My Father was a chef in the RAF and at various stages of his career worked for a number of high ranking officers. Due to working for an Air Vice Marshall he got to fly on a Nimrod. If any of you former Nimrod aircrew ever had fillet steak as part of your meal whilst onboard that was down to my Dad doing a load work to demonstrate that a fillet of beef steak fell within the cost/benefit ratio required by the RAF for aircrew. He also spent quite a bit of time understanding how to cook it as I understand the oven had two temperatures Cold and and Very Hot but he worked out the timings for Rare, Medium and Welldone. I think the Air Vice Marshall was satisfied with his work :)

@foxstrangler

6 ай бұрын

Part of the standard equipment on any Nimrod was the DCS! (Dairy Cream Sponge). 😀

@krulerwest-oz7364

6 ай бұрын

@@foxstrangler They were like unicorns though, but burnt curry and rice was always aplenty.

@RedArgyll

6 ай бұрын

As Nimrod ground crew, my trade was always first on the kites after a flight, so we always got first divs on any food left over in the hot boxes.

@davidbaker6250

6 ай бұрын

Don't forget the Honkers stew!

@stephenbrookes7268

6 ай бұрын

What else could the Nimrod crew possibly eat?

I was in the Royal Navy as a specialist ASW Officer and had the opportunity to fly in these superb aircraft on many occasions. Make no mistake this was a superb aircraft and the best of it's kind in the world throughout it's lifespan.

I loved this aircraft. Having been a US Navy Submariner from 1985 to the End of the Cold War, I am very familiar with the American P-3 Orion and it's British Cousin, the Hawker Siddeley Nimrod Martime Patrol Aircraft. I can't tell you how many times My boat had been chased by a tag team of Those two Flying Magnets. (Nimrods from Hong Kong and Orion's from Okinawa) In the early 1990s I had a chance to meet many of her crewman when Her Majesty's Aircraft would layover in Boston. I was employed by Marriott as the Special Account Coordinator for Foreign Military/Dignitary Aircraft. That meant Tin Fizzy Drinks for Royal Navy Nimrods!

Had a personal onboard tour of one by my RAF brother in law who was an officer attached to a squadron of these beasts at Lossiemouth in North Scotland. This was 22 years ago. Alot of high tech stuff going on in that rugged old bird. It is a good memory. RIP Dave.

@ThePorridgeGobbler

6 ай бұрын

They were based at RAF Kinloss not Lossiemouth.

@WilhelmKarsten

6 ай бұрын

I was given an excellent tour of the only remaining Comet 1 by a guy named fritzwrangle-clouder. He showed me the parts of the aircraft that were still made from WOOD.. He told me de Havilland was still building jets with wood fuselages in 1958!

There is one of those planes at the air museum at Manchester Airport. It is sitting there and still in great condition! You can go inside and you can control the flaps on the wings & also the speed brakes 😊 It’s amazing what some people do to preserve these beauties

@Demdere

6 ай бұрын

wow very cool that you can sit in the cockpit and put hands on control surfaces..... I've not been to a US aviation museum that allows you to do this as people here will destroy it in a few months :(

@auto_revolt

6 ай бұрын

There's one sat a few hundred meters from myself right now in Elvington alongside a Victor too

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

@@Demdere *Many US museums have planes that still fly... very rare to see an old British plane still flying... they don't age well like wine.*

@johnevans388

5 ай бұрын

@@sandervanderkammen9230 The big problem is with our anal-retentive aviation regulators in the UK. I've flown on B-17, B-24, B-25 and B-29 in the USA - the were all operated on an 'Experimental' permit, something they won't allow in the UK.

@sandervanderkammen9230

5 ай бұрын

@@johnevans388 In America many of these types of aircraft are registered under FAA Title 14 as "Exhibition Aircraft", a more restrictive certificate than what commonly applies to Experimental Aircraft. The UK does allow a similar exemptions for commercial and military aircraft that no longer or never had an airworthiness certification... the Comet is an excellent example where some Comet 1 and Comet 2 aircraft continued flying with special permits even though Comet 1 had its airworthiness certification permanently revoked in 1958 and the Comet 2 which was denied airworthiness certification.These aircraft could not be flown outside the UK or over populated areas, without pressurization or ith altitude restrictions. The high cost of operating these types of aircraft prevents most museums and private individuals in the UK from flying these aircraft, the RAF generally flew their planes to the point where they were literally falling apart and would required total reconstruction to be made airworthy again. Many American aircraft on the other hand were built to have unlimited service life (nearly unlimited) they have aircraft like the DC-3, P-3, C-130, 707 and B-52 that are expected to remain flying to at least 2050... something completely unheard of with British aircraft that were simply built to much lower standards.

Looking forward to chapter 2. The rebuild and massive upgrade, the loss of XV230, BAe incompetence, and the Haddon-Cave investigation. By 2010 when the Nimrod was scrapped, they were fully rebuilt and upgraded, - the upgrades and capabilities of the air frame and engines were incredible, airliners don't generally manoeuvrer or dive bomb like they did, and then there was the sensor upgrades. The scrapping of the aircraft was mainly to end the contract with BAe as fast as possible.

@johngrantham8024

6 ай бұрын

As the Haddon-Cave report demonstrated, (and the MOD admitted in the action for damages by the XV230 families) the Nimrod fleet was not technically airworthy when they were withdrawn from service. They were a Frankenstein monster cobbled together and burdened with extra kit shoehorned into wherever it might fit. It's troubled were known but ignored by everyone involved: MOD, RAF, BAe and QinetiQ. The MRA4 programme was beset with problems and years behind schedule precisely because it wasn't a 'clean sheet' design but yet another attempt at compromise. The government's expectation was based on an 'upgrade' whereas what was being produced (by necessity) was a re engineering within the confines of the original Comet design. It might have worked. If the government had understood they would be getting 'new' aircraft and been prepared to a) fund it properly and b) accept the timescales inherent in the extensive redesign and construction. Instead, I watch Poseidon trundling in and out of Lossie.

@lohikarhu734

6 ай бұрын

sometimes, a project is totally reduced to scrap, to prevent its interference with another purchase plan, often driven by political, rather than military needs.

@stephenskinner3851

6 ай бұрын

@@johngrantham8024 You mean like the B52, or the Boeing C135 in all it's variants, or the Russian Tu95, or the Martin RB57? The Poseidon is built on the Boeing 737 and cost just under what the MRA4 cost.

@markschneider8815

6 ай бұрын

I was working offshore when the Kieland disaster occurred. In fact, I missed it by one night, departing the morning prior to the disaster. In all the media storm that occurred afterwards (I was safely back in the States by then) I recall hearing little about the British support of rescue efforts. A shame, the UK got very little credit for their efforts as I remember. To all the UK forces that assisted, and especially those operating the RAF Nimrods, I can only offer my heartfelt thanks for all your efforts. ❤

@Wolfhound223

6 ай бұрын

Let's be frank here the Nimrod was a money pit and NEVER worked right = a Piece of S*IT.

I watched an airshow Nimrod crash from a few hundred yards away. There were no survivors. You could see the fuselage breaking into segments like it was a length of chain. The pilot had stated he was going to give us a show no one would ever forget. I haven't.

@GregPalmer1000

6 ай бұрын

I was at the Tor show that day right behind a guy video taping it..which I believe was used by the media

@UguysRnuts

6 ай бұрын

@@GregPalmer1000 I was anchored off Toronto Island at the edge of the cordoned off area. Nobody was closer. No boats attempted to get any closer because of the jet fuel spreading across the surface of the lake. I had several guests aboard, including a traumatized single lady whom I tried to comfort. We ended up in a dysfunctional relationship lasting several torturous years. I do not recommend becoming involved with someone you meet at an aviation disaster.

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

@@BB-xx3dv You certainly have never seen a fighter or how they fly... the aircraft has a well-known problem with the airframe structure, British aircraft were simply not as well-built or durable as other countries. The Nimrod was eventually grounded after 2 major accidents caused by metal fatigue damage, many people had their lives neeedlessly put in danger, The Nimrod should have been retired much earlier.

@markhepworth

6 ай бұрын

@@sandervanderkammen9230🤦‍♂️😂

@theobster

6 ай бұрын

Nonsense! You are getting confused with the Comet the aircraft this was derived from. Early Comets suffered well documented fatigue issues due to stresses induced from pressurisation cycles. At this time the British were breaking new ground and this was all an unknown, British aircraft were beautifully built, I’ve worked as an airframe engineer on various British aircraft, Viscount, Vanguard, VC10 and I can tell you now they were all strong fantastically built machines.@@sandervanderkammen9230

Thanks for mentioning Woodford Aerodrome in the story. Having lived next to Woodford for nearly 40 years, when the Nimrod program was scrapped, much of the surrounding towns and villages were left with highly trained engineers with nothing to do. Plus the millions of pounds in parts, spares etc that had to be scrapped for fear of disclosing intel.

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

DIsclosing intel??? The Nimrod MRA4 was a disgraceful failure, ever effort will be made by those responsible to cover up any trace of this colossal imbarrassment.

