numbers at high altitude, i.e., when the aeroplane was near its Critical Mach number. They also had the additional beneficial effect of increasing the usable service ceiling.

Due to the high altitudes that the B.35/46 designs were intended to fly at the reduction of the speed of sound with altitude became an important factor, resulting in designs that needed to be, in effect, almost transonic ones, despite the maximum airspeeds being only in the 550-600kts region - at high altitudes the Vulcan and Victor could reach their airframe Critical Mach numbers quite easily if power was increased and the pilots weren't paying attention to their Mach meters.

The unusual design of these two aeroplanes was a result of this need to fly at almost their Critical Mach numbers for much of their intended missions, as at 50,000ft Mach 1 is roughly 574 kts.

B2A and other legends

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend!" Having flown the beast, albeit in the 1970s, I never came across reference to a Vulcan B2A. I have subsequently visited the National Archive, nosed my way through countless APs, had it on good authority from Woodford, even searched Flight's amazing archive, etc etc and not a mention of a Vulcan B2A. There was a period when the fleet was split when files sometimes annotated 'B2(BS)' or 'B2(FF)', possibly for clarity, but never 'B2A'.

If anyone can produce any evidence that the B2A actually existed, please could you point to it. I do not mean any retrospective book or web site but an official or reliable document of the period. Cheers. XJ784 (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The Vulcan Story (2002) by Tim Laming makes no mention of B.2A, in the production list it just mentions if the aircraft were modified as "Blue Steel modifications". Other production lists I have seen make no mention of B.2A. I also note that the Blue Steel aircraft also had 201 and 301 engines - the article implies they were all Olympus 301 powered! MilborneOne (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we've hit the WP:Verifiability, not truth conundrum. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know how this myth started but it only takes one... The debate was made on PPRUNE some years ago and nobody who had actually flown a Vulcan had ever logged a B2A. The article regrettably has a number of "verified" myths which may become the de facto truth. In no particular order:

• 'full' tail unit
• fortuitously stealthy (!)
• used TFR developed for F-111
• low-level tactical support in support of NATO ground forces (!)
• implication that VX770 was a test-bed for AS Sapphire
• B1 armament spec includes Blue Steel. No mention of the US Mk-5 weapon supplied under Project E (24 at Waddington). YS2 yield incorrect.
• B2 (BS) could be loaded with gravity bombs

XJ784 (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The B2A designation (for the Olympus 301 powered aircraft) is quoted by a few normally good reliable sources, such as the Putnam Avro Aircraft since 1908 and Bill Gunston's series of articles on the Vulcan in Aeroplane monthly, for example, but other, more recent sources don't use it (and Laming explicitly states that the B2A designation was not official). Perhaps the solution is to add a note saying that the designation B2A was somtimes used for Olympus 301 powered aircraft, but that it was not official.

For the Blue Steel armed B1 (which only appears in the specs) - I don't know where that came from. The closest to a source saying that I can find is that Avros expected an order to convert some of the B1As to carry Blue Steel, which never came. I think its reasonable to remove Blue Steel from the specs and to possibly add something to the text that fitting BS to the B1As was considered but never happened. Thoughts?Nigel Ish (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I have Avro's 1957 brochure for the B1.BS which is interesting. Trouble is that if you give space to every sensible to madcap idea proposed, you would need another page! I have amended the armament specs. With respect to the elusive B2A, if the definition was used albeit unofficially by the producers or users, then there exists a case to mention it. But if it's a later invention, then I would drop it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XJ784 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless authors Andrew Brookes and Chris Davey have got their facts wrong, and I have no good reason to disbelieve them, then the statement that the Vulcan used a TFR unit developed for the F-111 is entirely correctly. Is there any basis for slamming it as a myth? Kyteto (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

