Vulcan Appeal...

torrent99

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 14, 2008
395
36
Highgate, London
Apologies for a very off topic post, however I feel that a good proportion of the active pedelec community might be interested in this.

Many of you might be aware that after 15 years hard work, the Vulcan to the Sky project finally restored the last flying Vulcan bomber back to flight in 2007. It took part in several air displays last summer with great popular support and success...and now after all that effort it faces being grounded forever or sold to the US.

The Vulcan bomber was one of the 3 "V" bomber designs of the 1950s, British designed, British built and still doing useful work right into the 1980s, taking part in the longest (at the time) range bombing raid in history during the Falklands.

XH558 is the only airworthy Vulcan in the world, restored to flight after nearly 15 years at a cost of £7million.

She now faces grounding forever, unless an additional £500,000 can be raised before 6th March enabling funds for another full air show season. Last year, she appeared in front of over 1.5 million people.

She inspires immense pride in all who see her. A full education programme is built around her, not only telling the story of the cold war era, but the value of science and technology in inspiring future engineers.

She was the “mother of concorde” - Can you help save this ICONIC BRITISH AIRCRAFT?
If you are interested in supporting this bastion of British engineering at its best you can pledge your support at:

Vulcan to the Sky Trust - Avro Vulcan Bomber XH558 - Vulcan To The Sky Trust

They only have until the beginning of March...

Thanks for reading!

Cheers

Steve
 

CeeGee

Esteemed Pedelecer
Feb 4, 2009
328
0
Weybridge, UK
Double post - deleted
 
Last edited:

CeeGee

Esteemed Pedelecer
Feb 4, 2009
328
0
Weybridge, UK
Please also take the time to sign this petition:
Petition to: ensure the Vulcan XH558 project receives sufficient funding to enable it to continue "Honouring the past and inspiring the future". | Number10.gov.uk

They really need your support, and your money:
Vulcan 'sold to America', RAF Waddington, Vulcan to the Sky Trust, Robert Pleming

I remember the first time I saw this lovely, but deadly, aircraft at Farnborough in 1958. I don't want to have to go to the States to see it fly again.

Colin
 

Mussels

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jun 17, 2008
3,207
8
Crowborough
I believe they did?:confused: (The runway)
They only hit the edge with one bomb, the satellite photos turned out to be mounds of earth the Argies piled up to make it look like the runway was knackered.
It was a partial success as it deterred them from making full use of the airport.
 

torrent99

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 14, 2008
395
36
Highgate, London
They only hit the edge with one bomb, the satellite photos turned out to be mounds of earth the Argies piled up to make it look like the runway was knackered.
It was a partial success as it deterred them from making full use of the airport.
Pretty successfull if you ask me! Especially considering the 2nd world war vintage equipment they were using to aim the things :D

Still I'm pretty biased, my home town is Lincoln next to where the planes flew from :p
 

CeeGee

Esteemed Pedelecer
Feb 4, 2009
328
0
Weybridge, UK
Appeal Update

The Vulcan XH558 is safe for the time being :) thanks to a wonderful response from thousands of members of the public. Read about it by going to the link in the first post of this thread.
Of course donations are still needed to keep this aircraft in this country and able to fly.

Colin
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
52,813
30,379
Pleased to see that the appeal was successful.

One little point, the Vulcan was in no way "the mother of Concorde" as that website stated.

The Concorde was originally named the Super Caravelle and was a French design following the success of their Caravelle. However the French realised the design was for too few passengers once the larger capacity Boeing 707 was introduced, but they couldn't afford the huge development costs of enlarging the whole design and went looking for a partner. Britain via Bristol Aircraft was that chosen partner.

Unfortunately a myth has grown that Concorde was a British design and it was even wrongly voted as the top British design in a BBC 2 series of programmes.

Three things were in honour of the fact that it was originally a French design:

The jointly chosen Concorde name has an e on the end, French spelling.

The French built 001 made the inaugural flights, both test and transatlantic.

The French made the final commercial flight.
.
 

CeeGee

Esteemed Pedelecer
Feb 4, 2009
328
0
Weybridge, UK
The Concorde design was a collaboration between Britain and France and was a development of the BAC-223 and the Super Caravelle.
The Vulcan was the mother of the Concorde because it used the original Olympus engines that were later developed for the Concorde, and the Vulcan was also used as the test-bed for the new Concorde engines.