The Lockheed L-188 Electra has a suprisingly similar story. As an airliner, it had fatal accidents and wasn't a commercial success. However it was modified into a maritime patrol aircraft, the P-3 Orion, which was a huge success.

@hughandjotetlow3638

6 ай бұрын

archer

@Raminagrobisfr

6 ай бұрын

@@hughandjotetlow3638 what?

@AAHKLEE

6 ай бұрын

New zealand has just retired their p3's November 2023

@baejoonil8785

6 ай бұрын

why wasn't its bad safety record a problem for the navy?

@Raminagrobisfr

6 ай бұрын

@@baejoonil8785 The cause of the crashes was corrected. It was a problem with the wing structure. However, it killed the electra's commercialisation for good. No new sale. But, once the problem was corrected, the existed copies made a very long carrer... A handful are still flying.

When I was stationed in Iceland, I got to take a flight in a Nimrod to get my hours. It was a smooth rider. The only thing that was a bit odd was watching the fuselage twist when the aircraft was banked around the pattern. The crew couldn’t have been any more friendly.

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

The Nimrod was certainly an odd bird, a product of a dying UK aircraft industry in the process of total collapse.

@TalkieToaster.

6 ай бұрын

@@sandervanderkammen9230 true for the very later variant, but at the time the Nimrod was originally built things weren't that bad.

@johnparkhurst825

6 ай бұрын

I saw, never flown in one, when in Iceland in 1982 VP 26. It made the P3 look old.

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

@@TalkieToaster. Not true, de Havilland was in deep financial trouble in 1956-57 and was defunct in 1958, it's assets seized by the Crown and sold to Hawker. The Nimrod was a product of a huge economic Crisis in the UK. 4 more major British aircraft companies failed and were force mergered into BAC in 1960. Hawker was in deep financial struggle after the mergers with Siddley, Folland, de Havilland and Blackburn, 1964 the company was under administrative oversight and the UK government was bankrupt defaulting on its national debt 2 years in a row 1964-65'. Production of the Nimrod was assumed by British Aerospace in 1977 after Hawker Siddley was forced to merger with BAC. BAE no longer builds any jet transport aircraft and no longer manufacturers any new British jet aircraft.

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

@@johnparkhurst825 The Lockheed predates the Nimrod by a decade... and has outlived the Nimrod by more than a decade.

British Aerospace made it quite clear to the UK MOD that the only option was to build completely new Nimrod MR4 airframes, wings and fuselage. This would have meant the real reason the program overran, the fact the 60s vintage fuselages were all built slightly differently so that each wing set had to be made uniquely for each fuselage because the wings on the MR4 were made to up to date standards and would otherwise have all been identical to within modern tolerances and therefore would not have fitted the 60s vintage fuselages would have gone away. Not to mention if British Aerospace had opened a new production line for the Nimrod MR4 it would have been highly likely they would have been exported to Japan who were keen to get involved. And most likely other countries too. But I fear the internationalists in the treasury and UK MOD US deep plants hated the idea of a successful UK large military aircraft program and deliberately sabotaged the Nimrod MR4 program by insisting on re-winging existing Nimrod MR2 airframes. From that decision on the program was doomed.

@foxstrangler

6 ай бұрын

To add to the stupidity, in order to fit the new wings, made to Metric standard, bolts were made with Imperial heads and Metric threads, and vice versa, then had to be certified for flight.

@mrrolandlawrence

6 ай бұрын

indeed. this airframe issue was known upfront. so which genius said "lets do it" also bares some responsibility. then again not the 1st time bs promises were made. turning the tornado bomber into a "fighter" was also quoted as "the affordable option" many moons ago. for that small cost, the RAF could have had f15s.

@jackaubrey8614

6 ай бұрын

Politicians know best.....at least, so THEY think.

@wirdy1

6 ай бұрын

The decision to refurbish old airframes that were dragged out of the woods at Kinloss....... what could've possibly gone wrong, eh?

I saw a Nimrod at the Jacksonville, FL air show in the late 90s. I remember it being LOUD and doing maneuvers that were quite impressive for such a large aircraft. Not the prettiest thing in the sky, but still very cool.

You're damn right, this aircraft is a blooming legend, I still live at RAF Kinloss/Kinloss barracks, She was the bee's knee's - sadly missed, automatic legend status, I was on camp with my Dad, the night she was launched for the 'Alexander heiland' tragedy, it still sends shivers down my spine, such a gorgeous , beautiful piece of over-engineered equipment.

@williamclough6850

6 ай бұрын

There doesn't seem to be that many historical videos of the Nimrod so I was really pleased to see this one. Your post stood out as I was on that first Nimrod SAR scramble for the Alexander Keilland, we maintained top cover during the night co-ordinating the helos below in their searches and before we went off task dropped down to take photos of the upturned accommodation platform which was a devastating sight to behold.

@davidbaker6250

6 ай бұрын

Will Clough - we took over from you - a very busy night through to breakfast time. mainly the navs planning search areas for all the helos. Bloody horrible really.

@williamclough6850

6 ай бұрын

Hi Dave, thanks for your reply, I was the radio operator that night doing the usual safety position reporting and receiving weather broadcasts mostly on HF. However the Navs and AEO worked their socks off co-ordinating the Helo search areas til we handed over and then went to take photos. I'm presuming you are a Nav as there was a Dave Baker on the Squadron. @@davidbaker6250

@williamclough6850

6 ай бұрын

Just remembered the Nav I'm thinking of was Mark Baker, sorry for the confusion.

Congratulations! Most of the aircraft portrayed are indeed actually Nimrods, with just the odd TriStar creeping in. However: If you read the wiki page more carefully you'll see it does not say the 'massive internal weapons bay' ever carried any anti-air weapons. As an Urgent Operational Requirement for the Falklands theater the Nimrod MR2 was modified to carry a pair of AIM-9L AAMs on pylons under the wings, but that was it for air-to-air. It wasn't the MR1 that had the secret role; that was the R1 (Reconnaissance Mk1), that lost the ASW/ASUW capability in favour of a new intelligance gathering suite. These were produced in the mid-1970s in between the MR1 and MR2 changeover. Great rare shot of an MR2 refuelling from a Vulcan tanker, of which 6 were modified from B2 bomber standard to help out the Victor AAR fleet. This would have been in mid-1984. For the sub depicted at 7:12 I'd have tried for an Argentinian one to match the narration. There must be a usable picture or clip of the Santa Fe/USS Catfish, or at least a similar diesel boat rather than an Early Soviet November SSN. Despite what it says on the wiki page, I'm not aware of any mission where the Nimrods actually carried the BL755 cluster bomb. It may have been cleared for use for the Falklands but it's hard to think up a mission where an aircraft on a Maritime Recce or ASW mission would be called on to bomb troops or armored vehicles. Ascension Island looks a lot greener than I remember! In fact more like Cornwall! The R1 was not as you imply introduced for Desert Storm. By that stage the R1 had been in service for 17 years. The mention of the Towed Radar Decoy (TRD) is significant in that this was the first such system fitted to an operational aircraft, pre-dating the ALE-50 familiar to US users by several years. The system was further developed and later fitted to the Tornado fighter variant for the Balkan campaign. Big point, the MR2 was not retired due to 'financial concerns' unless you count making the thing safe to fly after 30 years of often rushed modifications a financial issue. The problems were brought to a head after 2 aircraft experience serious fuel leaks, one catching fire and crashing with the loss of all on board. I'm personally of the opinion that the AEW3 variant and the later MRA4 programs were the result of some very good corporate hospitality rather than rational thought. The AEW radar system and its computer suffered from such fundamental design flaws (blind ranges, blind speeds, antenna noise figure, processing capacity, power draw) that they should never have got off the drawing board. No, the MRA4 never flew an operational sortie; 5 aircraft were sufficiently finished to enter RAF acceptance testing when the program was cancelled. At that stage Initial Operational Capability was planned to be still 2 years in the future, if all went well, but there were already significant concerns. Having been involved in the program, I can say that the decision to re-use old Nimrod MR2 airframes was a disaster waiting to happen. They were all found to have much more corrosion and fatigue than promised and, having been effectively hand built in the 1960s, they were all different. Consequently the new wings didn't fit and had to be individually redesigned. When the first aircraft was flown it proved to be a pig and yet more aerodynamic redesign was needed. That was a whole lot of extra work and cost and time. However, the biggest problem was with the mission systems. These were led by Boeing and proved to take much longer that expected to develop and be much more costly. A lack of modularity meant that any change cost tens of millions just to get certified, let alone to do the actual design work. The whole thing became such a money pit that eventually fighting the individual fires was not enough and despite cutting the number of airframes from 21 to just 12 it was time to bulldoze the whole thing and start again. Apart from anything else the Nimrod fuselage was always going to be as hot and cramped as always with little room for future capability growth. Those of us not biased by the initial politics had always stated going for an early seat in the then nascent P-8 program was the best option. It was superficially at a less advanced stage than the MRA4 but likely to be much less untidy in acquisition and with much more scope for cost sharing. It was nice eventually to be proved right.

