new life for RAF Tristar tanker role?

[rog747]

heard that most of the retired fleet being reactivated to be contracted tankers http://www.tempus-as.com/media-press-release-10.php

is that so?

[chopper2004]

heard that most of the retired fleet being reactivated to be contracted tankers Media & Press - Tempus Applied Solutions, LLC (http://www.tempus-as.com/media-press-release-10.php)

is that so?

Strange as thought that AGD Systems in Florida bought them back in 2015, shipped them stateside to be used as contracted AAR?

I guess Tempus have them now

cheers

[rog747]

Strange as thought that AGD Systems in Florida bought them back in 2015, shipped them stateside to be used as contracted AAR?

I guess Tempus have them now

cheers

they are still here in UK are they not?
until Tempus agrees they are flyable etc

[chopper2004]

they are still here in UK are they not?
until Tempus agrees they are flyable etc



http://nebula.wsimg.com/7a474ad5aaabd014ae3a7b94a339ebb2?AccessKeyId=092DB49DA24B986 1488A&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

They're in USA all six
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/MMS_results.aspx?Mmstxt=5265020&Statetxt=DE&conVal=0&PageNo=1

Cheers

[CAEBr]

http://nebula.wsimg.com/7a474ad5aaab...&alloworigin=1

They're in USA all six
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinqu...Val=0&PageNo=1

Cheers


Chopper,

They've been put on the US register, yes - in anticipation of an agreed sale - but they are still at Bruntingthorpe and require maintenance and approval before they can be ferried. Registration is not proof of location.

CAEBr

[rog747]

thanks for the clarification they are sill here

[camelspyyder]

Its the same dodge (the US reg) that was used to allow the Dominies to be ferried away from Cranwell without UK C of A. I believe a US licensed engineer had to inspect and sign them off for flight.

[Brian W May]

Still my favourite day job.

Best office I ever worked in (once they removed the Refuelling Lighting above the flightdeck anyway).

[esscee]

Ah, yes. The "noisy" little lights keeping you awake.

[Onceapilot]

I have posted about the disgraceful (political!) waste of the RAF TriStar AAR asset in previous posts. The basic fact is that the AAR modified TriStar airframes in RAF service could have easily achieved far longer service at far less cost than the A330 contract. Good luck to anyone who operates those venerable L1011-500's in the future.

OAP

[Fareastdriver]

I can see six of them at Bruntingthorpe on Google Earth.

[Always a Sapper]

I have posted about the disgraceful (political!) waste of the RAF TriStar AAR asset in previous posts. The basic fact is that the AAR modified TriStar airframes in RAF service could have easily achieved far longer service at far less cost than the A330 contract. Good luck to anyone who operates those venerable L1011-500's in the future.

OAP

Sadly I cant see the MOD bean counters getting embarrassed if they go onto fly in an operational role for another 10 to 20 years.

Was the A330 contract a political buy, bit like the A400? Time will tell.... Out of interest, where do we stand in respect to Airbus and the UK based operations when we finally leave the EU, how long before the UK based factories move?

[salad-dodger]

I can see six of them at Bruntingthorpe on Google Earth.
Oh that's it then, they must be at Bruntingthorpe.

S-D

[Saintsman]

Whilst the Tristar may have a longer lifespan in service, what would the serviceability have been like? I seem to recall lots of cancellations / delays in the AT role towards the end of its RAF time.

[TURIN]

Are there any Tristars still in commercial service?

Who is responsible for the Design Authority?

[pr00ne]

It cost the RAF a fortune to keep the ancient VC10 going as "sole operator," and the Tristar, another "sole surviving operator" serviceability was appalling toward the end, drawing heaps of well publicised criticism from the Army who were constantly being delayed and stranded by u/s Tristars between the UK and Afghan.
It was time to go.
Replacements are modern state of the art properly supported efficient and fit for purpose brand new aircraft.

[salad-dodger]

It cost the RAF a fortune to keep the ancient VC10 going as "sole operator," and the Tristar, another "sole surviving operator" serviceability was appalling toward the end, drawing heaps of well publicised criticism from the Army who were constantly being delayed and stranded by u/s Tristars between the UK and Afghan.
It was time to go.
Replacements are modern state of the art properly supported efficient and fit for purpose brand new aircraft.
I would agree with all of that, including the fitness for purpose bit, if our tankers also had a boom. It would be nice to be able to refuel our own RJ, C17, P8 etc.

S-D

[pr00ne]

salad-dodger,

That is true. Was being mooted as being "looked at" a while back.