The British government in 1959 asked for research to be undertaken for a long range supersonic airliner.
The following is from The History of Concorde:

"The British Concept

From the wind-tunnel research and theoretical work done under these first feasibility study contracts, it became clear that the slender delta wing planform had advantages over all the other shapes being considered. Furthermore, and contrary to earlier predictions, the aerodynamic efficiency of this planform tended to improve up to about Mach 2.2.

It remained to decide what would be the best fuselage-wing combination to exploit the potential of the delta planform. A joint feasibility study, awarded to Hawker-Siddeley Aviation Ltd. and Bristol Aircraft Ltd., settled the issue. Hawkers investigated a proposal for a fuselage integrated in a wing of deep cross-section while Bristol studied a proposal for a discrete fuselage associated with a thin wing. When the results of the two studies were compared, the "discrete" configuration was found to have definite advantages over the "integrated" version for use in a first generation supersonic airliner in the size and speed bracket contemplated.

Under a design study contract, BAC proposed the Bristol type 198, a slender delta aircraft similar in configuration to that which Bristol - merged in the newly formed BAC in 1960 - had made for its feasibility study. It was powered by six Olympus turbojets mounted beneath the wing it had a Transatlantic range and a 130passenger payload- and its maximum takeoff weight was about 380,0001b.

Doubts about the weight of the Bristol 198, which increased the intensity of the sonic boom, and reservations about the intake design problems and economics of a six-engine installation, caused the government to call for a proposal for a smaller transport This was the Bristol Type 223, with four Olympus engines, capable of carrying 100 passengers over a Transatlantic range and with a maximum takeoff weight of 250,0001b. This last was an all-British design.

When the design study contract was awarded in 1960, the government made it a condition that BAC should actively explore the possibilities of international collaboration on the project. It was already apparent that there would be heavy demands on finance, manpower, and research and development facilities in developing a supersonic airliner, and there were obvious advantages in sharing the load with another nation if agreement on the basic design principles could be reached.

Approaches were therefore made by BAC to the United States, Germany and France. There was little interest shown in the USA where at that time there was a widespread conviction that the first-generation supersonic civil transport should be based on the Mach 3 B 70 bomber. Germany's reaction was that their industry was not ready to face the challenge of a supersonic airliner just yet and they would require more time to consider such a step.

The French concept

French response was very different. Their industry was in good heart and justifiably proud of the Caravelle. Today rear-engined jetliners are accepted as the norm for short and medium-haul operation, but it was not always so. The Caravelle was the first of the breed and there was much skepticism in Britaln and the USA about the configuration before the aircraft proved itself.

France, too, had been investigating the feasibility of developing a supersonic transport, and their thinking had been running on parallel lines to that of the British. The French company Sud-Aviation had a prominent role in this activity. Just as Bristol was merged into BAC, so Sud-Aviation became part of the nationalised SNIAS group, familiarly known as Aerospatiale. It was these two groups that were to become joint airframe contractors for Concorde.

Sud-Aviation and Dassault had already announced that they were concentrating their effort on a medium-range aircraft. The name they gave to their proposal, the Super-Caravelle, was significant, but it was not only their recent Caravelle experience that coloured their thinking. They considered, with some justification, that long range would be a difficult initial design objective for any supersonic transport and that it would be better to concentrate first on the more easily achievable medium range, extending the range as operating experience was acquired.

The British, on the other hand, were firmly of the view that Transatlantic range was a fundamental requirement for supersonic operation. Whatever the difficulties and it was accepted that they would be great - it was in the long-range market that the best prospects for a supersonic transport lay, because it was only on sector lengths exceeding 1,500 miles that the timesaving advantages of the higher cruise speed began to show themselves.

When, in accordance with the 1961 design study contract, BAC raised the subject of collaboration with Sud-Aviation, the French company was quite prepared for serious discussions, but on the basis that there would be two different types of aircraft. Later in 1961, BAC and Sud-Aviation each put in proposals for long-range and medium-range aircraft, but these still showed the differences in the approach to key design problems. By this time, there had also been direct consultation between the French and British governments on the subject and the companies' proposals did not go far enough to meet the governments' wish for joint working.
 

CeeGee

Esteemed Pedelecer
Feb 4, 2009
328
0
Weybridge, UK
The Anglo-French compromise

The leaders of the two design teams had been in regular consultation, however, and were gradually coming to a closer understanding of the othera' viewpoint and motivation This steady movement towards an agreement was a long, and sometimes wearing, process, but it helped to lay the foundation for the years of joint working that lay ahead.

By the Farnborough Air Show in September, 1962, agreement was so close that a model of the proposed aircraft was shown on the BAC stand. This attracted much Press and public attention, and there was some speculation that the expected AngloFrench agreement to build an SST (supersonic transport) might be announced. But there were still two months to wait.

The four men who had been most closely concerned wlth the direction of the joint design studies and discussions were, on the British side, Dr A. E. (later Sir Archibald) Russell, technical director of BAC's Filton Division, and Dr W. J. Strang, chief engineer of Filton Division and, on the French side, Pierre Satre and Lucien Servanty, technical director and chief engineer respectively of Sud-Aviation. Each of the four was an aeronautical engineer of international standing.

In October in a small office in Paris, a final move was made in the protracted negotiations. Bill Strang and Lucien Servanty were closeted for a whole day, with a single draughtsman and drawing board, and instructed to come out with a common three-view general arrangement drawing for the long-range and medium-range aircraft. They succeeded, although it would be hard to imagine two men more unlike in temperament, background and personality. Lucien Servanty was a forceful and fiery character, who did not suffer fools gladly. Bill Strang is an equable, quiet-spoken man, who leads rather than drives his team. They were, one might have thought, a fairly unlikely pair to work together as collaborators on the most difficult technological project ever tackled in Europe.

Yet this partnership, like many others in the Concorde organisation, grew and flourished on the firm basis of mutual respect for the other's intellect and integrity. When Servanty died in 1973, soon after 02 had made the first Concorde non-stop crossing of the North Atlantic, Bill Strang wrote in Flight International:

"Lucien Servanty was, above all, a dedicated engineer. He combined a wide intellectual grasp of his subject with a great capacity for absorbing detail. Setbacks never daunted him. They were accepted as a challenge and always his first step was to analyse the situation in depth in order to isolate the underlying causes of the problem.

"Once he had made up his mind, he was prepared to support his opinions vigorously, deploying an impassioned array of arguments. He was always a loyal friend and ally. Sometimes we were together against 'the rest.' Sometimes we were ourselves in disagreement, and I believe a partnership such as ours would have been of little value if this had not happened from time to time. But however tough the in-fighting, as soon as we left the office Lucien would at once become the charming and cultivated host I knew so well."

The joint proposal which finally emerged from the inter-company discussions was for a slender-delta-winged monoplane, with common dimensions but different internal layouts for the medium- and the long-range versions. The medium-range aircraft was to seat 100 passengers and would take-off at a maximum of 220,0001b., and the long-range had a capacity of 90 passengers and an all up weight of 262,0001b.

A review was made of the design, production and research facilities available for the joint project, and general agreement was reached on the allocation of responsibilities between the two companies. At last, on November 29, 1962, an agreement was signed in London by Julian Amery, Minister of Supply, and Geoffroy de Courcel, the French Ambassador to Britain, by which the two governments undertook to finance the development and building of a supersonic airliner. Everything would be shared - costs, work, and proceeds of sales.

Before the signing of the treaty, BAC and Sud-Aviation had agreed in principle on how the work of developing and producing the airframe of the supersonic airliner should be shared between them. One of the companies' first tasks now was to convert this general understanding into a definitive agreement. They had to produce an acceptable and practical plan for enabling the design and production work to be broken down and allocated, on a 6040 split to France and Britain. It took long meetings and much hard bargaining to agree on a manufacturing break-down but, in general, the division of responsibilities then formulated still holds good today.

The airframe work was divided 60-40 in favour of France because the balance of work on the engine was weighted in favour of Britain. By November, 1962, the engine selected for the Concorde, the supersonic version of the Bristol-Siddeley Olympus, was already being developed. Engines were in existence and running on the test-bed, and whatever adjustments might be made in the new programme to allow joint AngloFrench development of the Olympus 593, the British work content would be greater than the French.


There was a lot of debate over the name and for a long time the plan was for British assembled models to be called Concord:

A minor, but not unimportant, requirement was to find a suitable name for the aircraft. When the collaboration began, the design was being referred to by the British as the "SST" or the "223," a reference to the Bristol type number. Neither title could be regarded as inspired or inspiring. The French used the terms "TSS" (transport supersonique) or, quite frequently, "Super-Caravelle." There were those in Britain who felt that they could not accept the implications of the latter name.

One Sunday afternoon in January, 1963, the suggestion that the aircraft should be called "Concorde" emerged from an informal family conference in the home of a BAC executive. It was arrived at by the simple process of thumbing through Roget's Thesaurus. At this family discussion, the first reaction to the suggestion of "Concorde" was the question: "With the 'e,' of course?" To which the answer was: "Yes."

When the suggestion was put forward officially, the British side approved it tentatively and then submitted it to the French. There were some preliminary murmurs of approval but the subject was regarded as a matter for decision by "higher authority." It is ironic that the first indication that the name had been officially adopted in France came in the famous speech by General de Gaulle in which he dashed Britain's hopes of joining the Common Market. In it, the French President mentioned "the Concorde supersonic airliner" and said there was no reason why this kind of scientific and industrial collaboration between the countries of the Six and Britain should not continue.

So the project had a name. Or, rather, it had two names for the British government soon decreed that in this country the spelling "Concord" should be used This trifling difference proved to be a small but recurring source of friction for several years. But at the roll-out of the first Con corde prototype at Toulouse in December, 1967, Mr Anthony Wedgwood Benn, then British Minister of Technology, finally resolved what he described as the only disagreement with France that had occurred during the years of co-operation on the project. He had decided, he said, that the British "Concorde" should from now on also be written with an "e."


Somebody had to build the first Concorde, and as the French built the majority of the airframe they were the logical choice to build and test it - the engines were already tested by the Vulcan to mach 0.98.

To claim it was a French design and they led the way is factually wrong, and a dis-service to the designers and staff at Filton, Hurn, Preston and Weybridge.

Colin
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
52,813
30,379
I know the Vulcan was the testbed for the Concorde engines, but the rest of that is largely what I said at greater length, except that it has a marked British spin and omits two crucial things. First that the French were already investigating international co-operation for their earlier design concept, as they did for the Caravelle with manufacturing shared with SAAB. Second, the recognitions of the prior French claims to the design that I've pointed out and which couldn't be concealed by spin.

P.S. Just seen your second post, but it doesn't alter the last point made. There's no intention of belittling the British designers contributions and achievements which were very real, but the French were the first in with this concept and smaller design as said.
.
 
Last edited:

CeeGee

Esteemed Pedelecer
Feb 4, 2009
328
0
Weybridge, UK
If it was French design and purely French led then Concorde would have been a medium range aircraft (1,500 miles) as was the Super Caravelle; they simply didn't have the capability to design and power a long range supersonic airliner.
The British did with the BAC-223 and its Olympus engines and a 3,000 mile range.

Neither country had the money, the Americans weren't interested (they wanted to build something bigger and faster and "All American") and they couldn't team up with the Russians whose own Tupolev TU-144 looked very similar to Concorde and flew first, although with inferior engines.
The TU-144 looked similar to the BAC-223 and Super Caravelle because of the need to have the best aerodynamic shape for efficient supersonic flight (Delta wing, pointed nose), the ability to fly this shape at low speed for landing on normal length runways, which meant keeping its nose up (hence the drop nose and elongated undercarriage).
The basic design of Concorde was originally thought of by some kid somewhere many years ago with a sheet of paper which he folded to make a pointed dart with delta wings and a tail glued on. Bend the rear of the wings and the nose down for maximum stability, but less speed.
I made them in the mid fifties, and probably got the idea from seeing the Vulcan or plans in the "Eagle" and realising that if you decrease the wing-span of the Vulcan you get more speed (but less payload).

Personally I think we should have left the French to it. They would never have succeeded in getting a long range SST and we would have been spared the noise, cost and pollution of the Concorde White Elephant.

