I was part of the team from BAe salvaging a fuselage from a dispersal pad in Kinloss. The aircraft had been stripped of anything serviceable. It was a 40 year old rot box . It had 3 bird nest's within . You could physically crush intercostal structures with your hands . If they just decided to make a new fuselage to match the new wings , engines, it would still be flying .
Or just start with an existing modern airframe in the first place like they did with the comet? The MRA4 fiasco is an example of something that happens in all kinds of industries. It's easier to get backing to iterate on your existing platform than start a whole new project because to a non technical customer it intuitively *seems* like less work. I doubt it really surprised the engineers to find that the job got bigger once they got into it. But some sales chaps at BAE spun portillo a good story.
The MRA4 program was hopeless venture from inception... perhaps even a nefarious, fraudulent scheme from the start. BAE Systems one of the most corrupt manufacturers in history.
The MRA4 program was a proper bodge job that made absolutely no sense to anyone except shareholders at BAE. At 400 million pounds each the RAF could have bought 2 1/2 Boeing P-8 Poseidons (23 aircraft vs. just 9) and save even more money on operational and maintenance costs because of the popularity of the 737 platform and compatibility with existing Boeing aircraft already in RAF service (Boeing RC-135).
The nimrod airshow display was always spectacular, almost up to the Vulcan. To see an ‘airliner’ being thrown about the sky like a mustang or spitfire was awesome.
@@brianwillson9567 Not an ancestor to the Comet... The Hawker Siddeley H.S. 801 is a completely different aircraft. made by a different company, decades later..
BAE Systems won the contract to update the Nimrod fleet based on the cost of carrying out the required work on one example. The cost spiralled as it was found they all had different problems. Many parts were originally 'hand-made', meaning no two planes were the same.
I got to go on several Tapestry flights, maybe 30 hours flight time. Walking up the middle of the aircraft while they pull one of those 2G manoeuvres is interesting
I used to love NIMROD. When I was a boy. 1970,s and 80's. Then i saw two Harriers blowing an unholy spray at the sea front of Seaburn and Roker. Fabulous.
This is an excellent series of short stories where the people who have flown, worked on or restored these classic aircraft, share their favorite experiences or the lore that has been passed on for those who are interested. I wish there were more!
I liked it (the Nimrod, not met your mum) it was quirky and it was British (again, the Nimrod, not met your mum). Such a shame what became of it; it still makes me seethe (Nimord). The UK part owned Airbus - how could the boffins not just put all the tech in an Airbus instead of having to buy a US patrol aircraft? The UK has these good ideas yet screws them up eventually, It's probably down to lack of management and investment.
Was privileged enough to be able to do some work experience with 42 Torpedo Bomber Sqn at RAF St Mawgan in the late eighties. Absolutely loved being around these aircraft and working on them. Miss them flying around Cornwall. 😢 10:31
The MR4.A was cancelled. I got to fly on the MR.2P whilst I was in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force 1986-1997. Should have kept flying until the P8 came into service. New engines and avionics was all that she needed.
The cancellation of the MRA4 on 19th October 2010 saw all nine aircraft broken up and Kinloss closed. The design was essentially a completey new aircraft. Edward Lucas, energy editor of the 'Economist' described it as 'one of the most extraordinary fiascos in the history of Britain's defence procurement'.
@@ozzy8286 Number 2 MHU Royal Auxiliary Air Force is based in Edinburgh, 1 MHU now 600 Squadron City of London is based at RAF Northolt and 3MHU is in Plymouth. There was a 4MHU in Belfast but it didn't last very long.
@@stevenmccolm1531 Yes, I was in 2 MHU in the early 90s. Absolutely loved it and had the privilige of flying in Nimrods from RAF Kinloss and also an Aurora from the Canadian Air Force. The Nimrod was a fantastic aeroplane.
@@ozzy8286 , I was a member of 1MHU. They were based in Valency House Northwood before moving to RAF Northolt. I miss RAF Turnhouse and Pitreave Castle. I spent May a year in Gibraltar. I flew with the Canadians and USNavy. Good Times.
I was working on the airfield and got to have a go on the simulator in our lunch break, It was great fun. I crashed into the tower a couple of times lol.
the internal bomb bay of the Nimrod MR4 multi mission ASW aircraft, built into the under fuselage section of the MR4 could do with some serious ordinance (because that's what it's meant for) . . . for e.g. the AGM-84E Harpoon II semi-active radar homing inertial guided anti-ship missile & Storm Shadow active radar homing GPS guided air-to-surface land attack cruise missiles . . . could carry guided torpedos as well . . .
@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke @WilhelmKarsten We feel we can clear up some common false myths, misunderstandings & misconceptions. It's always very important to note the relevant facts obviously. *_Regarding the UK Aerospace Sector._* *WHY IS IT THEY CAN'T ANSWER VERY SIMPLE QUESTIONS* ⁉️ 😅 *A very simple question indeed.* *_Which airline recently ordered 60 RR Trent XWB Engines?_* *_Also name a single Germany company that makes German jet aircraft in Germany & name a single German Company that makes German gas turbine aero engines suitable for widebody airliners._* That's correct, Brazil makes very good airliners & Brazil is 100th down the list along with Indonesia for wealth per capita. *Norway Holland Denmark Ireland Belgium - Top 20 wealth per capita - Don't make airliners - its as simple as that.* Agreed, that is correct of course, clearly there are many countries that could easily produce airliners of better quality than Bow-wing (see b-47 wing folding & wing collapse incidents) but don't for some very good reasons. Bow-wing being a result of the size of the US, the large protected domestic market & great ease of testing new types due to the equator to arctic geography & a few other reasons related to production scale capability, politics & economics. Obviously there really is nothing special about Bow-wing, having more than 50 years design / build experience on the type means they have no excuses for the horrendous max incidents for example. Indeed BAe Systems & Rolls Royce combined now do more Airbus work than Germany on an absolute basis & significantly more work than that on a per capita basis. Agreed, Per capita for the home nation BAe Systems is the world's largest defence contractor. _Correct, BAe systems announced the recent £4 Billion takeover of Colorado based US based Ball Aerospace._ *It's definitely the case that BAE systems now does a significantly higher value of work for Airbus than it did when it was a major Airbus shareholder before 2005.* *_Obviously RR now owns US Engine maker Allison for example which does classified Aerospace work for the US Govt._* *Yes, that's right of course, Anybody currently flying on a widebody airliner stands a good chance of being on an aircraft powered by RR gas turbine aero engines built in the UK.* *_A typical but small glimpse of what goes on in the very internationally orientated British aerospace sector._* Of course the RR Nene was in fact the world's most reliable & most powerful gas turbine aero engine in 1944. Licensed built versions & copies would go on to power many aircraft in Russia, the US, China, France & other countries for decades after 1944. Boeing Apache Attack Helicopter. AH-64: *75 UK suppliers,* 7% UK content, global fleet of 1280+ aircraft. *F35B more than 130 UK Suppliers, more than 30% UK content.* *_F35A & F35C more than 130 UK Suppliers, more than 15% UK content._* *There is no doubt that an airline has just ordered* *60 RR England Trent XWB Engines* Obviously the UK has the *World's Highest Combined Per Capita* *Nuclear / Defence / Aerospace Sector Activity.* Rolls Royce Holdings UK Subsidiaries - Rolls-Royce plc - Rolls-Royce North America (Allison etc Classified Military stuff) - Rolls-Royce AB - Rolls-Royce Deutschland - Rolls-Royce India Private Limited - Rolls-Royce Marine Power Operations - Vinters Engineering Limited - Rolls-Royce Controls and Data Services - Rolls-Royce Power Systems - Bergen Marine Joint ventures include: - Rolls-Royce Turbomeca - MTU Turbomeca - Trent Family The MT30 (Marine Turbine) Industrial Trent 60 Gas Turbine Trent 7000 Trent XWB Airbus A330neo. Trent 1500 Trent 1000 Trent 500 Trent 600 Trent 700 Trent 800 Trent 8100 Trent 900 RR wholly owned subsidiaries in Germany handle smaller 2 shaft RR gas turbine aero engine work. We hope this helps of course as always. Cheers & 😎👍 indeed. *_O B V I O U S L Y_* . ..... ..... ...... .... .... .. .. .. .... ..... Clearly the line above this line is not blank.