@TheEstampe

6 ай бұрын

In addition to the TriStar, I also spotted a Bréguet Atlantic at 12:36.

When I was deployed in the Gulf in 03 it was a Nimrod that directed us to a local fishing boat that had lost all power and was drifting in the middle of rhe Arabian Gulf. We made best speed and deployed our RIBs wirh a security team and our engineers that managed to make repairs and get them going again. The fishermen were so grateful as I was pulling away in rhe RIB they threw loads of fresh prawns and other seafood into the boat as a thank you.

Had a flight on one of these as a UK ATC RAF cadet, pilot thought he was flying a fighter (technically at the time it was the worlds largest fighter due to it carrying sidewinder missiles). It was the only time I've been airsick but the flight was amazing

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

That comment reveals someone who has never flown in a fighter jet.

@okforuse88

5 ай бұрын

Nah I was ATC 2000-2004ish and I remember being at Kinloss watching them throw Nimrods around the sky like they were Hawks haha

@sandervanderkammen9230

5 ай бұрын

@@okforuse88 That's funny!

I remember when a nimrod crashed into Lake Ontario during the Toronto air show

Thanks for giving this Aircraft the attention it deserves. I spent over a decade on the MR2 fleet at RAF Kinloss as an engineer on NLS, AMF, and the Maintenance Bays. There are even more types of sorties it was carrying out in its later life to assist in Iraq and Afghanistan, to aid coalition forces. The SAR/Ops aircraft was able to be stationed at any point in the UK within 1 hour of the call to flight, and there was always a backup to take its place when launched. The R1 variant 51 squadron, was a secret entity , and was nicknamed the Secret Squirrels it was accidently mentioned by the then PM Thatcher to bring it to the publics attention.

@paulefc1971

6 ай бұрын

Worked on NLF at St Mawgan, we had an R1 visit us one night for an hour or so, very secretive - none of us were allowed anywhere near it

@wirdy1

6 ай бұрын

I was an engineer on the R1/R4 & the elint kit on that thing was mind-blowing. Remains the only training course I ever did where your training notes stayed in a secure room & were shredded after the final exam. This was 20+yrs ago, so what they can do nowadays with improved signal processing must be amazing.

*_"In conclusion, it must be emphasised that the Nimrod is not a Comet"_** **_"it is an absolutely brand-new aeroplane"_* Michael Wilson, issue 887 FLIGHT International June 13th, 1968

Man the quality of your videos keeps getting better and better. Keep it coming! 🙌🏽🙌🏽

I remember the MOD looking at proposals for a Nimrod replacement back in the early '90s, it stuck in my mind because one of the aircraft put forward was an ASW variant of the Beriev A-40 Albatross flying boat from Russia, another was an upgraded version of the Lockheed P3 designated the P7.

There are only so many times that you can repurpose and rebuild an airframe without ending up with ridiculous expense. The inquiry into the XV230 accident revealed the tip of a very large configuration control iceberg as well as problems in the RAF's engineering management. I suspect if they had started from scratch with new MRA4 airframes then things might have gone differently.

@mikehindson-evans159

6 ай бұрын

Unfortunately, MR4A involved adding brand-new 1990s Airbus-built, factory-standard wings to an old fuselage (the best of the originals) which had emerged from the DH panel-beating shop decades earlier. The joining process was neither smooth nor cost-effectively successful. Would have been better to manufacture new 1990s airframes - fuselages and wings. The clue was in the programme name - "Nimrod2000"...

*The **_Comet Disaster_** is the worst engineering failure in commercial jet aviation history.* *The Comet has the highest loss rate and fatalities statistics of any jet airliner ever, a truly shameful and humiliating chapter in British aviation history*

I remember, somewhere between 1985-88 on a flying visit to RAF Abingdon, having a 'guided tour' inside one of the AEW3 aircraft. Talking to a member of the crew he said that he didn't know what they were playing at in the MOD. The aircraft, before the modification, was already close to the safe operating weight limit. The AEW3 took the airframe to the extreme limit.

I worked on these as an engineer for about 4 years in the early ‘90s in North Cornwall before they left and all went to Scotland. I flew many thousands of miles in Nimrods as a passenger. Even as a military aircraft they were fairly comfortable and very speedy.

Thank you Cameron & Osborne, the RN was left without ASW cover for 10 yrs, we even had to get the French to cover Faslane!

@davidhadaway9311

6 ай бұрын

And now, in the great British tradition of rewarding incompetence and worse, Lord 'Greensill' Cameron is back again, just don't mention the pig!

@johnallen7807

6 ай бұрын

I wonder the RSPCS never investigated the case? if that isn't cruelty to animals I don't know what is!@@davidhadaway9311

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

Shame on BAE, these morons never had a suitable replacement for the Nimrod... wasted all that money on a hopeless pipe dream, you don't need to be an aerospace engineer to see that MRA4 was doomed to failure, even a politician could see that!

@Dezzasheep

6 ай бұрын

I remember seeing picture of them breaking up the freshly upgraded airframes. Utterly disgusting.

@johnallen7807

6 ай бұрын

I did too, our gutless politicians treat defence as an optional extra yet they have enough money to pay for over 8000 "equality & diversity" managers in the NHS! What the *** do those box-tickers do for patient care?@@Dezzasheep

Good to hear one of the very few mentions of the AQS-901 acoustic processing system on the interwebs. It was an interesting and very capable system (for its vintage). Exactly what it could do was, naturally, closely guarded, which probably explains the paucity of information in the public arena. The system was also fitted to the RAAF P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft, and the software jointly developed by RAF and RAAF, at the time I was involved in the late 80s.

Once watched a Nimrod take off from RAF Aldergrove near Belfast Northern Ireland. The Noise, and the smoke was an awesome site .

I remember being off the coast of Northern Ireland in a sea kayak when one swooped down to examine us and passed about 100metres away from us it was a truly awesome sight

@jaimieboy999

6 ай бұрын

Portrush?

It "failed" as a passenger aircraft because, like the Liberty ships before it, engineers didn't really understand the stress concentrating effect of square rather than rounded corners and its effect on fatigue.

@robertheywood5523

6 ай бұрын

You are spot on, not only but also American Aircraft industry did all they could to kill it off. As we saw again with Concord

@gregmuon

6 ай бұрын

I was taught that at school too. It's the standard example of stress concentrations. However, it turns out that it is a bit of a fable. It failed because of a combination of production shortcuts and shoddy work on the factory floor, and the material thickness being undersized. It was a combination of lack of experience in pressurized aircraft and greed. Also, the prototype survived much higher simulated altitudes because they had inadvertently pre-stressed the fuselage by over pressure during testing.

@LeoH3L1

6 ай бұрын

@@gregmuon Correct, the main reason was that rivet holes were punched rather than drilled, by punching them it produces small cracks around the hole, that combined with a thin skin and cyclic loads lead to them growing over time, until they joined up and the skin basically unzipped, problem is no one knew about it at the time, and didn't discover it until after crashes started happening and investigations began. Square corners don't help, but they wheren't really square, they where "square" circles at best, so yes, it's a bit of myth.

@mikect500

6 ай бұрын

​@@robertheywood5523it crashing all over the place killed it because you Brits tried to remain relevant and put it out before it was properly engineered. Your labor party and high fuel costs killed the Concord.

@jonbutcher9805

6 ай бұрын

Quite beautiful machine until the unfortunate nose expansion.

Dark Great video. This is such an interesting aircraft. Thanks for the info. Keep up the great work.

I'm an ex RAF Flight Simulator engineer and was lucky to be at Kinloss for three years in the 90's. I had many flights in the aeroplane and even piloted for about thirty minutes on a transit to Gibraltar from Cyprus. Great plane, farewell Kipper Fleet.

Managed to get 2 flights on these beasts. The first was an oil rig and trawler inspection mission, the constant banking turns was not good for the stomach. The second involved coordinating “attacks” on a US fleet based around the New Jersey. Flying over that was an experience I never forgot.

@Melody_Raventress

6 ай бұрын

I'm sure they'd be interested to hear your comment on the USS New Jersey page!

I live in the IOM, during the 80"s and 90's we had a test bombing range up at the north of the Island. There were various visiting aircraft including the Nimrod and you could always tell when the 'rod was overhead by its distinctive engine noise. But like all great British inventions, government interference and the British penchant for massive overspending put paid to this amazing piece of kit.

Nimrod is the perfect name for this plane.