[Heathrow Harry]

By 2015 only the Orbital Stargazer was left in commercial service

[Onceapilot]

Here they are, all the anti TriStar nay-sayers "oh, it cost a fortune, oh, it was u/s all the time, oh, the A330 is nice and shiny etc, etc".
Certainly the RAF had issues with supporting a proper big-jet, mainly in the planning and long-term concept side (at high rank level!). Also, during a long period, tech support manpower was drastically lacking and the few techies worked like slaves! Maybe that is why the RAF has been forced to civilianise the role!:p
As far as cost, it was about £10,000 per flying hour, servicability was v.good when supported properly and, surprise, surprise, only suffered when support was insufficient. It could also lift over 15t of fuel more than the RAF A330.
As an aside, TriStar tanker serviceability on Ops was outstanding. :) So, what is wrong with a £30Billion PFI ?:ouch:

OAP

[BEagle]

Onceapilot, the main limitation of the TriStar was that it could only refuel one aircraft at a time. Re-opening the wing pod modification proposal would have cost a lot of time (and a LOT of dosh if Marshall Aerospace was involved); also, once the VC10 was out of service the TriStar fleet size would have been too small on its own with only 6 hoses in the sky being available at the same time, so another tanker type would also have been required. Particularly when the TriStar was also needed for strategic transport work.

After the ZD949 fiasco, who would ever trust a modification programme to the same organisation.....

October 2006 - Marshall Aerospace is awarded a £22M contract to upgrade the RAF TriStars' avionics and FMS including a 'glass cockpit' as the 'MMR upgrade'. This should have been a relatively low-risk programme as it used elements of the C-130 cockpit upgrade already underway for the RNAF.

November 2007 - ZD949 arrives at Cambridge for the trial installation with a planned completion date of Q3 2008 at which time the second TriStar would begin conversion.

2008 came and went.

2009 came and went.

January 2010 - ZD949 finally makes its first flight with the MMR upgrade.

October 2010 - SDSR indicates that the TriStar will start to leave RAF service in 2013; TriStar MMR programme is to be discontinued.

December 2010 - After 100 hours of flight test, ZD949 finally passes MoD review and is due to be back in service in Spring 2011.

2011 - Due to the change in out-of-service date now planned for the TriStar and with the A330MRTT due in service by the end of the year, ZD949 remains at Cambridge in a pristine state under 'storage' and is to be 'reduced to spares' - a euphemism for being scrapped - as it would be too expensive to convert it back to its original state.

:mad:

[Onceapilot]

Hi Beagle.
Yes, as I try to point out, the TriStar in RAF service was not well managed by the top brass. I disagree about the wing pods. The work was done and the remaining cost would have been similar to the VC10 C1K pod fit.
All water under the bridge now...except it isn't. I suggest that the RAF is pricing itself out of existence with such an expensive tanker / transport contract and an economy about to tombstone. :oh:
BTW, the £22M MMR contract looks cheap compared to the £10M VIP fit on a A330. ;)

OAP

[BEagle]

Voyager an expensive tanker option? Really? A PFI snip at only £1M+ per day...:\

1986 MoD dithering and assumed programme cost killed the 3-point TriStar plan, which was indeed a great pity.

The VC10K4 could also have been a much more useful aircraft if the passenger cabin hadn't been so limited - again due to politics rather than system limitations....

[West Coast]

Not sure what the final intent was, but this past July a Tristar departed Tucson for Kansas City (I believe) but returned to Tucson with engine issues.

[BEagle]

West Coast, the aircraft eventually reached Kansas City and belongs to this worthy organisation: TriStar Our Mission - TriStar (http://www.tristarexperience.org/our-mission-2/)

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

The basic fact is that the AAR modified TriStar airframes in RAF service could have easily achieved far longer service at far less cost than the A330 contract.


But at what risk? The appetite for flying ancient aircraft evaporated very quickly a few years back for obvious reasons - TriStar, VC10, Herc K, Sea King all disappeared with almost indecent haste (standfast 849 of course). I can't give any statistics, but a new A330 is probably a better bet than an old Tristar.

[WHBM]

Much as it was a great aircraft in its time, the basic fact is that with all the commercial ones gone, Lockheed have terminated their manufacturers' product support for it, so no more spares, revisions for new radio concepts, etc. This would mean that Marshalls could not offer support beyond what they have in stock (which is probably most of what Lockheed had in stock towards the end, being the last operator). Meanwhile the bathtub curve of component unreliability moves ever upward.

The recent Tristar flight from Tucson to Kansas City, which took years of planning to achieve, described above, was done with substantially retired ex-TWA personnel, which given it was 20 years since they last operated them, and newer guys had not been trained on them for many years before that, are alas a thinning group. There do not seem to be any plans to fly it again.