I’d love to see one here in Christchurch working alongside our our brand new Poseidons. I always love the Brits. Except when we play ya at Rugby or Cricket ! Cheers my Cobbers….Love ya!
@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke That's entirely correct, the Brits knew how to design some beautiful aircraft & build them of course including the Victor, Valient, Vulcan, Comet & Nimrod. Obviously.
@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke @WilhelmKarsten We feel we can clear up some common false myths, misunderstandings & misconceptions. It's always very important to note the relevant facts obviously. *_Regarding the UK Aerospace Sector._* *WHY IS IT THEY CAN'T ANSWER VERY SIMPLE QUESTIONS* ⁉️ 😅 *A very simple question indeed.* *_Which airline recently ordered 60 RR Trent XWB Engines?_* *_Also name a single Germany company that makes German jet aircraft in Germany & name a single German Company that makes German gas turbine aero engines suitable for widebody airliners._* That's correct, Brazil makes very good airliners & Brazil is 100th down the list along with Indonesia for wealth per capita. *Norway Holland Denmark Ireland Belgium - Top 20 wealth per capita - Don't make airliners - its as simple as that.* Agreed, that is correct of course, clearly there are many countries that could easily produce airliners of better quality than Bow-wing (see b-47 wing folding & wing collapse incidents) but don't for some very good reasons. Bow-wing being a result of the size of the US, the large protected domestic market & great ease of testing new types due to the equator to arctic geography & a few other reasons related to production scale capability, politics & economics. Obviously there really is nothing special about Bow-wing, having more than 50 years design / build experience on the type means they have no excuses for the horrendous max incidents for example. Indeed BAe Systems & Rolls Royce combined now do more Airbus work than Germany on an absolute basis & significantly more work than that on a per capita basis. Agreed, Per capita for the home nation BAe Systems is the world's largest defence contractor. _Correct, BAe systems announced the recent £4 Billion takeover of Colorado based US based Ball Aerospace._ *It's definitely the case that BAE systems now does a significantly higher value of work for Airbus than it did when it was a major Airbus shareholder before 2005.* *_Obviously RR now owns US Engine maker Allison for example which does classified Aerospace work for the US Govt._* *Yes, that's right of course, Anybody currently flying on a widebody airliner stands a good chance of being on an aircraft powered by RR gas turbine aero engines built in the UK.* *_A typical but small glimpse of what goes on in the very internationally orientated British aerospace sector._* Of course the RR Nene was in fact the world's most reliable & most powerful gas turbine aero engine in 1944. Licensed built versions & copies would go on to power many aircraft in Russia, the US, China, France & other countries for decades after 1944. Boeing Apache Attack Helicopter. AH-64: *75 UK suppliers,* 7% UK content, global fleet of 1280+ aircraft. *F35B more than 130 UK Suppliers, more than 30% UK content.* *_F35A & F35C more than 130 UK Suppliers, more than 15% UK content._* *There is no doubt that an airline has just ordered* *60 RR England Trent XWB Engines* Obviously the UK has the *World's Highest Combined Per Capita* *Nuclear / Defence / Aerospace Sector Activity.* Rolls Royce Holdings UK Subsidiaries - Rolls-Royce plc - Rolls-Royce North America (Allison etc Classified Military stuff) - Rolls-Royce AB - Rolls-Royce Deutschland - Rolls-Royce India Private Limited - Rolls-Royce Marine Power Operations - Vinters Engineering Limited - Rolls-Royce Controls and Data Services - Rolls-Royce Power Systems - Bergen Marine Joint ventures include: - Rolls-Royce Turbomeca - MTU Turbomeca - Trent Family The MT30 (Marine Turbine) Industrial Trent 60 Gas Turbine Trent 7000 Trent XWB Airbus A330neo. Trent 1500 Trent 1000 Trent 500 Trent 600 Trent 700 Trent 800 Trent 8100 Trent 900 RR wholly owned subsidiaries in Germany handle smaller 2 shaft RR gas turbine aero engine work. We hope this helps of course as always. Cheers & 😎👍 indeed. *_O B V I O U S L Y_* . ..... ..... ...... .... .... .. .. . Clearly the line above this line is not blank.
Was at Kinloss with the idea of Mr4. They sent up Trainee people straight out of college and as they had no clue what to do just took photographs so as they could copy previous builds .when they got home. FRA were paying us less than a quick fit Fitter. So our guy's were leaving at least one a week. The RAF panicked, and called a meeting so FRA had to increase our wages .But not enough. This was the end of the Nimrod at Kinloss.
You know you were on the Nimrod pulling a 2G turn holding onto one of the life rafts and standing on the stbd life raft looking at the sea between you feet through the window
Fortunately, we finally have the P8 to replace our Martime Patrol and Reconnaissance capability. It's a very capable airframe, crewed by some people who were on Nimrods previously and have decades of experience. Despite the Government screwing up and leaving us exposed to naughty submarines for 10 years, we're finally in safe hands once again. I think P8 will be a worthy successor to the mighty hunter that was the Nimrod.
It is a shame that we went from a large capability fleet starting with 49 airframes to what we have now of 9 P8's. Certainly the ability of the P8 is not in question, but as with all the down sizing that the RAF and other services have gone through, as a Country, we are a shadow of our former selves.
I remember seeing these lovely aircraft at RAF waddington which they put some new wings on the aircraft and gest what the new wings didn’t fit l was told that the new wings were all made up with a computer but you have to remember this aircraft was designed on a drawing board they had to have the plates remade and after all that it was scrapped 😢what a shame great aircraft
For 40 years the Nimrod served the UK very well, but each airframe, after decades of use, had many different problems, BAE systems tried, but there was no way to recondition each aircraft without extensive work, meaning each aircraft would have had to have been rebuilt from the ground up, the right decision was made to rely on NATO to deal with a reduced soviet threat scenario until the P8 arrived, which are cloud enabled and very much fully modern, however, the NIMROD leaves a very high bar to reach, the russians HATED the NIMROD with a vengence, as it was fully capable of sonar bombing russian subs without being detected, and it did so for decades without the russians having any answer to it, there was simply no way to escape a NIMROD with a belly full of sonar buoy's, they flew low, fast, and quiet, and if I was a Russian submariner during the Cold War, it would have been the NIMROD giving me nightmares.
when I first saw this plane in Qatar in 2004 and was like what the hell is that. I knew it was likely old based on the engine placement. I did wonder if it was related to the Comet, but I didn't think that was possible. Though I don't know why I was skeptical given I worked on ancient KC-135's lol. but I was still in awe, I think the plane is beautiful in an odd way. Not the one with the big nose though.
My father was in the drawing office of De Havilland from the war (second ww) till 1957 (with a break 52-54) and worked on the Comet. Then moved to Guernsey, where I was born. I believe Guernsey had a squadron of Nimrods. Cant remember the name (202?).