@sandervanderkammen9230

Ай бұрын

Indeed... it's the _'Elmer Fudd'_ of sub hunters! LOL 😂

Being from Cornwall, back in the 70sc80s hearing the unique sound of the nimrod on a regular basis, its not the same now without the mighty nimrod

@sandervanderkammen9230

Ай бұрын

Replace by the much better P8 Poseidon

in the 1960,s, there was no nimrod. it was the De Havilland " Comet", the worlds first jet airliner and it was NOT afailure. i flew on Comets during my military service

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

The _Comet Disaster_ was the worst engineering failure in commercial aviation history!!! It caused de Havilland to go completely bankrupt and no longer exists. Comet was an unmitigated financial failure, like all British jet there were only a few sold outside of UK Ministry organizations. The RAF operated only a handful of T2/C2 planes, modified Comet 1s that had their airworthiness certificate permanently revoked, these had a significant reduction of hours and cycles and were not allowed to fly outside the UK without special permits, they were all retired in 1967. 5 unsold (cancelled airline orders) Comet 4C aircraft were in RAF service until 1975. The entire 4C fleet was voluntarily grounded in 1980 due to metal fatigue damage. Compared to the Boeing 707, Comet was an epic failure

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

Comet 1 was one of many failed attempts to build a successful jet airliner, the Boeing 707 series was the first successful (airworthy) jet airliner and it was the plane that completely revolutionized air travel and the commercial aircraft industry. The 707 family is still flying and is expected to remain in RAF service until 2040 and USAAF service until at least 2050.

@fritzwrangle-clouder6033

6 ай бұрын

@@sandervanderkammen9230 Poor old Sandyboy having to reach for the 707 for his wehraboo cope. That would be the 707 that was a major application of Rolls Royce jet engines eh Sandyboy.

@fritzwrangle-clouder6033

6 ай бұрын

@@sandervanderkammen9230 As you know Sandyboy, the Comet had a service career of over forty years and with operators of twenty nations.

@WilhelmKarsten

6 ай бұрын

Someone ask fritzwrangle-clouder why there are no longer any British jets in production???

The issue with the airframe was not the square Windows it was the fracture failure of the airframe. Stress concentration was a well understood subject, just refer to old stress engineering books. The fatigue relationship to the speed of crack growth and crack gestation was investigated and the British Standard for fracture mechanics issued in the mid 50s. The lack of awareness of the impact on pressurisation cycles also played a part, exacerbated by stress concentration factors in the skin around the windows. This is so important that the fatigue life measure used by Boeing is a GAG cycle life. Ground air ground. So square windows was only a part of the issue. Gave the septics time to catch up

@awatt

6 ай бұрын

You are correct. The square windows had nothing to do with it. The real cause was due to a number of issues that all added up. Too little space to explore all of them here.

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

Examination of wreckage recovered from the sea confirmed that the de Havilland Red herring theory was completely false. The square windows had absolutely nothing to do with the catastrophic in-flight structural failures. de Havilland had only used wood and fabric in its jet aircraft prior to the Comet Disaster a was decades behind in all-metal aircraft construction technology.

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

​@@awattIndeed, the _Comet Disaster_ was the result of over 100 fatal design flaws, materials problems, improper manufacturing techniques and a lack of adequate quality control and design testing.

@awatt

6 ай бұрын

@@sandervanderkammen9230 I noticed that your profile is only a few months old. What happened? Your other channel got taken down?

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

@@awatt I notice your profile still listed as in the UK. You haven't been deported back to Poland yet?

I used to watch Nimrods flying over my home in the 70's as they descend or ascent as my home was in line with the runway flight path.

Never heard of this plane. Learn something new everyday

Calling the Comet a failed airplane is not fair. It was ahead of its time. Lessons were learned which produced a good aircraft, but by then other designs were available and outsold it.

@WilhelmKarsten

5 ай бұрын

The de Havilland Comet 1 is the worst engineering failure in commercial aviation history. It was permanently grounded after just 2 years of limited service with 6 unexplained hull loss accidents. Its airworthiness certification was permanently revoked. No jet airliner in history has a higher loss rate or fatalities statistics than the Comet series. The real tragedy of the Comet Disaster was that it could have been easily prevented if de Haviland had simply followed well-known and understood industry standards for design and construction of pressurized cabins made from riveted aluminum alloys

@TheOpelfruit

2 ай бұрын

​@@WilhelmKarstenthat is your opinion. I would say what Boeing have done is far worse. The fact they've compromised safety for profit is far worse than the comet. The truth is the comet was operating beyond what was known at the time, but you like distorting facts don't you. The testing dehavilland did in the pools it built and shared with all aircraft manufacturers at no financial charge not only meant dehavilland's downfall but advanced aircraft safety significantly but you choose to ignore that fact, why?

@WilhelmKarsten

2 ай бұрын

@@TheOpelfruit The facts are irrefutable, the British de Havilland Comet has the highest loss rate and fatalities statistics of any jet airliner in history. Statistics show that Boeing has the safest aircraft. You are actually twice as likely to die on a Airbus than a Boeing. Boeing has more orders for the 737 now than it did in 2019.

@WilhelmKarsten

2 ай бұрын

@@TheOpelfruit That's a completely false narrative. The real tragedy of the Comet Disaster was that it could have been easily prevented if de Haviland had simply followed well-known and understood industry standards for building pressure cabins made of aluminum, Boeing was already the world's leader in pressurized airliners. The Boeing B-47 flew 2 years before the Comet and the 707 flew on July 15th 1954 before anyone including de Haviland knew what caused the catastrophic in-flight structural failures of the Comet. Any questions?

@TheOpelfruit

2 ай бұрын

@@WilhelmKarsten yours is the false comment squire. The Boeing B47 was not operating at the altitudes the comet was. Also military aircraft only have to pressurise the cockpit, or the aircrew can wear masks. The comet was pressurising the whole aircraft for passengers. The 707 was 5 years after the first comet flight. Come on lad. What's the matter? Do you not like facts? Or is it the fact the comet was the first jet passenger aircraft? Or the fact it was the first jet passenger aircraft to cross the atalantic? Does the truth hurt? Was it perfect? By no stretch of the imagination was it, but it was the first.

I was Rocking Out during this video 🤘 .... Great Content, Great Music

I remeber how loud these were flying out of Prestwick. We were lucky kids, we got to see everything flying low next to our school. Hms Gannet always had some interesting stuff flying in and Prestwick had Concorde's in the summer and autumn with pilot training. The nimrod always looked like someone had went mental with the rivet gun.

I worked on this aircraft for a few years, video was very accurate well done

Whats the difference between a cow pasture and crashsite? The British plane hasn't arrived yet!😂

loved seeing it at airshows

I actually saw a Nimrod at Little Rock AFB in the 1980's. They had stopped in for gas and stayed on our ramp over night. Cool looking aircraft!

Watching on the news at the time as the Govt scrapped the Maritime Patrol version was sickening and heartbreaking. Finished aircraft fitted with equipment from across nato into 1 package and the Govt ordered BAe to tear them up with bulldozer cutters. They never did get a replacement, surprise, surprise. Everyone I spoke to was pissed, at the waste of money and resources, at the Govt idiocy, the delays, all of it. As an Airliner, Comet was the 1st of it's kind, and Britain introduced the world to stress fractures the most horrific way possible. Just like the Boeing 737MAX will deliberately crash into the ground, no-one wanted to fly on the aircraft ever again. When the market says no, airlines can either replace the aircraft or go bust.

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

MRA4 was a massive cockup that was doomed to failure from inception

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

*The **_Comet Disaster_** is the worst engineering failure in commercial jet aviation history.* *The Comet has the hiding loss rate and fatalities statistics of any jet airliner.*

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

The Boeing 737 is the best selling aircraft in history, the Max series has more orders now than it did in 2019.

@sergentcolon1

6 ай бұрын

@@sandervanderkammen9230the difference is that test rigs were built to try and understand what had caused the Nimrod crashes and discovered to have been little understood stress fractures from the square windows, these were changed to round windows and the problem solved, it was a completely different situation with the 737 max, where Boeing denied any problem with the aircraft and then a catalogue of failed safety and testing practises came to light and it wasn’t the first occurrence of this to happen with the Boeing company.

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

@@sergentcolon1 Wow! You are very confused and misinformed about both aircraft. The Comet Disaster was a horrible tragedy that could have been easily prevented if de Havilland had simply followed well-known and understood industry standards for construction of pressurized cabins made from riveted aluminum alloys. The Max situation was the result of FAA software changes to a safety device that was never intended to have full flight control authority. None of the 2 accidents are directly related to the MCAS system itself, both crashes found that Crews failed to follow the correct procedure for run away Stabilator trim. No changes have been made to the Max other than returned to the original Software developed by Boeing.

Unfortunately the Nimrod ended up as a Failed Airplane with 2 embarrasing upgrade termination... The former Avro / Hawker Siddelry / BAe factory at Woodford that built Lancasters, Vulcans and Nimrods is now a housing estate....

Served at St Mawgan in the early 80s. Used to hate the engine tests at 2am. The engines had some power. 42 sqn at the time.

I was stationed at RAF Kinloss when the MR2 left service and was shocked and angered when they cancelled the MRA4. Total disaster and waste of tax payers money. The new Nimrod would have been far better than anything else.

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

Unfortunately the MRA4 program was doomed from inception, the entire program was a useless waste of money. BAE never had a suitable aircraft to meet the specifications required.

@davidbaker6250

6 ай бұрын

You argue with him, I think he’s on a retainer with Boeing. Hope you’re well and enjoying the retired old fart lifestyle!

