Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Entwood]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itsNH_Pmfck&feature=iv&src_vid=HHmxptTxUhc&annotation_id=annotation_3387090003

Awesome ..

[Jimbob]

Watched elsewhere a while back, made me smile.

[Marks DTM Calib]

It would appear she may have done some barrel roles near Grantham recently................

[Varche]

Great

[Kevin Wood]

It would appear she may have done some barrel roles near Grantham recently................

It seems to have displeased the Campaign Against Aviation a little! 

Still, Roly Falk would have approved. I wonder if they were correctly dressed in a pin stripe suit and shades?

[Diamond Black Geezer]

I suspect is it a faked video, done maybe with the best intentions as a bit of fun but possibly got the crews into hot water if they are 'innocent of the charges' - after all how would you prove you didn't?


However, I hope to holy hell they did barrel roll her! To be honest I'm of the attitude - what're they going to do as punishment? Ground her?!? 


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-34712344

[Kevin Wood]

I suspect is it a faked video, done maybe with the best intentions as a bit of fun but possibly got the crews into hot water if they are 'innocent of the charges' - after all how would you prove you didn't?

Yes, it's obviously a load of photos stitched together to give the impression of a roll. Maybe someone had their finger on the shutter button throughout? Maybe, but that doesn't explain the changes in lighting and magnification between consecutive photos. Certainly not sufficiently safe evidence to convict someone, IMHO.

However, I hope to holy hell they did barrel roll her! To be honest I'm of the attitude - what're they going to do as punishment? Ground her?!? 

Depends who was flying. The pilot handling will get the rap, not the aircraft, and some of the crew are commercial pilots, so it could potentially lose them their jobs!

Also depends what restrictions they are flying under. I can roll a glider perfectly legally any day of the week, as long as I'm not over a built-up area and the manoeuvre is not prohibited by the aircraft's flight manual. There are restrictions on what can be done at public displays, but this wasn't a display, it was a couple of blokes flying an aircraft around.

It's possible the Vulcan had its' flight manual rewritten with restrictions following restoration, as a lot of equipment was removed and it was restricted to VFR flying, for example. Lightening would, in practice, have made it safer to perform aerobatic manoeuvres, of course!

[Diamond Black Geezer]

Indeed, thanks for the info, Kevin. Also didn't know you flew gliders.  Been in one once years ago and what a freeing, silent, 'leaving your cares back on the ground' experience it was!

Of course we know the Vulcan can roll, one did it at Farnborough years and years back, famously. Personally barrel rolling XH558 would be a fitting tribute and two fingers up before being grounded. That is, of course, unless we quote directly from the Battle of Britain "and what if your controls had been damaged? hmm? You'd have been spread over the airfield like strawberry jam. Never again, clear?" A great laugh unless, for whatever unforeseen/unforeseeable reason, the aircraft crashed. Then all hell breaks loose. We just have to look at the uproar from the recent, tragic loss Hunter crash to see all the Whitehall jerking of knees. Hear all your points and with you, Kevin, would be interested to know if such a manoeuvre was/is/was specifically mentioned or prohibited in the flight manual.

I like to think that somewhere remote, maybe over the North Sea, even, the old girl did go for a roll, just a little secret between those on board.


I also like to think that she'll be up in the air again, one day... 

[LC0112G]

The Vulcan was flying under civil CAA rules, and it's permit to fly was issued with the restriction of no-aerobatics. AIUI this means not past 90 degrees of bank, and not past 70 degrees of pitch regardless of what the flight manual says. The CAA might turn a blind eye to minor excursions beyond these limits, but full rolls or loops can't be called minor excursions. If the photos prove to be genuine the pilot is in hot water.

[Lagondanet]

Here is a bit more Vulcan porn for you. Glad we went to Shuttleworth. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-34411544

[Terbs]

I personally don't understand why there is only one so called record of this. Soon as the Vulcan is heard, let alone in sight, usually means camera's pointed skywards

[omegod]

Let's face it, you are flying that machine knowing no-one ever on earth is going to experience it again, you'd cane the bloody arse off it 

[Kevin Wood]

The Vulcan was flying under civil CAA rules, and it's permit to fly was issued with the restriction of no-aerobatics. AIUI this means not past 90 degrees of bank, and not past 70 degrees of pitch regardless of what the flight manual says. The CAA might turn a blind eye to minor excursions beyond these limits, but full rolls or loops can't be called minor excursions. If the photos prove to be genuine the pilot is in hot water.

Agreed. The PTF is indeed for non aerobatic flight only, so it would have been prohibited.