VC-10 tanker internal tanks - pics?

[Dave]

Does anyone have any photos of the inside of the VC-10 tanker ( the models with internal "cabin" tanks ) ?

Many thanks in advance :)

[tarantonight]

Does anyone have any photos of the inside of the VC-10 tanker ( the models with internal "cabin" tanks ) ?

Many thanks in advance :)

You need to get out more Dave.

In a socially distancing stylee clearly............

TN.

[Jhieminga]

There are two photos at the bottom of this page: https://www.vc10.net/Technical/fuel_system.html
I've got loads more, but do you need them for something? In that case, send me a message.

[Fareastdriver]

That looks familiar. A training board with the VC 10's fuel system was mounted in the air refuelling classroom at Marham in 1962.

[ORAC]

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/720x480/image_51c318dc970c0b97f81cd49ddabc589fea3e47aa.jpeg



https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/500x329/image_c9bf67b6392c2201195efd81ae4363ea04ea2b32.jpeg

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x639/image_4f74af95542a83ede6be5cfcd084fdee131004cd.jpeg


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x768/image_87488decbfff91acdbba22c90a4d7443381c8550.jpeg

[Top West 50]

That looks familiar. A training board with the VC 10's fuel system was mounted in the air refuelling classroom at Marham in 1962.
Are you sure 1962?

[Fareastdriver]

Positive!

I finished my Valiant conversion in June 1962 and was posted to 90 Sqn at Honington which had just converted to the flight refuelling role. I was immediately sent on the flight refuelling course at Marham where I learned all about the extra tanks, HDUs, refuelling baskets and probes. As far as the staff were concerned the VC10 tanker was just around the corner and was certain to replace the Valiant in the Tanker role.

How official were those thoughts at the time i don't know but they had gone to great lengths to manufacture full classroom size boards with the fuel systems illustrated.

[The B Word]

Get your arse down to St Mawgan and visit the Cornwal Aviation Heritage Centre - they have a complete VC10K that they will allow people to go inside and take their own photos :ok:

[Dave]

Thanks guys thats amazing!

Jhieminga (https://www.pprune.org/members/48625-jhieminga) - it was only for interest really, to see the size of the tanks and if they kept the "airline" interior....

B Word - thanks for the info, will try to get there sometime after lockdown!

[Top West 50]

Positive!

I finished my Valiant conversion in June 1962 and was posted to 90 Sqn at Honington which had just converted to the flight refuelling role. I was immediately sent on the flight refuelling course at Marham where I learned all about the extra tanks, HDUs, refuelling baskets and probes. As far as the staff were concerned the VC10 tanker was just around the corner and was certain to replace the Valiant in the Tanker role.

How official were those thoughts at the time i don't know but they had gone to great lengths to manufacture full classroom size boards with the fuel systems illustrated.
Fascinating since the vc10 wasn't even in raf service in 1962, i think. Some foresight!

[Fareastdriver]

I can imagine the confusion. When the VC10 first flew in 1962 all sorts of roles were forecast for all sorts of aircraft that were just flying or entering service. As a graduate from a Vampire AFS I was allowed access to most of the technical details of the TSR2 on a course project. So much so that we travelled to Boscombe and observed one of the test flights.

In the sixties the RAF was alive with projects for new types. The 1970s fleet was already being planned for.

A year later I was buttonholed in the mess bar by an Air Commodore who was apparently in the technical branch. Surrounding him were a posse of groundocrats gloating over his every word.
"What do you think of being in a dead end job." He demanded.

Being just a Flying Officer i asked what he meant.

"Don't you know that you will be finished in a couple of years. You will be replaced by missiles"

I looked at him and his chortling disciples.

"That's fantastic" I said, " I will be able to fly around the world with a cabin full of randy hostesses.".

He seemed to lose interest.

[Jhieminga]

Jhieminga (https://www.pprune.org/members/48625-jhieminga) - it was only for interest really, to see the size of the tanks and if they kept the "airline" interior....
No problem, there's more about the tanker conversions on another page on my site: https://www.vc10.net/History/tanker_conversions.html
The airline interiors were completely stripped out, there is just a small cabin with 16 seats left at the front, between the flight deck and the first fuel tank, but these use the generic RAF seats.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/662x1000/za147_cabin_1_0d59213c6d1a871a7a0fd648e9822bd8e898efe3.jpg

[BEagle]

When we first had the VC10K2, we had forward facing 'Comet' seats. But then 'They' decided that we had to have the normal rear facing seats....

However, quite often on TTF pond-hops and the like it wasn't unknown for seats to be rearranged so that we had a 'club' layout with a rear facing triple, a table and a forward facing triple. Useful for next leg planning, dining and for ground crew to consult manuals when fixing the inevitable snags which often cropped up.

