JonathanFWell certainly not free. There is a proposal to buy them.
The talk here is that the Indian Navy will try and buy eight of the FRS 2s for ‘training’ role only. Aparently the Navy feels that trying to upgrade the FRS2s for hot and high performance is not going to work out economically. So the FRS2s wont go for combat but for training only. and that too, only eight of them.
How many SHARs are currently operable in the RN today?
Some interesting stuff from John Farley on the dreaded “Sea Jet” PPRUNE thread about the “heat” issue:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=98152&perpage=15&pagenumber=77
I’m not convinced that it can be a primary motivation for the relegation of relatively new airframes to the training role. Couldn’t they reprofile the noses and remove the fuselage plugs? Or is it a cost issue in terms of transplanting existing equipment into the newer airframes?
[edit] – a reminder of how “young” the eight airframes in question actually are (plus criticism of the decision to retire):
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmdfence/779/77908.htm
JonathanFGreat pics. I was chuffed to be able to see DA2 up close last year, although it doesn’t look quite as nifty in terms of finish!
JonathanFJonathon – The F/A.2 is quite a bit heavier than the FRS.1 . This dramatically affects its hover performance when ‘hot and high’. If you look at the fuselage stretch for the extra black boxes and the increase in nose size you will find the weight. Certainly the Indian’s could use them carrier based but I feel unless they could fit an aftermarket radar system which is lighter there would be no performance gain over a FRS.1 and very likely it would be inferior.
Interesting – thanks. Do you think we should have gone for another engine uprate and eeked out the FA.2s? Or is there any rhyme/reason in ditching them a (likely) decade before their replacement enters service?
JonathanFMany thanks. The Triplex link is interesting and potentially useful.
JonathanFIt sounds dubious to me Jagan; both FRS.51 and FA.2 develop the same thrust; the only difference being a mod to the water injection system that allows it to run twice as long (though only at half flow).
If my timeline is correct, the Mk.51 received a 21,500lb thrust engine before the FRS.1 was upgraded to FA.2 standard with an engine of a different mark, but identical output.
And frankly, if it’s good enough for training (which presumably involves a good amount of VTO and VL activity (from carriers) plus other maneouvres in the hover/in transition, then its surely good enough for combat use?
Doesn’t add up in my mind. Do you have a source for the “training” comment? I’m aware this is straying into “modern military”, so by all means PM instead – I’d like to think that the FA.2 was living on in some capacity. Silly really!
JonathanFWell certainly not free. There is a proposal to buy them.
The talk here is that the Indian Navy will try and buy eight of the FRS 2s for ‘training’ role only. Aparently the Navy feels that trying to upgrade the FRS2s for hot and high performance is not going to work out economically. So the FRS2s wont go for combat but for training only. and that too, only eight of them.
How many SHARs are currently operable in the RN today?
Oh I don’t know…say…eight? 😀
Do the FA.2s really need much modding to work well in the Indian climate? They’re certainly more capable otherwise than the Mk.51s India already has.
JonathanFSome SHARs are apparently going to RNAS Culdrose for the Flight Deck School.
If they operate them like they did the Hunters, the aeroplanes will be kept live and regularly taxied about.
If something does happen, perhaps these could save the day 🙂
Really? That’s something at least. But presumably those are the same ones being offered (free last I heard!) to India? If they find a home there, perhaps the Indians can bail us out of “Falklands II”…
JonathanFDamned shame, but at least the pilots are already used to mud moving. GR.9 ASRAAM at least would have been nice. As it is we’re down to the new destroyer class and point defence missiles and guns, plus a pair of “alert” GR.9s with Sidewinder as a forlorn hope of sorts.
JonathanFThanks guys. So do they have a 1930s, 40s, 50s history of making such things, or is it just that they have the capacity to make repros today? Or perhaps one of the companies they’ve since absorbed made the original articles?
JonathanFThere’s a shot on Airliners.net of an aircraft very similar to that seen in the linked thread above, for which the caption describes it as the DH “Mystery Jet” – some confusion exists it seems.
It seems clear from these two threads that there were at least two bizjet Vampires built (to static status at least). The US venture in the other thread, still presumably sitting in the Nevada desert minding its own business, and the (earlier?) version with fewer windows that was burned at North Weald (the DH “Mystery Jet”).
