VC 10 to fly again as a tanker

[NutLoose]

I am surprised none have you picked up on it in the Brunty thread, but ZA150 has been sold with the ambition to get her back into service tanking, see link.

https://ukaviation.news/kepler-aerospace-aims-to-get-former-raf-vc10-flying-again/?fbclid=IwAR2kQjEN

[Martin the Martian]

And if they couldn't any of those Tristars back in the air I can't see a cat in hell's chance for ZA150.

[Saintsman]

Good luck finding spares. 20 years ago they never came back from a trip fully serviceable and I doubt there is any stock sat on shelves waiting to be used.

Though I would like to see it again in the air.

[esscee]

Is it April 1st?

[GeeRam]

Good luck getting any support from RR for those Conway's.

[Tashengurt]

Believe it when I see it.

[possel]

Would BAe provide the necessary Design Authority support? Only at a high price, I reckon, but even so I can't see how it could be cost-effective unless they are going to get several going.

[Rocket2]

What's the state of the Tristars, have they been scrapped yet?

[SASKATOON9999]

We have a perfectly good, modern fleet of Voyagers, currently under utilised?

[GeeRam]

We have a perfectly good, modern fleet of Voyagers, currently under utilised?

Nothing to do with UK needs.
'We' haven't bought it.

[GeeRam]

Would BAe provide the necessary Design Authority support? Only at a high price, I reckon, but even so I can't see how it could be cost-effective unless they are going to get several going.

The rumour going around is 'the deal' also includes the two others at Brunty as well as the sims in store at Brooklands museum.

[Less Hair]

Wouldn't there be cheaper KC-10 and KC-135 available for tanker needs, now that KC-46 and MRTT and A400M take over quite a bit of tanker work?

[DuckDodgers]

This has the Tristar Air LLC debacle written all over it.........NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

[Green Flash]

Hasn't the USAF just retired its first KC-10 to the boneyard? Would be better off getting that dusted down.

Just answered my own question - https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/34785/first-air-force-kc-10a-extender-tanker-heads-to-the-boneyard-for-retirement

[GeeRam]

Hasn't the USAF just retired its first KC-10 to the boneyard? Would be better off getting that dusted down.


KC-10 is a boom tanker, and I suspect the requirement is for hose n drogue, as someone has pointed out, this sounds like a continuation or variation of the continuing USN Omega/AirTanker debacle.

[PAXboy]

One of the amazing things about human beings is to hold on to the past - long after it has past.

I adored the VC-10, it was magnificent but it is gone.
Look at marks & Spencer - for years they have been trying to rescue the clothing side of the business. Yet, it was apparent more than 15 years ago that it was dead in the water. Still they spend money trying to make it work. The only part of M&S that works is the food hall.

Let this beautiful bird rest in our memories.

[DaveUnwin]

I'm quite fond of saying "never say never" but on this occasion I'm prepared to make an exception. This will NEVER happen.

[GAZIN]

They could use the Guppy, currently at Bournemouth to transport the sims and spare parts.

[frodo_monkey]

KC-10 is a boom tanker, and I suspect the requirement is for hose n drogue, as someone has pointed out, this sounds like a continuation or variation of the continuing USN Omega/AirTanker debacle.

Nope, KC10 has a centreline drogue too - at least the ones I’ve got gas from did. The tanker of choice if you couldn’t have a Voyager!

[GeeRam]

Nope, KC10 has a centreline drogue too - at least the ones I’ve got gas from did. The tanker of choice if you couldn’t have a Voyager!

Maybe Omega have already got first dibs on that recently retired one then, to add to the one they already have?

[RAFEngO74to09]

As a result of the KC-46A debacle - particularly the Rear Vision System that will take 3 > 5 years to fix - the procurement rate has been slowed down.

It is also unlikely in my opinion that the full quantity originally envisaged under what was the KC-X and KC-Y recapitalization programs will be proceeded with. The money is needed for other priorities (plenty of references out there).

US TRANSCOM / USAF AMC is currently looking at multiple options for contracting out a significant part of the overall requirement - any would take 5 to 7 years to materialize.

Airbus is a potential bidder with the A330-MRTT (the irony !) but the production line is spoken for over the next 4 years - including the NATO MRTT Fleet orders..

30% of the US TRANSCOM requirement is for "hose and drogue" - ideally from dual method tankers. Currently all the KC-10s are and some KC-135Rs are (such as those on 100 ARW at RAF Mildenhall and those used to refuel SOC assets).

The US TRANSCOM requirement is in addition to the small USN contract that Omega has for "probe and drogue" only.

Omega is not capable of meeting the latest increased USN requirement on its own - even with the additional assets it is getting eg ex-RNethAF KDC-10s (which are not KC-10s) and an additional old B707 it is converting.

Therefore, it looks like there may be a medium term market for any retired already converted tanker - however expensive it might be to get airworthy and operate - given the huge difference between what it would cost to get a Tristar or VC-10 back up and running compared to a new A330-MRTT at $300M a copy (which can't be produced anyway for another 4 years).

One of the options being looked at by US TRANSCOM does include transferring KC-135Rs to contractors to get the overhead costs and maintenance liability off the USAF books. Many of the KC-135Rs have had significant upgrades including glass cockpits fairly recently.

In any contract, contractors would get paid "by the minute" on AAR task so there are a lot of calculations that go into what is viable - with a big driving factor being the transferable fuel load of one type compared to another - which in turn affects the number of take-off / landing cycles - which in turn affects fatigue and maintenance cost considerations.

I was personally shocked to discover that the off-load capacity of a KC-46A is not a huge amount more than a KC-135R given the comparative sizes - only 10% more.

Report to US Congressional Committees here:

http://lignesdedefense.blogs.ouest-france.fr/files/Contractor-Operated%2BAerial%2BRefueling%2BAircraft%2B%28with%2Bsig%29. pdf

[Dan Winterland]

I was personally shocked to discover that the off-load capacity of a KC-46A is not a huge amount more than a KC-135R given the comparative sizes - only 10% more.

Yes. They should have bought the KC30!

[BEagle]

4 x A310MRTT are due to be retired by the Luftwaffe as they convert to the A330MRTT.

No centreline hose, but 2 pilots + ARO and fitted with up-to-date systems.

Congratulations to whoever managed to sell ZA150 though! I really cannot imagine 'Juliet' flying again, nice though that would be.

[sandiego89]

.......The KC-10s are being retired first because they have extremely high operating costs to the USAF - the first one retired was in pretty poor shape too.......



RAFEng, any rumors on why 86-0036 was chosen as the first KC-10 to go? I always find it interesting how it is decided which go first based on fatigue life, which updates they have had and other factors: like the AF Concorde that was retired before the rest due to never being quite the same after a heavy landing and weighty repair; the B-1B's seemed to all be early blocks that had a few differences from later blocks, and the first C-5A retirements were the very early blocks plus 3 or 4 "problem children" that were know as maintenance pigs or with certain quirks.

[RAFEngO74to09]

RAFEng, any rumors on why 86-0036 was chosen as the first KC-10 to go? I always find it interesting how it is decided which go first based on fatigue life, which updates they have had and other factors: like the AF Concorde that was retired before the rest due to never being quite the same after a heavy landing and weighty repair; the B-1B's seemed to all be early blocks that had a few differences from later blocks, and the first C-5A retirements were the very early blocks plus 3 or 4 "problem children" that were know as maintenance pigs or with certain quirks.
Lots of factors would be considered - including those you mention. Once a decision has been made to start divesting the entire fleet first - in preference to KC-135Rs - which appears to be the case now due to the huge difference in maintenance costs per flying hour - it is likely to be as simple as which aircraft is next due a depot level maintenance or has major components coming up to lifex.