While the TFRs brought for the Mk 2 Vulcans and Victors do seem to have been made by General Dynamics, none of the sources I have say it was the same unit as used by the F-111. One differnce was that the V-bombers had no automatic terrain following function, instead the pilots had were given "up" and "down" signals, and flew the aircraft manually.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't the same TFR that was used in the F-111, however it had been developed specifically for the F-111 and got sidelined for a different unit, according to the source; this lack of appearence on the finished product perhaps explains the inferiority. Kyteto (talk) 10:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The Vulcan TFR was ARI 5959 see [2]. I have found one reference equating ARI 5959 to the General Dynamics AN/APN-170. According to a very good document on TFR [3], the AN/APN-170 was developed for the A-4 [in a pod?], the B-52 and the B-58. The last was built by Convair which became GD. Compared with the TI TFR as used in the F-111A, the Vulcan's TFR fit was of an earlier generation (we were made aware of its shortcomings at Ground School) and the idea of F-111s roaring around with the Vulcan's TFR does not ring true. The article can be interpreted to read as if both aircraft had the same unit. While doubt exists, it's probably best to drop the reference. Otherwise, the next thing we will read is that the Vulcan had the same TFR as the F-111. XJ784 (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Some comments

Per the request for comments at WT:MILHIST, I'd like to offer the following suggestions for ways to improve this very good quality article:

• There should be some information on how this plane came about at the start of the 'Origins' section (eg, the requirement it was intended to fill, the strategic situation for the UK at the time, etc).
• The first sentence in the 'Introduction' section is over-long and a bit confusing. The rest of this section would benefit from a copy edit.
• Single Integrated Operational Plan should be linked
• "the Vulcan bombers adopted a high-low-high mission profile using a rapidly introduced parachute-retarded "laydown" bomb" - "high-low-high mission profile" and "laydown bomb" should be translated out of technical language.
• The article should note the permanent deployment of Vulcans to Cyprus as well as the occasional deployments to Singapore and Malaysia. There was a real prospect that Vulcans would be committed to combat against Indonesia at at least one point in the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation, and Britain had promised to provide nuclear-armed Vulcans to a major war in the region as part of its SEATO commitments
• The number of external links seems excessive Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Re external links - I've removed most of the video links and added the 1958 Flight article with the annotated cutaway - seemed like a fair swap.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Re lede. Although it mentions the use of a test aircraft for the delta planform it doesn't put the Vulcan in perspective with the other V-bombers as the "riskiest" of the three designs for the same job. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Re introduction. I have suggested rework of the introduction, deleting mention of the 'B2A' but including the B1A. Having deleted the 'B2A', I am also suggesting an additional section. See and comment on my user page. XJ784 (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The intro is improved but the last para contains: The Vulcan lacked defensive weaponry, instead it relied on electronic countermeasures based in the tail and a low radar cross section (for its size) to make the aircraft difficult to track and therefore intercept. The B.2 featured more powerful engines, a larger wing with a greater fuel capacity, and more advanced ECM and radar systems; many were subsiquently modified to accept the Blue Steel missile.

• The Vulcan initially relied on speed and altitude to avoid interception. ECM came later. I can find no citation in the related Design section that supports the claim that ECM and a low radar cross section made the aircraft difficult to track. All the New Scientist reference says is that the Vulcan could 'virtually vanish' at certain angles - hardly a feature to be relied upon. (There is nothing in the reference that the Vulcan was 'fortuitously stealthy' as is claimed in the Design section.) btw, I don't ever recall being told that we had 'virtually vanished'.
• The additional fuel in the B.2 wing compared to the B.1 was 10 gallons and not material.
• The B.2 ECM was no more advanced when it came into service than the B.1A as both entered service concurrently. Later the B.2 ECM was improved.
• The main H2S radar was the same though Red Steer Mk2 tail-warning radar and TFR came later.
• The aircraft modified to enable the carraige of Blue Steel were modified during production. Changing the role of these aircraft between free fall and Blue Steel was designed to be achieved at station level.

