Not often can you give cause for a grown man to cry, I did, watching this documentary. Having served in the RAF for 11 years, the last 4 years on 101 Squadron RAF Waddington as ECM/EW Tech (Air Comms) I always thought that the Tin Triangle was the most beautiful aircraft ever designed and flown. I was lucky enough to spend some time in the right hand seat and flew it from Iceland to Greenland on our way to RAF Goosebay in Canada. A 6 ½ hour flight means you land 30 mins after you take off. Incidentally he forgot to mention the other 2 seats sitting port and starboard for the Crew Chief and supernumerary members. I designed some test equipment for the ECM equipment and received a military award for doing so. Designed to reduce testing from more than an hour to just a couple of minutes, so important to ensure that these beauties were always ready for QRA if needed. So sad to know that it has reached the end of its flying life.
@RunningRoger1
3 жыл бұрын
Truly an amazing airplane, was hoping to see one fly some time. Too sad it will not fly again, it is an engineering masterpiece, unbelievable it was possible to build this plane such a long time ago. Everything about it is stunning, the looks, the sound, the flight characteristics and the low radar profile it had for a bomber.
@Synystr7
8 жыл бұрын
Chick - What's the craziest thing you've done? Guy - Ehhh (This bitch must not know I drive the TT)
@lynmcgrath14
8 жыл бұрын
This is a superb documentary about the life of the VULCAN, my girl whom I love so much. It's heart breaking to know she is grounded. I have to thank the man that bought her and funded her for so long. We donated when we could, we are Aussies and we saw the girl twice at LAVERTON Victoria.. The love of my life.. I have been to Colindale and stood inside a Vulcan. It was so good, but not quite as good as XH558 although the video footage of the squadron taking to the air is breathtaking.. From Lynette, Lake Eildon, Victoria, Australia.
@paulrourke4785
5 жыл бұрын
I remember an Airshow at RAAF Laverton in 1966/67 ? The first time I had seen a Vulcan up close and personal as she flew over in a diva performance, low pass and kept going!
@mussaranya
5 жыл бұрын
You have a girlfriend that is called Vulcan? That's so ridiculous!!
@mikedench1110
8 жыл бұрын
Roy Chadwick deserves a documentary all to himself, what a designer and what a legacy. My two favourite bombers, the Lanc and the Vulcan, thank you.
@tobyjo57
6 жыл бұрын
Good for you Guy you were the chosen one, Andy Edmonsun Chief Engineer of the rebuild promised me a place on the ground crew handling school in respect of my contribution to her rebuild...Alas he did not keep his promise and I was gutted, he did however invite me and me alone to the first engine start day and I got an invite to the first flight day at Bruntingthorpe, a rare honor. Andy did present me with XH558's original side slip indicator mounted on a wooden display which I have to this day...I'm very proud to say I contributed to her rebuild
@postie2187
8 жыл бұрын
I had the great pleasure to see two operational Vulcan's at Anderson AFB Guam in 1972. The planes were on a long range training mission that included stops in Australia, Guam and several bases in the USA. I have a picture of the Vulcan's on the taxi ramp with two B-52's. The sound Vulcan's make is nothing compared to any other aircraft, and recorded sound does not do it justice. I consider those memories to be some of my most favorite things I've ever seen. What a great plane, and Guy's involvement with this project just makes it even that much more special. Thanks for posting the video.
@karlnemo8658
8 жыл бұрын
I had the great pleasure of seeing a Vulcan up close at an airshow at Dulles International Airport (IAD) in the US in 1972, and never forgot how amazingly clean the lines were. It was as much a work of art as it was a technological leap for its day. A terrible shame it will fly no more.
@dirtydave2691
5 жыл бұрын
I got to see a Vulcan in 1980 at Marine Corps Air Station El Toro California. It was part of their annual open house and airshow. Magnificent!
@ianwoods2026
3 жыл бұрын
WOW, I was on Scampton when a European TACIVAL was called and witnessed 12 of these scramble!
@billread664
7 жыл бұрын
My Uncle David was a pilot on the Vulcan, he came over on it to the air show in Toronto
@MrMoon-cg2yy
8 жыл бұрын
Quite fond of that Bomber, ever since I first saw it in Thunderball (4th James Bond Movie)...back in 64. Built the 1/72 model back in the 80's...round the time of the Falklands War. Sad to hear it will fly no more. "How do you explain it to the missus" as Guy asks? Dear... today I bought us a pre-owned Nuclear Jet Bomber, you're gonna love it!
@adventureicecream
8 жыл бұрын
For me it was after watching a doco on the bombing raid on the Falkland Islands in 82. Amazing aircraft and an even more amazing air crew.
@superbmediacontentcreator
7 жыл бұрын
What an antique and also made me think of Thunderball too. Did they use a "real" plane as the prop in the movie or was the Thunderball plane a Hollywood prop? I'm glad there are "nut cases" out there to keep such huge pieces of technology working for demonstration.I couldn't help but smile as I watched this. The Brits are great at old-style documentary tribute-production like this.