The reason for the red marking around the pipe in front of the first fuselage tank cell was because one variant had the fuel tanks rather closer to the cabin door than the other - I think it was the K3? So if people opened the door and went into the tank bay having been used to the other, they could end up with a face full of fuel pipe. Solved by thick sponge rubber and dayglo strips by our ever-inventive ground crew!

When the K4 was about to come into service, as it didn't have any fuselage tanks (to save cost - in any case, unlike the K2 it had a fin tank), a paper was written proposing to fit more seats. Viewed with horror by 'Them' as that would have probably led to some C1s being scrapped. But 36 seats in 6 'club' layouts would have been rather civilised!

Dear old Vickers FunBus - an utter delight if rather noisy and thirsty. Like many of the crews!

[Rocket2]

If I recall from my youth the mighty VC-10 was originally touted as a possible tanker, bomber (84 x 1000lb bombs in pods & bomb bay), a martime patrol aircraft (might it have been better than a Nimrod?) & if I recall an AEW fit (I hasten to add as single role airframes). The last option was as a pax aircraft. I may well still have the copy of Air Pictorial detailing this somewhere.

[12 twists per inch]

K3s were bloody freezing on a long high transit or a trail in winter even in the seating cabin. I remember on one transit back from Canada, OC 101 as PF, fully in his sleeping bag except for arms, wearing a full bobble hat and gloves too!

[sycamore]

Were the extra tanks single or double-skinned...?

[Tankertrashnav]

Perhaps someone who has all the gen can tell us about the ill-fated proposal for an extending "tube" which could be deployed in flight to allow the aircrew to escape by sliding down it and emerge clear of the aircraft in the event of an aircraft abandonment. It should be said that at this stage it was envisaged that the crew would have parachutes! I'm not sure at what stage this mod was abandoned, but I seem to recall there was some form of installation on the port side just aft of the flight deck, which served as a waste basket container.

I now see that you mention this on your website (link above) Jhieminga . Could you perhaps give a few details? You say the system was extensively tested - were there any live "jumps" during this testing, and did the early VC10 tanker crews actually ever fly in parachutes?

[Jhieminga]

Were the extra tanks single or double-skinned...?
The fuselage fuel cells are double skinned with a synthetic rubber bag inside the inner skin.
Could you perhaps give a few details? You say the system was extensively tested - were there any live "jumps" during this testing, and did the early VC10 tanker crews actually ever fly in parachutes?
As far as I know there were no live jumps, but the first installation on ZA143 was used to drop several dummies over Lark Hill on Salisbury Plain. ZA143 was also flown with the escape door open and chute extended to assess the effect on the port engines. As for the use of parachutes, others more knowledgable than me will be able to answer that one. The system was relatively short-lived (although I don't have the dates for when it was finally removed) and I don't know whether it was ever actually deemed operational on the K2/K3 fleet.
It is interesting to think that the location for the escape chute (height relative to the main cabin floor) was not all that different from the escape hatch on the VC10 prototype, which was mounted in the forward underfloor freight door. There's a story here about the windtunnel tests for that door (first story): https://www.vc10.net/Memories/FlightTesting.html

[BEagle]

Ah yes, the 'million pound dustbin'!

What an utter feat of nonsense that was. The first few VC10K courses were taught how it was to be used and we listened with incredulous disdain.

The idea was that the aircraft could be abandoned having given away all its fuel to tanks dry - or nearly so as we still needed some eletrical and hydraulic power. The Air Engineer would operate a low level override button on the fuel panel, then spill the pressurisation to reduce differential pressure so that operation of the crew escape chute wouldn't cause an explosive decompression. Then the chute would be extended after which the crew was supposed to take turns diving out.

However, it was impossible to fly in parachutes as the seats wouldn't accomodate them. Also when the chute was operated, the sealing strip around the external door would most likely be ingested by the left hand engines, which would probably explode.

To add to the joy, we were supposed to use a walk round portable oxygen cylinder each as the cabin pressure rose. Thus we were supposed to unstrap, transfer to walk round oxygen, walk back to the cabin and don parachutes. One pilot would stay at the controls until the other had kitted up, then he would go back whilst the other pilot held the aircraft straight and level by leaning over the seat and holding the control column! After the chute had been deployed and everyone else had gone, the remaining pilot was supposed to leg it back to the cabin and dive out....if he could. No intercom of course, so any communication would be by shouting after releasing one's oxygen mask. The rubber jungle would also have dropped automatically as cabin altitude increased.....

In the K3, the wretched thing was right over the access hatch to the underfloor area. So if the Air Engineer needed to go downstairs, he had to do a limbo dance to wriggle down through the hatch. The BWoS test crew tried to convince us that it was easy when the first K3 arrived and we went on board to study it.