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

@@davidbaker6250 *Please name a single British company that still makes jet transport aircraft in the UK?*

@davidbaker6250

6 ай бұрын

Irrelevant point, as is your suggestion that sales figures determine how capable an aircraft is. The fact is, every ex nimrod aircrew member on here (and there are a few of us) knows how capable the MR2 was, and how little you know about what it did or how it did it. I'm done with you, on the advice of one of your own authors, Mark Twain, who said “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” @@sandervanderkammen9230

Shackletons had less in common with the Lancaster than most people appreciate.

@johnjephcote7636

6 ай бұрын

It was certainly not a 'wartime' a/c. It was derived from the Lincoln. The Lincoln itself (originally called the Lancaster IV) only just appeared at the tail-end of the conflict and was essentially post-war.

The MRS Nimrod was a success. The version that failed was not its a but its Nimrod Airborne Early Warning System (akin to AWACS) Marconi radar which I witnessed at first hand being the only RAF SEngo for the NAEW3 aircraft at Waddington supporting the Joint Trials Unit from Boscombe Down. The twin inverted cassegrain TX/RX paraboloid main-reflector/hyperboloid sub dish combination was outdated; in fact it was so bad that the last major effort to get the system working to even a minimum operating range and range rate was with the old paraboloid dish used in the 1960s. The Nimrod MRs retired in 2010; its role was not replaced till recently by Poseidon P8. I cut my technician's teeth on Comet 2 moved on to Comet 4C then as an engineer on Nimrod MR then Nimrod AEW and finally on its replacement Boeing E-3D AWACS. de Havilland ran through my blood......unfortunately.

@chrisfox3161

6 ай бұрын

I am aware of other major failures in the design specification and a lack of coordination between the various manufacturers. Specifications that made certain electronic items, at the time of putting the spec together they were cutting edge, part of the design. Final build equipment not fitting through the doors. A complete catastrophe caused by the usual ineptitude of senior politicians and officers of the time. It failed because the great and the good told the designers what they wanted, and how it was to be done, in fine detail and not what they wanted to achieve. A management attitude still much in evidence today.

@timgosling6189

6 ай бұрын

The rumour is Arnie Wienstock held the patent for the cassegrain antenna. That's why he liked to see it in as many applications as possible. The F3 radar suffered similarly. Then there was the copper core store main computer memory. I think it had 256kB and weighed about 256kg!

Great plane, a even greater name. Failed but rose from the ashes to become Nimrod.

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

The Hawker Siddley HS.801 Nimrod is not a Comet, it's a completely different aircraft from different manufacturer decades later. Why do people attempt to associate the Nimrod with the de Havilland _Comet Disaster_ ?

@turkeytrac1

6 ай бұрын

@sandervanderkammen9230 because the information gathered from the comet crash and the subsequent testing actually played a big part in the creation of the first Nimrods. Sorry you can't understand that. Bye

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

@@turkeytrac1 *The de Havilland Comet remains as an example of how not to build a jet aircraft.* The real tragedy of the _Comet Disaster_ was that it was completely preventable, if de Havilland had simply followed well-known and understood industry standards for construction of pressurized cabins made from riveted aluminum alloys. Prior to the Comet de Havilland was still building jet fuselages primarily from wood and fabric

@fritzwrangle-clouder6033

6 ай бұрын

@@sandervanderkammen9230 Hello Sandyboy, yes the De Havilland Vampire was as you know a fantastically successful jet having a service career of over thirty years and with more than a dozen air forces, what other WW2 jet can you say that of (except of course the Gloster Meteor). As you know Sandyboy, the Comet similarly had a long career of over forty years with operators in twenty nations. But of course as you know Sandyboy, De Havilland produced excellent aircraft such as the Mosquito that petrified your luftwaffe dreamboys and humiliated your nazi heroes.

@WilhelmKarsten

6 ай бұрын

Someone ask fritzwrangle-clouder why there are no longer any British jets in production?

Such a beautiful airplane.

First thing I ever flew in :-) Miss seeing them over the house.

I had a look around a Nimrod at RAF St Mawgan in Cornwall.

The Hawker Siddley Nimrod is a completely different aircraft

I remember seeing the Nimrods as a 'blip' on the radarscreen when they flew over the Baltic Sea, on a regular basis. They were among the most frequent violaters of Swedish territorial waters and air space, at the time. If I recall correctly, a formal complaint was sent to the British Embassy each time.. or so we were told.

The MRA4 program was scrapped because the original airframes were "craft built" (hand beaten over wooden formers) - not production line units - and no two were the same dimensions - to the tune of several inches in some places New wings and fuselage fittings (already built) developed from the MRA4 prototype wouldn't fit the other aircraft in the program - making it all work would have cost more than acquiring new P8s and still resulted in a 1950s airframe with significant insurmountable safety issues and every single aircraft being as unique as a fingerprint For once, sunk cost fallacy didn't win out (Having to re-make the new wings at the very least was a wakeup call for planners) The P8s are purpose built derivatives of 737NG-800s with _VERY_ upgraded fuselage strength (specifically to allow flying _through_ weather in low level parts of the mission) and should last a long time. Unlike a lot of other USA kit, they're not a financial disaster project propping up barely economic military airframers

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

The first test flights of the new wings were disastrous and the MRA4 was grounded for safety due to major flight control and stability issues. These also delayed the program creating out of control cost overruns. The final nail in the coffin was the shocking revelation that the existing aircraft fuselages had metal fatigue and corrosion damage that was beyond repair.

The replacement of the Nimrod with the P-8 wasn't planned, it was the result of total government incompetence. First they tried to save money by scrapping the Nimrods including the next gen Nimrod MRA4 program that was in development, then a few years later they remembered that we're an island and actually require maritime patrol aircraft. So they had to go to Boeing to buy a bunch of P-8s to use instead, and the craziest thing is that buying the P-8s cost many billions more than finishing the Nimrod upgrade program would have, AND for the UK's specific uses the P-8 is actually inferior to the MRA4 Nimrod, total incompetence.

@VulcanDriver1

6 ай бұрын

It can't use the RAF tanker aircraft hose and drogue, so it has to rely on USAF tankers.

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

IT SHOULD HAVE. The MRA4 program was an epic failure that was doomed to failure from inception.

@llynellyn

6 ай бұрын

@@sandervanderkammen9230The program was a mess that took longer and cost more than it should, but the resulting aircraft was excellent. All scrapping it did was force the taxpayer to pay more money for inferior planes.

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

@@llynellyn The MRA4 was a desperate attempt and a disappointing failure... any attempt to paint it a different color is completely futile.

@cp4512

6 ай бұрын

@@sandervanderkammen9230nope. The pain and cost growth had already been largely dealt with. The wilful destruction of the airframes within 24 hours of the decision to stop the programme so the decision couldn’t be reversed was shocking. Lots of back handers for idiot decision makers….

My Father flew in these as an Observer Core AEO his entire service life terminating 3yr before '2K' was scrapped. He was in the first 'double crew' off 27 men who flew 24hr+ with the introduction of the '2P' varient... I got to fly the sim at RAF Kinloss and St.Mawgan. The 'chips' in the '2K' were exclusive to ARM - the people who made the BBC micro-comp, THAT tech is how / why people now enjoy / are enslaved by Mobile Phones. If Blairs government need noosing for anything, it's the scrapping of this project.

@commandingjudgedredd1841

6 ай бұрын

I am no fan of Blair, but the scrapping of the Nimrod was under Cameron's watch.

@BunnyR13

6 ай бұрын

@@commandingjudgedredd1841 Blair kicked it off, as well as much other stuff. I wasnt in the armed forces, worked in the deliberatly failing UK defense industry... so Actuall insider knowledge, not the publicly gobbled down tripe sprouted by MSN. All part n parcel of the European Defense Force plan / NWO deconstruction of Soveriegn Standing Armies.

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

​@@commandingjudgedredd1841Nimrod was scrapped because of metal fatigue and the cost to rebuild them was not viable

Never had a ride in one but worked / flew alongside in many overseas locations. Nimrod crews had well earned strong reputations. Feel free to correct me but the RAF crews seemed to have a much lower turnover rate than the VP community. This created higher experienced levels with fewer "kids" than U.S. crews. I observed this first hand with Spanish and Portuguese crews.

One challenge the MRA4 faced was they had was because of the age and technology of the time they were built, Nimrod airframes were different sizes and no two were the same

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

Excellent comments

On another thread , does anyone else experience feelings of traumatic loss every time they even hear about TSR.2? No doubt about it , TSR.2 would have not only been it’s own chapter in the epoch of atomic combat aircraft , TSR.2 would have , who knows , damn , TSR.2 would have been so NASTY!

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

Sadly the TSR.2 has been build up by some British historians as some kind of great mythical legend... the reality was the plane fell well short of these expectations and came with a price tag that britain couldn't afford to build on its own and no other countries were interested in buying either, even the RAF got cold feet and lost interest.