KC-10A 86-0036 had 33,000 flying hours on it when it was retired.

https://www.airforcemag.com/air-forces-first-kc-10-retires/

[DuckDodgers]

Omega is not capable of meeting the latest increased USN requirement on its own - even with the additional assets it is getting eg ex-RNethAF KDC-10s (which are not KC-10s) and an additional old B707 it is converting. Therefore, it looks like there may be a medium term market for any retired already converted tanker - however expensive it might be to get airworthy and operate - given the huge difference between what it would cost to get a Tristar or VC-10 back up and running compared to a new A330-MRTT at $300M a copy (which can't be produced anyway for another 4 years).

This isn't entirely accurate as the base ordering period for PMA226 in NAVAIR against the two relevant Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) is 855,000 flight minutes (14,250hrs) over the 5-years or 2,850hrs per year, so I'd suggest Omega can easily meet this demand from within current available resources. Although NAVAIR has an expectation that multiple contractors could receive an award through the Task Order Request (TOR) process (if they meet the stand-up requirements) it's quite possible that one awardee could fly all 2,850hrs which given the current market space I'd suggest this is the most likely outcome. I can't see NAVAIR falling for another Tempest/Tristar LLC debacle, or more recently the Strategic Airborne Operations JV LLC over the HEEWJ contract award.

[Aso]

Congratulations to whoever managed to sell ZA150 though! :D My thoughts!

[NutLoose]

Hopefully they will take the two from Brunty as well to stop them being scrapped.

[salad-dodger]

I am surprised none have you picked up on it in the Brunty thread, but ZA150 has been sold with the ambition to get her back into service tanking, see link.

https://ukaviation.news/kepler-aerospace-aims-to-get-former-raf-vc10-flying-again/?fbclid=IwAR2kQjEN
I suspect no one 'picked up on it' because it's clearly a story straight from la la land!

Looks like most of the posts here agree. Likelihood of BAES and RR resuming DA for the VC10, must be very, very close to zero.

[Jhieminga]

But do you need a DA when you put the aircraft on a US experimental registration? Asking for a friend....

[esscee]

The roar of 4 mighty Conways, likely to be heard at max power with VC-10 in the air? As others have already mentioned, somewhat unlikely. However the thread has probably got some "grey matter" in a few heads recalling some interesting times.

[DuckDodgers]

But do you need a DA when you put the aircraft on a US experimental registration? Asking for a friend....

I think you already know the answer to that one := :O folk here might be more interested in the verbiage from the PWS.

3.2.1.1 FAA Standard Airworthiness Certificates

For aircraft with FAA Standard Airworthiness Certificates, the Contractor shall maintain the aircraft IAW 14 CFR § 43. The Contractor shall secure FAA approval for each change to the configuration that is not defined in the aircraft’s Airworthiness Certificate before the change is used in support of this contract. For each such modification, the Contractor shall secure and provide the valid FAA-approved data within 90 days of task order award and as generated or requested (Exhibit A, CDRL A001). For Type Certificated aircraft, if this data references FAA regulations as the standard, the Contractor shall provide approved data as defined in the FAA Order 8300.16A for any major alteration or major repair. Major alterations to aircraft with Standard Airworthiness Certificates shall have been certified as airworthy and properly documented using FAA Form 337 signed in blocks six (6) (Conformity) and seven (7) (Return to Service) by persons authorized under 14 CFR § 43, and citing FAA Approval Data. The FAA may only certify modifications relating to powered systems for captive carriage if the operation of that system in not considered commercial purposes, per 49 United States Code (USC) § 40125.

3.2.1.2 FAA Special Airworthiness Certificates

For aircraft with FAA Special Airworthiness Certificates, the Contractor shall provide the Program Letter (PL) submitted to the FAA for application of the airworthiness certificate used in support of this contract or latest PL associated with the current airworthiness certificate. Under this certificate, the aircraft must be maintained in accordance with the operating limitations issued as part of that certificate. For each subsequent aircraft modification deviating from the FAA issued certificate, the contractor shall secure and provide an updated FAA airworthiness certification, and associated operating limitations (Exhibit A, CDRL A001), before the modification is used in support of this contract. Where the modification is a major change (as defined by 14 CFR § 43), the Contractor shall provide the PL and secure the FAA's determination regarding the need for new or amended certificates. All major alterations incorporated before contract award and during contract execution shall have sufficient data to determine that the equipment or provisions for the equipment meet the applicable civil, Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM), (MIL-STD), or some other recognized engineering substantiation data, for the type of aircraft concerned. Unless directed otherwise by the Government, the Contractor shall remove any major alteration incorporated before contract award that was not certified as airworthy by an appropriately rated FAA certified mechanic, aircraft manufacturer or repair station.

3.2.1.3 For aircraft with FAA Special Airworthiness Certificates, in addition to the FAA approved Aircraft Inspection/Maintenance Program, the contractor shall prepare Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) consistent with 14 CFR § 25 Subpart H – Electrical Wiring Interconnection Systems (EWIS) and provide IAW Exhibit A, CDRL A001. This includes any modifications done to the aircraft from the baseline that involves electrical wiring not currently covered in the AIP or the existing maintenance plan.

3.2.2 NAVAIR Airworthiness Supporting Data

3.2.2.1 The Contractor shall provide a single point-of-contact to manage the airworthiness certifications and to coordinate Contractor and Government certification efforts during the Stand-up phase of each aircraft type or during any significant aircraft modification requiring a new or updated USN IFC.

3.2.2.2 All aircraft under this contract require a USN issued IFC (NAVAIRINST 13034.1F). All aircraft must be able to perform IAW Table 3.1 and a complete substantiation data set shall be submitted IAW Exhibit A, CDRL A001. If additional substantiation data is required during the Government’s review the contractor shall promptly deliver the data. In the absence of FAA, OEM, or Military approved data, the contractor shall follow the recommended repair and alteration processes and procedures described in: AC 43-210A, Standardized Procedures for Obtaining Approval of Data Used in the Performance of Major Repairs and Major Alterations, the Major Repair and Alteration Data Approval Job Aid, or MIL-HDBK-516, the Department of Defense Handbook Airworthiness Certification Criteria. For initial airworthiness assessment in support of a USN IFC, all airworthiness data shall be provided to the Government after contract award in accordance with Exhibit A, CDRL A001. For subsequent aircraft modifications substantiation data shall be provided at least thirty (30) days prior to the required mission.

[BEagle]

So that'll be a 'no' then?

[tucumseh]

Would BAe provide the necessary Design Authority support? Only at a high price, I reckon, but even so I can't see how it could be cost-effective unless they are going to get several going.

Same issue arose on, for example, Hunters. Ultimately, in 2009 the CAA approved flight predicated on the RAF (not MoD) being Design Authority for what were now civilian owned and operated aircraft. It is unclear if the RAF or MoD knew this, but they found out soon after Shoreham. One of the issues the Coroner might be wrestling with.

[NutLoose]

So how did the Shack fly in the states beaing in mind waste of space probably wouldn't be the design auth... I cannot see why they cannot set themselves up as it.

