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.

 

Nimrod MRA2 crash

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
RAB

posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   
First I must pay my respect to the men and families, due to the recent crash of a mra2 over afganistan.

Now to the questions: -

Could there now be a new build program??

Better Staff protection systems, IE ejection seats?

As I understand it the M22 carries some "recon" elements of the U2, so will the lost of a very rare aircarft lead to a new build. The aircarft are getting long in the tooth.




posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Hmm, you have to ask Waynos, but I don't think that a new program will started becasue of one/two crash(es), if I understood the question correctly?


RAB

posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Before anyone sites the MRA4, thats a re-build, only 12 on order from this summer



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Any kind of ejection system on a plane this size just isn't feasible. It would add too much weight to the aircraft.



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Don't know the answer to that one but it's sad news indeed

According to reports the pilot radioed he was in difficulty before the crash - do they not even have parachutes on these - would their use be feasible?



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Their usual mission is to fly low over the ocean looking for subs and other ships. But most of the time between the time they know they're in trouble and the time they hit the ground is only a few seconds, or maybe a minute at the most. It's a pretty good sized crew, so there's no way that you could get them out in time.



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   
There wont be any additional new builds of the MRA4. The new model is the replacement for the MR.2 and the total requirement for those is 12 anyway (translation; the max number the govt is willing to pay for is 12) so the crash doesn't change anything in that respect.

Also don't make the mistake of thinking the MRA4 is just an update of the MR.2. Except for the fuselage (which is stripped right back to the metal and 're-lifed') the MRA.4 is completely new and more capable than the MR.2 by an order of magnitude.



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Any kind of ejection system on a plane this size just isn't feasible. It would add too much weight to the aircraft.


The B-52 had an ejection system. This aircrafts larger?



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by WithoutEqual

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Any kind of ejection system on a plane this size just isn't feasible. It would add too much weight to the aircraft.


The B-52 had an ejection system. This aircrafts larger?


That was designed into the original aircraft and the extra weight taken into account. To modify the Nimrod to take ejection seats would comprimise its actual mission as some equipment would need to be removed due to the extra weight.

The B-52, B-1 and B-2 are about the only large aircraft with ejection systems onboard. Aircraft like P-3, C-130, C-5, C-17 etc do not have parachutes or ejection seats installed.

Sad loss and my condolances to family and friends of the 14 who perished.



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by dagebow

That was designed into the original aircraft and the extra weight taken into account. To modify the Nimrod to take ejection seats would comprimise its actual mission as some equipment would need to be removed due to the extra weight.

The B-52, B-1 and B-2 are about the only large aircraft with ejection systems onboard. Aircraft like P-3, C-130, C-5, C-17 etc do not have parachutes or ejection seats installed.

Sad loss and my condolances to family and friends of the 14 who perished.


Wasn't the Nimrod designed off the back of the old De Haviland Comet? A former Airliner? I am sure they could put in some sort of crew escape facility if they really wanted too.



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Was this really pilot error like what they are saying? or could it be more sinister, could China or Russia be testing some their stuff against ours?



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by dagebow

That was designed into the original aircraft and the extra weight taken into account. To modify the Nimrod to take ejection seats would comprimise its actual mission as some equipment would need to be removed due to the extra weight.

The B-52, B-1 and B-2 are about the only large aircraft with ejection systems onboard. Aircraft like P-3, C-130, C-5, C-17 etc do not have parachutes or ejection seats installed.

Sad loss and my condolances to family and friends of the 14 who perished.


Wasn't the Nimrod designed off the back of the old De Haviland Comet? A former Airliner? I am sure they could put in some sort of crew escape facility if they really wanted too.


Correct on it being from the Comet. Yes they could install an ejection system but the extra weight, an almost complete rebuild of the structure and internal equipment location would probably prevent it from being done. Its not just a simple case of putting in twelve ejection seats. The seat needs an opening to get through so the fuselage would need to have 'holes' cut into it with explosives to remove the outer fuselage to allow the seat to fire through it. Also the consoles would need to be redesigned to allow crew to eject whilst facing the console without losing legs in the process.

In reality ejection systems are designed to allow combat crew a chance of escape and not feel like they are on a suicide mission. Nimrods and simular aircraft are not designed to go into high threat environments. The need for an ejection system is not justified in this case.



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by blobby
Was this really pilot error like what they are saying? or could it be more sinister, could China or Russia be testing some their stuff against ours?


Sincerly doubt its pilot error. All reports that i have read point to a technical malfunction such as engine or flight control failure.



posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   
The main issue is that aircraft not only has a large crew, but they are spread out inside each maning stations. Ignoring the kind of panic that would be in place the chances of even half the crew escaping would be very slim.

I would like to re-iterate what has already been said and offer my condolances to the friends and families of those who were involved.

Jensy



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 05:50 AM
link   
I also with to offer my condolanses to all those involved.

I've seen some reports on the news that this particular nimrod has had a lot of flying hours and maybe it's being pushed beyond it's manufactoring limits.

I mean i remember the storys of the old comets, how they just fell out of the sky, but that was metal fatigue.

According to some reports there were flames coming out of the nimrod..



[edit on 3-9-2006 by clashrock]



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   
I'm only guessing like the rest of you guys but I am fairly certain that this crash will have nothing in common with the BOAC Comet 1 crashes. They were entirely due to fatigue in a poorly designed window aperture that was unsuitable for pressurisation, hence a complete redesign for the Comet 4 upon which the Nimrod is based. No Comet 4 ever crashed due to this fault and they were in airline service until 1980 and the RAF has flown Nimrods for over 36 years, which of course, could the problem all on its own.



[edit on 4-9-2006 by waynos]



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   
The weight of ejection seats is not problem at all. The problem is as already said that the crew is dispersed through the whole aircraft and it would be too costly to change airframe after every minor upgrade (for example adding the additional seats).

And BTW what was Nimrod doing over Afghanistan? I thought it is only maritime patrol plane?

[edit on 4-9-2006 by longbow]



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   
i didnt know what the nimrod mra2 looked like so i found a pic for anyone else who is curious.
aircraft.photos.gb.com...



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   
The primary mission is Maritime Surveillance, but it can be used for other roles as well.



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Is it common knowledge which Nimrod variant this was that crashed?

As well as the 'MR' maritime reconnaissance version there is also the R1 SIGINT version.

Perhaps it all makes more sense if it was one of those involved?

(Mind you having said that I would be fairly sure the basic MR2 would be suitable for at least some if not most of any SIGINT tasks against a relatively unsophisticated enemy using fairly basic or inexpensive electronic signalling equipment as is likely to be found in Afghanistan?)

Terrible for the families involved.

I do agree that the idea of a total redesign for ejector seating would be impractical (I don't think any of the comparable large maritime aircraft are similarly equipped?).
Even in designs like the Vulcan or Victor there were unHoly rows that only the pilot and co-pilot got 'bang-seats', leaving the other crew to bail out as best they could (which at the usual speeds and heights the V-bombers operated at was unlikely in the extreme as several fatal accidents were sadly to prove).


[edit on 4-9-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join