The Nimrod only operated out of two airbases in the UK, RAF Kinloss and RAF St.Mawgan. The runway at Guernsey is too short for the Nimrod to land let alone take off from.
Sadly it didn't survive the short-sighted politicians. 🤬 I often wonder when Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 comes back into the news if the wreckage would have been found if the Nimrod had still been in service and had been tasked.
@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke Clearly we feel we can shed some light on some common myths & misunderstandings. Clearly It's a great pity & a crying shame that British military forces had to occupy a large part of Germany for decades after 1945 & Russian military forces had to do the same. Of course Russia still posseses a large chunk of what was German territory & of course Russia & the UK produce nukes. Obviously Germany does not produce nukes. Obviously it's possible to predict the potential accident losses for airliners simply by looking at the year they first flew. However, if we take into account all the variables including the year they first flew & we discard random incidents such as a vehicle colliding with an airliner during its takeoff run, there are some airliner manufacturers that stand out as producing particularly safe aircraft for the years in which they operated, Bombardier & Embraer being two such manufacturers. It's definitely true to say that Bow-wing (See B-47 wing folding & wing collapse incidents), which has more than 50 years design & build experience on the type, obviously can have no excuses for the 737 Max incidents, those incidents being directly caused by serious design defects. That's correct of course, at the time the Comet wasn't particularly dangerous. It was also definitely not the worst aircraft engineering disaster in aviation history obviously. Obviously the Comet's engine position & inlet position had some distinct advantages at the time & of course pylon mounted podded engines have some problems including excessive induced drag. The Comet engine inlet design was not a fatal flaw & didn't cause any incidents. Examples of all Comets mks including some Comet 1 airframes continued flying with certification at some point after 1954. Flying carried on until 1997. Losses comparisons. Accident Losses % of total built. How things were in those days. DeHavilland Comet 4 UK 14% DeHavilland Comet all (ff 1949) 17% Douglas DC-1 99% Douglas DC-2 47% Douglas DC-3 30% Douglas DC-4 26% Boeing s300 72% Boeing 307 70% Boeing 247 48% Boeing 707 20% Lockheed L-049/149 Constellation 30% Lockheed Electra Turboprop 29% Fairchild FH-227 30% McDonnell Douglas DC-8 14% Sud Aviation Caravelle 15% Canadair CL-44 Turboprop 46% Convair CV-580 Turboprop 22% Convair CV-880 (ff 1959) 27% Convair CV-990 (ff 1961) 35% *Tupolev T-104 (ff 1955) 16%* Of course De Havilland had prior experience building many all metal construction airframe aircraft & thousands of jet powered fighter aircraft that were primarily of metal construction with pressurised cockpits & jet engines built by De-Havilland. Yes, that's true, De Havilland carried out full stress analysis & engaged in a comprehensive & protracted testing program which is why key De Havilland people were happy to be aboard flying DH Comet aircraft. The Comet was the first airliner where stress due to pressurisation significantly exceeded flying load stress for a full length passenger cabin fuselage. We agree, that's correct, the DH Comet was the first passenger airliner with full length fuselage pressurisation at 8psi pressure differential. Handley Page built the world's first all metal construction airliner during the 1920s. In all cases other earlier pressurised aircraft were larger, needed thicker fuselage skins due to flying stresses alone & had much lower pressurisation differential pressure or were military aircraft with relatively small heavily built pressurised capsules. Of course ripstop provision was provided. The skin alloy used became unavailable at the time due to R & D at the manufacturers which resulted in the original alloy being discontinued. Later alloys had very similar properties. The skin thickness used for the Comet was used for similar size later aircraft. Frame spacing was not found to be too large & frame width was not found to be too small. Without doubt De Havilland did indeed always work to better than industry standards at the time, used up to date knowledge for the design & construction & no evidence of negligence or criminal negligence was ever produced in relation to the DH Comet. Obviously the DH Comet had no effect on the course of the aerospace industry in the UK. The UK now has the world's highest combined nuclear, aerospace & defence sectors per capita activity. Of course anyone currently flying on a wide body airliner stands a good chance of being on an aircraft powered by RR gas turbine aero engines designed & built in the UK. That's correct, the investigation committee did not find hundreds of fatal flaws or evidence of design defects, structural defects, defective materials or shoddy workmanship. Indeed it is the case that ripstop provision was included. Claimed incidents did not involve cracks starting from passenger cabin window corners. Pretty much all changes were just in case changes or were planned development modifications & improvements that were scheduled regardless of incidents. Obviously De Havilland designers knew all there was to know about metal fatigue at the time they designed the DH Comet. It is in fact entirely true to say that the way airliners were built changed everywhere, including in the US, after the Comet incidents. We hope this helps, obviously. Cheers indeed of course as always etc. & 👍 without doubt.
I’m surprised this channel has decided to include this video considering it was made in 2004, two years before a Nimrod caught fire, exploded, and killed all 14 on board in Afghanistan. Some of the ‘safety’ claims made in this video have turned out to be either ignorant or disingenuous. The coroner’s statement regarding the safety of the Nimrod: “…never been airworthy from the first time it was released to the service nearly 40 years ago". Nimrod was an accident waiting to happen by bodging together military systems onto the first ever jet airliner design, and as was later discovered in the MRA4 fiasco, in a completely unique and non-standard way for each airframe. Nimrod’s greatest legacy is the complete overhaul of the UK military aviation system and establishment of the MAA to ensure this type of hubris can never occur again.
A military aircraft with a vital mission. Success in the mission comes well before elf n safety. Nimrod attrition was by no means bad. Think Luftwaffe F104.
Your response shows your ignorance, the reports are like comparing modern house builds to victorian houses, should we tear them all down? no because they are actually better built without the modern reg's.
Nobody wastes money like the British government when it comes to aircraft. If Britain ever sent a man to Mars they'd spend trillions on the programme and then cancel it an hour before lift off
A very biased and one sided story, that doesn’t mention the safety issues Nimrod had. MRA4 was that bad nobody was prepared to take the risk of signing it into service.
@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke No it was perfectly safe just not built to modern standards but you don't tear down all the Victorian houses because they are not to todays standards do you?
@@WellBoared Houses don't fly lad... that's not a valid analogy. British aircraft have a notoriously bad reputation for higher loss rates and fatalities when compared to similar aircraft made in other countries... in fact there are no longer any UK companies left that make British jets because operators (including British ones) refused to buy them anymore.
The UK is skint, we haven't designed a new combat aircraft in the UK since the Hawk and that was in the 70's on slide and rule. Armoured vehicle production is very much going the same way. The UK joins international programmes making some components and sub assemblies for the finished article.
because the UK can't afford it anymore. The development costs are too high for the UK, the RAF has never had less aircraft than today. And the UK's aerospace industry consequently has seem better times. But that is true for most smaller countries, the French and the Swedes notwithstanding.
Britain is a small country, about 68 million people. GDP about $3 trillion. The USA has 330 million people, and GDP is about $27 trillion. These basic statistics indicate that Britain's productivity per person is half the USA's. Britain is way too small to develop its own aircraft. The USA is big enough.
@@keithammleter3824 France has the same GDP as the UK... and its still the second largest aircraft manufacturer in Europe. British aircraft were simply not very good... even British operators refused to buy them anymore.
And then we bought American to replace it !! and all their kit !! All the research and development and skills lost to competitors to sell back to us...... how short sighted and irresponsible. A second rate nation now sadly.