This is the airliners.net photo (1991):
http://photos.airliners.net/photos/photos/3/9/8/0196893.jpg
And this (c1995 judging by the near-identical image in Feb 95 Flypast) is:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=16959
JonathanFI am seeking information on the Mystery Jet MJ1 conversion of a Vampire at Southend back in the early 1980’s all I have on it is a photo in a book and what I have found on the aircraft so far:
The Mystery Jet MJ1 was a biz jet conversion of the De Havilland DH115 Vampire, it was the cockpit section replaced by a stretched cabin allowing up to eight seats to be fitted, the MJ1 that was at Southend moved to Bushey Hertfordshire with its owner Sandy Topen it was reported to heave been burnt during a clearance of derelict aircraft on the airfield, however a report said it went to the USA.
FlyPast Feb 1995 has it at Henderson/Sky Harbour Airport just outside Las Vegas Nevada. A John Morgan had plans to set up a production line for them using acquired design rights!
JonathanFI saw an old Flypast article the other day about an RAF Kittyhawk that flew under a bridge and lost the outer 3ft of its left wing, and again, made it home. A member of the public handed the wing wreckage in to the nearby (Spitfire) base. Don’t have the reference sadly, and the mag (not mine) has disappeared.
JonathanFTropicalised Spit VB, by the look of it. I can **just** discern an 8 and a 4 in the serial, possibly.
IWM negative ATP 74810F – “Spitfire Mark VB, AB344, on the ground at No. 6 Maintenance Unit, Brize Norton, Oxfordshire, fitted with a long-range 90-gallon ferry drop tank, with which it flew from HMS EAGLE to Malta on 7 March 1942. AB344 was destroyed during an air raid on Kalafrana on 18 April 1942.”
JonathanFJonathan,
30C is still far warmer than I expected to hear…the long term storage vaults I have built are in the 4-5 C range with a couple of warming up rooms in which the objects transition… these were primarily for ancient fabrics and organics but metal objects were also placed there. These are storage, not work rooms. The labs were maintained a 21 +/- 1 C for restoration work….
R,
The IWM is very ‘misunderstood’. It is not a Museum in the same way as Duxford or Lambeth… its aim is not to present objects, it is to present ‘Conflict’ and use a limited number of objects to illustrate the theme…..
Hence its requirements were very different to one which requires wide open spaces and room for large numbers of large artefacts..it needs lots of space for explanatory boards, panels, themes and so forth…These are organised into different aspects of the overall theme, with objects carefully selected to illustrate that sub section.What it is not is a collection of artefacts…
In that respect it does work after a fashion. I don’t think it needed that building to achieve its aims, but the wider political and cultural objectives do need to be taken into account…..which indicated that a ‘signature design’ was essential….
The display is actually very good if you approach it in the fashion it is intended…if you expect to see loads of stuff then inevitably you will find it wanting…
As I said, 30c and 20% RH is for purely metal objects and is essentially the dessication approach. I’ve made it clear that I’m not advocating the application of dessication to aircraft! This is normally only used on excavated archaeological metal, which requires either this, careful acclimatisation in more conventional ranges, or exact matching of its buried conditions for successful long-term storage. Any store also holding textiles or other organics would have to be in the circa 20c and 40-50% RH range. My aside about being too dry to work in was only in terms of going in, locating an object, and recovering it – say about 30secs to a minute. That’s enough to need a drink of water at 20% RH, I can tell you.
Anyway, this is way off topic. It was nothing more than a facetious reply to your equally facetious “if you want ideal conditions, put them in a hermetically sealed black box” response.
JonathanFJonathan,
40 degrees F or C? 40C sounds wrong and as far as the other musuems I have built is wrong. But we were preserving more ‘organic’ matter, fabrics, artwork and such in that particular case, and certainly the majority were older than the IWM Collection artefacts… Agree with the 20% RH.
40F is ‘chilled’ in building terms as it needs permanent cooling…
All good points. Re ideal conditions, my stubby fingers hit the “4” rather than “3” on the top of my keyboard. With metal, assuming you can achieve low enough RH (I’ve read that 15 is even better, but impossible to work in), a higher temperature in the typical storage range (20 to 30c for most categories of object) does the trick. But that’s for purely metal objects; textiles would suffer in that climate, not to mention people! At those levels you feel the moisture being leached out of your skin.
Sign In
