Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 241

Thread: VC-10 Retirement Thread (merged)

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,943
    Quote Originally Posted by Hot_Charlie View Post
    Flights tend to be shorter when you giving away 30t from a total of 70t of fuel!
    Quote Originally Posted by forester View Post
    "Insisted" sounds like they had a choice!

    That's what you did in those days. BOAC/BA, EAA, BUA, RAF - all did a lot of circuits for crew training. I counted 54 landings during local training flights in my log book day and night including various clearances and ratings we had to do.
    Curiously, all done in SGE/ZD233. No wonder the Air Force considered it fit only for spares!
    There was the Sims, But did you have a Fin full of fuel?

    As for fuel burn, the ferry back from Kenya!!!!! With the gear down!!!! Burnt a bit lol

    I remember the we can't relight no3 at XXX odd k feet. So they snag the engine... But it isn't designed to relight at that height.. RR say so.... But the others did ...... Head bangs against the desk..
    Last edited by TonyT; 22nd January 2012 at 16:37.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    At St Athan but from St Mawgan
    Posts
    10,724
    Quote Originally Posted by DragonRapide View Post
    I was surprised that the RAF airframe hours are not higher than that - Duxford's G-ASGC flew over 54,000 hrs in 16 years!
    That is quite surprising as Duxfords' V.1151 Super VC-10 G-ASGC is essentially the same as ZD241, but only saw 16 years of service.
    K.4 ZD241 N is ex V.1151 Super, G-ASGM, of BOAC and British Airways (1968-'80) and is now coming up to 44 years of service, so not only 12 years of airline flying, but also 18 years of long range refuelling.
    Having said that unlike 'GC, 'GM came into BOAC service when other types were becoming more popular with the airline, and it did spend 10 years (1980-'90) in open storage before 3-4 years in conversion at Filton, finally entering RAF service in 1994.
    I think after all the tanker conversions (C.1K, K.2, K.3, & K.4) were completed that there was an AAR over capacity, this may have led to economical use of all the airframes and preserve hours.

    As Tony says the RAF only C.1Ks don't have the same amount of hours on them, there is someone looking into my query as to their hours.
    Last edited by pagen01; 22nd January 2012 at 17:04.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,943
    Open storage was a farce, put in bags with no dehumidifiers in them, so the spar box sections we're sitting in a couple of foot of water.. an Eng officer at the time tried to get dehumidifiers in them but was over ruled.. We robbed them blind, the wing tanks were open where we had the pump housings out of some of them, the bags got shredded in the winds too... No one thought they would fly again.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by TonyT View Post
    But did you have a Fin full of fuel?
    It's a long time ago but I don't think we were allowed to land with fuel in the fin.
    Not enough scrambled egg on the flight deck to balance the weight....

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,943
    The RAF used to carry a Air Loadmaster down the rear of the cabin to counterbalance the weight of the Navigator in the cockpit

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    113
    Quote Originally Posted by pagen01 View Post
    That is quite surprising as Duxfords' V.1151 Super VC-10 G-ASGC is essentially the same as ZD241, but only saw 16 years of service.
    There always was a disparity of hours between the early BOAC Super VC10s and the later ones, greater than you would expect from the difference in delivery dates. I don't entirely know why. Crew training may account for some of it, although the Supers and Standards were treated as one fleet so no extra training was required on Supers.

    Possibly it was to do with the intensive use of the early Supers on long range routes straight from delivery whereas by the time the later ones were delivered BOAC had long-range 707s more suited to the job. But I couldn't say for certain.

    I remember when SGN was blown up at Dawsons Field it had very few hours on the clock - a great loss at the time.

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,943
    Believe the horizontal stab flew again though

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    New York-Paris-Peckham
    Posts
    92
    Apart from the example for the RAF museum are there any other VC-10's going to be preserved?

    Are they currently retiring the Cargo versions and will the Tankers be the last to serve?

    Would be great if another one could be saved!

