Tristars grounded again?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: europe
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pathetic 411A, as i said before and many will say in the future, you talk crap and spout bile, facts are facts and cannot be changed, bigotry and ignorance are inherited or programed.....that can be changed if there is the will....but that i very much doubt....nite nite.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...facts are facts and cannot be changed
Nite nite.
Just ignore "411A"
Bluepilot, just add "411A" to your 'Ignore List' - it will be good for your blood pressure. I did, and I feel much better now! 
If you don't know how, it's easy:
Just click on his name, select 'View Public Profile', then on the profile screen click on 'Add 411A to your Ignore List' and follow the instructions. Bingo, his messages are now hidden from your view. It's bliss!
If you don't know how, it's easy:
Just click on his name, select 'View Public Profile', then on the profile screen click on 'Add 411A to your Ignore List' and follow the instructions. Bingo, his messages are now hidden from your view. It's bliss!
Meanwhile, it seems that Marshall Aerospace has finally delivered the first glass cockpit TriStar to the RAF.....
Marshall Aerospace Completes Tristar Upgrade : AINonline
When the last one has been upgraded, for just how many weeks will it actually be in service before being scrapped, I wonder.....
Marshall Aerospace Completes Tristar Upgrade : AINonline
When the last one has been upgraded, for just how many weeks will it actually be in service before being scrapped, I wonder.....
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: wiltshire
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is soo sooo funny
But a couple of final words before i ignore it
Comments re the RAF falling on its butt all the time, have a look at the stats! actually its pretty good %ratio of the jet getting round within a reasonable time (no more than 180mins delayed) Problem is when any trip is delayed the folk on board remember that one!
The crew ratio is not an issue, we prioritise the "theatre runs" and just like any airline! we do have slip crews, we have tried stby crew, we have tried augmented crew! with the limitations we have on routing, slot times, WAT limits.
As for comments about useless fuel tanks in the hold on the K1 and KC!, there are a lot of fast jet folks out there who during all the conflicts we have been involved in over the last 20 years who have been very pleased that we had the capacity!! The useless fuel tanks funny old thing did the job they were designed for, provided lots of fuel in the air!!!
The big difference with the RAF attitude to operating there AT fleet and ANY civvie operator, we are not MONEY driven, take from that what you will
But a couple of final words before i ignore it
Comments re the RAF falling on its butt all the time, have a look at the stats! actually its pretty good %ratio of the jet getting round within a reasonable time (no more than 180mins delayed) Problem is when any trip is delayed the folk on board remember that one!
The crew ratio is not an issue, we prioritise the "theatre runs" and just like any airline! we do have slip crews, we have tried stby crew, we have tried augmented crew! with the limitations we have on routing, slot times, WAT limits.
As for comments about useless fuel tanks in the hold on the K1 and KC!, there are a lot of fast jet folks out there who during all the conflicts we have been involved in over the last 20 years who have been very pleased that we had the capacity!! The useless fuel tanks funny old thing did the job they were designed for, provided lots of fuel in the air!!!
The big difference with the RAF attitude to operating there AT fleet and ANY civvie operator, we are not MONEY driven, take from that what you will
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As one of my old Maritime Squadron Commanders (Bunter, for those that knew and loved him) famously said:
"The Air Force is not in the business of making money; we are in the business of spending it!"
"The Air Force is not in the business of making money; we are in the business of spending it!"
politics etc, L1011s were "moved" to the RAF before BA privatisation, at the time certainly NOT the RAF's choice! Harold Wilsons govs allegedly bribed to place the order....Maggie Thatchers govt trimming BA to become a privatisation wonder, now if you were to have an airline with an virtually new fleet bought and paid for, property worth billions and a clean new balance sheet with no debts plus a monopoly on many routes you would be very profitable! but thats a subject for another thread
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for comments about useless fuel tanks in the hold on the K1 and KC!, there are a lot of fast jet folks out there who during all the conflicts we have been involved in over the last 20 years who have been very pleased that we had the capacity!! The useless fuel tanks funny old thing did the job they were designed for, provided lots of fuel in the air!!!