@leebee100
7 жыл бұрын
Pretty sure it's channel 4, not BBC.
@VulcanBomber101
3 жыл бұрын
@@superbmediacontentcreator No that one was a fake, easily spotted when you have spent years as Vulcan ground crew . There is NO DOOR between the unpressurised bombay and the crew station, that wall where the doors is shown houses 3 desks, Nav Rad, Nav Plot and AEO. They fly backwards :) i.e. their backs are towards the cockpit and pilot co-pilot.
@superbmediacontentcreator
3 жыл бұрын
@@VulcanBomber101 Well in the movies the interior of a space whether on land sea or air frequently has little relevance to the exterior images.
@robsin2810
2 жыл бұрын
Brought tears to my eyes.
@carlanthonyholmes2162
4 жыл бұрын
Used to watch them fly overhead as a kid. You could feel the ground shake!
@Maloy7800
Жыл бұрын
A person is given a chance to fly a unique aircraft. Huge honor, right? Would it kill him to appear in anything BUT soiled overalls with ONE pant leg tucked into his wellies? Was he the ONLY choice, REALLY?
@markcotter4213
8 жыл бұрын
thanks for sharing, from St. Louis Missouri
@GVBiggs524
3 жыл бұрын
How sad to see such magnificent aircraft retired and grounded.
@SirPetterTheFirst
7 жыл бұрын
In canada we had the Avro CF-105 "Arrow", built in 1958, it could do Mach 2 with a combat radius of 660 km. The American got scared and "ordered" us to stop production. A handful were build before we scraped them with the thousands of piece already prepared for assembly. It was the first supper sonic fighter/interceptor if I am not wrong. It is such a pride of Canada that people are hoping for it to be redesigned and built since its 1958 self still would out performe modern jets
@amarya86
7 жыл бұрын
I live close to Malton where it was built. They have a tribute model of it at a park near the site, but not many people really know much about it. Such a shame.
@SirPetterTheFirst
7 жыл бұрын
a company that make drones are supposedly going to make a drone based of the Arrow and they said they would build a full, modernise fighter, but it was in 2011
@keithmills778
7 жыл бұрын
Check out www.avromuseum.com/arrow-ii-project.html. A half-scale, flying Arrow replica is under construction west of Calgary at the Springbank Airport.
@fletch357
4 жыл бұрын
The Lightning P1A flew in 1954. MiG 21 flew in 1956...
@cdubs9918
7 жыл бұрын
I got a question. I watch a lot of BBC Documentary shows and Top Gear etc,etc... It always seems that " health and safety" is constantly going on. Any little thing that anyone does in Britain has numerous health and safety guidelines and forms and training and hard hats and vests. Is Britain the deadliest place on earth or is it just that the lawyers and Government have gone completely overboard?
@najjernick683
7 жыл бұрын
The reason for over the top health & safety is that in this country and in many others its a fact that should anybody have a slight accident no matter how small or unimportant they want to sue anybody and anything to try and get some money. It has become a national trait to look for problems, get involved and try and get some money from somebody for negligence. Here in the UK we often get phone calls from companies asking us about an 'accident' we had (which never took place) and did we want them to act on our behalf to prove it somebody else was to blame for the 'accident' and to get thousands of pounds damages because somebody made a mistake and did not think through what 'could' happen. Hence we are surrounded by Health & Safety.
@markmitchell450
3 жыл бұрын
There is so much health and safety nonsense it's killed so many things that we used to do or enjoy to see
@glenndickson7627
3 жыл бұрын
They should charge a fan club membership fee to fans to keep it flying
@DirtyRC101
7 жыл бұрын
My god that engine sound is eerie!
@VulcanBomber101
3 жыл бұрын
When you stood underneath them as they done engine starts, your insides vibrated and felt like they was moving. Even more impressive was 'Rapid Starts' using the compressed nitrogen cylinders for each engine. That noise was unforgettable.
@ChattingwithMarkStise
7 жыл бұрын
A really nice video!!! Well done!!!
@fredgrove4220
8 жыл бұрын
There was 2 other "V" bombers, the Victor and the Valiant, but nothing is ever mentioned about them.
@somebloke8114
8 жыл бұрын
because after the Russian got themselves anti air missiles that could shoot one down at it max altitude. the tactics change so that the bombers would have to fly below radar so the Russian anti air missiles could not get radar lock. the victor and the valiant were prime high altitude bombers but at low alt they would rock about causing the structures to crack and weaken. the vulcan did not really have these problems.
@duncancallum
6 жыл бұрын
I saw them when i was in the army in Cyprus 1960 at Akrotiri Air Force Base , they were painted white there ,
@VulcanBomber101
3 жыл бұрын
Were they the B1's then?
