New angle on Vulcan take off - STOL????
Fri Oct 19, 2007 9:18 pm
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=a-UHSCM0dJk
To me this British bomber is a STOL plane, as it hardly used ANY runway to fly off..
Amazing bit of engineering i say to do that.
To me this British bomber is a STOL plane, as it hardly used ANY runway to fly off..
Amazing bit of engineering i say to do that.
Sat Oct 20, 2007 7:39 am
Not really. The airplane has all of its ECM equipment and much of its navigation equipment removed, nothing in the bomb bay, and only enough fuel for the flight and a bit extra for safety, so it's going to have sprightly performance. Have you ever seen a 737 take off on a maintenance flight? It's pretty similar too, even with the -200s.
In operation, the Vulcan rarely flew without at least a training devices or a Blue Steel Training Round fitted and even when just doing touch-and-goes, they frequently had mostly full tanks of fuel to allow for long flights.
Also, remember that the aircraft has a delta wing. Lots of lift and a high deck angle required to get off the ground (part of why it has a nose-up appearance while sitting on the ground is because the nose gear is longer than the mains to give a bit of positive angle to the airplane to make it want to take off easier. Rotations are necessarily agressive because without it, the plane wouldn't want to take off. By agressively pitching to the takeoff angle, you kinda "throw" the plane into the sky, forcing the wing to fly instead of just go straight ahead like it wants to.
In operation, the Vulcan rarely flew without at least a training devices or a Blue Steel Training Round fitted and even when just doing touch-and-goes, they frequently had mostly full tanks of fuel to allow for long flights.
Also, remember that the aircraft has a delta wing. Lots of lift and a high deck angle required to get off the ground (part of why it has a nose-up appearance while sitting on the ground is because the nose gear is longer than the mains to give a bit of positive angle to the airplane to make it want to take off easier. Rotations are necessarily agressive because without it, the plane wouldn't want to take off. By agressively pitching to the takeoff angle, you kinda "throw" the plane into the sky, forcing the wing to fly instead of just go straight ahead like it wants to.
Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:05 am
Lucky bastiges...being that close to the runway.
How cool was that?!
How cool was that?!
Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:25 am
And that take off wasn't a real Vulcan take-off, it was a pure test flight one.
Have a look on YouTube for some of '558's old displays, for a proper Vulcan high angle rotation take-off followed by almost 90 deg wing-over into level flight almost within the airfield boundary.....
And then there was the landings.........touch down followed by keeping the nose up high for a huge distance along the runway using the delta as a big aerodynamic airbrake........
A strategic bomber with the handling and flying characteristics of a fighter.......a remarkable aircraft.
Have a look on YouTube for some of '558's old displays, for a proper Vulcan high angle rotation take-off followed by almost 90 deg wing-over into level flight almost within the airfield boundary.....
And then there was the landings.........touch down followed by keeping the nose up high for a huge distance along the runway using the delta as a big aerodynamic airbrake........
A strategic bomber with the handling and flying characteristics of a fighter.......a remarkable aircraft.
Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:04 am
she was even better at hieght , embarassed many a fighter jock at alt did the Vulcan 
Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:34 am
Have you ever seen a 737 take off on a maintenance flight? It's pretty similar too, even with the -200s
CAPFlyer makes a great point. I saw a charter -200 take off out of here a few years ago that seemed like it used maybe 1,500 feet. I was shocked. I had to do a double take because I just couldn't believe how fast it rotated.