@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke @WilhelmKarsten We feel we can clear up some common false myths, misunderstandings & misconceptions. It's always very important to note the relevant facts obviously. *_Regarding the UK Aerospace Sector._* *WHY IS IT THEY CAN'T ANSWER VERY SIMPLE QUESTIONS* ⁉️ 😅 *A very simple question indeed.* *_Which airline recently ordered 60 RR Trent XWB Engines?_* *_Also name a single Germany company that makes German jet aircraft in Germany & name a single German Company that makes German gas turbine aero engines suitable for widebody airliners._* That's correct, Brazil makes very good airliners & Brazil is 100th down the list along with Indonesia for wealth per capita. *Norway Holland Denmark Ireland Belgium - Top 20 wealth per capita - Don't make airliners - its as simple as that.* Agreed, that is correct of course, clearly there are many countries that could easily produce airliners of better quality than Bow-wing (see b-47 wing folding & wing collapse incidents) but don't for some very good reasons. Bow-wing being a result of the size of the US, the large protected domestic market & great ease of testing new types due to the equator to arctic geography & a few other reasons related to production scale capability, politics & economics. Obviously there really is nothing special about Bow-wing, having more than 50 years design / build experience on the type means they have no excuses for the horrendous max incidents for example. Indeed BAe Systems & Rolls Royce combined now do more Airbus work than Germany on an absolute basis & significantly more work than that on a per capita basis. Agreed, Per capita for the home nation BAe Systems is the world's largest defence contractor. _Correct, BAe systems announced the recent £4 Billion takeover of Colorado based US based Ball Aerospace._ *It's definitely the case that BAE systems now does a significantly higher value of work for Airbus than it did when it was a major Airbus shareholder before 2005.* *_Obviously RR now owns US Engine maker Allison for example which does classified Aerospace work for the US Govt._* *Yes, that's right of course, Anybody currently flying on a widebody airliner stands a good chance of being on an aircraft powered by RR gas turbine aero engines built in the UK.* *_A typical but small glimpse of what goes on in the very internationally orientated British aerospace sector._* Of course the RR Nene was in fact the world's most reliable & most powerful gas turbine aero engine in 1944. Licensed built versions & copies would go on to power many aircraft in Russia, the US, China, France & other countries for decades after 1944. Boeing Apache Attack Helicopter. AH-64: *75 UK suppliers,* 7% UK content, global fleet of 1280+ aircraft. *F35B more than 130 UK Suppliers, more than 30% UK content.* *_F35A & F35C more than 130 UK Suppliers, more than 15% UK content._* *There is no doubt that an airline has just ordered* *60 RR England Trent XWB Engines* Obviously the UK has the *World's Highest Combined Per Capita* *Nuclear / Defence / Aerospace Sector Activity.* Rolls Royce Holdings UK Subsidiaries - Rolls-Royce plc - Rolls-Royce North America (Allison etc Classified Military stuff) - Rolls-Royce AB - Rolls-Royce Deutschland - Rolls-Royce India Private Limited - Rolls-Royce Marine Power Operations - Vinters Engineering Limited - Rolls-Royce Controls and Data Services - Rolls-Royce Power Systems - Bergen Marine Joint ventures include: - Rolls-Royce Turbomeca - MTU Turbomeca - Trent Family The MT30 (Marine Turbine) Industrial Trent 60 Gas Turbine Trent 7000 Trent XWB Airbus A330neo. Trent 1500 Trent 1000 Trent 500 Trent 600 Trent 700 Trent 800 Trent 8100 Trent 900 RR wholly owned subsidiaries in Germany handle smaller 2 shaft RR gas turbine aero engine work. We hope this helps of course as always. Cheers & 😎👍 indeed. *_O B V I O U S L Y_* . ..... ..... ...... .... .... .. .. .. .. .... . Clearly the line above this line is not blank.
@@Dandalorethey are capable, but we by far don't have enough. I said that the government should've worked on the MRA.4, it was fixable and wasn't as bad as it was made out to be, and fly the MRA4 alongside the P8's. Possibly the strongest maritime patrol capabilities in the world
The Boeing is a far better aircraft... the 737 is the most successful aircraft in the history of aviation, and Boeing is still in business to support the aircraft.
Most maritime aircraft were pretty ugly in a good way, they were built for a task that was considerably away from the norm, one that prettier machines struggled to come close to or could not match (Cough, Seafire). Specifically look at all the Nimrods "competition", and then tell me it was uglier than them.
@@ianrichards909 Four crashes in over forty years of operation. 1980 Engine failure following multiple bird strike 1995 Ditch due to engine fire on post-service test flight 1995 Crashed following a stall during an air display 2006 Inflight fire and explosion related to refuelling probe. Pretty good record for an aircraft that spent much of its time at low level. It was also widely regarded as one of, if not the, best maritime patrol aircraft of the cold war.
I was part of the team from BAe salvaging a fuselage from a dispersal pad in Kinloss. The aircraft had been stripped of anything serviceable. It was a 40 year old rot box . It had 3 bird nest's within . You could physically crush intercostal structures with your hands . If they just decided to make a new fuselage to match the new wings , engines, it would still be flying .
Or just start with an existing modern airframe in the first place like they did with the comet?
The MRA4 fiasco is an example of something that happens in all kinds of industries. It's easier to get backing to iterate on your existing platform than start a whole new project because to a non technical customer it intuitively *seems* like less work.
I doubt it really surprised the engineers to find that the job got bigger once they got into it. But some sales chaps at BAE spun portillo a good story.
The MRA4 program was hopeless venture from inception... perhaps even a nefarious, fraudulent scheme from the start. BAE Systems one of the most corrupt manufacturers in history.
The MRA4 program was a proper bodge job that made absolutely no sense to anyone except shareholders at BAE.
At 400 million pounds each the RAF could have bought 2 1/2 Boeing P-8 Poseidons (23 aircraft vs. just 9) and save even more money on operational and maintenance costs because of the popularity of the 737 platform and compatibility with existing Boeing aircraft already in RAF service (Boeing RC-135).
The nimrod airshow display was always spectacular, almost up to the Vulcan. To see an ‘airliner’ being thrown about the sky like a mustang or spitfire was awesome.
The Nimrod is not an airliner.
@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke hence 'airliner', but not forgetting its comet ancestry.
@@brianwillson9567 The Nimrod is not a Comet...
@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke hence ' its comet ancestry'.
@@brianwillson9567 Not an ancestor to the Comet...
The Hawker Siddeley H.S. 801 is a completely different aircraft. made by a different company, decades later..
BAE Systems won the contract to update the Nimrod fleet based on the cost of carrying out the required work on one example.
The cost spiralled as it was found they all had different problems. Many parts were originally 'hand-made', meaning no two planes were the same.
I got to go on several Tapestry flights, maybe 30 hours flight time. Walking up the middle of the aircraft while they pull one of those 2G manoeuvres is interesting
I used to love NIMROD. When I was a boy. 1970,s and 80's. Then i saw two Harriers blowing an unholy spray at the sea front of Seaburn and Roker. Fabulous.
This is an excellent series of short stories where the people who have flown, worked on or restored these classic aircraft, share their favorite experiences or the lore that has been passed on for those who are interested. I wish there were more!
To my eyes, this is one of the best looking large aircraft in the world...☺
It looks like your mother
I agree it was like something from a black and white Flash Gordon movie.😊
@@Dethtofegans Great looking, yes. But she's pretty thin. Thanks for the complement though...☺
So you like your aircraft like you like your women… Fat and Ugly…
I liked it (the Nimrod, not met your mum) it was quirky and it was British (again, the Nimrod, not met your mum). Such a shame what became of it; it still makes me seethe (Nimord). The UK part owned Airbus - how could the boffins not just put all the tech in an Airbus instead of having to buy a US patrol aircraft? The UK has these good ideas yet screws them up eventually, It's probably down to lack of management and investment.