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Kent.UK
    Posts
    1,486
    The prototype VC10 made its maiden flight from Weybridge (Brooklands) on the 29th June 1962. The museum has the ex Oman VC10 ex-A40-AB/G-ASIX
    on display and a exhibition will be opened in the ex BA forward fuselage section as well.
    http://www.brooklandsmuseum.com/inde...ls/vc10-at-50/
    mmitch.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    812

    1,010 707s, 54 VC10s. Why?

    On VC10 1st. flight 29 June,62 Flight judged it would hold 707 sales (then 550) to just 200 more: “demand has been filled.” Of the 54 built only 10 went to 3 open-market Users. By the time 707 No.1,010 flew in ’94 only RAF had VC10: it even failed at market v. also-ran DC-8 (556, to May,72).

    Engineering elegance, clear. But engineers do not buy aeroplanes. Quotes:

    GRE, on chop for V.1000: “a decision we (=UK will) regret for many years (biggest) blunder of all” D.Wood, Project Cancelled, P97. But it was chopped by MoS Maudling because: ) "I could not find a customer. BOAC did not want (/RAF) could not afford it” Memoirs, Sidgwick, 78, P62. Weight. Payload/range. So, on to VC10, which:

    would weigh “30% less if designed (now…builders) appear to have adhered only loosely to the drawings (New) parts must be machined to match the unserviceable part” O/C,VC10 Major Servicing,St.Athan,P63,3/99,O’haul & Mtce mag. Chairman Sir M.Slattery, 9/62, of BOAC's £14Mn. loss: “To expect a Co.to do something (not) wholly commercial {=feed the natives}, then, when it has lost money doing it, to expect to pay interest on that money is bloody crazy.” H.Penrose,Wings Across the World,C’sell,80,P223. That's why, despite cash subsidy of £30Mn. to 1967, BOAC operated Standard+Super VC10s fewer and briefer than 707-320B/C. Doubly odd, when Aircraft On Ground support was a brisk jog away from Hatton Cross, rather closer than Seattle.

    In 1984-ish adjacent in an HKG hangar were a V.800 Viscount and a 707-320B in for a similar splint on the horizontal:vertical stab join, which accessed parts we seldom see. One was agricultural, structure Lego-like. Dull. Boring. Light. Easy. Economically operable. The other was a sculpted brick dunny.

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    At St Athan but from St Mawgan
    Posts
    10,724
    Excellent summary there Ken.

    Quote Originally Posted by springbok View Post
    Apart from the example for the RAF museum are there any other VC-10's going to be preserved?
    I understand that one other RAF VC-10 will be saved at Bruntingthorpe, which I would assume to be drawn from the last ones retired.
    Unsure if the different Marks are being withdrawn in a certain order or not.

    Personally speaking I really hope that a 'Super' K.3/4 tanker (as Cosford are having a C.1K) will be preserved, just because of the incredible service that they have given to the RAF in the tanker role in many war zones, and their previous history as airliners.
    K.4 ZD241 would be on my list due to its history and having the most hours flown.

    Just to keep the thread updated, the very last VC-10 service at St Athan, ZA147 F, departed on the 23rd of February.

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,943
    One at Brunty to be kept as a runner and one to Cosford... The VC10 was scuppered by BOAC, they never wanted them and were forced to buy them, only when they finally got them in service and found the passengers loved then for their quietness and comfort, it was to late however, by that time the production had ended so they couldn't buy more, which i believe they enquired about. The Yanks made us jump through hoops to add things they desired, then walked away after it met their specifications, still a superb aircraft to fly in and the fastest airliner in the world.

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Nr Royston
    Posts
    1,182
    Didn't the Chinese also enquire about re-opening the line to avoid buying American. Presumably they were happy with the Tridents as an example of British engineering.