We were issued with immersion suits and bone domes (I think?) and there was a storage area in the squadron built for the purpose. I think that we did the single seat dinghy drill at SCSR as well as the multi-seat, but I might be wrong.

Eventually 'They' had an attack of commonsense and the whole nonsense was removed, leaving just a differential pressure gauge and part of the structure - which was the perfect size to hold a gash bag for galley rubbish etc. Hence the 'Million Pound Dustbin' nickname.

There was no plausible scenario for use of the system and it certainly couldn't be used to abandon a damaged aircraft. Those who'd been rear crew in Victors thought their system was bad enough, but the proposed VC10K2/3 system was laughably ridiculous!

[BEagle]

Regarding the prototype VC10 escape system, a chap who worked at Weybridge as an apprentice was on my Aero Eng course. He told me that there was a tape of Trubshaw's struggle with G-ARTA in which he gives the bale out order - followed a little later by "It's OK chaps, I've got her - COME BACK, COME BACK!!".

The RB211 test aircraft also had a crew escape system via the lower freight bay door and I recall being shown it whilst on a visit to Hucknall.

[Jhieminga]

To add a few details, the escape door was hinged at the top, used some sort of explosive charge to open and incorporated side panels that protected the chute structure. The chute itself then slid down another 1,5m or so. Unfortunately I don't have a photo that I can share but there is a good view in Keith Wilson's Haynes Manual (https://amzn.to/2ZIbOMI) (on page 77). It was first fitted to ZA143 at Hurn and tested on this airframe. The other conversions also got this installation and it was retrofitted to ZA141, which flew before ZA143.

The escape chute having been removed, the port forward door was left sealed shut (the avionics bay access hatch is visible in the floor):

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1000x667/za147_escapedoor_d7965d92e5e8de7061cd66789bc08387d5019483.jp g
I think this is the remaining gauge that BEagle mentioned:
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1000x667/za147_cabin_1_ece26bea8160b2c961e19f9c55cfd4644d8b6948.jpg
The door can be opened for maintenance purposes. The locking pins are retracted by using an operating handle in the fixture shown in the photo above and a tension strap that fixes the bottom of the door to the fuselage needs to be removed. The 'abandon aircraft' light in the photo above is also a remnant of the escape chute system.

[ancientaviator62]

BEegle,
we carried chest type clip on parachutes on the C130K tanker and 'quickdon' immersion suits All stowed on a stretcher at the forward starboard side of the cargo compartment.. No bone domes as I recall and we also did the single man dingy drill.
I could never get my head around the likely scenario for using the kit.
The internal tanks (four of) were single skinned.

[esscee]

To answer a couple of queries thrown up earlier, the reason the cabin was cold during extended (2 hrs +) highish altitude was that someone in their wisdom left the K2/K3's with only 2 cabin compressors. It was deemed a "useful" weight saving by not having 2 big lumps on 2 of the engines, also to "aid" C of G by moving it further forward. Regarding the "escape chute", it was made inoperable once it was realized that there was a Skydrol item within the system which if a hydraulic leak occurred would not be very healthy for anyone in the cabin to be inhaling. After checking various Safety rules/regs regarding Skydrol it was decided to make the system inop, seem to remember likely to be during 1984 for K2's and as soon as the first K3 was delivered to 101 sqn.

[Jhieminga]

That would fit, the first K2 was delivered in July 1983 (ZA140), the second one in September 1983 (ZA143) and the others followed in February, April and October 1984. The K3s started turning up in February 1985 (ZA150) with the last one delivered on 27 March 1986 (ZA148).

[ORAC]

Escape chute deployed in flight...

https://www.facebook.com/groups/ZA150/permalink/2593697044228456/

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1361/1fcccce8_98d5_41f6_90b5_228e150b6fda_f4cabda5aa7877a1a0457ef 0b87a986bd83c6a2b.jpeg



https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/720x960/37f875da_ff95_4169_9c8c_301ce0661fdc_93a0a56eec6cbf8ff56c087 dad504b6645277d50.jpeg

[Tengah Type]

The TTF instructor crew gave a demonstration on the ground ( up to blowing the door ) of the crew drills required to AOC 1 Group. It took 10+ minutes. The AOC is reputed to have called it a "Complete Cake and Arse Party". Did dummies actually get dropped in the trials? I seem to remember it was deemed too dangerous.

[ORAC]

If you believe the above Facebook thread, yes, and the first one thrown hit the wing leading edge...

[Tankertrashnav]

Thanks for the answers chaps - very interesting. Final question, did the chap responsible for introducing this dog's breakfast get promoted, or perhaps an OBE?

Re Victor back seaters, Beagle, I always had a touching faith in my ability to get out of a Victor, but the statistics prove that my faith was somewhat misguided - successful rear crew abandonments from any of the V's were pretty rare.