Was privileged enough to be able to do some work experience with 42 Torpedo Bomber Sqn at RAF St Mawgan in the late eighties. Absolutely loved being around these aircraft and working on them. Miss them flying around Cornwall. 😢
10:31
This didn't age well...I cut some of the 4's up at RAF Abingdon after the project was canceled...very sad.
Raf Abingdon - when did that close ? I live just down the road
What a beautiful design ! I Love this plane.
Really nice airplane. Kudos for making it so bizarre looking. Probably so nobody would steal it. =PC=
Flew in a Comet to Christmas Island in December 1957 as a 19 year old National Service man in the Royal Signals, memories.
The MR4.A was cancelled. I got to fly on the MR.2P whilst I was in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force 1986-1997. Should have kept flying until the P8 came into service. New engines and avionics was all that she needed.
The cancellation of the MRA4 on 19th October 2010 saw all nine aircraft broken up and Kinloss closed. The design was essentially a completey new aircraft. Edward Lucas, energy editor of the 'Economist' described it as 'one of the most extraordinary fiascos in the history of Britain's defence procurement'.
Not 2MHU by any chance?
@@ozzy8286 Number 2 MHU Royal Auxiliary Air Force is based in Edinburgh, 1 MHU now 600 Squadron City of London is based at RAF Northolt and 3MHU is in Plymouth. There was a 4MHU in Belfast but it didn't last very long.
@@stevenmccolm1531 Yes, I was in 2 MHU in the early 90s. Absolutely loved it and had the privilige of flying in Nimrods from RAF Kinloss and also an Aurora from the Canadian Air Force.
The Nimrod was a fantastic aeroplane.
@@ozzy8286 , I was a member of 1MHU. They were based in Valency House Northwood before moving to RAF Northolt. I miss RAF Turnhouse and Pitreave Castle. I spent May a year in Gibraltar. I flew with the Canadians and USNavy. Good Times.
I spent 12 enjoyable years on the flight lines both NLS & NLS (N) between 84 - 96
Started my career at Kinloss and retired at Northwood, always loved the Nimrod and sad to see dumped so quickly.
I was working on the airfield and got to have a go on the simulator in our lunch break, It was great fun. I crashed into the tower a couple of times lol.
And then we had nothing for ten years 😕
Yes, but it was ok because we crossed our fingers and called 'faynights' to the Russians!
the internal bomb bay of the Nimrod MR4 multi mission ASW aircraft, built into the under fuselage section of the MR4 could do with some serious ordinance (because that's what it's meant for) . . . for e.g. the AGM-84E Harpoon II semi-active radar homing inertial guided anti-ship missile & Storm Shadow active radar homing GPS guided air-to-surface land attack cruise missiles . . . could carry guided torpedos as well . . .
What a gorgeous plane!
fugly like an old shed..
@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke
@WilhelmKarsten
We feel we can clear up some common false myths, misunderstandings & misconceptions.
It's always very important to note the relevant facts obviously.
*_Regarding the UK Aerospace Sector._*
*WHY IS IT THEY CAN'T ANSWER VERY SIMPLE QUESTIONS* ⁉️ 😅
*A very simple question indeed.*
*_Which airline recently ordered 60 RR Trent XWB Engines?_*
*_Also name a single Germany company that makes German jet aircraft in Germany & name a single German Company that makes German gas turbine aero engines suitable for widebody airliners._*
That's correct, Brazil makes very good airliners & Brazil is 100th down the list along with Indonesia for wealth per capita.
*Norway Holland Denmark Ireland Belgium - Top 20 wealth per capita - Don't make airliners - its as simple as that.*
Agreed, that is correct of course, clearly there are many countries that could easily produce airliners of better quality than Bow-wing (see b-47 wing folding & wing collapse incidents) but don't for some very good reasons. Bow-wing being a result of the size of the US, the large protected domestic market & great ease of testing new types due to the equator to arctic geography & a few other reasons related to production scale capability, politics & economics.
Obviously there really is nothing special about Bow-wing, having more than 50 years design / build experience on the type means they have no excuses for the horrendous max incidents for example.
Indeed BAe Systems & Rolls Royce combined now do more Airbus work than Germany on an absolute basis & significantly more work than that on a per capita basis.
Agreed, Per capita for the home nation BAe Systems is the world's largest defence contractor.
_Correct, BAe systems announced the recent £4 Billion takeover of Colorado based US based Ball Aerospace._
*It's definitely the case that BAE systems now does a significantly higher value of work for Airbus than it did when it was a major Airbus shareholder before 2005.*
*_Obviously RR now owns US Engine maker Allison for example which does classified Aerospace work for the US Govt._*
*Yes, that's right of course, Anybody currently flying on a widebody airliner stands a good chance of being on an aircraft powered by RR gas turbine aero engines built in the UK.*
*_A typical but small glimpse of what goes on in the very internationally orientated British aerospace sector._*
Of course the RR Nene was in fact the world's most reliable & most powerful gas turbine aero engine in 1944. Licensed built versions & copies would go on to power many aircraft in Russia, the US, China, France & other countries for decades after 1944.
Boeing Apache Attack Helicopter.
AH-64: *75 UK suppliers,* 7% UK content, global fleet of 1280+ aircraft.
*F35B more than 130 UK Suppliers, more than 30% UK content.*
*_F35A & F35C more than 130 UK Suppliers, more than 15% UK content._*
*There is no doubt that an airline has just ordered*
*60 RR England Trent XWB Engines*
Obviously the UK has the
*World's Highest Combined Per Capita*
*Nuclear / Defence / Aerospace Sector Activity.*
Rolls Royce Holdings UK
Subsidiaries
- Rolls-Royce plc
- Rolls-Royce North America (Allison etc Classified Military stuff)
- Rolls-Royce AB
- Rolls-Royce Deutschland
- Rolls-Royce India Private Limited
- Rolls-Royce Marine Power Operations
- Vinters Engineering Limited
- Rolls-Royce Controls and Data Services
- Rolls-Royce Power Systems
- Bergen Marine
Joint ventures include:
- Rolls-Royce Turbomeca
- MTU Turbomeca -
Trent Family
The MT30 (Marine Turbine)
Industrial Trent 60 Gas Turbine
Trent 7000
Trent XWB Airbus A330neo.
Trent 1500
Trent 1000
Trent 500
Trent 600
Trent 700
Trent 800
Trent 8100
Trent 900
RR wholly owned subsidiaries in Germany handle smaller 2 shaft RR gas turbine aero engine work.
We hope this helps of course as always. Cheers & 😎👍 indeed.
*_O B V I O U S L Y_*
. ..... ..... ...... ....
.... .. .. .. .... .....
Clearly the line above this line is not blank.
Great but of early career Harry Enfield narration
Enjoyed warching them at Rosneiger
Awesome 👍✈️
Still better than new one, analog plane...👍👍👍👍👍
One of the aircraft I wish to fly
British genius yet again
I’d love to see one here in Christchurch working alongside our our brand new Poseidons. I always love the Brits. Except when we play ya at Rugby or Cricket ! Cheers my Cobbers….Love ya!
No Nimrods left.
There's one you can go inside at Norwich air museum
The Victor, Vulcan and Nimrod were some of the most beautiful aircraft ever to fly.
I agree. Brits knew how to design beautifull aircrafts.
@@danielpulaa then why didn't they build any?
