I think the only one left is Brtish Aerospace at Warton….. apart from that, you’re looking at cottage industries.

Here’s food for thought… the same thing happened to a fully laden Boeing 737-classic in South America (Peruvian a I recall) many years ago. During a turn (left), the artificial horizon stuck. When it released itself, the aircraft was almost inverted. The crew immediately corrected the situation (hard right roll), not realising that the instrument had jammed again. Apparently it was inverted when it hit the mountain….

Three Quick questions….

on the prototype Whirly (L6845), there appears to be a probe on the stbd side extending beyond the nose… Where does it attach to the airframe?

on the same airframe, when originally flown in the silver scheme, did it have nose guns fitted, or just a smooth nose?

Lastly, did it have roundels on the underside of the wing?

The only photo I can find is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Westland_Whirlwind_prototype.jpg

No Place, near Stanley, Co. Durham.

There’s a univrsity ‘dawn sauf’ (Bristol?) which has a big 3d printer. Why not contruct a CAD drawing of the peregrine and print two off….. Damn sight cheaper than mkng one from scratch and would be a good external representation. just a thought.

I didn’t ‘forget’ anything. I have repeatedly said that I can only speak for Tornado, of which I have 1st hand experience.

This is Kovy’s post:
You can’t beat the Tornado as far as mechanical failure is concerned. Everyting on this plane has mechanical mooving parts which are prone to failure by design :
…………………

This is the arguement I’m making – he suggests that the failures of the systems listed are mechanical – they aren’t. THEY’RE HYDRAULIC. The mirage also has abundant hydraulic systems which will fail in EXACTLY the same way.

We are talking about automated Mechanical systems here. the weak point often being the automated part of the system.

The fact is that the tornado (as the F-14) has (many) more automated mechanical systems than a Mirage 2000 so, statistically a Tornado also has a lot more chance to be grounded due to an issue on one of those systems.

I mean… even the canopy closing system of the mirage is manual…

……..correct (IFAIK, only one mirage 2000 crash was due to an electrical power loss). But that tells nothing about the respective availability of both planes ? No modern aircraft will ever take off without electrical power… even the Tornado.

Now, if you want to sustain that the numerous automated mechanical systems of the tornado permits a better availability than a plane that has twice less of those systems. Good for you.

Not mechanical, hydraulic. I suggest you look in the relevant APs. A huge percentage of failures within the systems you refer to are hydraulic faults. The only ‘automated’ system almost relevant to your arguement are the manoevreing spoilers which deploy automatically during certain movements. Again, it will be the hydraulic components which will fail.

I do not pretnd to know the internals of a Mirage or Rafale, but my best guess would be that they have a multiple redundant FBW flight control system operating PFCU units. I guarantee that most of the faults which prevent flight will be hydraulic issues with the PFCUs. They are the same as Tornado in that respect.

The issue is not ‘taking off’ with no electrical power – its landing! The Tornado will manage because it has a purely mechanial link to the essential controls via crushable struts, in other words, the flight controls will work even if the aircraft beomes a 25 tonne glider. It also has a RAT (F3) or a one-shot battery (GRx) to provide eletrical and hydraulic power in the event of ECU failure or power loss.

I am not questioning the fact that Tornado is more unreliable than Mirage or Rafale, I’m questioning your logic when you claim the systems are designed to fail because they are mechanical and thus more likely to break. You speak drivel, I’m afraid. The only real difference between the aircraft is that one is controlled by direct pilot input to a hydraulic system, and the other has a complicated fly by wire system leading to similar hydraulic systems. Personally I’d rather have a mechanical input for when things get shot up, cheers.