Preservation of C130 K and VC10 for Future Generations
Simple solution surely; kick the PFI with its special not-quite A330s in the arse and run, don't walk, down to EADS and get our slots in the queue for the full spec ones the Americans can't seem to get organised to actually buy, which actually have a cargo door.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WE992,
nice idea until you actually have to fly a charter aircraft into a combat zone that has a credible SAM threat. We owe it to the military pax to fly them in aircraft that have half a chance of defeating/surviving such an attack.
The Ascot mob, as you so kindly put it, have been let down badly by our totally
government forcing them to solder on with knackered aircraft and engineering/logistics support that has been cut to the bone 
I look forward to the day when the crews at BZN have some modern, capable aircraft to fly; I have worked with quite a few of them and they are very professional, hardworking people and they do an amzing job with the aircraft they have at the moment, IMHO.
And on a related matter, I have quite a soft spot for the Vickers funbus, lovely aircraft, but sadly getting too old to remain in service now.
Agree the FSTA PFI is a disaster, but the A330-200 tanker should be a good aircraft, provided EADS-CASA "militarise" it competently, but that is a debate for another day
nice idea until you actually have to fly a charter aircraft into a combat zone that has a credible SAM threat. We owe it to the military pax to fly them in aircraft that have half a chance of defeating/surviving such an attack.
The Ascot mob, as you so kindly put it, have been let down badly by our totally
government forcing them to solder on with knackered aircraft and engineering/logistics support that has been cut to the bone I look forward to the day when the crews at BZN have some modern, capable aircraft to fly; I have worked with quite a few of them and they are very professional, hardworking people and they do an amzing job with the aircraft they have at the moment, IMHO.
And on a related matter, I have quite a soft spot for the Vickers funbus, lovely aircraft, but sadly getting too old to remain in service now.
Agree the FSTA PFI is a disaster, but the A330-200 tanker should be a good aircraft, provided EADS-CASA "militarise" it competently, but that is a debate for another day
WE 992
nice idea until you actually have to fly a charter aircraft into a combat zone that has a credible SAM threat. We owe it to the military pax to fly them in aircraft that have half a chance of defeating/surviving such an attack.
nice idea until you actually have to fly a charter aircraft into a combat zone that has a credible SAM threat. We owe it to the military pax to fly them in aircraft that have half a chance of defeating/surviving such an attack.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WE992,
The TriStar is the only platform available that can satisfy the UK government's policy on DAS and the British Army's desire to be delivered directly into theatre. However, putting that particular issue aside,
"Ditching the Strategic AT fleet" as you so wisely advocate gets rid of a total of 3 airframes. All the other TriStars and VC10s are tankers. It is not good value to the taxpayer to refuse to utilize the AT capacity of these airframes and have them sat around waiting for the next time that AAR is required in numbers. The USAF also use their KC-10 force to perform airlift missions and the KC-45, or whatever ends up winning the KC-X competion, is required to add significantly to that capability.
I would guess that your comments are based on bad experiences of being moved by the military AT system. Curiously, the RAF AAR service seems to be held in much higher regard despite being provided the same aircraft and crews.
The TriStar is the only platform available that can satisfy the UK government's policy on DAS and the British Army's desire to be delivered directly into theatre. However, putting that particular issue aside,
"Ditching the Strategic AT fleet" as you so wisely advocate gets rid of a total of 3 airframes. All the other TriStars and VC10s are tankers. It is not good value to the taxpayer to refuse to utilize the AT capacity of these airframes and have them sat around waiting for the next time that AAR is required in numbers. The USAF also use their KC-10 force to perform airlift missions and the KC-45, or whatever ends up winning the KC-X competion, is required to add significantly to that capability.
I would guess that your comments are based on bad experiences of being moved by the military AT system. Curiously, the RAF AAR service seems to be held in much higher regard despite being provided the same aircraft and crews.
Brain,
Nothing but respect for AT/AAR crews and groundcrew, but in terms of reputation of RAF AAR assets......
My experience is when they turn up they are very good/flexible, but, when I first got involved in AAR receiver training I quickly learnt that the phrase...."the tanker is airborne".... had to treated with the same caution as ...."the cheque is in the post"....and slightly ruder comments!
Nothing but respect for AT/AAR crews and groundcrew, but in terms of reputation of RAF AAR assets......
My experience is when they turn up they are very good/flexible, but, when I first got involved in AAR receiver training I quickly learnt that the phrase...."the tanker is airborne".... had to treated with the same caution as ...."the cheque is in the post"....and slightly ruder comments!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not doubt that users of the RAF AAR service regularly fall victim to VC10 or TriStar unserviceabilities. Equally, the tanker force rarely sees all of it's expected trade arrive and often has to throw fuel away because of unserviceable receivers.
However, WE992's comments about the "Ascot mob" and "glorified bus drivers" seem to reflect a belief that the air and ground crews of the AT force are somehow intransigent in the execution of their tasking. AAR receivers that have been let-down appear to be much more philosophical about the difficulties of providing a service with a small fleet of forty-year-old aircraft and are less ready to cast aspersions on tanker crew's professionalism. My point to WE992 is that there is much less invective directed at the AAR force than at the Strat AT fleet and yet the service is provided by the very same aircraft and crews.