Citations on request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XJ784 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There is now the statement in the nuclear deterrent section that "Only the Valiant carried U.S. nuclear and thermonuclear bombs assigned to NATO under the dual-key arrangements." - This seems a little confusing as the previous paragraph talks about the US owned Mk 5 fission bombs. In addition are we sure that Vulcans never got the capability of carrying US Mk 28s or later weapons when they took on the SACEUR theatre stike role?Nigel Ish (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, the whole notion of Mk 5s with the RAF doesn't seem credible anyway, as the dates don't work. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently (according to the Andy Lietch Air Enthusiast reference, 72 Mk 5 bombs were supplied under Project E to the UK from 1957, with 24 each at Waddington, Honington and Marham, with if necessary V-bombers from other bases flying in to Waddington to bomb up. They were withdrawn from Honigton and Waddigton in July 1961 and April 1962, remaining in use at Marham by the SACEUR dedicated Valiants (although these were replaced by Mk 28s and Mk 43s.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Compare the claimed RAF service dates with the US withdrawal dates. Early nukes of this vintage were thoroughly disliked by the Pentagon (too unreliable, too much consumption of fissile resources, too little security) so they were withdrawn rapidly as soon as replacements were available (probably the Mk 7). Nukes aren't B-50 Washingtons -- the poor cousins might get left with the old aircraft, but you'd want those flakey old nukes back home to Amarillo ASAP. The dates claimed for this "Mk 5 on Valiants" story requires us to believe that the US kept them in service to the end just for UK service. Long after they had been withdrawn from service with the US, the RAF was using them. The final withdrawal from stockpile (i.e. dismantling) was within a month of this claim that they were still flying with the RAF. This isn't impossible, but it's stretching credibility sufficiently that I'd want to see really good sourcing for it.

I find Chuck Hansen far more reliable as a source on matters nuke. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Well feel free to delete this well cited info then - I give up with this article.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You have no reply, so you go off in a huff? That's helpful. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently RAF Nuclear Deterrent Forces. The Stationery Office. 1996. pp. 262–263. ISBN 0 11 772833 0. also refers to 72 Mark 5 bombs under project E - but I suppose that's rubbish as well.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Well that's a good start - thanks for noting it. Does it mention the withdrawal? I don't question the use of Mk 5s, or even their introduction date, but something doesn't fit at present between the withdrawal dates for US & UK service. Either the claimed Mk 5 dates are too late (and did the UK really never use the Mk 7, skipping straight from the 5 to the 28?) or else there's an interesting story to be told about how a US weapon type stayed in service for an additional year, just to serve the RAF. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

A letter from Gp Capt AJM Smith to Col HC Teulner, Director of Engineering Liaison USAF at Bushey Park dated 15 July 1960 stated that the Air Council had decided that Honington would hand over its Mk.5 bombs in June 1961 and that Waddington would retain the capability till the third quarter of 1962. This decision did not affect the provision of a Mk.28 capability for the SACEUR assigned Valiants of Bomber Command. (The Honington and Waddington weapons were nationally assigned.) There remained the Mk.7 capability for the Canberras of RAFG. (AIR2/13699)

This was a decision taken in 1960 and the actuality could have been different. According to Wynn, RAF Nuclear Deterrent Forces, the actual withdrawal dates for the Mk.5 were July 1961 and April 1962. I see no pressing reason to dispute this as the 1960 letter certainly reflects the expectations of the weapon’s availability. According to the same file, the USAF had offered Bomber Command the opportunity to ‘upgrade’ to the Mk.15/39 but this had been turned this down. No doubt the USAF was keen to withdraw the Mk.5. The same file also shows that the RAF was not too impressed with the Mk.5 as it only had half the yield they had been expecting. Sadly, the figures are not stated.

The Mk.5 was an early strategic weapon and would not have been replaced directly by the Mk.7s which was a tactical weapon. As far as I can tell, the SACEUR Mk.5 bombs at Marham were directly replaced by the Mk.28 as implied in the letter. These were withdrawn when the Valiant went bust. There is absolutely no evidence that Mk.28 bombs were assigned to Vulcans. The Red Snow warhead in Yellow Sun 2 and Blue Steel was an Anglicised W28 warhead. The original Project E Memorandum of Understanding was indeed for Mk.5 to be assigned to Bomber Command and Mk.7 to RAFG. XJ784 (talk) 12:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Further to this, I have removed the ambiguity about the SACEUR Valiants. I have also removed the reference about Red Beard being prepositioned in Cyprus for Vulcan and Victor use. Whilst Red Beard was in Cyprus, it had three Canberra Squadrons assigned at RAF Akrotiti to carry it. The Canberras were replaced by two resident squadrons of Vulcans. XJ784 (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

What's the difference between a "strategic" and a "tactical" weapon anyway, when we're talking this far back in history? Mk5 would probably be counted as strategic (there being little else that was "more strategic", yet it had a yield that was less than some later tactical nukes. Does "strategic" at this time simply mean "too big to be used from tactical aircraft"? At this time, before the Mk 28, I'd see the Mk 5 and Mk 7 as fulfilling broadly the same role and neither as yet strongly differentiated. Incidentally, what was the yield for the UK-deployed mods?