@antoniomiguelclothingstore1761
5 жыл бұрын
There is in netflix Edit:57mins
@peterschmidt7543
6 жыл бұрын
Anything could be a little better using a dash of drama but.. A military plane hopefully designed to also be fieldworthy a side from taking tackle in the air. Shockwaves, turbulence, bullets etc. and it takes nearly a hour to bring it down from being jacket up using plummet.. or it ? C mon.. However, like the way the Britts cherish their old planes for the joy of it when other nations more or less reject these ideas.
@twinstu50
8 жыл бұрын
With the engineering firms who guarantee her safety now running out of the old fashioned skills need to support her, 558 has to be retired.Sadly true.But, I ask the question. What is the airframe and system life of '558', were money not a problem?.
@AvengerII
8 жыл бұрын
It lasts as long as you're willing to support it AND take the risks. Everything has a break point. According to what I read, this plane WAS at a point where they couldn't guarantee its integrity anymore. It had more hours on it than the other taxiable Vulcan airframes. It's not a very good idea to fly planes past the recommended manufacturer's spec. That's happening more and more often with military gear because it's very expensive to build replacement for 1970s/1980s production planes when the replacement are often 2-4 times the cost of their predecessors. This is why planes like the B-52 and Vulcan have been/were in service far long than originally forecast. The B-52 was supposed to be gone by the early 1980s... that didn't happen, obviously, and several planned replacements were cancelled simply because they were too expensive and couldn't do the job appreciably better. In the meantime, the B-52 fleet has been rebuilt several times order just through routine maintenance but even those planes will NOT last forever. There is a point where the wear just gets to be too much and planes have to be taken out of service for safety reasons. The mission planners, civilian and military leaders, made a critical mistake in their forecasts for the lifespans of 1970s/1980s equipment. They all felt after the USSR disintegrated in 1991 that they could keep the existing equipment in service past the original scheduled retirement dates in the late 1990s and that it would be safe to do so because training and military deployments would be lessened now that the USSR was gone. That turned out to be a VERY optimistic assessment of the situation. The 1990s were anything BUT a quiet period and there was a lot more use of existing hardware than planned and that decade and the early 2000s really stressed spare parts support and maintenance quite a bit. The pushback of deployment of replacement systems didn't help, either. The problem when you postpone retirement is that you have several options: 1) upgrade planes electronically -- almost always done with anything that's been in service over 10 years; 2) restart production and produce new airframes with upgrades -- RARELY done; 3) remanufacture existing airframes and extend lifespan by as much as 100-200%. Only slightly less rare than option #2. All of these options are not cheap but #2 and #3 are definitely expensive. What is being done now -- and what I personally think is VERY dangerous -- is taking planes to the limit of material strength. Manufacturers are trying to see exactly HOW LONG they can keep planes in service before they break WITHOUT rebuilding/strengthening air frames. The USAF has conducted experiments on the absolute frame limits of the F-15C, F-16 Block 40/50, and F-15E to see how far they can go. The F-15C is already well past the 8,000hr recommended frame life. The F-15E is a "younger" airframe with 16,000 flying hours built in but even that's a 25-year-airframe with probably over 7,000hrs average frame use now.... The F-16 is routinely flown at 9G's and used as a dump truck and jinks at low level all the time with heavy bomb loads. Average age of an F-16 is pushing well past 5,000 hrs now... 5,000 is VERY conservative -- it's probably past 6,000 closing on 7,000hrs and the highest use F-16 retired I'm aware of was at 7200-7300 hrs with considerable wear. A lot of early F-16s were retired after 10 hrs with signs of cracking on them. They're trying to figure out averages for these planes but here's the problem... Fighters are routinely flown in very unpredictable patterns and with different levels of aggressiveness. Low-level flying on attack missions is considered harder on air frames than medium level flying but constant jinking and high-G stress can lead to faster-than-expected wear. The US Navy had to retire its entire flight of F-16Ns well ahead of schedule -- after 7-9 years use -- because of cracks that developed from high intensity DACT training. That happened even AFTER the air frames had been modified with reinforced wings!
@mussaranya
5 жыл бұрын
Who in the hell is that bloody lucky bastard?
@FoodieRSA
7 жыл бұрын
NO!
@ingerlander
8 жыл бұрын
Horrible documentary. Martin is irritable and cringe worthy. Each take is 2 to 4 seconds long and therefore very annoying and I will add, very American in it's format. We didn't need any element of amusement for the general masses, what was needed is documentary worthy of this aviation masterpiece minus the bum fluff. Welcome to the future.....ho hum.
@WilHenDavis
7 жыл бұрын
Philip Walton I agree, tedious & very annoying, the subject is interesting, the musak is crap, the host sounds like a twelve-year old!
@tomrl6674
7 жыл бұрын
/\ have a cry
@emlix1
4 жыл бұрын
Do you mean irritating? Get your own house in order before you criticise others.
Пікірлер: 55