Nimrod R1 Departures

Post by **milky_01** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 1:46 pm

XW664 is due to be delivered to East Midlands Airport on the 12th July
with XV249 going up to Kinloss for scrapping at the end of the month

Cheers

Kevin.

Post by **PR9** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 1:53 pm

Thanks for the heads-up milky.
Shame about 249.

Post by **BOLLO** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:02 pm

Crazy or what.

Post by **Doughnut** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 4:35 pm

Utter madness that Duxford are not taking one of the Nimrod's. Would it be too late to start partition of some sort to incourage IWM to take XV249. I do understand IWM position that it will only accept aircraft that it can look after and place undercover but this plan is very short sighted.

Post by **Nikon** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 4:41 pm

Doughnut wrote:. Would it be too late to start partition of some sort to incourage IWM to take XV249.

Maybe a petition would be slightly more useful, but not much I'd wager.

XPLUMBER · Post by **XPLUMBER** » Mon Jul 04, 2011 4:57 pm

Nikon wrote:
Doughnut wrote:. Would it be too late to start partition of some sort to incourage IWM to take XV249.
Maybe a petition would be slightly more useful, but not much I'd wager.

I thought the I.W.M. at Duxford had stated they have NO MORE ROOM for large exhibits!

Post by **XH558** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 8:32 pm

We'd take it at DSA im sure !

Post by **TankBuster** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 9:25 pm

Its a shame that Duxford cant take one of them. I'm sure a group of volunteers could form a preservation group to look after it a Duxford to lessen the weight of responsibility for the IWM.

Yep, airspace is more than crammed but there is plenty of room out on the pans for a Nimrod. The B-52 & the Victor stood outside for years & survived, so could a Nimrod until such a time that it can go indoors if they ever expand airspace again in the future?

Scrapping is criminal

TankBuster

Sheff · Post by **Sheff** » Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:56 pm

Station Commander would be the best bet, surely?

How come Newark doesn't appear to be getting a Nimrod now?

I thought the I.W.M. at Duxford had stated they have NO MORE ROOM for large exhibits!
Yep, laughable isn't it? An entire airfield but no room? I'm willing to bet that if it was a FW Condor or a Gigant, they'd miraculously find space for it...

Post by **PR9** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 7:26 am

Just tell 51sqn that if they kept it they would have the biggest squadron mascot on base, and massive gloating potential.

XPLUMBER · Post by **XPLUMBER** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 7:35 am

Softbill Man wrote:I am trying my best to find the right person to work on keeping 249 at Waddington and hitting a brick wall. I thought i had a contac but thats gone dead, so anyone any ideas who i can contact now on base before its too late.

My plan is to save her and keep her on the ground at the back of the WAVE, which was originally allotted for Vulcan XM607. I know quite afew of the personnel on base want her saved so lots of hard work will be needed to sort this one out asap.

John

GOOD LUCK John

Post by **T_J** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 8:56 pm

Good luck with your attempts to save 249, John. Hope it all works out!

TJ

Post by **T_J** » Wed Jul 06, 2011 9:06 pm

Sheff wrote: How come Newark doesn't appear to be getting a Nimrod now?

Sheff,

NAM Updater posted an update back in October 2010.

viewtopic.php?f=130&t=19491" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TJ

Sheff · Post by **Sheff** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 9:12 am

...and the reason was what? Cost?

Shame anyway, whatever the reason. In view of the saga down at Duxford, I hope NAM get the Shackleton indoors one day, at least!

Post by **NAM Updater** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:28 pm

The main reason for NAM withdrawing from the R1 purchase was the receipt of formal notification that certain items were to be cut from the nominally allocated airframe; this potentially affected the structural integrity of the wing structure that could have caused problems with the re-build. The said airframe looked very sad locked away in Hangar 4 at last weekend's Waddington International Airshow.

NAM also declined the option of just taking a cockpit or fuselage section.

Getting more airframes under cover is always a long-term aim, but other building projects currently have a higher priority.

Post by **BOLLO** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:52 pm

Softbill Man wrote:Re the Shackleton, did i hear right, that someone somewhere is getting one to taxi'able condition somewhere?

John

Coventry or AIRBASE as they are know have one that they start the engines of and are hoping one day soon to taxi John.

Sheff · Post by **Sheff** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 10:16 am

Their aspirations go further than taxying, I believe! There may be some progress after XH558's flying days are over...

Post by **BOLLO** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 10:26 am

Now that would be great and a show puller.Fingers crossed for them.

Post by **jakdaw** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 8:15 pm

Maybe a Gerry Anderson fan with tourettes

Post by **Ben Montgomery** » Fri Aug 05, 2011 8:25 pm

After producing some thoroughly vile (or confusing, such as this one!) posts towards one of our members, "goosegoose" has been banned.

Nimrod R1 Departures

Nimrod R1 Departures

Re: Nimrod R1 Departures

Re: Nimrod R1 Departures

Re: Nimrod R1 Departures

Re: Nimrod R1 Departures

Re: Nimrod R1 Departures

Re: Nimrod R1 Departures

Re: Nimrod R1 Departures

Re: Nimrod R1 Departures

Re: Nimrod R1 Departures

Re: Nimrod R1 Departures

Re: Nimrod R1 Departures

Re: Nimrod R1 Departures

Re: Nimrod R1 Departures

Re: Nimrod R1 Departures

Re: Nimrod R1 Departures

Re: Nimrod R1 Departures

Re: Nimrod R1 Departures

Re: Nimrod R1 Departures

Re: Nimrod R1 Departures

Who is online