Colin
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
52,813
30,379
I agree with your opening sentence Colin, they certainly didn't have the capacity to go it alone in enlarging their design.

But I also very much agree with your concluding sentiments, since as you say, neither would have succeeded and with the US disinclination to follow we would have been spared this particular blind alley. Maybe even Russia wouldn't have bothered to continue with no-one else to compete with.

It's interesting that since Concorde disappeared from the scene, the talk of the intercontinental Hotol seems to have vanished too.
.
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
52,813
30,379
Colin, as you know, that account you posted on the Concorde history was from a book written in the mid seventies by an ex BAC employee. To me it's very clear that it is entirely BAC-centric as one might expect, but it omits so much of the full history that it should be titled "A history of BAC's involvement in Concorde rather than "A History of Concorde".

As someone around at the time of these events in both countries, my recollections are somewhat different, as are those of the French, and I've now found part of what I've been looking for in this article from Flight, giving the rather different reality of the beginning:

FLIGHT, 23 November 1961

AIR
COMMERCE
SUPERSONIC ENTENTE ?

ALTHOUGH no official comment is forthcoming, it is believed
that a Guardian report last week, to the effect that Sud-
Aviation will assume design leadership of a joint Anglo-French
supersonic airliner project, is substantially correct. The air correspondent
of the newspaper says that the British design for a six engined
long-haul M2.2 airliner "is now almost certain to be
dropped" and that two versions of the four-engined Sud design
will be developed instead. According to the report, design leadership
will go to Sud under M Pierre Sartre.
It appears certain that no actual decision has yet been taken by
Mr Peter Thorneycroft, Minister of Aviation. Any such decision
would obviously be a political one, paving the way for a cementing
of a close technical working association that has existed between
BAC and Sud for some considerable time past. While both the
British and the French obviously recognize the advantages of a
joint supersonic airliner programme, the most delicate of all the
issues involved—and one which may well require a solution on a
political level—is the matter of design leadership. If The Guardian
report proves to be correct, French design leadership of an Anglo-
French supersonic airliner will represent a major change in British
policy. As the newspaper puts it: "the British Government has
been anxious to improve its European image; and Mr Thorneycroft
has found an apparently happy political and economic solution
in proposing that his two expensive children, space and supersonic
airliners, should be the first offspring of the intended marriage."
Discussions between the French and British Governments and
manufacturers are at an early stage, and any joint project would
still be very much concerned with "feasibility." Both BAC and Sud
have been working on feasibility studies for their respective governments
for the past year or so. Both studies have in common the
M2.2 design parameter; but whereas the French design (typified
by the Super Caravelle project, of which a model was shown at the
Paris Salon last May) is a four-engined machine for medium ranges,
the British design (which began as the Bristol 198 under Dr Russell,
and which has become the BAC-198) is a six-engined project for
North Atlantic operations. It seems logical to attempt to apply one
basic airframe and propulsion system to both requirements.
It is likely that a joint project will be British-powered, either
by Bristol Siddeley—with an advanced Olympus—or by Rolls-
Royce. If the Bristol Siddeley engines are chosen, the propulsion
system would move forward as a joint SNECMA/Bristol Siddeley
effort, for the two firms have been partners since sleeve-valve days.
A vast amount of basic research and airframe development work
has been done in both countries, and it is believed that a great
deal of information has already been exchanged on a technical
level. There appears to be no doubt in either the French or British
industry that, notwithstanding the declared American intention
to proceed with a Mach 3 airliner, Mach 2.2 is the logical and
technically correct first step towards supersonic air transport.
Obviously, the immense cost of a supersonic airliner programme
—anything between £100m-£200m for the production of a prototype—
would be shared by the two countries.

( http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1961/1961 - 1690.html )

So you can see that it was the two Sud Aviation designs that were progressed, and for that reason, the French were indeed in charge throughout the entire project in the person of Pierre Sartre, with his deputy being Sir Archibald Russell, who's somewhat chequered career included the disastrous Brabazon design. It was also true that the French had all the important "firsts" in the program in recognition of those facts.

The design as I've said was primarily French, both in the earliest days of the Super Caravelle project when operating entirely alone and in these latter stages in co-operation with Britain.
.
 

Advertisers