@matthewcaughey8898

6 ай бұрын

I know about TSR.2 even have a corgi diecast in 1:72 of her. The F-111 was not a bad jet for the role but TSR.2 would have set the gold standard in ground strike aircraft. That’s assuming it worked as advertised which very few aircraft do. The F-111 was a combat proven and very capable strike jet ( As Regan’s attack on Libya proved ). The TSR.2 might have had similar issues as the 111 in terrain following which were encountered in Vietnam where the F-111 was tested. When that went bad the old Vulcan and buccaneer found themselves in the role ( going low level was what shortened the life of the Victor and the Vulcan cause unlike the B-52 which is way slower the V bombers were way faster). TSR.2 was a unique idea but relied on a lot of newer technologies that at that time weren’t quite nailed down. Given time I think TSR.2 could have delivered on its promises but it would have had lots of teething problems to overcome. ( the F-111 is not without its problems either as the Pratt and Whitney TF-30 did have compressor stall issues which the variable intake was supposed to solve. The problems continued into the F-14As TF-33 engines and it was so well known that Tomcat pilots received extra training for it )

@matthewcaughey8898

6 ай бұрын

@@sandervanderkammen9230 had the TSR.2 lived up to the hype it’s entirely possible there would have been interest from the US as well

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

@@matthewcaughey8898 Ah, No. The TSR.2 was already an outdated design and a outdated concept when it first flew. BAC was a decades behind in supersonic aircraft technology. TSR.2 was a failure, doomed to failure from inception.

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

@@matthewcaughey8898 Absolutely not, the US Air Force was already retiring this types of Mach 2 aircraft... America would have had no interest in this obsolete aircraft.

I never knew the Nimrod was such a good aircraft! When they were talking about getting rid of them, on the news they made them sound like utterly incapable dinosaurs from a bygone age. Now I know the MR4 was in late development, and was (by the sounds of it) a world beater! Only for the UK government A G A I N to cancel the project in favour of buying US planes. If the MR4 was so good then surely the best course of action would have been to finish the development and go for EXPORT sales. Why does the UK government keep on doing this - cancelling costly but superlative new military hardware at the 11th hour?!?!? And as far as being based on an old airframe design goes, how old will the B52s be when they are (finally) retired? 100 years? 150 years? UK government - 💩💩💩

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

They were incapable dinosaurs! No one but the RAF bought these cobbled together wrecks. The MRA4 program was doomed to failure from inception, BAE did not have the ability to produce a replacement aircraft or build a new one. The MRA4 was a desperate attempt to avoid the inevitable humiliating reality that the RAF was no reliant on foreign manufacturers like Boeing, Lockheed and Airbus. Unfortunately alot of money was wasted on this hopeless folly.

@alexguest9937

6 ай бұрын

@@sandervanderkammen9230 I've just read the article on Nimrods on the Thunder and Lightnings website. It does seem that initially the conversion of the old Comet airliners was a good idea and the RAF got what they wanted. It seems that the troubles arose later in the program (could it have been something to do with the "New Labour" government perhaps?) when mismanagement and tick-box exercises over-rode all other considerations. The MRA4 being the compromised result of theses shortcomings, coming in a decade late and hopelessly over-budget, leaving the UK without maritime patrol for some years. So it's understandable that no export orders were forthcoming! Overall I think it was originally a good aircraft for it's time in the '60s and 70's. But time rolls on and all involved should have realised that it was time to bite the bullet and shell out for a new model. I believe the RAF are now going to get 3 (yes, just 3!) new maritime patrol aircraft of American manufacture. But they too will be cobbled together from 'secondhand' (10 year old) 737 airframes. Nothing ever changes, it seems. Will they fare any better than the Nimrods?

@tonykerrison1983

6 ай бұрын

Politicians & Civil Servants are quick to abandon projects if they get into a cost-overrun situation. However, those people never seem to panic when its their own wages & perks being increased.

@davidbaker6250

6 ай бұрын

In reality the Nimrod 4 was very much an end of the line, and despite the hysterics of one prolific commenter the suggestions that the old, repurposed fuselages were all pretty much hand carved by itinerant showmakers and didn't fit together with the much more precisely manufactured new wings isn't that far from the truth. I can also believe that corrosion of the fuselages might be bad - we did fly them at low level over the Icelandic and Atlantic oceans (amongst others) for about 40 years by the time we'd retired the MR2. (Being originally Mr1 airframes which the RAF received in the late 60's early 70's). having to use the old fuselages instead of building new ones did not help, and also limited the possibility of selling any to about zero, as we only had a few dozen in total. Selling the idea of 'it'll cost less as we only need to rewing them' probably came into it I'd guess, but do not know. I know the MR2 was as good as, and usually rather better than, anything else anyone was doing the same jobs with, and we had some excellent and very experienced crews.....the loss of crew experience was another side effect, nothing against the P8 guys but they didn't enjoy that steady trickle into front line service that Nimrod crews enjoyed for many decades. ( MAEOp Mick Muttit retired something like 1992 or so - he started on Lancasters in the 1950's - he got a bit of a reception landing at St Mawgan one afternoon having clocked up his 19,000th flying hour......mind you, he was a bit of an exception compared to most!)

@davidbaker6250

6 ай бұрын

oops - shoemakers, not showmakers - my bad!

The P3 seems to get all the recognition so its refreshing to see the Nimrod get a little love from time to time. Both were incredibly good at thier jobs despite being very different designs.

what a Fawking good looking bomber

The Nimrod was derived from the Dehavilland Comet which was by NO means a " failed " aircraft. Do some better research

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

The Hawker Siddley HS.801 Nimrod is a completely different, unrelated to the de Havilland Comet, it was a designed by a different company decades later, a different type certification and shares no significant parts or structures in common. The Comet Disaster was the worst engineering failure in commercial jet aviation history. The only jet airliner to have its airworthiness certification PERMANENTLY REVOKED and the Comet has the highest loss rate and fatalities statistics of any jet airliner in history

@kennesaw101

6 ай бұрын

Stop making up facts that suit your narrative. You obviously did NO research , you can't even spell the word Siddeley. Hawker siddeley bought De havilland in 1960. The comet 3 & 4 flew for many airlines for many years including B.O.A.C. , BEA and even the Royal Air Force. I flew several times on a comet in 1970. It's an undisputed fact that the Nimrod was based on the Comet. A simple google search would have told you that.@@sandervanderkammen9230

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

​@@kennesaw101Who cares? It's a defunct name anyway. No, de Havilland went completely tits-up in 1958 as a direct result of the _Comet Disaster_ the worst engineering failure in commercial jet aviation. de Havilland was places under administrative receivership by the Crown and its remaining assets sold to Hawker Siddeley in 1960 who was forced to merge with Blackburn and Folland, they continued as "zombie brands" until 1962. Bollocks mate! Only one Comet 3 prototype was ever completed, it was never entered production as it was deemed unairworthy as it was designed before the Comet Disaster and shares the same fatal design flaws as the Comet 1. While de Havilland was a private company, the Comet was an official Ministry program, government owned airlines and the RAF were forced to operate these unprofitable and very unpopular aircraft to support government Jobs programs. Only a handful were sold outside the UK or wet-leased at a loss. That's a bald faced lie and a feable attempt to associate and attach the less embarrassing Nimrod with the extremely shameful and humiliating Comet. While 2 proof of concept prototypes were constructed from heavily modified, unsold Comet 4Cs the production Hawker Siddeley HS.801 is not a Comet, desiged decades later by a different company it has a completely different type certificate and shares no significant parts or structures in common with any Comet. Stop spreading lies and false revisionist narratives.

@fritzwrangle-clouder6033

6 ай бұрын

@@sandervanderkammen9230 Hello Sandyboy, as you know the Comet was the worlds first jet airliner and had a service career of over forty years and with operators in more than twenty countries.

@WilhelmKarsten

6 ай бұрын

Someone ask fritzwrangle-clouder why there are no longer any British jets in production...??

Describing the Comet as a 'failed airliner' I would disagree with that. 'Rocky start' is accurate but the RAF's Comet 2s and the much-loved Comet 4s and 4Cs of BEA, Aerolineas Argentina and other operators gave long and reliable service. I was contemporary with these kites and lived close to where they were developed. They were familiar for the first twenty years of my life.

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

The Comet 1 was an epic failure, the only jet airliner in history to have its airworthiness certification PERMANENTLY REVOKED after a series of 6 unexplained hull loss accidents. The Comet 2 never received airworthiness certification and could not fly outside the UK with special temporary permits. Comet 4 had very few orders outside of government owned airlines. Production ceased at just 114 aircraft in total, no where near enough to even recoup production or development costs. Ultimately a completely failure that struck a huge blow to the entire UK aircraft industry and destroyed the de Havilland company.

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

The Comet has the highest loss rate and fatalities statistics of any jet airliner in history

@WilhelmKarsten

6 ай бұрын

Compared to the Boeing 707 it was an embarrassing failure... and the reason why D -H no longer exists

@fritzwrangle-clouder6033

6 ай бұрын

@@WilhelmKarsten Hello Sandyboy you poor little wehraboo, I see you are posting in two of your names in reply to one comment. Will you be getting your sock puppets out as well. As you know Sandyboy, the Comet had a service career of over forty years and with operators of twenty nations. And as you also know De Havilland is a legacy company of BAE. It's so funny that you claim that De Havilland no longer exists and then on other boards claim that Messerschmitt still does. But hey I guess that's just you wehraboo cope.

