no it doesnt , your statistical comparison would no be accurate if you try to calculate engine reliability from f-16——->f-35 by substituting mirage instead of f-16

In talking about the and i emphasize RAAF’s single engine fighter ops history, how am i substituting the Mirage for the F-16 when we have never operated the type?

Also the F-16 and F-35 engines are fundamentally different powerplants, so how do you compare the two?

USN has had similar concerns however even they are now comfortable , for them it would be imposible to land without the engine and it would mean almost certain loss (cant crash land) , however statistical evidence points that safety record of Single engined fighters when it comes to ENGINE losses ( USAF operation F-16’s) was actually at par or better to the F-18 Fleet .

I am coming from the RAAF single engined fighter record, not the USAF’s.

our loss rate for single engine fighters due to ENGINE failures has always been significantly higher than for an operator like the USAF, excluding our military airbases we have incredibly few airports and landing areas that can accomodate a fighter aircraft, thus elevating the risk level of losing an aircraft.

The other side of the coin is the now greatly increased reliability of modern fighter engines, but again the engines in question were not designed to permanently be based in conditions of the type that prevail across our main fighter stations in the Northern Territory and top end of Western Australia, also quite a few of the aircrew i have spoken to have reservations on going to a single engined type.

I personally hope that the RAAF doesnt end up with the F-35A as its sole combat jet (BaE Hawks aside), i am utterly disgusted already by the sacrifices being pushed onto the RAAF to accomodate the F-35, they are massively eroding the capabilities of this air arm for one fighter, at that a fighter completely unsuited to our somewhat unique requirements.

“F2H-3 …. and racks were provided for two 500lb OR EIGHT 250 LB BOMBS” (my emphasis).

Chris

Incorrect, its weapon loadout was either 8x 60lb HE warhead rockets or 6x 60lb HE warhead rockets and 2x 250lb bombs, the aircraft was not rated to carry 500lb weapons and even at the combination rocket/bombload it was struggling.

cheif reason for this was F2H’s poor thrust to weight ratio, with a total of 6,500lb thrust and a dry weight of some 13,200 lb it was already in trouble, when at its nominal combat weight of 24,000lb you can imagine that with by then with the thrust to weight ratio at about 0.25:1 its really going to struggle just to get off the ground.

Best thing to do is get a ticket to S Afirca soon 😉

Soon being the operative word here, the word on the grapevine is Mike’s airworthy spares stock wont hold out too much longer.

after the switch from high to low level flying, this change in operational proceedure also laid rest to the victor as a bomber. the low level flying accelerated the fatigue on the wingspars. what brought it to the Raf’s attention was, a valiant coming into land, the crew heard a MASSIVE bang, and thought something had fallen off. after having landed it was obvious that one of the wings was drooping considerably, and when the engineers got inside, the spar was found to be cracked/snapped. i believe the whole fleet was immediately grounded after this discovery. i think all of the valiants bar one or two, showed serious fatigue in the wingspars.

i would have said one of the main reasons that, XD818 is still in one piece, would be that it dropped the first british atomic weapon.

and even then XD818 came within mere hours of scrapping

I believe that even if the work was financially viable (we struggle as it is), we would still not be able to fly for a few reasons. Firstly the CAA would have to say yes. Then BAE Systems would have to give the go ahead as they own the Design Authority for the aircraft, we would also have to get marshals or another similar company to provide the engineering advice. These three could be possible with enough money, the next hurdle however isnt. Rolls Royce most probably would not support the mark of Conway that is in the Victor (CO17). It is different to the ones in VC10’s and aside from this, we don’t have any spare engines. Additionally we don’t know the location of any boxed zero timed conways, or indeed any other victor conways, short of nicking them from 715, and I don’t think the lads at Bruntingthorpe would be too happy with that!

Its a bleak outlook for flying the old girl, and it is a shame, however I think you can agree what we do is the next best thing. 🙂

Ollie

oh i do agree what goes on now is the next best thing to a flyer, bit of a shame that there isnt the opportunity to fly her again though, a Victor / Vulcan formation would be quite a sight.

good to see you again 320, been a while since the closure of the public TVOC boards!

Absolutely. Apart from her being out of fatigue life, there would be nothing to stop us pulling back the stick and flying her somewhere. Apart from the jail term when we landed that is. We maintain her to an airworthy standard, because that is the best way to preserve the systems and the aircraft, in addition to providing that extra safety margin. We don’t treat the runs as taxi runs, they are, in essence aborted take-offs.

Much the same practice as the Lightning lads at Brunty, though i think the Victor is probably a little easier on the knuckles!

i did read talk somewhere that it would be possible to extend her fatigue life out to 200 FI, therein leaves the question if the work was financially possible of course, would the CAA allow her to fly if design authority could be had from the relevant parties?