The K1 and KC1 had an MTOW of 245 Tonnes and an empty weight of approx 117 Tonnes when I flew them. The max I ever uplifted on a tanking sortie was 128 tonnes of gas to take off at MTOW we had plenty of unusable tank space onboard. They had tank space for 144 Tonnes of gas onboard, so unless things have changed significantly or the laws of Physics have changed there most definitely IS useless tank space on the RAF TriStar tankers.
The RAF would be better served with the rear hold returned to a traditional hold, particularly on the K1. This would provide them with a far more flexible asset. Comments about giving away gas you cannot carry are a little pointless. In general ops the TriStar hardly ever gets airborne at max weight with no freight of any kind using the tank space it can for fuel.
The gold plated solution would be modular system allowing the extra tanks to be fitted in the holds when a pure tanking mission was required and allowing it to be used as hold space the rest of the time. I doubt the AAR lobby would allow that, but if that cannot be done at least get the tanks out of the rear hold
Valve,
Damn lies and statistics. I have no doubt that you are correct and most jets arrive within the 180 min timeframe. I do question your choice of metrics old chap.
The Trimotor may well taxi in at BZZ with 250 pax exactly on time, but how many pax are backed up at BZZ/KAF because of earlier problems. That is the faith/trust issue that colours perceptions of the airbridge and that is what needs to be addressed.
Weather/Serviceability/Crewing/Rocket attacks all cause bumps in the road. 216 are working exceptionally hard, and the Trimotor may be a great aircraft, but we do not have the flexibility of capacity within the fleet to cope when things, as they often do, go wrong.
As much fun as p1ssing matches are, the spotlight needs to fall on whether we are equipped to complete the task with the assets we have. I don't think we are, and it follows that a full and frank debate is needed. I will concede that this is not the forum for that, and wild claims from across the pond are not always welcome, or needed.
Damn lies and statistics. I have no doubt that you are correct and most jets arrive within the 180 min timeframe. I do question your choice of metrics old chap.
The Trimotor may well taxi in at BZZ with 250 pax exactly on time, but how many pax are backed up at BZZ/KAF because of earlier problems. That is the faith/trust issue that colours perceptions of the airbridge and that is what needs to be addressed.
Weather/Serviceability/Crewing/Rocket attacks all cause bumps in the road. 216 are working exceptionally hard, and the Trimotor may be a great aircraft, but we do not have the flexibility of capacity within the fleet to cope when things, as they often do, go wrong.
As much fun as p1ssing matches are, the spotlight needs to fall on whether we are equipped to complete the task with the assets we have. I don't think we are, and it follows that a full and frank debate is needed. I will concede that this is not the forum for that, and wild claims from across the pond are not always welcome, or needed.
The gold plated solution would be modular system allowing the extra tanks to be fitted in the holds when a pure tanking mission was required and allowing it to be used as hold space the rest of the time.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As there is no money to do the Mods, we are speculating. If the tanks came out of the rear hold, what would happen to the HDU? I assume it also lives in the back hold somewhere.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have they upped the MTOW and Max Airborne weight for the old girl then?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midlands
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Akrotiri
+20 zero wind Q 1013 Max take off weight 212T ....
+25 zero wind Q 1013 Max take off weight 205T ....
+30 zero wind Q 1013 Max take off weight 201T ....
All REDUCED by 0.4 for every 1mb below 1013
+20 zero wind Q 1013 Max take off weight 212T ....
+25 zero wind Q 1013 Max take off weight 205T ....
+30 zero wind Q 1013 Max take off weight 201T ....
All REDUCED by 0.4 for every 1mb below 1013
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm, hold fuel tanks not all that serviceable, considering the mission as it's defined today...personnel transport.
No surprise that the RAF has fked-up a perfectably reliable/dependable... jet transport airplane.
Deplorable.
No surprise that the RAF has fked-up a perfectably reliable/dependable... jet transport airplane.
Deplorable.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 55
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
411A,
The more you post, the more you show your ignorance of the RAF Tristar Fleet.
If you knew what you are talking about, you would know why this statement
is just so dumb.
Please only comment on things you actually know about. You fly a civilian unmodified version of the aircraft, we have a mixed fleet of 3 (4 if you split the C2 and C2A) versions (try google) of the L1011-500, all quite different. It may help you to know that most delays are for equipment not fitted on standard civilian aircraft, if you discount these delays the dispatch rate goes up quite markedly.
The more you post, the more you show your ignorance of the RAF Tristar Fleet.
If you knew what you are talking about, you would know why this statement
Hmmm, hold fuel tanks not all that serviceable, considering the mission as it's defined today...personnel transport.
Please only comment on things you actually know about. You fly a civilian unmodified version of the aircraft, we have a mixed fleet of 3 (4 if you split the C2 and C2A) versions (try google) of the L1011-500, all quite different. It may help you to know that most delays are for equipment not fitted on standard civilian aircraft, if you discount these delays the dispatch rate goes up quite markedly.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may help you to know that most delays are for equipment not fitted on standard civilian aircraft, if you discount these delays the dispatch rate goes up quite markedly.
The RAF has taken a good product and steadfastly made it into an inferior one.
Certainly no surprise.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Back from the sandpit
Age: 63
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A
You really do spout some utter hoop. If you had any sense at all you'd know exactly what Sideshow Bob was referring to. Without said equipment even your miraculous frames, that never go u/s, never run out of crew hours and have spares positioned at every airfield in the world would still not be allowed sausage side.
Why don't you just leave it to your marketing director to liase with MoD, and just hope that he is better recieved there than you ever could be here. Until then if you persist you will continue to reap the whirlwind of malcontent that is undoubtably building toward you and as this forum is read by some of those who make grown up decisions may backfire right in your company's face.
The RAF has taken a good product and steadfastly made it into an inferior one.
Why don't you just leave it to your marketing director to liase with MoD, and just hope that he is better recieved there than you ever could be here. Until then if you persist you will continue to reap the whirlwind of malcontent that is undoubtably building toward you and as this forum is read by some of those who make grown up decisions may backfire right in your company's face.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: wiltshire
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
411A inferior in what way?
The KC1 and K1 aircraft were modified to be tanker/freighter aircraft which was the requirement of the MOD at the time. Yes the K1 cargo system is poor, thats why they tend not to be used to many times in a freight role, put them up as a flying fuel station or on a trail then funny thing they do exactly what they were designed for.
The KC1, pretty damn capable in all the roles its needed to do.
The C2/C2a mods are required for the job we do, but essentially very little difference between them and the civvie version, The powers that be have decided that to do the job we do! we have to have that protection provided by those mods, this has not made it inferior? It has made it safer in the environment that we work in, why because the UK Govt do not want to take the risk, you might be happy to ask yr crews to do it, but we have a duty of care to the passengers down the back
So please stop talking utter tosh mate!
The KC1 and K1 aircraft were modified to be tanker/freighter aircraft which was the requirement of the MOD at the time. Yes the K1 cargo system is poor, thats why they tend not to be used to many times in a freight role, put them up as a flying fuel station or on a trail then funny thing they do exactly what they were designed for.
The KC1, pretty damn capable in all the roles its needed to do.
The C2/C2a mods are required for the job we do, but essentially very little difference between them and the civvie version, The powers that be have decided that to do the job we do! we have to have that protection provided by those mods, this has not made it inferior? It has made it safer in the environment that we work in, why because the UK Govt do not want to take the risk, you might be happy to ask yr crews to do it, but we have a duty of care to the passengers down the back
So please stop talking utter tosh mate!