@WilhelmKarsten

6 ай бұрын

Someone ask fritzwrangle-clouder why there are no longer any British jets in production???....

Ungainly beast, but loaded with features!

Whats the difference between fritzwrangle-clouder and a dead horse? The horse knew when to give up!

@awatt

5 ай бұрын

What's the difference between fritzwrsngleclowner and God? God knows that he's not Fritz but Fritz doesn't know that he's not...

Wonderful aircraft! UK has made so many contributions to aircraft firsts and yet today the industry is completely gutted. Such a shame.

@TheWebstaff

6 ай бұрын

Woodford is now the name of a new building estate..

@johngoulder4176

6 ай бұрын

Like the car industry. R.I.P

@JohnSmith-ei2pz

6 ай бұрын

Filton is now a tax write-off for GKN & the airfield built upon!@@TheWebstaff

@awatt

6 ай бұрын

Britain has the second largest airspace industry in the world after America

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

Britain has never been a leader in aviation and the UK aircraft industry collapsed exactly because of planes like this... old, outdated and completely inferior to other available aircraft

I work with several ex-MRA4 project staff, and consensus is the same. A brilliant aircraft, ruined by politicians, and eventually replaced by an inferior yet more expensive product. Sounds awfully similar to the fate of the TSR2.

@Justanotherconsumer

6 ай бұрын

TSR-2 had the disadvantage of being the best sword at a gunfight. It was good, but it wasn’t what was needed.

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

Pure bollocks mate, the MRA4 program was an epic cockup that was doomed to failure from inception... and a shameful waste of government funds completely squandered by BAE.

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

​​@@JustanotherconsumerThe TSR.2 has become a mythical legend of British fiction... BAC was an absolute dumpster fire of an aircraft company that never produced a single successful British aircraft design on its own... the flight tests of the TSR.2 were extremely disappointing and they fell well below the often quoted original specifications. The truth is TSR.2 was a failure, it would have been completely obsolete on arrival at a cost that no one could afford, certainly not the UK which had defaulted on its war debt the year it was cancelled.

@vulgar_scabby_beaver

6 ай бұрын

It's the British way, I worked on nimrods at kinloss and there was nothing better in the world at what it did, until some civil servant(who now probably lobbies for a russian oligarch) had a brain fart and decided to have the program cancelled. They floated the idea of throwing sonobouys out the back of a C130 to replace them..... it never happened and russian subs had the run of our waters until we bought some overpriced mothballed rivet joints from the US. Yet another fiasco.

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

@@BB-xx3dv *That's what the world thinks of British aircraft....*

Super intéressant 👏👏👏

Lucky me I have had 2 trips in the Shackletons and nearly 80 hours in Nimrods, the good old days when as an air cadet you could just phone up the day before and book your trip

Failed airliner?? Didn't you hear? - they fixed the problem! (It's hard at being the first in the word at something) I myself flew from London to Blamtyre, Malawi (via Libya and Kenya) in 1966 on a BOAC Comet!

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

The _Comet Disaster_ was the worst engineering failure in commercial jet aviation history, the Comet went on to continue an absolutely safety record with the highest loss rate and fatalities statistics of any jet airliner that ever flew.

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

The Comet was one of several failed attempts to build the first successful (and airworthy) jet airliners. It was the Boeing 707 series that was the first successful jet airliner and it completely revolutionized the travel and aviation industry.

@fritzwrangle-clouder6033

6 ай бұрын

@@sandervanderkammen9230 Hello Sandyboy, as you know the Comet had a service career of over forty years and with operators in twenty nations.

@WilhelmKarsten

6 ай бұрын

Someone ask fritzwrangle-clouder why there are no longer any British jets in production???

@fritzwrangle-clouder6033

6 ай бұрын

@@WilhelmKarsten So Sandyboy, I'm enjoying the fact that I've got under your skin, especially as it's provoked that display of your *COWARDICE and DISHONESTY* . Poor Sandyboy, all that time you spent sulking and determined not to react but you couldn't manage it could you.

Bad title the DH COMET wasn't failed at all

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

*The Comet Disaster was the greatest engineering failure in the history of commercial jet aviation.*

@WilhelmKarsten

6 ай бұрын

EPIC FAILURE

@fritzwrangle-clouder6033

6 ай бұрын

@@sandervanderkammen9230Hello Sanduyboy, as you know, the Comet had a service career of over forty years and with operators in twenty countries.

@fritzwrangle-clouder6033

6 ай бұрын

@@WilhelmKarsten Hello Sanduyboy, as you know, the Comet had a service career of over forty years and with operators in twenty countries.

@WilhelmKarsten

6 ай бұрын

Someone ask fritzwrangle-clouder why there are no longer any British jets in production....????

In what reality is the Comet a failed airliner? It was THE first jet airliner and had a fairly long career after the initial problems were fixed, with several different models and the 4C flying into the 1990's, the competition was also pretty fierce in the shape of the 707 etc so not a bad start to an entire industry. Nimrods would still be in the skies today if it wasn't for our terrible governments.

The very first aircraft I ever flew in, as a cadet. XV250, now at Elvington Air Museum.

I worked on the airborne Marconi radar it was a good idea as it had no blind spots unlike the US one but like the tsr2 the money run out and a switch was made to an off the shelf version

Right up to its retirement, it was a more capable platform in its role than anything else out there. Yet again Britain ditched a home-grown great for a US competitor on grounds of cost projections which turned out to be false and due to political pressure. See TSR2 & F1-11.

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

The Nimrod like the TSR.2 was a very disappointing aircraft which is why they generated no interest from foreign buyers... the UK aircraft industry completely collapsed because they continued building outdated, overpriced, inferior aircraft no one wanted to buy.

@fritzwrangle-clouder6033

6 ай бұрын

@@sandervanderkammen9230Hello Sandyboy, as you know Sandyboy, British aircraft like the Gloster Meteor, the De Havilland Vampire, the Canberra and the Hawk had service careers of over thirty years and with more than a dozen air forces. And of course there was the Harrier.

@WilhelmKarsten

6 ай бұрын

Someone ask fritzwrangle-clouder why there are no longer any British jets in production??????????

@fritzwrangle-clouder6033

6 ай бұрын

@@WilhelmKarsten Hello Sandyboy, why don't you ask fritzwrangle-clouder6033 yourself, are you afraid, are you a COWARD ?

@fritzwrangle-clouder6033

6 ай бұрын

@@WilhelmKarsten Hello Sandyboy, why are you posting comments under this video, indeed in this thread, in two of your many identities ? As we know, you are a deceitful person but you usually keep your different identities for different boards although obviously you often get one of your sock puppets out of the drawer to talk to yourself with. Can we expect any more of your identities to turn up, like DrBummer or Merlin2?

A successful military search and rescue platform, derived from the world's first passenger jet. Where one failed the other became a legend.

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

The first successful jet airliner was the Boeing 707 series... the Comet 1 was a shameful and humiliating failure

@fritzwrangle-clouder6033

6 ай бұрын

@@sandervanderkammen9230 Hello Sandyboy, I love that it burns your poor little wehraboo heart that the Comet was a great first and saw more than forty years of service in operators of twenty nations.

@WilhelmKarsten

6 ай бұрын

Someone ask fritzwrangle-clouder why there are no longer any British jets in production???^

@fritzwrangle-clouder6033

6 ай бұрын

@@WilhelmKarsten So Sandyboy, I'm enjoying the fact that I've got under your skin, especially as it's provoked that display of your *COWARDICE* and *DISHONESTY* . Poor Sandyboy, all that time you spent sulking and determined not to react but you couldn't manage it could you.

@fritzwrangle-clouder6033

6 ай бұрын

@@WilhelmKarsten Hello Sandyboy, why are you posting comments under this video, indeed in this thread, in two of your many identities ? As we know, you are a deceitful person but you usually keep your different identities for different boards although obviously you often get one of your sock puppets out of the drawer to talk to yourself with. Can we expect any more of your identities to turn up, like DrBummer or Merlin2?

DAMN ! That airplane is FUGLY ! 🤣🤣🤣

When serving in Iraq back in the early 2000s, I went up in one that was having a look at the border with Iran. I think it cost something like 50k UK pounds per flight hour but I managed to keep it up 1.5 hours longer than the mission time, as we spotted some shenanigans on the border and tracked them for a while 😅. It had amazing optics. Then when I was in Afghanistan a Nimrod crashed near an operation that I was involved in 😥.

@jaimieboy999

6 ай бұрын

Oh yeah? Did you have a wank with the pilot as well?

Fortunately, the Boeing P-8A _Poseidon_ has proven to be good aircraft in service. I expect the RAF to order more P-8A's soon.

