Chatting to a colleague who is a serving RAF officer regarding the downing of the Nimrod in Afganistan..........
He believes that the aircraft was hit by a land launched missile, maybe only clipping it but enough to bring it down before it could land....he's serving in HM forces but doesn't believe a word that this government says !!! BUT does believe that the true facts will be covered up.
makes you wonder what its all about
!sad!
RAF Nimrod down
-
planeterotica
- Posts: 7093
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: RAF Nimrod down
Its difficult to believe that it came down because of a technical problem, but i doubt if we will ever be told the truth!sad!
-
strictlybroadband
- Posts: 1925
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: RAF Nimrod down
I'm still wondering what we're supposed to be doing there (other than a fourth attempt to colonise the place). I thought the mission was to help the Americans go and catch bin Laden?
[url=http://www.strictlybroadband.com/]Strictly Broadband[/url]: new movies published daily, 365 days a year!
-
mrmcfister
- Posts: 1672
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: RAF Nimrod down
Must agree.What were the radio comms before going down.Fatuous I feel to think that definitely technical.A missile could have clipped it and caused this .Remember its in Govt interest to say it was a a technical fault..what the fuck are we doing there?Fucking tin pot regime is not worth anymore blood.Does anyone believe we're there to stop terrorism?Bollocks bollocks and double bollocks.It a catch 22.I dont want more deaths but unless there are more there will not b the hard questions asked.
-
Mysteryman
- Posts: 878
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: RAF Nimrod down
The Nimrod is based on the Comet 4. After the Comet 1 disasters, de Havilland over engineered the Comet 4 and it turned out to be a very solid and reliable aircraft. True a number crashed but, apart from a bomb and a faulty altimeter causing crashes to two BEA aircraft, the accidents to other Comet 4s were all down to bad handling, particularly by Aerolineas Argentinas and Misrair/United Arab which crashed a good number.
When Hawker Siddeley at Woodford reworked the Comet 4 into the Nimrod they continued the tradition of over engineering - not a bad thing in an aircraft expected to spend up to 18 hours on low level sorties in atrocious weather over the Atlantic, Arctic Ocean and the North Sea.
The Nimrod has an excellent technical record and I've spent time thinking of possible technical failures and discussing these with friends in aviation.
There is no mention of in flight fire. The Nimrod carries a massive amount of surveillance and communications equipment but it is also well equipped with fire suppression systems and an on board fire would have most likely been reported as such.
Engine fire is another possibility but there is no record of any Comet/Nimrod having been downed by an engine fire.
Shutting down of an engine due to an uncatastrophic malfunction can be ruled out as the aircraft has four engines and is designed to spend hours on patrol using just two of the four.
Fuel failure/fuel problems are possible but unlikely.
Structural failure is highly unlikely given the ruggedness of the design and the low airframe and spar hours on the Nimrod fleet which has been the subject of regular upgrades.
The most likely technical failure, giving time for a distress message, is turbine blade separation where one of the blades turning supersonically within the engine at white hot temperatures breaks off.
This causes catastrophic damage to the engine and, if uncontained (and every example to date in a wide range of engines has been), is likely to cause damage to other parts of the aircraft.
The Nimrod has the engines buried in the wing roots, two on each side. Blade failure is partially protected against by some pretty solid firewalls between the engines but they are penetrable. Blade failure, apart from the damage to surrounding systems/engines can cause an engine to vibrate in such a way as to shake an airframe to bits as the engine is out of balance.
On aircraft with under wing or tail mounted engines such vibration has led to designers building in a series of bolts which shear at a certain level of vibration causing the engine to drop off and giving the rest of the aircraft a chance of survival. In the Comet/Nimrod, the position of the engines makes this impossible.
This, therefore, would be the technical failure most likely to bring the aircraft down. However, in 57 years of Comet/Nimrod operation with three different types of engine employed, (Ghost, Avon and Spey) there hasn't been an instance of turbine blade failure bringing down an aircraft.
The RAF does publish reports and they are open to the public. It will be interesting to see this one when it appears as it will have implications for the current upgrade and building of new airframes being carried out by BAe to extend the Nimrod's service life.
When Hawker Siddeley at Woodford reworked the Comet 4 into the Nimrod they continued the tradition of over engineering - not a bad thing in an aircraft expected to spend up to 18 hours on low level sorties in atrocious weather over the Atlantic, Arctic Ocean and the North Sea.
The Nimrod has an excellent technical record and I've spent time thinking of possible technical failures and discussing these with friends in aviation.
There is no mention of in flight fire. The Nimrod carries a massive amount of surveillance and communications equipment but it is also well equipped with fire suppression systems and an on board fire would have most likely been reported as such.
Engine fire is another possibility but there is no record of any Comet/Nimrod having been downed by an engine fire.
Shutting down of an engine due to an uncatastrophic malfunction can be ruled out as the aircraft has four engines and is designed to spend hours on patrol using just two of the four.
Fuel failure/fuel problems are possible but unlikely.
Structural failure is highly unlikely given the ruggedness of the design and the low airframe and spar hours on the Nimrod fleet which has been the subject of regular upgrades.
The most likely technical failure, giving time for a distress message, is turbine blade separation where one of the blades turning supersonically within the engine at white hot temperatures breaks off.
This causes catastrophic damage to the engine and, if uncontained (and every example to date in a wide range of engines has been), is likely to cause damage to other parts of the aircraft.
The Nimrod has the engines buried in the wing roots, two on each side. Blade failure is partially protected against by some pretty solid firewalls between the engines but they are penetrable. Blade failure, apart from the damage to surrounding systems/engines can cause an engine to vibrate in such a way as to shake an airframe to bits as the engine is out of balance.
On aircraft with under wing or tail mounted engines such vibration has led to designers building in a series of bolts which shear at a certain level of vibration causing the engine to drop off and giving the rest of the aircraft a chance of survival. In the Comet/Nimrod, the position of the engines makes this impossible.
This, therefore, would be the technical failure most likely to bring the aircraft down. However, in 57 years of Comet/Nimrod operation with three different types of engine employed, (Ghost, Avon and Spey) there hasn't been an instance of turbine blade failure bringing down an aircraft.
The RAF does publish reports and they are open to the public. It will be interesting to see this one when it appears as it will have implications for the current upgrade and building of new airframes being carried out by BAe to extend the Nimrod's service life.