[Valiantone]

As far as I recall Waste o Space tried to stop anyone flying a Shack post RAF retirement flights. The folks that bought the 2 UK Shacks bought all the original documentation etc etc so they have DA or something to that effect.

[GeeRam]

So how did the Shack fly in the states beaing in mind waste of space probably wouldn't be the design auth... I cannot see why they cannot set themselves up as it.

The same way many private owner/group flies imported warbirds in the USA, Experimental Category.

[Jhieminga]

The same way a company like ATAC (http://www.atacusa.com/index.html) operates Hunters, Kfirs, L-39s and such on civil registrations. I think that the text above sort of says that you have to show the FAA that you've got an airworthy aircraft and will maintain it in accordance with the operating limitations and following an approved maintenance program. You will be limited in where you can operate, but that should not be too big a problem.

[Chugalug2]

So the US owner and operator (if indeed it is) of this VC-10 is essentially its own DA, having acquired all the paperwork and satisfied the FAA that it has the skills and expertise to keep it airworthy as an "Experimental" a/c?

[GeeRam]

So the US owner and operator (if indeed it is) of this VC-10 is essentially its own DA, having acquired all the paperwork and satisfied the FAA that it has the skills and expertise to keep it airworthy as an "Experimental" a/c?

No, see Duck Dodgers earlier post #32 above.

The Shack in the USA wasn't being flown on contract work, hence it was flown like all the other private ex-mil stuff for airshows and private flying etc., in the Experimental Category.

[SpringHeeledJack]

Does the FAA 'Experimental' catagory allow the owners of said aircraft to operate the aircraft for profit, or for that matter remuneration ?

[NutLoose]

Surely the Collins foundation does?

[RAFEngO74to09]

Does the FAA 'Experimental' catagory allow the owners of said aircraft to operate the aircraft for profit, or for that matter remuneration ?
Yes.

There are multiple private operators of jet fighters in the USA - who charge for participation at Air Shows - whose aircraft are registered in the "Experimental" category - in particular multiple very nice looking F-86s.

There are also the F-104s of Starfighters Inc which provide "low-cost alternative to other active-duty military and NASA aircraft for avionics and electronic systems testing and validation, electronic warfare R&D, surveillance system testing, captive carry aerodynamic testing, high-G pilot/passenger physiology testing, and other military, Homeland Security, NASA, and contractor requirements".

Omega's tankers are also registered in the "Experimental" category.

Out of interest, I looked up the final version of the Multi-Award Contract RFP the USN put out in 2020 to follow on from the existing Omega single source contract.

It had the following items in it which left the door open for both owners of existing converted tankers, and those who wanted to buy up surplus airliners and convert them, to bid:
---------------------------------
2.2.2 Aircraft Modification Plan

The Offeror [b]shall provide an Aircraft Modification Plan for each aircraft proposed that requires major repairs and alterations (as defined by the FAA) to meet the requirements of the PWS paragraph 3.1.

The Offeror shall submit its plan detailing the major repairs and alterations required to bring the aircraft into airworthiness compliance.

Plans shall include all significant repairs and alterations required, major milestones (to include, but not limited to, FAA review and approval process and integration of AAR systems), the organization performing the repair and alterations(s), and FAA Administrator approved source data supporting the repairs or alterations.

2.3.1 Civil Airworthiness Certifications

The Offeror shall provide a valid FAA certificate of airworthiness or their plan to obtain a FAA certificate of airworthiness for each proposed aircraft.

2.3.2 Navy Airworthiness Certification Plan

Each aircraft under this contract will require a U.S. Navy issued Interim Flight Clearance (USN IFC).

The Offeror shall submit a plan detailing its approach to achieve issuance of a USN IFC, including original certification authority, supporting data and major milestones.

If submitted with the proposal, an active USN IFC for the proposed aircraft configuration satisfies this requirement.

2.3.3 Aircraft Modification Status Report

The Offeror shall demonstrate that the appropriate Aviation Authority (e.g. FAA, DGAC, TCAA, and CAA) or the appropriate military airworthiness authority certified each aircraft modification made to the proposed aircraft since its manufacture as airworthy. [the records for the Tristar and VC10 conversions will be available].

For each modification, the Offeror shall provide a copy of the airworthiness certification or, alternatively, the engineering report that clearly demonstrates that the modified aircraft is airworthy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.3.4 Maintenance History Report

The Offeror shall demonstrate how it will maintain each aircraft proposed in accordance with the requirements established by the OEM Manufacturer and approved by the appropriate Aviation Authority (e.g. FAA, DGAC,
TCAA, and CAA) or the appropriate military airworthiness authority.

The Offeror shall include for each aircraft proposed a summary of the aircraft's maintenance history similar to the requirements of 14 CFR §91.415 and §91.417.

The Offeror shall identify and explain any lapses in the documented maintenance history of any aircraft proposed, from the time of aircraft manufacture to proposal submittal.

3.1.1 Airworthiness Certification.

The Offeror shall demonstrate its understanding and direct experience and/or knowledge of airworthiness certification processes for US public use aircraft, and operations as a state aircraft, to include: establishing a certification pedigree based on previous airworthiness certifications (foreign and/or domestic) and providing documentation for subsequent approvals by a US government agency.

The Offeror shall provide a copy of their FAA or other foreign civil airworthiness certificates and the Offeror may include a Public Aircraft Operations (PAO) designation letter from a US Government or State authority, or US or foreign military airworthiness documentation (e.g. Interim Flight Clearance (IFC), Military Flight Release (MFR), Airworthiness Release (AWR)) signed by a US or foreign government authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottom lines are:

Ex-military, already converted surplus tankers have a rock-solid history of how they were converted already documented - this gives them an edge over one-off conversions of the odd surplus airliner bought now which would have to have their tanker conversion method approved for airworthiness (on top of the lead time for conversion) - and depending on where they came from - may have a sketchy basic aircraft airworthiness documentation history.

There is no doubt there is going to be a small market for contractors with the USN until such time as that requirement might be subsumed by a larger US TRANSCOM managed contract - years ahead depending on the outcome of the ongoing studies of the several options and the lead time for suitably large players to get involved - Boeing are busy enough on the KC-46A with all its problems and the Airbus production line for turning an A330 into an A330 MRTT is tied up for the next 4 years already with orders already on the books.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1GBoeHPJvA

Commercial considerations will be the cost of getting stored aircraft up to current airworthiness standards vs the cost of acquisition of surplus airliners + tanker conversion.

The USN has already stated that "time on type" requirements can be met entirely in the simulator. Northrop has a Tristar simulator for its Stargazer aircraft and the VC10 simulators have already been mentioned.

There is a huge difference between the cost a contractor would have to charge per minute on task to use a $300M A330-MRTT versus a "back-in-the-air" legacy tanker - those capable of making the right calculations will know exactly how much money they would have to throw at an option to make it work for them.

I quite expect some of the Red Air contractors - who currently have just limited AAR capability with a few buddy buddy pods - to expand into the space with the acquisition of transport aircraft size tankers.

It's going to be interesting to see what transpires over the next few years - indeed the next 30 years until the final solution to replacing the US DoD legacy tanker fleet by whatever mix is decided upon eventually comes to fruition.