[BEagle]

Tengah Type, I don't think that dummies were dropped. The buffeting experienced whilst flying with the chute extended was considered to present excessive risk, we were told.

The VVSO who dictated that the VC10K should have a crew escape system paid a visit to 101 in the early days, although at the time I didn't know he'd been the one. On the jet, he asked me what I thought, so I gave him my frank views. 'Buff' was standing behind him giving me a "FFS shut up!" expression, so after the VVSO grunted "Well, I think the lives of you chaps happens to be very important", I agreed and said that concept was one thing, execution was another. If we were that important, then the aircraft should have been redesigned with all crew in M-B bang seats. At which he harrumphed and left; no doubt I had another 1369-limiting narrative comment that year.

[Fareastdriver]

What did they have on the KC 135? Same sort of job.

[Dan Gerous]

... it was only for interest really, to see the size of the tanks and if they kept the "airline" interior....

There was a VC10 tanker came into Kinloss, 83/84, and it was the first one I had seen. Myself and another guy from my section went to have a look at it, and the Loadie allowed us on to have a look. As shown in the pics above the interior was gutted and tanks fitted. I can't recall how long it had been on the ground for, but it was ffffff freezing in there.

[NutLoose]

Ahh the million pound dustbin.. I was told on my course that they did chuck a dummy out on the trial and it hit the wing, hence it reverted to being the bin. I do love the photo of it deployed with the flaps and slats down, thus giving you even more to hit on the way past :E

I also remember there was talk that when the first tanker conversion was carried out it wasn't stress jacked properly, so when they took out the section to put in the tanks it sagged resulting in the hole being bigger than the bung to be reinstalled, thus calling for some hasty jacking to bring it all back into shape and allow the section to go back in.

[k3k3]

The Boeing E-3 aircraft also have an extending escape chute, they were all inhibited after trials with dummies, the dummies were shredded by the antennae along the underside of the fuselage.

[Jhieminga]

Tengah Type, I don't think that dummies were dropped. The buffeting experienced whilst flying with the chute extended was considered to present excessive risk, we were told.
I cannot point to a primary source (will keep an eye out for one) but Scott Henderson's books about the VC10 refer to dummies (multiple) having been dropped over Lark Hill on Salisbury Plain from ZA143. I know that he talked to a lot of people while doing research for his books and with the specific info about the location, I have no reason to doubt that at least one dummy was dropped. There may well be a bit of truth in both sides of the story. I don't doubt that the buffeting was severe and that the results from the test were not what was hoped. The project was well advanced seeing as all the K2s and K3s received the escape chute and they probably needed a bit of convincing to throw away the investment.

[Coltishall. loved it]

Ahh the million pound dustbin.. I was told on my course that they did chuck a dummy out on the trial and it hit the wing, hence it reverted to being the bin. I do love the photo of it deployed with the flaps and slats down, thus giving you even more to hit on the way past :E

I also remember there was talk that when the first tanker conversion was carried out it wasn't stress jacked properly, so when they took out the section to put in the tanks it sagged resulting in the hole being bigger than the bung to be reinstalled, thus calling for some hasty jacking to bring it all back into shape and allow the section to go back in.




Yep, as a teenage liney it was perfect for bodge taping a black bin liner to and emptying all the ash trays into! how things have changed? Seem to remember that there were some smoking rules though....not allowed to smoke down the back when tanking

[Mr N Nimrod]

What did they have on the KC 135? Same sort of job.
very, very different. The KC-135 has forward and aft fuselage tanks below the floor - 4 cells forward and 5 aft. There is also an aft tank above floor level. The main fuselage interior has a cargo floor and is normally set up with webbing type seats along the sidewall. There are also two APUs inside the rear of the cabin.

The KC-135 was built from the start as a tanker, and it shows.

[ancientaviator62]

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x702/hercules_aar_vc10_1_34c95dad543108fa35cba0bfe474252f594448dd .jpg
One for the VC10 crews

[BEagle]

Always problematic refuelling a C-130. Because the VC10K HDU when fitted with the normal drogue was very difficult to set up at the low speed needed to refuel the C-130 and the hose would often run in and put the brake on as soon as the probe touched it....

Fitting a low speed drogue worked OK and we had a procedure for extending flap and slat to fly at around 180-200KIAS at FL200 with the centreline hose trailed. But the tanker fuel burn was colossal!

[Exvacert]

Can’t remember explosives to open the door. But I recall it was a nitrogen system borrowed off the tornado landing gear blowdown system.

[Tengah Type]

Exavcert

The Door was forced open and the chute deployed by compressed Nitrogen as you say. However the bottom of the door had a metal sealing strip which is what was severed explosively when the system was activated .

[Jhieminga]

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/588x141/screenshot_2021_02_25_at_10_25_58_7480374c1cbf6e83b7de454925 c3beac1e5b4dba.png