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

The Boeing 735 family is the most successful aircraft in history

@tarjas

6 ай бұрын

The value of the commonality of airframe, parts, and tactics among allies and partners is significantly under estimated. This of the growing value of the P-8A.

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

@@tarjas The P-8 also has commonality with existing Boeing aircraft already in RAF service.

A “failed” airliner? Failure like the fatal crashes on Boeing 737 or Airbus models?

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

The Comet Disaster is the worst engineering failure in commercial jet aviation. The Comet has the highest loss rate and fatalities statistics of any jet airliner in history. FYI: the Boeing 737 is the most successful aircraft in history, there are over 1,000 737 flying right now.

@WilhelmKarsten

6 ай бұрын

Huge failure... Comet 1 Was so bad it was permanently grounded in 1954 it's airworthiness certificate was revoked in 1958

@fritzwrangle-clouder6033

6 ай бұрын

@@sandervanderkammen9230 Hello Sandyboy, I see you are burning with impotent wehraboo rage as usual. As you know the Comet was the world's first jet airliner and had a service career of over forty years an with operators in twenty countries.

@fritzwrangle-clouder6033

6 ай бұрын

@@WilhelmKarsten hello Sandyboy, I see you are posting in two of your identities under this video, have you come over a bit Physalaemus nattereri?

@WilhelmKarsten

6 ай бұрын

Only the Comet 1 had its airworthiness certification permanently revoked

The one thing that no one mentions is that it was just a darn good looking bird, too! Sleek lines, well buried engine nacelles and so on, just make it kind of sexy for an airplane of its type.

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

Not everyone has good taste, the Nimrod is universally fugly... and extremely outdated for its time.

@fritzwrangle-clouder6033

6 ай бұрын

@@sandervanderkammen9230Hello Sandyboy, as you know the beautiful Comet was the worlds first jet airliner and ahead of its time which is why it looked so modern. As you know the comet had a service career of over forty years and with operators in twenty countries.

@WilhelmKarsten

6 ай бұрын

Someone ask fritzwrangle-clouder why there are no longer any British jets in productio. ?

@fritzwrangle-clouder6033

6 ай бұрын

@@WilhelmKarsten Hello Sandyboy, why don't you ask fritzwrangle-clouder6033 yourself, are you afraid, are you chicken ?

@fritzwrangle-clouder6033

6 ай бұрын

@@WilhelmKarsten So Sandyboy, I'm enjoying the fact that I've got under your skin, especially as it's provoked that display of your spineless cheating . Poor Sandyboy, all that time you spent sulking and determined not to react but you couldn't manage it could you.

The one you showed as ‘this models role would remain a secret’ wasn’t an R1, the MAD wasn’t fitted to R1’s, it was capped a lot shorter. It is an R1 you show at 9:02 though

I flew on one of the last commercial Comets with Dan Air in 1980. IIRC there were even a few seats facing one another . Perhaps over the wing but I’m not sure. I always got stuck over the wing because I wanted the non smoking section🙊. Planes used to be so gross because the puffers would all be double timing if they were nervous.

@patricia1333

6 ай бұрын

How did you like it? How did it fly?

beautifull aircraft

@sparky4878

6 ай бұрын

Perhaps not the AEW version.

@WilhelmKarsten

6 ай бұрын

Fugly as plastic garden shed... and a completely outdated design

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

If you like 1920s Art Deco style...

@fritzwrangle-clouder6033

6 ай бұрын

@@sandervanderkammen9230 Hello Sandyboy, it's always nice to see how stupid you are prepared to make yourself look in pursuit of your wehraboo cope.

@WilhelmKarsten

6 ай бұрын

Some ask fritzwrangle-clouder what British jet is still in production?

The MR4 was a plane that once completed, would have offered the free world the best maritime platform out there. Instead now, its a market of bodged planes that cost a fortune. Short sighted stupidity.

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

The MRA4 program was a colossal waste of money and doomed to failure from inception.

@AdmV0rl0n

6 ай бұрын

@@sandervanderkammen9230 everyone is entitled to their opinion.

@WilhelmKarsten

6 ай бұрын

​@@AdmV0rl0nThe was nothing more stupid than the MRA.4 project...

@fritzwrangle-clouder6033

6 ай бұрын

@@AdmV0rl0n Sandyboy is entitled to many as he has multiple personality disorder.

@WilhelmKarsten

6 ай бұрын

Someone ask fritzwrangle-clouder why there are no longer any British jets in production.???...

Great and fitting music for the video! What song is it?

great videos with perfect narration but please can we lose the annoying background music?

@Togidubnus

6 ай бұрын

Agreed. Could really do without the "rack".

@quigster8319

6 ай бұрын

Yes please. I was enjoying the video, but finally stopped it due to the distracting background noise.

@WilhelmKarsten

6 ай бұрын

I'd like to see less fritzwrangle-clouder comments on this video, the guy is certified lunatic

Making parts for the MAD boom is heck. Extremely hard and expensive

Did you say “carried Sidewinder missiles”? I’m throughly impressed and intrigued. 😮.

@sandervanderkammen9230

5 ай бұрын

You shouldn't be, it's a farse. The Nimrod did not carry sidewinders as a part of its regular armament... it was a desperate stop-gap measure and was never used. The idea of a Nimrod locking on to an enemy fighter in a dogfight is absolutely hilarious

@WilhelmKarsten

5 ай бұрын

I knew this RAF pilot, call sign: _"Fritzwrangle-clouder"_ who shot down a MiG-28 with a sidewinder in 4G negative dive... He said he came up out of the clouds on his six'o clock and rolled out... _inverted_ As soon as the had missile lock and heard the tone he fired, the MiG never even saw his Nimrod. He became the first and only Nimrod pilot to become an Ace and was awarded the RAF Distinguish Flying Cross after shooting down 3 Argentine Mirrage IIIs and a Beechcraft Bonanza during the Falkland War.

Thank our short sighted, personal gain politicians (namely Cameron and Osbourne) for the loss of the upgraded Nimrods....

@MC-nb6jx

6 ай бұрын

And now the tw4t is back in government 🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

The MRA4 program was an epic cockup and doomed to failure from inception... BAE did not have a suitable replacement aircraft available and the obsolete Hawker Siddley HS.801 Nimrod was not a suitable candidate for conversion. The Nimrod was too frail and decrepit to successfully refurbish and under go major modifications. Hawker Siddley was still using outdated hand-built construction techniques for these relatively small number of custom order aircraft So much so that of the remaining aircraft no two were alike... The other problem was the amount of fatigue damage found left insufficient number of parts available for refubishment to make the program viable or meet the number of aircraft needed by the RAF.

The Nimrod was a political fix. The aircraft that was needed was the P3C. The Nimrod, as a pure jet, was unsuited to the mission profile required for maritime patrol. after billions of wasted money, the RAF now has a suitable maritime aircraft.

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

Excellent comments

@davidbaker6250

6 ай бұрын

Absolutely incorrect - the MR2 was a superb aircraft for ASW, ASUW and SAR, it later managed to establish itself in a support role in other theatres - I know little of that later part of its career. The Nimrod had several advantages over the P3 in fact that made us, as aircrew, prefer it - the P3C itself was also a very good aircraft. One advantage that would have been part of the thinking at procurement time was that buying US aircraft might possibly lead to problems should the US turn round to us and tell us not to do something it was not in favour of - memories of Suez were still fresh in the memory at the time perhaps. Not sure that argument holds water, but I imagine it provided a good excuse to go all british at the time for those who wanted to do that anyway.... Pork barrel politics aren't just an American thuing you know.

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

@@davidbaker6250 Several countries would strongly disagree with your opinion. The Nimrod had no foreign sales while the P-8 has been very successful and sold to 10 different countries including UK commonwealth countries like Australia and New Zealand. The P-8 is a variation of the Boeing 737, the most successful aircraft in history with over 20,000 7X7 interchangeable aircraft with parts, tools and training with existing RAF aircraft already in service and expected to remain in service until at least 2050.

@davidbaker6250

6 ай бұрын

With respect, the nimrod operational record shows it was an extremely good mpa, whether others buy it makes it a commercial success but is no guarantee of superiority. I Dave little doubt that Lockheed found it easier to sell aircraft around the world than did BAe…. As P8 is about the only MPA out there it is hardly a surprise that it sells to people who want an MPA. We had THE best radar,in colour Searchwater, that anyone had for a start,@@sandervanderkammen9230

@sandervanderkammen9230

6 ай бұрын

​​@@davidbaker6250Compared to what? The Shackleton? The RAF didn't want the Nimrod, it was forced down their throat. The P-3 Orion was a vastly superior aircraft... it's success speaks for itself. The P-8 is based on the most successful aircraft in history. Boeing has sold 25,000 707/737 series aircraft... Why do brits persist in the false myth that they invented radar??? The UK has never been the leader in radar technology. Why did Britain buy the Boeing E-3 and RC-135 instead of the Nimrod AEW3 and MRA4???

I built an Airfix model of that. Unique

The tragedy of the Toronto air show crash will never be forgotten.