INSERT BATTY TROLL COMMENT BELOW
V V V V V V V V V V
@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke
That's entirely correct, the Brits knew how to design some beautiful aircraft & build them of course including the Victor, Valient, Vulcan, Comet & Nimrod.
Obviously.
@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke
@WilhelmKarsten
We feel we can clear up some common false myths, misunderstandings & misconceptions.
It's always very important to note the relevant facts obviously.
*_Regarding the UK Aerospace Sector._*
*WHY IS IT THEY CAN'T ANSWER VERY SIMPLE QUESTIONS* ⁉️ 😅
*A very simple question indeed.*
*_Which airline recently ordered 60 RR Trent XWB Engines?_*
*_Also name a single Germany company that makes German jet aircraft in Germany & name a single German Company that makes German gas turbine aero engines suitable for widebody airliners._*
That's correct, Brazil makes very good airliners & Brazil is 100th down the list along with Indonesia for wealth per capita.
*Norway Holland Denmark Ireland Belgium - Top 20 wealth per capita - Don't make airliners - its as simple as that.*
Agreed, that is correct of course, clearly there are many countries that could easily produce airliners of better quality than Bow-wing (see b-47 wing folding & wing collapse incidents) but don't for some very good reasons. Bow-wing being a result of the size of the US, the large protected domestic market & great ease of testing new types due to the equator to arctic geography & a few other reasons related to production scale capability, politics & economics.
Obviously there really is nothing special about Bow-wing, having more than 50 years design / build experience on the type means they have no excuses for the horrendous max incidents for example.
Indeed BAe Systems & Rolls Royce combined now do more Airbus work than Germany on an absolute basis & significantly more work than that on a per capita basis.
Agreed, Per capita for the home nation BAe Systems is the world's largest defence contractor.
_Correct, BAe systems announced the recent £4 Billion takeover of Colorado based US based Ball Aerospace._
*It's definitely the case that BAE systems now does a significantly higher value of work for Airbus than it did when it was a major Airbus shareholder before 2005.*
*_Obviously RR now owns US Engine maker Allison for example which does classified Aerospace work for the US Govt._*
*Yes, that's right of course, Anybody currently flying on a widebody airliner stands a good chance of being on an aircraft powered by RR gas turbine aero engines built in the UK.*
*_A typical but small glimpse of what goes on in the very internationally orientated British aerospace sector._*
Of course the RR Nene was in fact the world's most reliable & most powerful gas turbine aero engine in 1944. Licensed built versions & copies would go on to power many aircraft in Russia, the US, China, France & other countries for decades after 1944.
Boeing Apache Attack Helicopter.
AH-64: *75 UK suppliers,* 7% UK content, global fleet of 1280+ aircraft.
*F35B more than 130 UK Suppliers, more than 30% UK content.*
*_F35A & F35C more than 130 UK Suppliers, more than 15% UK content._*
*There is no doubt that an airline has just ordered*
*60 RR England Trent XWB Engines*
Obviously the UK has the
*World's Highest Combined Per Capita*
*Nuclear / Defence / Aerospace Sector Activity.*
Rolls Royce Holdings UK
Subsidiaries
- Rolls-Royce plc
- Rolls-Royce North America (Allison etc Classified Military stuff)
- Rolls-Royce AB
- Rolls-Royce Deutschland
- Rolls-Royce India Private Limited
- Rolls-Royce Marine Power Operations
- Vinters Engineering Limited
- Rolls-Royce Controls and Data Services
- Rolls-Royce Power Systems
- Bergen Marine
Joint ventures include:
- Rolls-Royce Turbomeca
- MTU Turbomeca -
Trent Family
The MT30 (Marine Turbine)
Industrial Trent 60 Gas Turbine
Trent 7000
Trent XWB Airbus A330neo.
Trent 1500
Trent 1000
Trent 500
Trent 600
Trent 700
Trent 800
Trent 8100
Trent 900
RR wholly owned subsidiaries in Germany handle smaller 2 shaft RR gas turbine aero engine work.
We hope this helps of course as always. Cheers & 😎👍 indeed.
*_O B V I O U S L Y_*
. ..... ..... ...... ....
.... .. .. .
Clearly the line above this line is not blank.
Was at Kinloss with the idea of Mr4. They sent up Trainee people straight
out of college and as they had no clue what to do just took photographs
so as they could copy previous builds .when they got home.
FRA were paying us less than a quick fit Fitter. So our guy's were leaving
at least one a week. The RAF panicked, and called a meeting so FRA had to
increase our wages .But not enough. This was the end of the Nimrod at Kinloss.
Read the Haddon-Cave report...
That's simply one of those infamous british avia freaks.
For those who ask, it's the military version of the first jet airliner, the Comet.
The Comet was an airliner, not a business jet.
Thanks to correct me, I'm not english and I misspoke @@cjmillsnun
@@cjmillsnun That's what @idubzh243 wrote!?!
I reckon it's an attractive looking aeroplane ! 💜👍💚
Don't care what anyone says.☘️
it is a shame that at least one could not have been saved in air worthy condition and kept flying for displays.
You know you were on the Nimrod pulling a 2G turn holding onto one of the life rafts and standing on the stbd life raft looking at the sea between you feet through the window
What series is this from? :)
Fortunately, we finally have the P8 to replace our Martime Patrol and Reconnaissance capability. It's a very capable airframe, crewed by some people who were on Nimrods previously and have decades of experience. Despite the Government screwing up and leaving us exposed to naughty submarines for 10 years, we're finally in safe hands once again. I think P8 will be a worthy successor to the mighty hunter that was the Nimrod.
It is a shame that we went from a large capability fleet starting with 49 airframes to what we have now of 9 P8's. Certainly the ability of the P8 is not in question, but as with all the down sizing that the RAF and other services have gone through, as a Country, we are a shadow of our former selves.
Too few and cannot operate at low level like the Nimrod.
@bobthebomb1596 They do, in fact, operate at low level. So much so that they're regularly washed to prevent salt corrosion.
@@Dandalore Not to the extent that the Nimrod did, we should have bought Japanese and at least three times the number.
Nimrod has 3 x range of p8
It's wing doesn't flex like that of Modern Boeing airliners..
amazing. 😮
I remember seeing these lovely aircraft at RAF waddington which they put some new wings on the aircraft and gest what the new wings didn’t fit l was told that the new wings were all made up with a computer but you have to remember this aircraft was designed on a drawing board they had to have the plates remade and after all that it was scrapped 😢what a shame great aircraft
For 40 years the Nimrod served the UK very well, but each airframe, after decades of use, had many different problems, BAE systems tried, but there was no way to recondition each aircraft without extensive work, meaning each aircraft would have had to have been rebuilt from the ground up, the right decision was made to rely on NATO to deal with a reduced soviet threat scenario until the P8 arrived, which are cloud enabled and very much fully modern, however, the NIMROD leaves a very high bar to reach, the russians HATED the NIMROD with a vengence, as it was fully capable of sonar bombing russian subs without being detected, and it did so for decades without the russians having any answer to it, there was simply no way to escape a NIMROD with a belly full of sonar buoy's, they flew low, fast, and quiet, and if I was a Russian submariner during the Cold War, it would have been the NIMROD giving me nightmares.
🌹
Well, this video didn't age well.. The MRA4 was a shameful and humiliating fiasco.
when I first saw this plane in Qatar in 2004 and was like what the hell is that. I knew it was likely old based on the engine placement. I did wonder if it was related to the Comet, but I didn't think that was possible. Though I don't know why I was skeptical given I worked on ancient KC-135's lol. but I was still in awe, I think the plane is beautiful in an odd way. Not the one with the big nose though.