There's also the question of high-speed carriage and dropping from an internal bomb bay. The US tried this with the Mk 5 on a B47 and failed. Did it simply work better with the Valiant? The Valiant had, AFAIR, a deployable perforated bomb shield ahead of the bay doors. Or is the US' holidng of a near-useless reserve stock of weapons they couldn't deploy from their front-line aircraft one of the reasons why they were willing to lend this particular weapon to the RAF? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

A couple of minor notes on operational history:

• Should "maritime use" go before "conventional"? While conventional use was planned earlier, it never really happened until 1982, and this lets the section end with Black Buck then refuelling, which seems to flow better.
• Was the Vulcan force already planned to be withdrawn from service before the Falklands happened? The article implies it was, but is a little unclear as to causation. Did this withdrawal cover both the maritime and tactical nuclear roles, or had maritime patrol already stopped?

Otherwise, as usual, an excellent piece! Shimgray | talk | 14:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by 'operational'. If asked the period the Vulcan was operational for, I would say 1956 to 1984. If asked what 'operations' did the Vulcan fly, I would answer 'Black Buck' and, after some thought, 'Tasman Flight' (1956). So I would imagine that 'operational' should be used in its wider sense, including training. To answer your questions, the answer to the first is 'yes'; the airframes were running out of fatigue life. Some Squadrons disbanded before the Falklands. 27 Sqn, the MRR one, disbanded in 1983, after the Falklands. XJ784 (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Further development

Text says: ... however the U.S. would cancel Skybolt's development.[35] Alternative missile systems were studied, including an accompanying six-engined Vulcan;[36] however Avro became more interested in developing a new bomber designed specifically for low level flying, the Avro 721, a smaller and more advanced aircraft that built on Avro's extensive experience with delta wings,[37] and later the Avro 730, a Mach 2.5 supersonic high altitude reconnaisance/bomber aircraft.[38]

This is rewriting our heritage. Skybolt was cancelled in 1962. The 721 was announced in 1952. The Avro 730 was announced in 1955 and cancelled in 1957! XJ784 (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

What is needed is the correct order of the various proposals - particularly the variant with honeycomb wing structure and the "accompanying six engined Vulcan?" - those two are unknown to me, and it is unclear what is meant by "Alternative missile systems" - is that Blue Steel 2 or something else, or one of the ideas which were desperately floated after Skybolt was abandoned?Nigel Ish (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

My apologies then. The book was marvellously obscure on dates, and I assumed the order it had put things in, would be the order they had happened. I wasn't intentionally trying to rewrite our heritage, it was a honest mistake. I'm sorry, please don't react so viciously against it. I'm doing my best. I'm trying hard, I working away trying to read up dozens of books to improve the article. If I make a mistake only 5% of the time over hundreds of edits, that's still quite a few mistakes. I'm not doing it intentionally, . There's not need to condemn me so harshly, just pointing out that this is mistaken would have been enough. I'll work on it when I get the time, right now you've shaken me up pretty badly, and I'm in no state to edit now. Kyteto (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely no offence is intended and I would not want to spoil your weekend or curb your enthusiam. There are no accusations of any deliberate attempt to rewrite history. Many books are vague and some have loads of errors. It is just too easy to incorporate these errors in WP. Just because something can be referenced, it does not mean it is accurate. WP has a sadly-deserved bad reputation for accuracy and it is vital that mistakes are weeded out before incorporation. I would suggest that unless you are correcting a minor error or are 100% sure of your facts and that they are relevent, then put your proposed changes on this page or your user page for comment. My feeling is that there were so many proposed Vulcan developments, the subject deserves a page of its own. XJ784 (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Prototype section