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Location, Location!
    Posts
    1,256
    Quote Originally Posted by TonyT View Post
    the fastest airliner in the world.
    Not faster than the Convair jets, was it? Certainly the most beautiful though, IMHO, even better looking than Concorde.
    Terms & Conditions Apply.

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Elsewhere
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by pagen01 View Post
    Personally speaking I really hope that a 'Super' K.3/4 tanker (as Cosford are having a C.1K) will be preserved, just because of the incredible service that they have given to the RAF in the tanker role in many war zones, and their previous history as airliners.
    K.4 ZD241 would be on my list due to its history and having the most hours flown.
    I'd suggest a K3 would be a far better bet - with the internal tankage it would be technically more interesting for the average punter - although access would be a pain with the one door! After all, there's virtually nothing inside the K4. Just an empty floor space after the seats at the front!

  16. #106
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,943
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Creosote View Post
    Not faster than the Convair jets, was it? Certainly the most beautiful though, IMHO, even better looking than Concorde.
    But the Convair is no longer flying, neither is Concorde, hence it is the fastest airliner in the world, agree about her looks, the new Dreamliner nose comes close to the VC 10's but she is an Ageless design.

  17. #107
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    581
    The Trident was faster too

    The VC 10 is not the faster airliner flying as it is no longer an airliner but a tanker.

    The DC 8 was faster and still flies and even went supersonic in a dive during development.

  18. #108
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    5,943
    So did the Ten apparently... they still do carry passengers on deployment, even the tankers has the facility to carry passengers,

    http://www.pprune.org/questions/1144...-tu-144-a.html
    Last edited by TonyT; 2nd March 2012 at 11:51.

  19. #109
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    812

    1960-62: How Did VC10 Survive as 707/DC-8 Scooped the Pool?

    BOAC had been given approval 9/56 to buy 15 (became 18) 707-420, with Ministers' intent to rollover asap for a British type. Tendered in 1956 that became an order for 35+20 option (to be Standard) VC10, 14/1/58. That massive size was to meet a Vickers offer (not matched by DH118 or HP111C) to handle R&D PV against that Economic Order Quantity. Maybe BOAC/Ministers hoped to roll some into BOAC Associated Cos. (CAAC/EAAC/WAAC/Cathay Pacific, maybe resurrected Aerlinte). 707 entered BOAC service Transatlantic 27/5/60, by when V-A had found their R&D time, so cost had "proved to be wrong by quite a bit" MD, G.R.Edwards. V-A told BOAC, 1/60, that VC10 was "in danger of cancellation" K.Hayward, Govt & Br.Civil Aerospace,MUP,1983,Pp.39,47. Ministers in 2/60 stumped up £9.4Mn. (became £10.25Mn.) to keep it going.

    Why? 707-320B and DC-8/50 were onway, scooping orders daily for deliveries long before any spare VC10 slot. Hayward and others have the Answer as to sustain the TSR.2 team (BAC commenced trading, 1/7/60). Yes, but... not only. There was a military and a China angle.

    The China play. UK finally extinguished Chin Peng's Malayan Emergency on 31/7/60. Mao ejected Soviet advisors from PRC, 8/60. No parts or support for military and civil aircraft. UK:CAAC contact began within weeks, exploring 24 V.840...and 5 VC10. 6 Viscounts were ordered 1/12/61, but UK continued to pursue VC10, and other chimera: an Intent for VC10 (and Trident) was later secured, but Ministers chose to deny an Export Licence,10/65 (J.A.Engel, Cold War at 30,000ft.,HUP,2007,P.283). (By 1971, when UK chose to acquiesce in any military spin-off of Trident, so did US, who sold 10 707-320B/C). The political advantages of PRC trade, relations over HK, &tc, meant chop for VC10 would have been untimely.