[RAFEngO74to09]

Just looked up Northrop's Stargazer L-1011 Tristar and it is registerd in the "Standard - Transport" category - despite it being the only example currently flying in the USA.

https://registry.faa.gov/AircraftInquiry/NNum_results.aspx?NNumbertxt=140SC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0Hx1Qe07ig&t=269s

[BEagle]

If the VC10K is dismantled and transferred to the US for reassembly, it could perhaps fly again. But as for flying in UK airspace - zero chance.

Then there is the slight problem of F-35B/C compatibility clearance trials.

As for setting up the centreline HDU - good luck with that!

Some ex-airline A330s given a 'light' AAR modification programme in the same manner that the A310MRTT was converted would surely be a better plan?

[NutLoose]

Why? If it is put on the US register it may be able to ferry, the Shack did.

[RAFEngO74to09]

The Tristars are already on the US register. Clearly nobody is going to dismantle a VC-10 !

Tankers for the USN contract do not have to have an HDU - just at least 2 x underwing pods or 2 x HDUs for redundancy on a tasking.

Receiver clearances are in priority groups - with F/A-18 first - with bidders required to estimate times and costs to get up and running. There are specific payments available to get to IOC

I do see someone buying up the 4 x Luftwaffe A310 MRTT when they are up to speed with their new plot. They have already got the A400M MRTT doing the part of the role and delivery of the NATO A330 MRTT fleet is planned to be complete by end-2024.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_177484.htm

[Chugalug2]

So who certifies this a/c to be airworthy now before it goes onto the US register? The CAA? The MAA? ANother? Or doesn't it matter?

[NutLoose]

FAA if it’s going on their register.

https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certification/aw_cert_proc/



On smaller stuff in the U.K. the Certificate of Airworthiness is none expiring, but is only valid with an Airworthiness Review Certificate, so if the CAA hasn’t withdrawn the C of A for any reason, it would be down to me as a CAMO, I would inspect the aircraft and paperwork, deem what is required to put it back in the air, ensure the work is carried out or do it myself and then when satisfied issue an ARC to revalidate the C of A and send a copy in to the CAA.
You just have to be careful to not miss anything component life wise or AD’s etc.

What rank do you have to hold in the RAF these days to be a CAMO?


..

[Broomstick Flier]

KC-10A 86-0036 had 33,000 flying hours on it when it was retired.


Pardon my ignorance, but 33.000 seems well below a reasonable number of hours to warrant retirement. Any specifics on the mission pattern that would bat the airframe so hard?

BF

[NutLoose]

It might not be the hours, but landings or pressure cycles as well, when I left the RAF VC 10 C1,s didn’t have that high a number of hours on them, but they had a heck of a lot of landings.. they were designed to fly high and long routes with landings at each end, but the RAF in my eyes used to do a lot of training in them which were shorter lower trips with lots of circuits and bumps, something they were not really designed to do.

[RAFEngO74to09]

Why US TRANSCOM is considering a contractor provided element of the overall task.

rom the Congressional Report I posted:

"Affordability: Each solution has unique cost considerations resulting from the contractor selected, aircraft modifications required, operations, airworthiness, and USAF receiver air refueling testing. Based on initial feedback from industry (summer 2019), the estimated price per flying hour for commercial contract air refueling ranged from $15K- $27K, which includes operations and maintenance and does not include the cost of fuel. For a comparison, in 2019 the Ownership Cost per flying hour (which includes the cost of the fuel) of the KC-10 was approximately $23K per flying hour and the KC-135 was approximately $26K. The Ownership Cost of the KC-46 was $98K per flying hour for the first year of operations (cost per flying hour projections for KC-46 will decrease as the program progresses to steady state). The cost of ownership for each airframe does not consider the cost of military personnel training that is comparatively included within industry's cost per hour. Subject to insurance and contractor malfeasance, the USAF may be responsible for all or most of the liability to third parties, loss of or damage to contractor provided aircraft ("hull" liability) and loss of or damage to USAF property. In order to fully understand all components of cost, liability, and affordability, further analysis is required before initiating any contractual arrangements with service providers."

[RAFEngO74to09]

Pardon my ignorance, but 33.000 seems well below a reasonable number of hours to warrant retirement. Any specifics on the mission pattern that would bat the airframe so hard?

BF
The hours are actually irrelevant - I only mentioned them as they appeared in the PR about the first KC-10 retirement. The primary reason the KC-10s are going first is that it is a much smaller fleet than the KC-135 variants (including special mission types), the KC-135s are having multiple upgrades and some are still likely to be flying in 2050.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/14007/usaf-breathing-new-life-into-ancient-kc-135-tankers-with-this-new-glass-cockpit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw6Ue-qDfeg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jptrr_794nc

[dc9-32]

Even if ferried out of UK on FAA registry, the UK CAA has to approve it and they will pull the Special Flight Permit apart before they give approval.

[Chugalug2]

FAA if it’s going on their register.

https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/airworthiness_certification/aw_cert_proc/



On smaller stuff in the U.K. the Certificate of Airworthiness is none expiring, but is only valid with an Airworthiness Review Certificate, so if the CAA hasn’t withdrawn the C of A for any reason, it would be down to me as a CAMO, I would inspect the aircraft and paperwork, deem what is required to put it back in the air, ensure the work is carried out or do it myself and then when satisfied issue an ARC to revalidate the C of A and send a copy in to the CAA.
You just have to be careful to not miss anything component life wise or AD’s etc.

What rank do you have to hold in the RAF these days to be a CAMO?..

Thanks for that Nutty, so as CAMO you would certify that this VC-10 is airworthy or not for the FAA? How would you know, given that various RAF a/c and systems featuring in airworthiness related fatal air accident threads here were operating under illegal RTS's or lacking a Safety Case? I'm quite sure that those responsible for declaring those a/c as serviceable for their final flights had no idea that they were unairworthy, so how would a CAMO know?

If this is 'larger stuff', and dealt with alone by the FAA, same question. How would they know?

[salad-dodger]

Thanks for that Nutty, so as CAMO you would certify that this VC-10 is airworthy or not for the FAA? How would you know, given that various RAF a/c and systems featuring in airworthiness related fatal air accident threads here were operating under illegal RTS's or lacking a Safety Case? I'm quite sure that those responsible for declaring those a/c as serviceable for their final flights had no idea that they were unairworthy, so how would a CAMO know?

If this is 'larger stuff', and dealt with alone by the FAA, same question. How would they know?
Chug, no, he wouldn’t. We are talking VC10 here. I am thinking that he has actually done this for nothing more complex than a 172.

[salad-dodger]

The reality is that the VC10 last flew about 7 years ago. They have been left to rot outside in what the US regards as a maritime atmosphere. They have certainly not been carefully stored. They have seen years of military service and abuse. Going through the paperwork, if it can all even be found, would be an interesting exercise. Each one of them will be at a different configuration. Good luck with that.

It will also be very interesting to see how the approach taken by the FAA has changed in the post 737-Max world, and of course the views of other state regulators to these aircraft.

Anyone thinking there is a realistic chance of the VC10 ever flying again is either a fool or just plain stupid.

[msbbarratt]

If the VC10K is dismantled and transferred to the US for reassembly, it could perhaps fly again. But as for flying in UK airspace - zero chance.

Then there is the slight problem of F-35B/C compatibility clearance trials.

As for setting up the centreline HDU - good luck with that!

Some ex-airline A330s given a 'light' AAR modification programme in the same manner that the A310MRTT was converted would surely be a better plan?

