Well, British designers being stuck on the Comet is not fair. It's because they are built using existing Nimrod airframes. Unwise decision, but that's what it is. Complete strip-down, and overhaul of the fuselage, and then refit it with new equipment, new wings, engines, etc, etc. The extent of work done to it is not to be underestimated, this isn't an upgrade. It was supposed to be a cheaper alternative to new airframes, and work for BAE as opposed to buying US. Turned out, BAE got more what it bargained for, as fitting new laser cut wings to the 1960s built airframe caused problems. Engineering problems, poor project management, and all the other stuff causing delays and more costs, it's another overly expensive aircraft for the RAF. Anyway numbers were cut down to deal with the costs, and other problems were sorted out, and at last it is flying, plus at the least (compared to some others, look up Chinook HC.3) looks to have been worth it... still needs to prove it though.
And I suppose, if BAE would have designed a new aircraft from scratch, it wouldn't have been as good, or it would have been even more expensive and not be flying today. The Germans however seemed to have been wise this time, and bought cheap refurbished Orions from the Netherlands to replace their Atlantiques. They aren't quite in the same league as these new MRA.4s though. That's probably like comparing a DC-10 to the A380. I'm not sure what France is doing, maybe some Airbus "P-8 like" project is in the works, which may have also been good for the RAF. However at the time, the only alternative was new or refurbished P-3s. From an enthousiast's point of view, I'm very happy they opted for the Nimrod 2000 as it was then known.
And come on, Grip, sticking a lower fuselage to the Comet design was just brilliant thinking.
About the engine-fire-in-wing problem. I'm not sure, but I don't think it's that big a deal. Engine fires are, whether it's podded or in the wing. But comparing the two, I suppose having an engine department with fire proofing with extinguishers is not less safe than a podded engine. Plus it isn't an airliner anymore, for a military plane it's really better to have them protected. And US designers don't seem reluctant to have internal engines either, especially not with stealth in mind (e.g. B-2). Then there's the Tu-16, Chinese are building them still, albeit somewhat developed. Plus as tanker, they could have just copied an imported Boeing or Airbus for that, but no they stuck with the ancient design and engine-in-wing. So I suppose it's really only the maintenance thing, surely they've sorted that out now. BAE should know how, compare a Tornado engine change with that of the Eurofighter and you see why I think that.
But what do I know, maybe our friend MightyHunter has some horror stories, and/or some information on changing engines on the Nimrod.
Back to Index
Move to Top 