Back when we had an RAF now we have nothing. A flying club with very much reduced flying , high leaving rate, huge skill fade.
Evidence?
RIP nimrod
Когда-то Великобритания была великой авиационной державой, виктор, комета, вулкан, маскито, метеор, а сейчас? 😪
My father was in the drawing office of De Havilland from the war (second ww) till 1957 (with a break 52-54) and worked on the Comet. Then moved to Guernsey, where I was born. I believe Guernsey had a squadron of Nimrods. Cant remember the name (202?).
My Uncle worked there in Hatfield too, then got transferred to Hurn near Bournemouth.
The Nimrod only operated out of two airbases in the UK, RAF Kinloss and RAF St.Mawgan. The runway at Guernsey is too short for the Nimrod to land let alone take off from.
Sadly it didn't survive the short-sighted politicians. 🤬 I often wonder when Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 comes back into the news if the wreckage would have been found if the Nimrod had still been in service and had been tasked.
I thought the exact same thing
Гениальная тактика делать самолёты, которые в случае неудачной бомбардировки, смогут до смерти насмешить врага внешним видом самолёта 🤣
Upgrade it and send it out again.
They tried that with the Nimrod MRA4. It wasn’t successful
Looks like the comet
crashed like a comet too
@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke
Clearly we feel we can shed some light on some common myths & misunderstandings.
Clearly It's a great pity & a crying shame that British military forces had to occupy a large part of Germany for decades after 1945 & Russian military forces had to do the same. Of course Russia still posseses a large chunk of what was German territory & of course Russia & the UK produce nukes. Obviously Germany does not produce nukes.
Obviously it's possible to predict the potential accident losses for airliners simply by looking at the year they first flew. However, if we take into account all the variables including the year they first flew & we discard random incidents such as a vehicle colliding with an airliner during its takeoff run, there are some airliner manufacturers that stand out as producing particularly safe aircraft for the years in which they operated, Bombardier & Embraer being two such manufacturers.
It's definitely true to say that Bow-wing (See B-47 wing folding & wing collapse incidents), which has more than 50 years design & build experience on the type, obviously can have no excuses for the 737 Max incidents, those incidents being directly caused by serious design defects.
That's correct of course, at the time the Comet wasn't particularly dangerous. It was also definitely not the worst aircraft engineering disaster in aviation history obviously.
Obviously the Comet's engine position & inlet position had some distinct advantages at the time & of course pylon mounted podded engines have some problems including excessive induced drag. The Comet engine inlet design was not a fatal flaw & didn't cause any incidents.
Examples of all Comets mks including some Comet 1 airframes continued flying with certification at some point after 1954. Flying carried on until 1997.
Losses comparisons.
Accident Losses % of total built.
How things were in those days.
DeHavilland Comet 4 UK 14%
DeHavilland Comet all (ff 1949) 17%
Douglas DC-1 99%
Douglas DC-2 47%
Douglas DC-3 30%
Douglas DC-4 26%
Boeing s300 72%
Boeing 307 70%
Boeing 247 48%
Boeing 707 20%
Lockheed L-049/149 Constellation 30%
Lockheed Electra Turboprop 29%
Fairchild FH-227 30%
McDonnell Douglas DC-8 14%
Sud Aviation Caravelle 15%
Canadair CL-44 Turboprop 46%
Convair CV-580 Turboprop 22%
Convair CV-880 (ff 1959) 27%
Convair CV-990 (ff 1961) 35%
*Tupolev T-104 (ff 1955) 16%*
Of course De Havilland had prior experience building many all metal construction airframe aircraft & thousands of jet powered fighter aircraft that were primarily of metal construction with pressurised cockpits & jet engines built by De-Havilland.
Yes, that's true, De Havilland carried out full stress analysis & engaged in a comprehensive & protracted testing program which is why key De Havilland people were happy to be aboard flying DH Comet aircraft. The Comet was the first airliner where stress due to pressurisation significantly exceeded flying load stress for a full length passenger cabin fuselage.
We agree, that's correct, the DH Comet was the first passenger airliner with full length fuselage pressurisation at 8psi pressure differential. Handley Page built the world's first all metal construction airliner during the 1920s.
In all cases other earlier pressurised aircraft were larger, needed thicker fuselage skins due to flying stresses alone & had much lower pressurisation differential pressure or were military aircraft with relatively small heavily built pressurised capsules.
Of course ripstop provision was provided. The skin alloy used became unavailable at the time due to R & D at the manufacturers which resulted in the original alloy being discontinued. Later alloys had very similar properties. The skin thickness used for the Comet was used for similar size later aircraft. Frame spacing was not found to be too large & frame width was not found to be too small.
Without doubt De Havilland did indeed always work to better than industry standards at the time, used up to date knowledge for the design & construction & no evidence of negligence or criminal negligence was ever produced in relation to the DH Comet.
Obviously the DH Comet had no effect on the course of the aerospace industry in the UK. The UK now has the world's highest combined nuclear, aerospace & defence sectors per capita activity. Of course anyone currently flying on a wide body airliner stands a good chance of being on an aircraft powered by RR gas turbine aero engines designed & built in the UK.
That's correct, the investigation committee did not find hundreds of fatal flaws or evidence of design defects, structural defects, defective materials or shoddy workmanship. Indeed it is the case that ripstop provision was included. Claimed incidents did not involve cracks starting from passenger cabin window corners. Pretty much all changes were just in case changes or were planned development modifications & improvements that were scheduled regardless of incidents.
Obviously De Havilland designers knew all there was to know about metal fatigue at the time they designed the DH Comet.
It is in fact entirely true to say that the way airliners were built changed everywhere, including in the US, after the Comet incidents.
We hope this helps, obviously.
Cheers indeed of course as always etc.
& 👍 without doubt.
. . .... ... ..... ....... ....
. . ..... ..... ... ........ ...
I’m surprised this channel has decided to include this video considering it was made in 2004, two years before a Nimrod caught fire, exploded, and killed all 14 on board in Afghanistan. Some of the ‘safety’ claims made in this video have turned out to be either ignorant or disingenuous. The coroner’s statement regarding the safety of the Nimrod: “…never been airworthy from the first time it was released to the service nearly 40 years ago". Nimrod was an accident waiting to happen by bodging together military systems onto the first ever jet airliner design, and as was later discovered in the MRA4 fiasco, in a completely unique and non-standard way for each airframe. Nimrod’s greatest legacy is the complete overhaul of the UK military aviation system and establishment of the MAA to ensure this type of hubris can never occur again.
A military aircraft with a vital mission. Success in the mission comes well before elf n safety. Nimrod attrition was by no means bad. Think Luftwaffe F104.
Your response shows your ignorance, the reports are like comparing modern house builds to victorian houses, should we tear them all down? no because they are actually better built without the modern reg's.
MOD incompetence is the aircraft in front of you.
Nobody wastes money like the British government when it comes to aircraft. If Britain ever sent a man to Mars they'd spend trillions on the programme and then cancel it an hour before lift off
A very biased and one sided story, that doesn’t mention the safety issues Nimrod had. MRA4 was that bad nobody was prepared to take the risk of signing it into service.
The MRA4 couldn't be signed into service, it didn't exist as a production aircraft available for purchase.
Forgive me, but I think that the British made some of the ugliest, weirdest looking aircraft of the cold war era.
Can you donate this plane for sri Lanka asian country.
What have you got against Sri Lanka ? No one deserved this leaky, flaky, pile of airframe shite.
Classic indeed ...
So why did Dr Liam Fox MP wave £4,000,000,000 worth of them DESTROYED?