    The Military play. See Vulcan's Hammer: Skybolt Pofflers. Dates:
    6/6/60: US/UK MoU: Skybolt.
    23/6/60: 10 Super VC10s ordered for BOAC.
    18/11/60: OR.1182: UK alternative to Skybolt, to be carried on Mk.2 V-craft and VC10.
    4/61: RAF Spec.B.222, VC10 as ALBM carrier: 36 envisaged.
    5/61: BOAC order revised as 15 Standard+35 option.
    9/61: 5 (ex-BOAC Standard) VC10 C.1 (an amalgam of Standard and Super, with APU and AAR-as-receiver) ordered to OR.239.
    mid-62: BOAC order revised to 12 Standard + 30 Supers.
    8/62: RAF C.1 increased to 11.
    But: 21/12/62: Skybolt gone. If BOAC had tried very hard then, the type may have died. But it had flown 29/6/62, BAC needed sustenance, the China card was still in play.

    1/1/64 BOAC's Chairman Sir M.Slattery was sacked for trying not to take delivery of any VC10, but to buy 707-320B/C. His successor promptly took the same line. The outcome, 20/7/64 was that BOAC took 11 707-320C, 12 Standard and 17 Supers, RAF took 3 as C.1s, 5 went to EAAC as Aid (hence a poster's comment that the operator never paid for them).
    Last edited by alertken; 5th March 2012 at 18:37.

  20. #110
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Heath Hayes, Staffordshire
    Posts
    631
    Perhaps Airbase should have one as well, and one to go with the Nimrod and Victor at Elvington and Norwich and...............................

  21. #111
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Elsewhere
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by TonyT View Post
    So did the Ten apparently... they still do carry passengers on deployment, even the tankers has the facility to carry passengers,
    Certainly the Falklands based jet lets the '10 hang on the the airliner tag. Just.

  22. #112
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    SPL Rad112/09DME
    Posts
    1,185
    If you're after a decent book about the VC10 for your bookshelves, see here for an interesting suggestion: http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...blication.html

    I hope this is within forum guidelines re: advertising. I think it is as this is not a commercial venture, just an attempt at getting a good book republished.
    A Little VC10derness - A Tribute to the Vickers VC10 - www.VC10.net

  23. #113
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    At St Athan but from St Mawgan
    Posts
    10,724
    "Silent, Swift, Superb: The Story Of The Vickers VC-10" by Scott Henderson is an absolutely suberb book on the aircraft, much more so than you might at first realise, the more you read through it, the more you can appreciate the information that is contained within it.
    The more recent "Vickers VC10" by Lance Cole is also very good.
    Would be great to see a revised edition of one of them at the end of RAF VC-10 operations.


    VC-10 K.3 ZA147 F 23 Feb 2012 by jamtey71, on Flickr

  24. #114
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Leicester
    Posts
    1,206

    VC10s

    As they're being retired I suppose they are heading into historic aviation, not sure if they are quite there yet. This morning XV106 and XV108 arrived at Bruntingthorpe.


    W XV106


    Y XV108
    Push enough pixels around and it'll look like an aeroplane profile.

  25. #115
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Tattershall Lincs
    Posts
    1,618

    VC10

    I'm sure a VC10 did a flyby at Coningsby yesterday?

  26. #116
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    East Kent
    Posts
    7,926
    Surprised Richard Branson didn't bid for one - it woild look good witrh a Virgin tail!!...and we could all have flown in it!!
    Charlie

    Keep smiling - it's never as bad as you think!!

  27. #117
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    320
    Give it a couple of months and they'll be washing machines.
    Another member of the Andy Saunders appreciation society

  28. #118
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Leicester
    Posts
    1,206
    It's going to take longer than two months, these two are going to be stored for a while and used for spares, luckily not being scrapped quite yet.
    Push enough pixels around and it'll look like an aeroplane profile.

  29. #119
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    76
    It'll be a very sad day when the last one makes its final flight. One of the most beautiful shapes in the sky.

  30. #120
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,029
    I have a feeling in my water that the published date of the VC10 going out of service may be moved to the right So the recovery of spares from these aircraft going to Bruntingthorpe will be vital.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES