This is indeed a unique day.
I actually find myself agreeing with Beagle.
Having flown with him on more than a few occasions, I know we would not willingly choose each other as social company, however I am still rather surprised we actually agree on something. Yes, the debacle on the glass cockpit on 949 is well documented and was an atrocious waste of money. Such is life when a certain Aero firm in Cambridge is involved. I'm not prepared to enter into into a bun fight as to whether the VC10 or the TriStar was the better AAR tanker. I am, fortunately, in a fairly unique position of having operated both to pass a valid point of view.
UK towline with small fast jet receivers. VC10 wins.
Any large receiver, or US fast jet, TriStar wins every time even with single hose. Flow rate of up 2,800 kg per minute sorts that out.
Plus the ability to regularly take off with over 115 tonnes of the stuff is a bit of a bonus. Which I have done on several occasions.
As is often regrettably the case, important decisions were made by those not best qualified. Classic case in point was the proposed fitting of wing hoses to the TriStar. Nothing to do with wing strength or jet blast from the pod engine. At the time, the customer receiver was deemed to be the F4. American aircraft. Large bore fuel pipes. Could not easily get the flow rate out to the wings.
As for the seating capacity of the TriStar, it is worth pointing out that several civilian operators used to fly it in the 300 seat plus configuration. The RAF chose not to, but could easily have fitted more seats.
My great sadness is that this mighty aircraft has now gone and went in what I came to accept as traditional 216 Sqn fashion.
As was once said 'This is how it will all end, not with a bang, but a whimper'
( Misquote intended)
I spent 1 tour on the VC10. I was not 'moved on' I left with a full CRA category. To say that I much preferred the TriStar was no secret and rather removes my anonymity to any that flew with me. I enjoyed my flying on the VC10. I met some wonderful people, got used to shutting engines down in flight with gay abandon (no, I never surged one......) and I broke down in several places I had never visited before.
I was dined out on the top table of Brize Officer's Mess when I returned to the TriStar and was invited to the 10 Sqn disbandment parade. I had lots of fun.
I spent almost 18 years on 216. 10 as a Flight Instructor.
Nothing. I couldn't even go to the disbandment parade.
I was even stood up by my own Wg Cdr for my final interview on my final day. After waiting for 3 hours I just walked out of the door.
216 could have learned a great deal from 10 Sqn. Especially when dealing with the Squadron's greatest asset. Its personnel.
Good luck to those operating the Voyager. Let us hope that the recent 'in flight excursion' does not reappear and that confidence in the aircraft will return. It would be nice if one day, it could also boast the same AAR capability as the L1011. Somehow, I doubt that.
What a tragedy that some of the money invested in that aircraft could not have been spent on the TriStar.
Possibly 216 Sqn should have had more than the occasional Navigator as an Ops Officer after all........
The RAF might have still had a capable tanker then.......
Rant over.