Military AircrewA forum for the professionals who fly the non-civilian hardware, and the backroom boys and girls without whom nothing would leave the ground. Army, Navy and Airforces of the World, all equally welcome here.
Guys. If you really love the Tristar, get in touch with our top brass and put an offer in. They will be surplus to the RAF's requirements sometime this decade and you might be able to pick them up at a reasonable price if you bid now.
Quote "Marshall Aerospace is the Sister Design Authority for the Royal Air Force fleet of Lockheed L10-11 TriStar Tanker/Freighter aircraft which Marshall converted to these roles." Taken from the company web site
And where is the lower deck stowage on the RAF K models??
411 good to hear yr happy to fly around the world with double crew on board, have you installed bunks on yr -500 as well
This thread is starting to turn into a childish rant from some quarters.
Lets not keep arguing with 411A. It is obvious that his airline is the best at what it does (despite having aged, maintenance hungry and fuel inefficient aircraft in tiny numbers), and so may be in great demand in the future for work that the RAF Tristars are currently doing.
Although it is obvious to almost everyone here that his airline CANNOT do the role now, and would be uninsurable for the purpose, that is not to say that if:
His company get an 'end user' certificate to buy DAS equipment; they they put their aircraft in for deep maintenance to have DAS equipment (of suitable quality, and with total loss of revenue during this period) to all their aircraft; they employ extra staff and engineers to be able to service and overhaul the DAS gear; they train their crews on how to operate the gear; they obtain full insurance for this new 'in theatre' type role; their crew can also get suitable insurance; they get MOD/DOD permission for their crews to be 'eyes on' with secret MOD equipment (a hurdle for many carriers).
Then they will be on a level playing field, and the massive extra costs involved in this move will no doubt make them more expensive than the RAF, due to their tiny size.
Just my two penneth. I am of course happy to be corrected that 411A's friends are all DAS trained and experienced, and suitably insured for combat/in theatre type operations rather than airline operations.
Perhaps the 'best' option for the RAF to use their TriStars to Kaubl (or Bagram AFB) and then thereafter...civvy air transprt out of theatre, directly to the UK. With our ops, no delays, guarenteed. Double crews (always) solved the duty time 'delay' difficulities.
IE: it is surprising (maybe not) that that the RAF is knee deep in 'problems'.. IE: when will they ever learn?...
seam to remember why we got them in the first place we needed modern long haul aircraft for the Airbridge to port stanley, BA had mothballed them because of the recession and the DC10 had such a poor reputation "Not the nine o'clock news" were running DC10 jokes almost weekly!
and like most transport aircraft the RAF have pushed them beyond what they were expected to do because transport aircraft come some way down their airships list of priories slightly above transport helecopters.
Perhaps the 'best' option for the RAF to use their TriStars to Kaubl (or Bagram AFB) and then thereafter...civvy air transprt out of theatre, directly to the UK.
Please read the earlier posts. It is UK (not RAF) policy that all flights in Afghanistan (intra and inter) that carry UK military passengers are undertaken in aircraft equipped with DAS. It doesn't matter where these land (KAF, Bastion, Kabul, Bagram, MAS....). Therefore, if a civilian company was to do this job it would need DAS equipped aircraft and DAS equipped crews.
Now it would be different if we took your suggestion and used civilian air to transport personnel to an airport in a nearby country and then move them into Afg in a DAS equipped aircraft. Perhaps then the MOD (not the RAF) could charter civilian airlines to do the leg between the UK and a regional country. You may wish to contact the MOD (not the RAF) and suggest such a thing.
The TriStars were originally bought to fulfil a requirement to tank a C130 down to Stanley, for it to fail to get in, and tank it back. That requirement very quickly disappeared when MPA was built and the political climate improved but no-one wanted to admit it in case the purchase was binned. That is why the freight bay was filled up with nearly useless fuel tanks by Marshalls. Most of 216 at the time would have preferred the -500s to stay in their full civvy fit with 300 odd passenger seats and a usable freight bay.
This sort of incompetence was not confined to the military, though. The rumour in BA in the early 80's was that the TriStar was judged too expensive to operate by the accountants. They had looked at the fuel flow per engine compared to the B747, amongst other things, to work out the costs per seat mile. Allegedly, once the sale to the RAF had been agreed, someone pointed out that multiplying the fuel flow by 4 was always going to make the TriStar compare badly to the Boeing.