It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Avro Vulcan

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   
No one was comparing the Vulcan to the B2. The B.2 is a version of the vulcan. Note the extra period (.)




posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc


First up, its seems your feelings are hurt because somebody thinks your favorite plane is ugly. This must be the case, your comments suggest it.



strange thing to say. I can assure you my feelings don't get hurt because someone doesn't like a plane, there are much more important things in life to get upset about.

We all see ugly and beautiful in a different way, I just thought the pure unsullied lines of the original design (the pic I posted) were a contrast to the more developed version with all its lumps and bumps and asked out of curiosity, nothing more.

From your reaction my question seems to have upset you, if it has then I apologise, I saw it as nothing more than a straight forward question.




Secondly, the B2 is not even remotly close in design or features to the Vulcan, and for you to imply its a copy is obsurd, as the USA designed and flew flying wings almost 60 years ago.


I think you are going a bit far now, nobody has even hinted at a link of any Sort between the Vulcan and the B-2, certainly not me.

I Think you are maybe confusing reference to the Vulcan B.2 with the Northrop B-2 somehow.


hird, Dont confuse huge bat wings on a conventional aircraft with a flying wing, 100% different.

The B2 is nothing at all like the Vulcan, your love of the plane has blinded your reasoning. And dont assume I am a fan of the B2, although I do feel its a great deal more attractive than the Vulcan.

Hey, the Vulcan may be a capable plane, but its nothing like the B2.

The Vulcan is as ugly as my left butt cheek, pure and simple. (my right butt cheek is not quite as ugly as the left)



For someone who isn't a fan of the Northrop B-2 your own grabbing of the wrong end of the stick seems to have sent you into a minor frenzy, I never said any of that, so chill out man.


I'm the first to admit that comparing the capabilities and technology of the Northrop B-2 and the Vulcan is pointless and futile, they each belong to a different age.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nacnud
No one was comparing the Vulcan to the B2. The B.2 is a version of the vulcan. Note the extra period (.)


Thats my error then, I dont really know much about the plane. The straight delta wing design is slightly more attractive than the other, but we are just measuring different levels of ugly now. Like asking: "whos better looking, Hillery Clinton or Condileeza Rice. Not pretty either way.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
The straight delta wing design is slightly more attractive than the other, but we are just measuring different levels of ugly now. Like asking: "whos better looking, Hillery Clinton or Condileeza Rice. Not pretty either way.


Not a pretty thought is it!


Although Hilary just wins


Fair enough point about you not knowing much about it.

When it first entered service it was (as are all RAF bombers) called the B.1, this just means 'Bomber, mark 1) ie Valiant B.1, Victor B.1 etc, the upgraded version therefore becomes the B.2 etc, just like Todays Tornado is the GR.4, meaning this ground attack and recce version was the next new model of Tornado to be accepted by the RAF after the Tornado F.3 interceptor. Hope that makes uk dsignations a bit clearer for you.


[edit on 21-10-2005 by waynos]



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Vulcan's rock and skippy has simply lost his/her mind on this.
Maybe it's an American thing.
Afterall they got the very old fashioned and boring looking B47, later the staid B52 and got rid of the glamourous B58 Hustler after no time at all and of course they cancelled the real wow machine (the B70).
Even the nearly wow B1 got cancelled, revived but down-graded and eventually now kicks around with little affection waiting to be scrapped and out-lived by that immortal old BUFF B52!
....and now in the days of a handful of B2 Spirit bombers it's just not the same anymore, eh?


Meantime poor (litterally) old Britain got 3 quality pieces of kit.
The Valient was pretty if somewhat standard fare - the B2 (steady skippy they called all the mk2 standard aircraft 'B2' in those days
) version all in black was as mean as *'f'* looking, IMO.
The Vulcan was a huge beautiful flying ray and the Victor looked like nothing less than a spaceship in it's day (pity, unlike the Vulcan, she never got the engine power she was always crying out for).

Economically speaking it's a shame we didn't just go for the B2 version of the Valient - the one with the wing specifically designed right from the start for low level high speed penetration - and forget about the Vulcan and the Victor.
We'd have missed out on 2 fine birds but the country would have benefitted enormously (possibly with large exports too); unfortunately the need for the switch from high level to low was still a couple of years off of coming through.

People who have memories of a solitary Vulcan at a show (an impressive and memorable sight and sound, I agree) really missed out.
Living on or right next to the base as the crews practiced and 4 at a time did their 'QRA' was really where it was at.
During the late 50's and early/mid 60's that was week in week out, month in month out etc etc.

I also used to be much amused at the tales of the 'dial-a-megatonage-blast' when the navigator armed the nuke on board.
(Apparantly there was litterally a little knob within the bomb where the megatonnage of the thermonuclear explosion could be turned up or down).

Awesome stuff.
Thank God they were never called upon to do the job they were designed for.


[edit on 21-10-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
My knoledge here is far from complete but I don't think Abingdon was ever a vulcan station. However, in 1982 a lot of Vulcans were retired from service and appreared at bases all over the country, many of them becoming gate guardians. Did you see this Vulcan fly regularyl from there or could it be as I have said? There would aslo have been Vulcans present at the annual air show there.



no , abingdon was never a main base for vulcans BUT scampton was , and scampton is just down the road (as they say)

and the aircraft i saw was never a gate guardian as she most definately flew on several occasions



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Sminkey, I don't like how you degraded all American bombers and put the British bombers in the spot light like that.

(I'm not American, I'm european, so don't go saying "Of coarse an American will think this).

Now true, the British Vulcan, Valiant, and Victor were all good bombers, but so is the B-52, the B-1, and the B-2(No one can argue on the B-2 part, besides economics).

I always found the B-52 prettier than the Victor or Valiant.

What exactly are the statistics of every bomber? (Too lazy to look it up myself)

Shattered OUT...



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
no , abingdon was never a main base for vulcans


- But then again with the UK being so relatively small the dispersal airfields to used in times of crisis were numerous.

Has anyone got or know where there is a list of this fields?



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Sminkey, I don't like how you degraded all American bombers


- Oh come on, wind your neck in SS; I was only poking a bit of fun after that sillyness from skippy over the B2 stuff.

.....and what exactly did I "degrade" anyway?

The B47 was nothing much to write home about, the B52 is a very conventional design (with the cleverness in it all about making it's sheer size work, not about it having an impressive appearance), both of these aircraft so obviously rooted in old style and very traditional unswept wing design but with sweep back applied.
I clearly said I liked the B58, I think the B70 amazing, I find the B1 almost as interesting and amazing and didn't say too much either way about the B2 (which I do like).


and put the British bombers in the spot light like that.


- Well the thread is about Vulcans and the Brit bombers.
I happen to like them very much and know a lot about them (due to family ties).

I genuinely think British aircraft design was at least as good if not actually better than anyone else's at the time (and exercise results IIRC backed that up too when compared to other western types). Factor in efficiency and cost into the equation too and we got a hell of a lot of bang for our pounds.
(.....and were it not for the corrupt business and politics - thanks friends, you know who you are
- of the time we'd have sold a damned sight more than we did too)


Now true, the British Vulcan, Valiant, and Victor were all good bombers, but so is the B-52, the B-1, and the B-2(No one can argue on the B-2 part, besides economics).


- I did not say otherwise.
Of course the B52 is a great bomber; I just find it a boring old fashioned design compared.
Similarly I didn't knock the B1 either, I simply stated the truth that it was originally cancelled, revived but was made less capable in some aspects and has not had the most stellar service history.
It is true that it now not especially loved and awaits being phased out and out-lived by the B52 it was originally intended to replace.


I always found the B-52 prettier than the Victor or Valiant.


- Beauty is in the eye of the beholder as they say (and there is no absolutely no accounting for some people's tastes, eh?
)


What exactly are the statistics of every bomber? (Too lazy to look it up myself)


- That is disgraceful laziness SS.
(...and I'm too lazy to give to give you a decent resource to look at.
)



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 04:13 AM
link   
Having just watched 'Britains Nuclear Bombers' on Discovery wings it led me to look into a couple of operations that I was previously unaware of.

In 1959 the RAF took part in Operation Eye Washer with a mixture of Valiants and Vulcans. Designed to test out NORAD they were tasked with bombing specific targets from high altitude as the Vulcan had a higher operational cieling than the B-47 and B-52, in this operation only one bomber was intercepted, but I don't know which one I suspect it was a Valiant


In 1961 the RAF returned for Operation Sky Shield with Vulcans only, this time the Vulcans attacked from high altitude with B-47's and B-52's at medium level (40-45,000 ft). This time the Vulcans got through completely unscathed.

Pretty good going for such an ugly beast



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   
Vulcans are cool.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Having just watched 'Britains Nuclear Bombers' on Discovery wings it led me to look into a couple of operations that I was previously unaware of.


i watched that too! The vulcan is without a doubt my favourite aircarft of all time!!!

A pilot who was in the gulf war even said, it's pity they didn't have a few then as they needed about 5 planes to carry as much as a vulcan could.

I wonder if they'd ever consider bringing them back?

[edit on 26-10-2005 by clashrock]



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Alas, it is not possible. But I am tempted to wonder if we could have kept them on in the first place, like America has with its B-52's.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Alas, it is not possible. But I am tempted to wonder if we could have kept them on in the first place, like America has with its B-52's.


Now there's an idea....
I'm seeing a "MegaVulcan" - kinda like Dale Brown's "Old Dog" Hotrodded B-52s. How cool would that be?




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join