The Photograph

OK here’s the photo -taken yesterday during high speed runs and 2 nose lifts – don’t say you don’t get results on this forum!

KeithMac

I’ll still come down. If anyone wants a conducted tour of the Vulcan I can do one, even if we have to stay outside the barrier rope! If they will let us set up something in the meetings room I can bring down an LCD projector and laptop and do a Tornado briefing, or just bring down a load of photo’s I’ve transferred to computer for a slide show.

I had hoped that under new management things might have got more “customer friendly” at EF. If we don’t get a good reception I’ll reclaim all the things I donated 2 years ago including my bone dome from the “new acquisitions” cabinet!!!!!!!!!!!

So lets go for it!

KeithMac

Jase, How many pix per inch are you using? If it’s more than 100 -reduce it, you’ll lose a bit of quality, but they should still be OK for on screen viewing. Got any shots of the 1000 lb craters on the ridge above Stanley?

KeithMac

Kev, The “Dustbin” turret you are referring to is in fact the retractable ventral Frazer Nash turret fitted to the Mk.1A. These turrets proved to be unsatisfactory and had an adverse effect upon the aircrafts C of G. As a result this turret was delected from the Mk.1C onwards and was replaced by a pair of .303 Browings in the beam positions. For more info have a look at Vickers Aircraft since 1918 by Putnams.

KeithMac

Sorry Mike but I have to disagree with your assertion that the Tornado is not a good aeroplane to maintain, and that it is more prone to “digging up runways” than any other aeroplane. I was involved with the Tornado from 1978 until I retired from the RAF 2 years ago. My last post being Sqn WO Eng on a Tornado Sqn.
The Laarbruch runway was not resurfaced because of the Tornado, it was resurfaced because it was due for planned resurfacing as all runways are on a routine basis. The fact that one aircraft damaged the runway at your unit during the bolthole does not mean that it is a commom occurrence. Having worked on many aircraft types in my 39 years as an aircraft technician I can tell you that the Tornado is one of the most reliable combat aircraft that the RAF has ever operated! If you compare it to the Phantom for example it is an absolute bloody dream. I’ve operated Tornado’s in the UK, in Germany, in North America and in the Far East without any major Drama. In 2000 I took 8 GR.1s and 8 F.3’s from the UK to Singapore, flew a 2 week exercise with the Singaporeans then sent them onto Australia for another exercise. During the whole period we never missed a planned sortie and only had a single engine change. You’d never have done that with a Phantom or Jaguar! So please stop knocking the Tornado, It’s been a bloody good aeroplane, and with the recent upgrades the GR.4 will continue to be the best low level bomber in service with anyone!

KeithMac (retired Tornado engineer)

Oh boy some folk need a lot of convincing! When I joined the RAF just 16 years after the end of WW2 there were still loads of people in the RAF who flew in the War. Many of them told me that they went straight to Squadrons and onto ops without ever having flown the types before. One of these was my Flt Sgt, Ron King. He flew Hurricanes and went straight onto them from Harvards. My Father-in Law was on 32 Sqn and 242 Sqn as an engine fitter and he told me the same. What I know is what I was told be people who were actually there, and I’ve no reason to disbelieve what they told me. So you can go on believing whatever it is you want to believe, I’ll believe them.