Talk:Avro Vulcan

message: The first line of this article gives "Hawker Siddeley Vulcan" as a later title of the Avro Vulcan, giving a reference to a single link of the RAF Museum. Whilst Avro became a part of Hawker Siddeley on 1 July 1963 according to Avro Aircraft, page xxii (A J Jackson, Putnam) and the last aircraft was produced after that in 1965, the last order for the Vulcan was placed with Avro in 1958 (according to the Production section at the end of the article). 
Hence surely any reference to Hawker Siddeley being the manufacturer is surely invalid, unless there are other references to support the RAF Museum?
I worked on the Vulcan at Scampton in 1980-82 and, whilst it was then supported by Hawker Siddeley, you would have been laughed at if you had called it the "Hawker Siddeley Vulcan"!!
Possel47 (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree. Perhaps send an email to cosford@rafmuseum.org or research@rafmuseum.org to see why they say that? (Hohum @) 16:01, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Vulcan is listed in the 1965–66 edition of Jane's All the World's Aircraft as the "Hawker Siddeley Vulcan". This differs from the Shackleton (which was out of production but still being modified) which was listed as the "Hawker Siddeley (Avro) Shackleton".Nigel Ish (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

text:  The RAF Museum aircraft was actually completed when the company was Hawker Siddeley! A quick look at Flight archive of the late 1960s shows that the term Hawker Siddeley Vulcan was common at the time. MilborneOne (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The usage was by Flight not the RAF Museum. MilborneOne (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at various 1970's issues of Flight International you will find advertisements from Hawker Siddeley which include both the Vulcan and the Buccaneer under their name, as well as of course the Harrier. So HS Vulcan is absolutely correct for that period.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 09:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hawker Siddeley Vulcan"? 

message: I'd like to develop a section to highlight how the Avro Vulcan is featured in the James Bond movie Thunderball.  It's such a great film (not even topped by the remake - or maybe it was topped).  For me, the movie was my "movie introduction" to nuclear weapons... much better than Crimson Tide.  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderball_(film)
So what can we write?  
   Was that the actual plane?
   Was the protocol that the pilot went through in the movie realistic?
   Could that plane have made it to the Bahamas? survived a water landing otherwise intact? etc.
:The film features a few shots of a real Vulcan in flight. A large-scale model was used for the ditching and sinking sequences. (Notably, the model had a working undercarriage.) A full-scale replica was built for the underwater sequences in which the bomber is concealed by the enemy and later discovered by our man Bond. There are online photographs of this astounding replica. It was destroyed by explosives after filming so that no other film production could use it. The onboard procedures seen in the film are obviously fictional, for entertainment purposes, and would not work. The cockpit is very tight and you couldn't really invite a spare pilot to take the right-hand ejector seat just like that, nor could you plug a nerve-gas canister into the oxygen supply. And a solo pilot, with the rest of the crew dead, would not be able to navigate over that distance. In addition, the Vulcan, designed only to fly to the western parts of the Soviet Union and (theoretically) back, would not have the fuel to reach the Nassau area from southern England, which is about four thousand miles. It would plunk into the sea a good thousand miles short of target. As regards ditching, nobody ever did ditch a Vulcan so we don't know how that would work, but it would be extremely hairy. The large flat undersurface is good, but the effect of water sloshing into the jet intakes would be somewhat unpredictable. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything on this should be in Aircraft in fiction rather than here. MilborneOne (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured in Thunderball 

message: This bomber clearly has a proper tail and is not a flying wing.  It is not a fin, and my edit removing the word "tailless" should hold sway. 110.32.2.41 (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a flying wing but doesnt have a seperate horizontal control surfaces so is a tailless delta. MilborneOne (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

text: Yup. Common aircraft terminology. See e.g. the IWM, which says it is tailless.  Perhaps 110.32.2.41 should go tell them they are wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, the Vulcan fits the classification of tailless. Strange. 110.32.2.41 (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Specialist terminology doesn't always concur with what might be expected. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Tailless' refers to the lack of a tailplane. The fin is usually part of the fuselage and thus not strictly speaking part of the 'tail'. Footage of Vulcan prototype VX770 being rolled here starting at 24:35 -   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Vulcan is NOT tailless!