Although I’ve only ever seen the distance to target at bomb release stated as ‘two miles’ that probably means nautical miles (or 2 x 1852 metres) whereas my original estimates were based on statute miles.

I’ve listed below the distances in metres based on the two interpretations, nautical miles (and in brackets statute miles); the ‘target’ being the centre of the runway.

Target to Vulcan at first bomb release: 4797 (4433) metres

Target to Vulcan at last bomb release: 4166 (3851) metres

Closest AA gun position to Vulcan: 3566 (3377) metres

According to the map I have seen the closest AAA gun position was NE of the Eastern end of the runway (with a Skyguard fire-control radar close by).

Much of the ‘threat reduction’ planning for the first Vulcan raid relied on the speed of reaction of the defences. The Vulcan would be in range of the 35mm guns but at long range and only for a very limited period (at a groundspeed of 320 knots the Vulcan has a groundspeed of about 165 metres a second).

They were catch with the fear of first time in war, even though they were advised of the incoming atack…

I think this statement has much truth and is really what the planners of the first raid were counting on.

The presence of a Roland system seems to have been unknown to the Vulcan raid planners and I don’t know where it was located during the first raid. If it was in the location discussed above the Vulcan was probably never in range (but a Sea Harrier was shot down by this system later in the conflict).

We still have the doubt about the first Vulcan atack, if it ever came with in range of triple A – The others didn’t

According to the information I have seen you are quite correct; later Vulcan raids bombed from 16,000 feet (4877 metres).

‘Vulcan 607’ by Rowland White also states that the IFF transponder on the first Vulcan raid was operated with ‘settings that simulated an Argentine maritime-patrol aircraft’.

Bad luck…..hope it doesn’t get stuck in the web!

…triple A had altitude limitations the 35 mm range at about 5,000 meters , the Roland at about 6,000 meters

we still have the doubt about the first Vulvan atack , if it ever came with in range of triple A – The others didn’t

Vulcan operation Black Buck 1 is recorded as dropping the first bomb when it was 2 miles (or 3219 metres) from the target runway whilst flying at an altitude of 10,000 feet (or 3048 metres).

The distance from the target to the Vulcan at that point was 4433 metres.

However, the twenty-one bombs were dropped at quarter-second intervals so that the Vulcan had travelled a further 864 metres closer to the target (assuming a groundspeed of 320 knots) when the last bomb was released.

The distance from the target to the Vulcan at that point was 3851 metres.

Of course the Vulcan also had to turn round, so it would come even closer before it was actually heading away from the target.

Also the AA guns / missiles were not all located at the aiming-point; some would have been closer to the Vulcan than the aiming-point. I have seen one map that has an AA gun position marked approximately 1455 metres from the ground-position of the Vulcan when the final bomb was released.

The distance from this AA gun to the Vulcan at that point was 3377 metres but the map does not identify the calibre (20mm – 35mm) of the AA gun in this position.

The same map locates the Roland missile system just outside Stanley (about 5300 metres from the aiming-point) at approximately 7408 metres from the ground-position of the Vulcan when the final bomb was released.

The distance from Roland to the Vulcan at that point was 8011 metres but the map indicates the positions of these AA defences after the fall of Stanley so it is possible that the Roland system was in a different position during the Black Buck 1 operation.

No need to apologise for your English, it is very good and certainly good enough for this forum.

You are very welcome here and I hope you will post more about your experiences.

The most surprising thing to me about these flak Towers is when they were built. I don’t know when exactly but I remember seeing a photo of the Giant Wurzburg radar on top of one of them (taken with a long-range lens from the US Embassy, so presumably before the US declared war on Germany after Pearl Harbor in December 1941).

So assuming that the tower was completed and radar installed in December 1941 when was planning and construction started?

So much for the “No enemy aircraft will fly over the Reich” speech by Hermann ‘Meyer’!

Isn’t the problem with hydrogen that it makes a good fuel because it oxidises so readily and that to reverse that process you must put energy in, even if the process you use is biological. Whatever the biological process used it will surely need ‘food’ to turn into hydrogen plus ‘food’ to power the process and all the ‘food’ that goes in will have greater energy than the hydrogen that comes out (but potentially in a less useful form such as compost or food waste)?

A good analogy for ‘fuelling’ cars on water would be like trying to keep warm with a fire that burns ash and smoke! 😀

I was thinking about the tax / duty implications of manufacturing your own hydrogen fuel from solar, biological or wind (pun intended) power, and I thought surely the government could have no right to apply tax / duty if the hydrogen was for your own consumption and you were not selling any. Then I thought about manufacturing alcohol as a fuel because you can manufacture that quite easily at home.

Then I thought of the tax / duty consideration of making alcohol yourself…..oh dear! 🙁

This is the Napier Lion in the Airspace Hangar at Duxford. I’ve no idea what mark it is or why it has brass Chinese characters on the propeller stubs. Anybody?

The Honda jobbie looks very promising…

There are another two articles from the BBC here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7497992.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7507795.stm

Significantly though these vehicles are hydrogen-fuelled not ‘water-fuelled’.

Neither of these vehicles is zero emission because (like electric vehicles) fossil-fuelled power stations are the actual source of their power. The one real breakthrough in one of the articles could be the manufacture of hydrogen (from H2O) from solar-power. This would be zero-emission and free! Well, except for the water and any tax / duty the chancellor may add (at 85%).