[Basil]

30 years ago and 3500hrs on type - I'm just bored enough to give it a go! ;)

[West Coast]

West Coast, the aircraft eventually reached Kansas City and belongs to this worthy organisation

Good to hear Beags!

[Well Travelled Nav]

Whilst the airframe may well have been able to continue in service, the RB211-524 engines on the other hand are unsupportable and have limited life remaining on the major lifed components in the engine. The OEM are no longer refurbishing the engines or manufacturing spares and hence probably why the company intend to take all 6 and use 3 for parts.

[RAF_Techie101]

Nerdy fact - if you look at the photo of the engineer's panel in the tankers, you can see two blanking plates fitted on the top of the fuelling lines. This is where the underwing pods were going to be before they were shelved...

Lockheed L-1011 Tristar KC1 - Large Preview - AirTeamImages.com (http://www.airteamimages.com/lockheed-l-1011-tristar_ZD952_united-kingdom---royal-air-force_26793_large.html)

[Onceapilot]

RB211-524 engines on the other hand are unsupportable and have limited life remaining on the major lifed components in the engine. The OEM are no longer refurbishing the engines or manufacturing spares and hence probably why the company intend to take all 6 and use 3 for parts.

WTN
You are making this up. Any older equipment requires support contracts and logistics. The RB211-524B4 BTW was entirely supportable at low cost. In fact, the RAF declined several upgrade options and long term support of it's TriStar fleet. One upgrade to the turbines was incorporated quite recently as the older turbine type became superceeded. That upgrade lowered the TBT by 50*C at the same max thrust! So, you can see the improvements that were available, or maybe you just don't know?
One engine that did give the RAF real support headaches was the Conway in the VC10. Try reading about that and stop throwing sh1t about!

OAP

[WHBM]

I am also surprised at the comment about supporting the -524 engine. This is on the BA 767s, a number of which are still very much in service, and also on those 747-400s built with it, including some quite recent freighters, I think the last was for Cargolux, only about 10 years ago.

The Tristar airframe is a different matter, with them all out of service for some years now, Lockheed is not going to continue with it.

[rog747]

the RB 211 524 is still in service on BA's 767-300 their 747-400 plus Qantas still uses it too on the 747-400ER

SAA ANZ and Cargolux have all retired their RR 747-400's

QF also had a fleet of ex BA 767's with RR engines but these may have been retired

the tristar 500 application is an older design but i think the modules are similar
the 767 and 747 application is the G or H spec (also the G/T or H/T spec)

[Onceapilot]

I am also surprised at the comment about supporting the -524 engine. This is on the BA 767s, a number of which are still very much in service, and also on those 747-400s built with it, including some quite recent freighters, I think the last was for Cargolux, only about 10 years ago.

The Tristar airframe is a different matter, with them all out of service for some years now, Lockheed is not going to continue with it.

You are right WHBM. Lockheed were keen to drop the support and, I guess they will not be happy that a niche operator intends to keep the airframes going as a bit of an ongoing liability? However, if the RAF had decided to properly keep a small fleet of TriStars as a mature airframe, well within their life, then I am sure Lockheed would have helped. :) It is, afterall, a great aircraft. :ok:

OAP

[tdracer]

I think the last was for Cargolux, only about 10 years ago.
Not quite - Rolls stopped offering new RB211 engines in 2001 or 2002 (IIRC). Back when Boeing was getting ready to offer the 747-8, they offered the final 747-400s at pretty much fire sale prices (apparently too cheap - they had more interest than there were slots remaining). Anyway Cathay wanted six aircraft with RB211 engines (so 24 engines plus spares) and Rolls refused. So Cathay got PW4000 instead.
But all that being said, Rolls is still supporting the RB211-524 - at least the newer marks on the 767 and 747-400.
Rob747, last I heard those QF 767s were going to be converted to freighters somewhere in the US. However I retired late last year so my information isn't very up to date.

[Well Travelled Nav]

The engines on the RAF Tristars are older variants of the -524 that are unsupported. The 524G/H-T fitted to the more modern aircraft are still supported but have different standards of parts that do not fit the Tristar engines. This will also be a problem https://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2014_0250.pdf/AD_2014-0250_1

[esscee]

The RB211-524 on the RAF Tristars is/was the 524B non-Fadec engines with old narrow Fan blades that had mid span shrouds (clappers). Twenty years ago the suggestion was put to MOD to allow an upgrade to the 524D Fadec model with the wide chord fan blades at a minimum to be common with BA engines, but as usual got overruled by those that control the purse strings. We found out that RR would be happy to carry out required work during Major/Minor star input.