The old “Vomit Comet”. Repaired one or two back in the day. Great old bus.
мда. старые английские самолеты выглядят очень необычно
Sadly it was a death trap killed 14 crew members in Afghanistan after that it was scrapped
Only it wasn't, one incident in how many years and hours of operations?
@@WellBoared The Nimrod was not a very safe aircraft, it really was a miracle that more didn't crash.
@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke No it was perfectly safe just not built to modern standards but you don't tear down all the Victorian houses because they are not to todays standards do you?
@@WellBoared Houses don't fly lad... that's not a valid analogy.
British aircraft have a notoriously bad reputation for higher loss rates and fatalities when compared to similar aircraft made in other countries... in fact there are no longer any UK companies left that make British jets because operators (including British ones) refused to buy them anymore.
@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke Absolute Bollocks you are clearly just biased for some reason.
TU 95 the best .
Why britain never build its own Aircraft instead of buying from the US?
Why can’t you understand the simplest thing?
The UK is skint, we haven't designed a new combat aircraft in the UK since the Hawk and that was in the 70's on slide and rule. Armoured vehicle production is very much going the same way. The UK joins international programmes making some components and sub assemblies for the finished article.
because the UK can't afford it anymore. The development costs are too high for the UK, the RAF has never had less aircraft than today. And the UK's aerospace industry consequently has seem better times. But that is true for most smaller countries, the French and the Swedes notwithstanding.
Britain is a small country, about 68 million people. GDP about $3 trillion. The USA has 330 million people, and GDP is about $27 trillion. These basic statistics indicate that Britain's productivity per person is half the USA's. Britain is way too small to develop its own aircraft. The USA is big enough.
@@keithammleter3824 France has the same GDP as the UK... and its still the second largest aircraft manufacturer in Europe. British aircraft were simply not very good... even British operators refused to buy them anymore.
And then we bought American to replace it !! and all their kit !! All the research and development and skills lost to competitors to sell back to us...... how short sighted and irresponsible. A second rate nation now sadly.
Britain no longer has the capability to make jets anymore
@@DoktorBayerischeMotorenWerke
@WilhelmKarsten
We feel we can clear up some common false myths, misunderstandings & misconceptions.
It's always very important to note the relevant facts obviously.
*_Regarding the UK Aerospace Sector._*
*WHY IS IT THEY CAN'T ANSWER VERY SIMPLE QUESTIONS* ⁉️ 😅
*A very simple question indeed.*
*_Which airline recently ordered 60 RR Trent XWB Engines?_*
*_Also name a single Germany company that makes German jet aircraft in Germany & name a single German Company that makes German gas turbine aero engines suitable for widebody airliners._*
That's correct, Brazil makes very good airliners & Brazil is 100th down the list along with Indonesia for wealth per capita.
*Norway Holland Denmark Ireland Belgium - Top 20 wealth per capita - Don't make airliners - its as simple as that.*
Agreed, that is correct of course, clearly there are many countries that could easily produce airliners of better quality than Bow-wing (see b-47 wing folding & wing collapse incidents) but don't for some very good reasons. Bow-wing being a result of the size of the US, the large protected domestic market & great ease of testing new types due to the equator to arctic geography & a few other reasons related to production scale capability, politics & economics.
Obviously there really is nothing special about Bow-wing, having more than 50 years design / build experience on the type means they have no excuses for the horrendous max incidents for example.
Indeed BAe Systems & Rolls Royce combined now do more Airbus work than Germany on an absolute basis & significantly more work than that on a per capita basis.
Agreed, Per capita for the home nation BAe Systems is the world's largest defence contractor.
_Correct, BAe systems announced the recent £4 Billion takeover of Colorado based US based Ball Aerospace._
*It's definitely the case that BAE systems now does a significantly higher value of work for Airbus than it did when it was a major Airbus shareholder before 2005.*
*_Obviously RR now owns US Engine maker Allison for example which does classified Aerospace work for the US Govt._*
*Yes, that's right of course, Anybody currently flying on a widebody airliner stands a good chance of being on an aircraft powered by RR gas turbine aero engines built in the UK.*
*_A typical but small glimpse of what goes on in the very internationally orientated British aerospace sector._*
Of course the RR Nene was in fact the world's most reliable & most powerful gas turbine aero engine in 1944. Licensed built versions & copies would go on to power many aircraft in Russia, the US, China, France & other countries for decades after 1944.
Boeing Apache Attack Helicopter.
AH-64: *75 UK suppliers,* 7% UK content, global fleet of 1280+ aircraft.
*F35B more than 130 UK Suppliers, more than 30% UK content.*
*_F35A & F35C more than 130 UK Suppliers, more than 15% UK content._*
*There is no doubt that an airline has just ordered*
*60 RR England Trent XWB Engines*
Obviously the UK has the
*World's Highest Combined Per Capita*
*Nuclear / Defence / Aerospace Sector Activity.*
Rolls Royce Holdings UK
Subsidiaries
- Rolls-Royce plc
- Rolls-Royce North America (Allison etc Classified Military stuff)
- Rolls-Royce AB
- Rolls-Royce Deutschland
- Rolls-Royce India Private Limited
- Rolls-Royce Marine Power Operations
- Vinters Engineering Limited
- Rolls-Royce Controls and Data Services
- Rolls-Royce Power Systems
- Bergen Marine
Joint ventures include:
- Rolls-Royce Turbomeca
- MTU Turbomeca -
Trent Family
The MT30 (Marine Turbine)
Industrial Trent 60 Gas Turbine
Trent 7000
Trent XWB Airbus A330neo.
Trent 1500
Trent 1000
Trent 500
Trent 600
Trent 700
Trent 800
Trent 8100
Trent 900
RR wholly owned subsidiaries in Germany handle smaller 2 shaft RR gas turbine aero engine work.
We hope this helps of course as always. Cheers & 😎👍 indeed.
*_O B V I O U S L Y_*
. ..... ..... ...... ....
.... .. .. .. .. .... .
Clearly the line above this line is not blank.
Never happened.
THey cancelled it and replaced with Boeing 737.
Only the prototypes were 737s, 1 or maybe 2 of them. The rest are purpose-built P8s from the ground up, and are very capable.
Source: trust me bro.
@@Dandalorethey are capable, but we by far don't have enough. I said that the government should've worked on the MRA.4, it was fixable and wasn't as bad as it was made out to be, and fly the MRA4 alongside the P8's. Possibly the strongest maritime patrol capabilities in the world
The Boeing is a far better aircraft... the 737 is the most successful aircraft in the history of aviation, and Boeing is still in business to support the aircraft.
That’s got to be the ugliest looking aircraft in the world…
Built for a purpose mate, and it did it bloody well for more than 30 years
@@samrodian919- Nah, not really… it failed miserably at that as well… fell out of the sky like flying rocks, that’s why they cancelled it…
Look at a Gannet if you want ugly
Most maritime aircraft were pretty ugly in a good way, they were built for a task that was considerably away from the norm, one that prettier machines struggled to come close to or could not match (Cough, Seafire). Specifically look at all the Nimrods "competition", and then tell me it was uglier than them.
@@ianrichards909 Four crashes in over forty years of operation.
1980 Engine failure following multiple bird strike
1995 Ditch due to engine fire on post-service test flight
1995 Crashed following a stall during an air display
2006 Inflight fire and explosion related to refuelling probe.
Pretty good record for an aircraft that spent much of its time at low level.
It was also widely regarded as one of, if not the, best maritime patrol aircraft of the cold war.
An aircraft engineered and built to serve Britain and not just to please NATO.
🫡🇬🇧