The article described the Avro 707 as a 'scale prototype' of the Vulcan. Technically, it was a 'scale model'. The first and only 707 was the 707 prototype. I have therefore added a section on the 707 before the Prototype section. Both sections are expanded and all new citations come from Blackman or Laming. I have retained the reference to a youtube video of a 'Vulcan rolling at Farnborough' though have changed the youtube video to the correct 1955 sequence http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffJ0WX1Xct0. The old sequence was similar to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-BXhmGsRVA&feature=related which clearly shows a white B2. XJ784 (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Heathrow accident

RAF aircraft were not equipped to use the Instrument Landing System installed at Heathrow and other civil airports so a Ground-controlled approach was carried out. Doesnt say so but it implies that the use of a GCA approach was a factor in the accident, do we have any evidence that a GCA approach was unusual in 1956 for civil or any aircraft in 1956, we sort of imply that everbody else was doing ILS approaches. Reports discussing the experience of the GCA controller dont appear to show it was a rare event. Perhaps we need to tweak as the GCA approach itself was not a factor, although it was probably the first done in a Vulcan in crap weather conditions. MilborneOne (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a 1955 film Out of the Clouds that was largely filmed at Heathrow. It features a BOAC Stratocruiser making a GCA approach in fog. The pilot calls up for an ILS but receives a GCA. Presumably the interaction of the controller and the pilot plus the talkdown on the soundtrack were more interesting cinema than the pilot chasing needles. The GCA controllers did not sit in a darkened room in the tower but in mobile vehicles parked on the airfield. The talkdown and the aircraft instrumentation were bang on - the technical advisors were much better than usual. The talkdown was both in elevation and azimuth (ie glidepath and centreline — Precision Approach Radar) and probably higher in quality than an RAF GCA which might then have been in azimuth only (Surveillance Radar Approach) with a higher decision height, leaving it up to the controller or pilot to determine the glidepath by the distance to touchdown. There were still plenty of aircraft operating in the mid 50's out of Heathrow which may not have had ILS fitted. I recall our shiny Comet parked next to a York c 1960. Originally, the airport had 12 (if you count the reciprocals) runways. I doubt if all had ILS so GCAs may have been quite usual. I read in an old Flight that ILS was the prime aid and GCA was for standby and monitoring. The main difference for the Vulcan would be the increased approach speed. If you read the accident report, the controller received some flack for allowing the Vulcan to get below the glidepath. The result of the Board was never very satisfactory from an aircrew point of view who would say the prime cause was due to pressing on with the approach below decision height when they should have overshot and diverted. Though Howard was captain, his co-pilot was a very senior officer who was presumably anxious to get to the VIP reception. Had he been flying with the fully trained on type spare pilot, who was languishing down the back, then they might have landed quite safely or taken timely overshoot action. I don't know if XA897 was fitted with ILS at the time but the sets fitted to the B2 had IIRC 14 studded frequencies which rendered many civilian installations inoperative.

I note that amendment action on this topic has already been taken. Seems a bit premature if a topic is up for discussion and concencus but I guess appropriate because of the number of factors that contributed to the accident. Perhaps Operation Tasman Flight and its aftermath deserve a WP page of its own. Generally I would say that some of the accidents related on this page have too much trivia within. XJ784 (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, the cause of the accident was the aircraft descending at a rate-of-descent that exceeded the capabilities of the GCA system in use at the time. In short, the lag inherent in the (manual) GCA system allowed the pilot to descend lower than he thought, as a result, the aircraft impacted the ground. Ironically, the Vulcan was later one of the first aircraft to be certified for Autoland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

ECM, chaff and flares

Did Vulcans carry a flare system against IR-seeking AA missiles? Any details?

I don't recall one, but the big manuals aren't on a handy bookshelf, so I can't dig them out to check. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. IIRC IRDs (infra-red decoys) stored in a modified Window box. XJ784 (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

A-class review that was not really started

This Aviation A-class review was initially started and then cleared a couple months ago. I've tagged it for speedy deletion. If someone wants to start the review, just remove the tag and add a nomination rationale. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind on that. It was deleted just after I posted this message. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There's also a currently open Milhist A-class review on it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Avro Vulcan (which I really must get back to commenting on...) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, the MilHist review closed on Oct. 20 as "not promoted". :( -Fnlayson (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the level of activity to the nomination was considerably less than expected, I did what I could to respond to what there was. Kyteto (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)