Didn’t the MRTT programme come about because (earlier?) A330 wings were also A340 wings and already had suitably strong lumps of metal already in the wing for bolting engine pylons to, these being ideal for AAR hose pods? There could be a large pool of civil donor aircraft just waiting to be snapped up...

On the assumption that no idea is too crazy to be voiced, how about converting A340s back to something like an A330 MRTT (chop out some fuselage, drop the centre undercarriage, unbolt two engines and saw off the two outboard throttle levers in the cockpit)? There’s a bucket load of A340s falling out of favour, and they’re probably very cheap. I presume that Airbus would be unlikely to sanction such mods, preferring to sell new examples...

[NutLoose]

Thanks for that Nutty, so as CAMO you would certify that this VC-10 is airworthy or not for the FAA? How would you know, given that various RAF a/c and systems featuring in airworthiness related fatal air accident threads here were operating under illegal RTS's or lacking a Safety Case? I'm quite sure that those responsible for declaring those a/c as serviceable for their final flights had no idea that they were unairworthy, so how would a CAMO know?

If this is 'larger stuff', and dealt with alone by the FAA, same question. How would they know?

Nope, one, the FAA is a different kettle of fish and will cover it themselves.... two, as ex military having various modifications to the civilian airframe, the FAA will i would imagine will want to be involved in depth, especially as it will not have had a Certificate of Airworthiness issued, I would imagine they will want to survey the aircraft. my best guess is engines and PFCU's etc would be a major concern, in the RAF we would do anti det runs every 28 days on the engines, although it is ran and fast taxied etc, one wonders how regular they have been ran, when they flew the ones out of Abingdon they swopped out those with flight ready engines and PFCU's then ferried them gear down, unpressurised while paying the crews megga bucks for the short hop to Filton. Myself I do twins down these days. :)

[Less Hair]

Doesn't seem to make sense to me. For one single airplane? Who'd still have spare parts and certified staff today? Nothing against the mighty VC-10 but it's glory days are long gone. Better convert some cheapo used A310 or similar. Plans available.

[Chugalug2]

OK, thanks again Nutty. So the FAA will satisfy themselves if the a/c is airworthy or not. What I can't follow though is how they can do that when the RAF was unable/unwilling to discover that various aircraft and systems featured in this forum were unairworthy (though the VC-10 was not one of them, admittedly. A physical survey would seem to be the easy bit, it is the paperwork (or lack of it) that requires the real effort.

An overtightened bolt killed Sean Cunningham, but there was no Safety Case anyway for his seat and the Servicing Instruction to undo and do up that bolt was contrary to the mandatory procedure. If the RAF was unaware that the seat (and hence the a/c) was unairworthy, why would they know if this VC-10 was or not?

If the RAF/MOD/MAA cannot be relied upon to vouch for a VC-10's airworthiness, how can the FAA decide about it? Of course, as salad-dodger comments, the last 7 years would hardly have helped of course.

[NutLoose]

It depends on what you get with them when sold, no one thought the Vulcan would ever fly, but that was handed over with everything including the RAF spares holdings, and look how long that took to get back in the air even with design auth support And manufactures willing to overhaul components.. The Tens I doubt came with much more than the 700a and b. Personally I can’t see it happening, but I would love to be proved wrong.

Less hair the two at Brunty are runners, or one is, they are under threat as well and are owned by the company operating as middlemen in all this. Whether it’s a package I don’t know.

I can’t remember all of it now but when we got the Gulf Ten at Brize it was in superb condition, but I think it was missing paperwork that doomed that, hence it was broken up for spares.

[sturb199]

What rank do you have to hold in the RAF these days to be a CAMO?



If you mean to be a Mil CAM then it's Wg Cdr on almost all platforms, as the CAMO is the organisation.

[NutLoose]

Cool, thanks for that, yes I should have worded it better, the Camo is the organisation but an individual(s) holds the position to certify the said aircraft within that organisation. Smilar with licences, to release an aircraft to service after maintenenance you need to hold a C certification on your licences.

[Adam Hermitage]

Will be used by a Stateside firm who have private/military contracts

[Rigga]

Chug, no, he wouldn’t. We are talking VC10 here. I am thinking that he has actually done this for nothing more complex than a 172.
I’ve done similar CAMO/ARC jobs on 757/767. The Airworthiness Certificate process is similar however there is a major snag in that this VC10 is now an ex-military jet making the whole certification process much much longer, reaching back as far as possible to Birth records and probably re-certifying previous work to a known standard. I’m quite sure an Export CofA/National ARC will be required in any case, but it will only be attached to a ex-Military Aircraft Permit to Fly for one non-revenue journey (which may be several flights) to a named destination for further work....If the FAA want it.If all the pooh can be heaped into one pile quickly, and is acceptable to all authorities, this exit flight could be as little as 6 weeks time. Another approach, falling certification, is that all the useful refuelling gear is stripped out and the hull sold for scrap.

[NutLoose]

I hadn't seen that post Rigga as he is blocked, I concur, the system is more or less the same regardless of size and I have done aircraft a lot larger than a 172.
ZA150 was on the East African Airways fleet prior to conversion, as for stripping the refueling gear, you wouldn't really get that much out of it and you would still end up needing something to fit it too.. one wonders what the FAA will make of the slide as it was disabled in UK use.

[NutLoose]

you would think a better option would have been

It also plans to retired 44 A-10 Thunderbolt II close air support mission aircraft; roughly 30 older-model KC-135 Stratotanker and KC-10 Extender refuelers

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/02/10/air-force-send-more-100-planes-boneyard-it-invests-future-fighters.html

[RAFEngO74to09]

you would think a better option would have been



https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/02/10/air-force-send-more-100-planes-boneyard-it-invests-future-fighters.html

That article is bypassed and not now happening at the rate or in the timescale stated - not approved by Congress.

KC-135s operated by contractors is one of the several options being considered - but not anytime soon even if agreed - 5 to 7 years as previously stated before US TRANSCOM is likely to get any contract up & running (which would have a 30% probe and drogue method element).

At present, it is the 2020 USN Multi-Award Contract that is being competed for - assumed to be Omega + one other (100% probe and drogue for USN/ USMC aircraft + relevant Foreign Military Sales delivery flights such as F-35B & F-18 variants).

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/06/19/house-to-block-kc-135-retirements-for-three-years-but-some-b-1-bombers-could-be-headed-for-the-boneyard/

[turbroprop]

Throw enough money and I any aircraft can be made safe and fit to fly. Without some form of modification I can not see now a noise certificate would be issued to allow the aircraft to operate commercially.

With the US and Germany retiring younger aircraft would they not be a more viable option. Spares, fuel burn, noise etc

[Rigga]

Throw enough money and I any aircraft can be made safe and fit to fly. Without some form of modification I can not see now a noise certificate would be issued to allow the aircraft to operate commercially.

With the US and Germany retiring younger aircraft would they not be a more viable option. Spares, fuel burn, noise etc

The Noise MOD is already out there but the RAF decided to live with the ban on VC10's landing at civil airports across EASA Land. I have seen 17 aircraft re-born from Nevada deserts after years of storage there during which the interiors had completely melted. A few million dollars later and "hey presto!" - Germania was created!

[VC10man]

I can't wait to see the VC10 flying again, I wish I'd flown on one. Maybe if they get it flying they could use it to refuel Concorde when she flies again.....!

[NutLoose]

The Noise MOD is already out there but the RAF decided to live with the ban on VC10's landing at civil airports across EASA Land

Prey tell, what was it? a modified jetpipe?

They were looking at adding three core engines from the v2500 I think when I was in, in a triangular fit on either side. It was one mooted Idea.

I always thought 2 RB211 on the back end would have been superb, after all they tested on on them. ;)

[GeeRam]

I always thought 2 RB211 on the back end would have been superb, after all they tested on on them. ;)

There's loads going cheap now as well, with all those British Airways 747's now heading off to the scrappy.

:E

[TCAS FAN]

I always thought 2 RB211 on the back end would have been superb, after all they tested on on them. ;)

G-AXLR if I remember correctly, which was subsequently scrapped due to the fuselage twisting?

[ORAC]

https://www.vc10.net/History/Individual/XR809.html

"On 26th September 1975 the aircraft was delivered to RAF Kemble. Initially the aircraft would return to RAF service but it was found that the airframe was distorted, and repairs were deemed too costly. In the end the airframe was used for SAS training purposes and was left to decay at the site, eventually being scrapped."

[NutLoose]

Also had concrete poured in through a DV window to ballast it down from what I was told by a RR chap, he said they went to see it with the intention of using it for some more testing and found that the army? were worried about it in high winds so decided to add some weight to the front end, the tops of the seats were still visible surrounded in ready mix. Whether true or not one does not know..

[Jhieminga]

The pedestal and F/E panel have been used for training, see here; https://www.vc10.net/History/bitsandpieces.html#XR809
So, if the ballast story is correct, these parts were removed before it was added. That, to me, suggests that the airframe was basically 'abandoned' already.

[ORAC]

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1200x812/image_3556ceb91eff27f18075967ec253c208ae936adc.jpeg


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1600x1147/image_a732a67a98601dd9e07efc1b93ed98047df4ea8c.jpeg

[salad-dodger]

Also had concrete poured in through a DV window to ballast it down from what I was told by a RR chap, he said they went to see it with the intention of using it for some more testing and found that the army? were worried about it in high winds so decided to add some weight to the front end, the tops of the seats were still visible surrounded in ready mix. Whether true or not one does not know..
I very much doubt it....

[salad-dodger]

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1200x812/image_3556ceb91eff27f18075967ec253c208ae936adc.jpeg


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1600x1147/image_a732a67a98601dd9e07efc1b93ed98047df4ea8c.jpeg
probably has as much chance of flying again as the ones at Bruntingthorpe!

[ancientaviator62]

Is there any truth in the rumour that the RB 211 twisted the fuselage so much that the a/c was a write off ? Also that the contract with MOD did not specify that the a/c be returned in a serviceable condition ?

[kenparry]

aa62:

I don't know about the twisted fuselage story. I was at Filton while RR were doing this flying, and certainly we heard that their contract with MoD did not include returning it to the original 4-engined fit on completion of the loan. Who were the smart people who wrote the contract, I wonder?

G-AXLR - originally XR 809

[NutLoose]

I seem to remember that there was a dispute over the engine winches and who would repair them, hence they were never fixed, they loaned electric? ones to RR who returned them U/S, hence forever and a day after we had to use the hand winches with their design flaw.

[ICM]

Given that 809 was 'returned' in 1975, another background factor is likely to have been that the reduction by half of the Air Transport Force was very much in play then, and it must have been inconceivable that MOD would have funded an airframe refurbishment in those circumstances.

[airsound]

another background factor is likely to have been that the reduction by half of the Air Transport Force was very much in play thenIndeed, ICM, that was when they retired the Belfast. I was the last Flt Cdr Ops on 53, and I was on the last Belfast task on 12 Sep 1976. We all thought if they were gong to get rid of anything, it should have been the VC10 - after all, four good screws is better than a blow job any day....

That was before they thought of making VC10s tankers, of course - they were just airliners then.

airsound

[JW411]

I also flew on 12 Sep 76. Brize - Gutersloh - Brize in XR362 with Herbie Sutcliffe, Al Richey and Paddy Tranter.

[Rigga]

Prey tell, what was it? a modified jetpipe?

They were looking at adding three core engines from the v2500 I think when I was in, in a triangular fit on either side. It was one mooted Idea.

I always thought 2 RB211 on the back end would have been superb, after all they tested on on them. ;)

Yes Nutty,
I believe a modified Jet Pipe was all that was required, to introduce cold air to the jet stream. That would have reduced noise levels and enabled landing at all EASAland airports...but possibly beyond MOD budgets at the time.

[Saintsman]

I had a quick look on google. Does anyone have any images of the flight deck and Engineer's panel for the flying test bed?

Just curious to see what they did when changing two engines for one.

[Jhieminga]

Have a look at the link in post #76 and scroll down to the end of the page.

[Bergerie1]

Jhieminga,

Do you know what was the exact cause of the fuselage distortion?

[ORAC]

B1, see the earlier links....

.....”One hair-raising flight was the test bed's 44th flight on 7th august 1972. This was the first flight with a new pressure switch to prevent deployment of the thrust reverser on the RB211. With an expected flight time of five hours the aircraft took off laden with fuel. An initial warning light for the thrust reverser was investigated, but the crew decided to continue the flight as they didn't want to dump fuel this early in the flight.

After an initial performance test run at 250 knots at 20,000 feet, the aircraft was being prepared for a second run at 300 knots when the cold stream reverser of the RB211 slid back into the reverse position, sealing off the bypass duct. The effect of this was a reverse idle which produced an initial slight lurch on the aircraft. Shortly afterwards, a more violent lurch occurred, followed by aircraft buffet. There was adverse yaw and roll, and the throttles were closed, initiating a descent before recovering to wings level. Full power was set on the Conways but level flight could not be maintained. The aircraft continued to descend at 2,500 feet per minute as the RB211 was windmilling with the reverser extended.

Fuel jettison was initiated as the equation was quite clear to all on board - the aircraft would hit the ground in approximately twelve minutes unless the weight could be brought down to a value that the Conways could cope with. As the VC10 was aimed at the Bristol Channel, the crew was running through their sea survival kit and ditching drills. As the weight came down, the rate of descent improved, until, at 3000 feet, the aircraft weight was low enough to enable level flight on the thrust available. Fuel dumping was stopped at the coastline and the crew briefed for the approach and landing procedure for this new configuration. A go-around would not be possible with the drag of the RB211 and the available power on the Conways. A safe landing was carried out after a careful, wide circuit.“........

[BEagle]

35 years ago, ZA150 arrived at Brize as the very first VC10K3:

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/980x768/juliet_341ce4e201eb1b2c544abe20e3597f2b524f2cc2.jpg
OC101 immediately decided that 'Juliet' would be his personal jet - and woe betide any planner who allocated him anything else if 150 was available!

[Bergerie1]

ORAC,

Thank you, I have already read that, but it does not explain exactly how and where the fuselage was distorted

[esscee]

Aah, ZA150. Remember it well. Good pic with some familiar faces there.

[Jhieminga]

but it does not explain exactly how and where the fuselage was distorted
I have never found an account that linked one to the other, but according to most accounts the distortion wasn't found until after the testbed's final flight and the reverser incident would appear to be the most likely suspect. There is a firsthand account of that flight here: https://www.vc10.net/Memories/Testflight.html
It could also have been the result of asymmetrical weight, drag or something else, but I haven't found an answer yet unfortunately.

[NutLoose]

As an engineer I would say it distorted the engine beams or rear fuselage structure where it is attached, the two beams run across the rear fuselage and are the main structural spars of the stub wings, they are also if I am correct fwd of the rear pressure bulkhead as you could see them through the access door behind the mirror in the rear bog. Not a place you want distortion as the fin is also nailed on in that area.

This might help, see

VC10 Engine Installation (http://www.enginehistory.org/Installations/VC10/VC10Ins.shtml)

[NutLoose]

4 x A310MRTT are due to be retired by the Luftwaffe as they convert to the A330MRTT.

No centreline hose, but 2 pilots + ARO and fitted with up-to-date systems.

Congratulations to whoever managed to sell ZA150 though! I really cannot imagine 'Juliet' flying again, nice though that would be.

quote from a post on the ZA150 farcebook page...

During the open day I had chat to one of our visitors who told me he worked on the 'line constructing ZA150. His particular area to the engine spectacle beams and the stub wings. He said as this was the last a/c off the line there were a certain amount of missing components as during the assembly of earlier a/c if a component didn't fit for some reason they would go to stores and take the same component that was ready for the next airframe, so naturally it all came to a head with the construction of CN885 5H-MOG.

[Jhieminga]

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1200x1049/rearfusdetails_5366675cd4f10c2c33a4bd5f9d8e7261dd374c5c.jpg
From 'The Aeroplane'.

[Chugalug2]

SD:-
The reality is that the VC10 last flew about 7 years ago. They have been left to rot outside in what the US regards as a maritime atmosphere. They have certainly not been carefully stored. They have seen years of military service and abuse. Going through the paperwork, if it can all even be found, would be an interesting exercise. Each one of them will be at a different configuration. Good luck with that.

It will also be very interesting to see how the approach taken by the FAA has changed in the post 737-Max world, and of course the views of other state regulators to these aircraft.

Anyone thinking there is a realistic chance of the VC10 ever flying again is either a fool or just plain stupid.

You may well say that SD but, despite all the professional input here corroborating your blanket condemnation of those who might differ, I still have a worrying suspicion that this a/c may yet wing its way stateside per the OP, airworthiness issues notwithstanding.

As to the FAA and the Max-8, I believe that abomination is about to be relaunched too. Money talks.

Call me a fool or just plain stupid. I'm quite sure you will.

[NutLoose]

All bar the few times it was in base, the VC10's have sat outside since the 60's, and in a maritime environment.

[Rigga]

All bar the few times it was in base, the VC10's have sat outside since the 60's, and in a maritime environment.
Absolutely correct! Airliners and cargo liners since the 1960’s have all been built to withstand “weather” because they are required to be in-use or available every day. They are all tough old birds, not like little fighter aircraft. Critical components may not have been exercised enough or documentation gaps will likely be the biggest source of delays in getting this flying. The biggest risk of corrosion is around the galleys and toilets,

[salad-dodger]

Absolutely correct! Airliners and cargo liners since the 1960’s have all been built to withstand “weather” because they are required to be in-use or available every day. They are all tough old birds, not like little fighter aircraft. Critical components may not have been exercised enough or documentation gaps will likely be the biggest source of delays in getting this flying. The biggest risk of corrosion is around the galleys and toilets,
absolutely correct Rigga, be difficult storing everything indoors. However, there’s a big difference between being sat, effectively abandoned, to being used and maintained regularly.

[Saintsman]

I remember the CMk4Ks that were stored at Abingdon for years looked pretty tatty and required a fair bit of work before they were flown to Filton for conversion.

That was when there was a DA and abundance of spares.

[NutLoose]

Yes, they changed the PFCU’s and Engines for airworthy items amongst other things.

But they were a different kettle of fish, the RAF stuffed them in big bags to protect them as recommended by an engineering officer, however the same engineer recognised this would turn them into giant greenhouses, so he also recommended that they had dehumidifiers installing, the RAF chose to skimp on that and the result was the spars sitting in their own swimming pools for years, the bags soon deteriorated in the wind and they were never maintained as far as I could see....

Then we had the fire that destroyed a lot of the RAF VC10 spares holding meaning we started to rob them, I took a booster pump housing out of one wing to replace a porous item on one of the C1’s and all though we taped over the resulting open hole, the wing was in effect compromised.

We were amazed at how in a relatively short time they had deteriorated especially as the none bagged gulf one back at Brize was still in good condition, the consensus amongst us All at the time was they would have faired better if simply parked and left.

The surviving 10’s have been maintained on a part time basis often by ex RAF VC10 engineers and following RAF procedures, they also have been ran and the systems functioned on high speed taxy runs. They have been well looked after under the care of the teams involved, an example of how well they get looked after was the inadvertent Victor tanker short flight and controlled landing some 10 years after its retirement.

[ZD241_VC10]

The surviving 10’s have been maintained on a part time basis often by ex RAF VC10 engineers and following RAF procedures, they also have been ran and the systems functioned on high speed taxy runs. They have been well looked after under the care of the teams involved, an example of how well they get looked after was the inadvertent Victor tanker short flight and controlled landing some 10 years after its retirement.

Very kind of you to say so. ‘241 was maintained very well until access to Bruntingthorpe was limited earlier this year. She was taxied (with the essential system’s functioning - hyds, electrics, flying controls etc) at least twice per year and had anti det runs through the autumn and winter every couple of months. She also had anti corrosion treatment in various places.

Obviously, in no way did this make her airworthy, but it improved the base product. If she did “do a Victor” (she wouldn’t - SOPs to stop that) I think most would be confident of a safe return to earth - if she had sufficient fuel on board!

[NutLoose]

Full page spread in Aeroplane mag, the plan is to ferry ZA150 gear down to St Athan where GD services will prep it for delivery to Texas where it will support that companies satellite programme, it says the two at Brunty are also rumoured to be involved. They bought the sims too.

[Chugalug2]

So despite it being generally agreed here that these aircraft are unairworthy (how could they be otherwise?) and flying them with the gear down won't alter that, neither the CAA nor the MAA are expected to intervene? Presumably the FAA will register them and provide a permit to fly to St Athan and thence stateside. Does that supersede our own Authorities say so for flight in our airspace? What a mockery it would make of the hype re the Victor's hop skip and jump.

[Saintsman]

I remember an incident from the Cmk1 conversion which involved the stick shaker going off when coming into land after the first aircraft’s test flight. Although everything was checked out okay, it still happened on the next flight and obviously the crew were not too happy.

The cause was traced to corrosion on relay contacts within the flap drum switch, which upset the values when the AOA was set up. The corrosion occurred during the 18 months it was sat on the ground being converted.

You can prepare an aircraft for flight iaw the manuals, but things can still catch you out because the manuals assume regular operation. A short hop within the UK will be hard enough. I’m not sure I would like to be on board during a trip across the pond.

[DuckDodgers]

A Special Flight Permit (SFP) issued by Designated Airworthiness Representatives (DAR’s) from the geographical Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) doesn't authorise an OCONUS flight UNLESS that nations airworthiness authority gives its permission for the flight to occur. So in this case the UK CAA will need to give approval for the flight to take place, this will be very interesting to follow over the coming weeks and months.

[GeeRam]

The CAA have granted that before that I can think of. The three ex-RAE Buccaneer's were allowed to make test flights in the UK, on the civil register in preparation for their ferry flights out of the UK and all the way down to South Africa, with the first one leaving in 1996, and the next one the following year in 1997. The final one didn't fly out of the UK until 2002.

[NutLoose]

Yep, Chug, But they will get them sufficiently airworthy for a single ferry flight to the satisfaction of the authorities otherwise it won’t happen.

[Rigga]

So despite it being generally agreed here that these aircraft are unairworthy (how could they be otherwise?) and flying them with the gear down won't alter that, neither the CAA nor the MAA are expected to intervene? Presumably the FAA will register them and provide a permit to fly to St Athan and thence stateside. Does that supersede our own Authorities say so for flight in our airspace? What a mockery it would make of the hype re the Victor's hop skip and jump.

The flights will be classified under a limited Permit To Fly and the CAA, on behalf of the local government in who’s airspace they will fly, will need to be notified and indeed give written permission for the flights to take place even if they are supported by an ‘acceptable’ foreign authority. The CAA can still say no if they wish to....but a convincing presentation, and money, may smooth the way.

[Chugalug2]

The flights will be classified under a limited Permit To Fly and the CAA, on behalf of the local government in who’s airspace they will fly, will need to be notified and indeed give written permission for the flights to take place even if they are supported by an ‘acceptable’ foreign authority. The CAA can still say no if they wish to....but a convincing presentation, and money, may smooth the way.
Indeed, Rigga. As I said in a previous post, money talks! Presumably those who it overflies won't be invited to the presentation, whether it be convincing or otherwise.

[Imagegear]

Interesting - how will the crews be formed, no one can be current on type.

IG

[NRU74]

Interesting - how will the crews be formed, no one can be current on type.

IG

Has ‘Beags’ been headhunted

[NutLoose]

I seem to remember the last ones ferried they threw lots of money in the crews direction.. it worked. And of course that could also open up employment opportunities states side, if they’d get the sims running then they could do a refresher..

[TBM-Legend]

Such negativity it seems. Where is the British spirit of adventure. I once flew my B-25 across the Pacific pre-GPS days. It was only 40 years old then. Subsequently my A-26 Invader from Canada to Australia single pilot with only a ginger beer for company!

[Chugalug2]

TBM, not sure what you're suggesting here, that your B-25 or A-26 were knowingly unairworthy? That is the issue here, not the age of these airframes. Much older ones fly in both UK military and civil airfleets, including WWII vintage types such as yours. Even if these VC-10s were airworthy on arrival at Bruntingthorpe, they certainly aren't now, and never will be on any commercial basis. No way would the CAA contemplate restoring them to the UK register, why then should it allow flight in/from UK airspace on a foreign register?

[RAF_Techie101]

Such negativity it seems. Where is the British spirit of adventure. I once flew my B-25 across the Pacific pre-GPS days. It was only 40 years old then. Subsequently my A-26 Invader from Canada to Australia single pilot with only a ginger beer for company!

Not sure the Pacific Ocean would try to sue you if you’d crashed into it.

[HZ123]

I cannot see it mentioned but B707 (1959) HZ-123 was parked outside at SEN from 1999 until its departure to Aussie on Dec 08 2006. From recollection a lot of monies were spent on it and on return it flew a lot of miles to get home. So anything is possible, accepting that there is still B707's flying and a good spares source. Not so for the VC10!

[NutLoose]

Tons of VC10 spares on eBay..:E

[etudiant]

Tons of VC10 spares on eBay..:E

With documentation to match, I'm sure.

[Rigga]

Such negativity it seems. Where is the British spirit of adventure. I once flew my B-25 across the Pacific pre-GPS days. It was only 40 years old then. Subsequently my A-26 Invader from Canada to Australia single pilot with only a ginger beer for company!
This discussion isn’t really about the venture for investors or the adventure for thrill seekers, it’s about the technicality and legality of getting it to where it needs to be...a nice lump will find someone to fly the worst crate.

[BEagle]

Back in 1999 we had to recover an aged VC10K2 from St Athan where it had been in 'storage' - it was needed for one of Bliar's mini-wars or something.

During the air test, we had a serious electrical issue during the shutdown and relight sequence, such that it suffered the "It can't happen" #1 & #3 bus fail. Well actually, BWoS, it can and did! Lots of lights, various PCUs failing and cabin alt increasing - together with all gyro instruments running down.... Fortunately after relighting the engine we restored the power, although various bus ties were cross-line to protect the system as we took it to Brize. The cause of the failure was corrosion in an alternator control panel due to the wonderful Welsh climate, which caused a slow electrical failure.

A few days later we took it for a partial air test including a ELRAT drop. Again a serious problem, this time due to corrosion in the ELRAT alternator system.

It was all fixed and took us across the Pond to China Lake a couple of weeks later though.

But 150 has been sitting around for ages and the spares situation is hardly what it was when that VC10K2 gave an experienced air test crew such a nasty surprise in 2 consecutive sorties. Even if structurally sound with 4 good engines, although flying it might seem straightforward, it would need a VERY experienced air engineer to cope with the vagaries of an electrical system that has been sitting around for ages with no certified spares available.

I simply cannot see 150 ever flying again...….

[DuckDodgers]

As reported by the team over at Scramble, the 4 ex-RSAF KC-135R tankers have been sold and allocated FAA serials. They are registered to the Wilmington Trust in Delaware which is well known for supporting Omega Air in terms of financing and aircraft registration until they are brought into operational use.

[Rigga]

All ‘ageing aircraft‘ (over 15 years old) have corrosion problems in electrical systems and that is normally part of the handover inspection process to inspect/test essential systems, that the IPT, dare I say, ‘possibly overlooked’ in 1999. The risks of first flights from long-term storage will always be be taken up by ‘confident‘ crew (and all for the right price) and there are a lot more experts desperate to fly lately.Waiting....

[NutLoose]

The RAF VC10 C1 fleet was totally rewired at East Mids before the c1’s were flown to Bournemouth to be converted to tankers. Though that doesn’t help as the ones involved are not C1’s.

i agree Riga.

[Saintsman]

The RAF VC10 C1 fleet was totally rewired at East Mids before the c1’s were flown to Bournemouth to be converted to tankers. Though that doesn’t help as the ones involved are not C1’s.

i agree Riga.

Not Quite. They were rewired from anything outside the pressure bungs (all the way in where necessary), but most of the internal wiring remained. Lots of Nyvin and lots of soldered connections too.

The first C1 arrived in Bournemouth in 1991 and any problems with the original wiring had to be replaced like with like. A lot of it had seen better days then and best left alone if possible. If they needed re-wiring then, I imagine that they will need a serious look at now.

[NutLoose]

They opened the pressure bungs when doing it, in fact I seem to remember the tanker conversion wiring was done at Bournemouth and Hunting at East Mids offered to run the wiring and coil it through the bulkheads while they had them apart so it didn’t need to be done again thus saving both time and money, but it was turned down as it was a different contract. The last Ten to leave East Mids lost some U/C bay panels on departure to much embarrament.

[Sideshow Bob]

As reported by the team over at Scramble, the 4 ex-RSAF KC-135R tankers have been sold and allocated FAA serials. They are registered to the Wilmington Trust in Delaware which is well known for supporting Omega Air in terms of financing and aircraft registration until they are brought into operational use.

There's an article in Flight International all about the buyer and the USAF requirement

rsaf-kc-135rs-find-new-home-with-us-firm-meta-aerospace (https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/rsaf-kc-135rs-find-new-home-with-us-firm-meta-aerospace/140413.article?utm_campaign=Defence_07102020&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=defence)