However, WE992's comments about the "Ascot mob" and "glorified bus drivers" seem to reflect a belief that the air and ground crews of the AT force are somehow intransigent in the execution of their tasking. AAR receivers that have been let-down appear to be much more philosophical about the difficulties of providing a service with a small fleet of forty-year-old aircraft and are less ready to cast aspersions on tanker crew's professionalism. My point to WE992 is that there is much less invective directed at the AAR force than at the Strat AT fleet and yet the service is provided by the very same aircraft and crews.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Witney UK
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect that while the complainers about the AT service are in the main non aviators the AAR users are all of the flying world and understand the vagaries of aircraft. The AT customers deserve a better service than they are getting but the providers just do not have the recourses, an impossible situation. The history of a replacement policy is sad reading and possibly still subject to delay if changes to the fit of FSTA are likely.One thing you can be sure of is that the operators are doing their best to meet the tasking.
Last edited by Art Field; 15th Dec 2008 at 10:00.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South West
Age: 60
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting back to my original question
Ref preserving examples of each of the VC10 and C130. Getting back to my thread starting point.
Should we save a VC10 C1, K3 or K4, there are merits of each model.
Similarly should we save a Hercules Mk1 or Mk3. Personally I think that a Mk1 should be saved, but I am sure that others will think otherwise.
Should we save a VC10 C1, K3 or K4, there are merits of each model.
Similarly should we save a Hercules Mk1 or Mk3. Personally I think that a Mk1 should be saved, but I am sure that others will think otherwise.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Overseas, mostly
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brain,
You suggested:
Does a C17 with palletized seating (plus comfort pallet) not meet these criteria?
I will hasten to add that such an option is a shocking waste of the C17's cargo compartment!
You suggested:
The TriStar is the only platform available that can satisfy the UK government's policy on DAS and the British Army's desire to be delivered directly into theatre.
I will hasten to add that such an option is a shocking waste of the C17's cargo compartment!
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: GONE BY 2012
Age: 51
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to see a C130K Mk 1 SF airframe saved as a lasting memorial to the model and the crews that have flown and fought her.
Nice to see one at Brize with all the bits attached.
Alongside a VC10 - tanker variants would look better.
Nice to see one at Brize with all the bits attached.
Alongside a VC10 - tanker variants would look better.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,051
Received 2,925 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
Re:- Preservation of C130 K and VC10 for Future Generations
The way of things in the UK, Captain Archer and his crew will no doubt be ferried out to the first Starship Enterprise in the "Latest" re-engined reincarnation of the VC10 whos new out of service date will have been put back to 2410...
Call me cynical.
The way of things in the UK, Captain Archer and his crew will no doubt be ferried out to the first Starship Enterprise in the "Latest" re-engined reincarnation of the VC10 whos new out of service date will have been put back to 2410...
Call me cynical.
Well if you look at the Aircraft on the historical line-up at Dyess AFB, I'm sure we could somehow manipulate a Vc10 or C130 into position somewhere.
Although behind the secure entrance of any station, it begs the question why? (and thats the case with Dyess now - I had to fax my passport to the CIA or FBI, just to walk past the old airframes!
For sure stick it where it can be seen, and get a sense of what goes on, but if you cant see it , what's the point. Give it to a museum.
Although behind the secure entrance of any station, it begs the question why? (and thats the case with Dyess now - I had to fax my passport to the CIA or FBI, just to walk past the old airframes!
For sure stick it where it can be seen, and get a sense of what goes on, but if you cant see it , what's the point. Give it to a museum.
Charter is the way ahead. Do away with the gloryfied bus drivers of the Ascot fleet.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Stroud
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vc10 only please
Why preserve a Hercules, there are stacks of them all over the world!
Where as the VC10 is a much rarer beast. Plus, if money is short preserving a VC10 only will be easier on the taxpayer. There will be loads of Hercules preserved in the States. Common sense please!
And another thing! Preserve two VC10s, one in airworthy condition for as long as is possible, and one permanently under cover in a new national aerospace museum, along with examples (also under cover) of a Concorde, BAC 111, Trident, Victor, Vulcan etc. It is the large British aircraft that are generally left outside to be reduced to scrap by oxidation after a decade or so.
I was lucky enough to get a free ride in a VC10 as a space cadet back in the 80's. Great!!!
PS: Not much hope of preserving anything with the 'Brown Bounce' in office. Smacks of Empire and not sufficiently Scottish etc...
Where as the VC10 is a much rarer beast. Plus, if money is short preserving a VC10 only will be easier on the taxpayer. There will be loads of Hercules preserved in the States. Common sense please!
And another thing! Preserve two VC10s, one in airworthy condition for as long as is possible, and one permanently under cover in a new national aerospace museum, along with examples (also under cover) of a Concorde, BAC 111, Trident, Victor, Vulcan etc. It is the large British aircraft that are generally left outside to be reduced to scrap by oxidation after a decade or so.
I was lucky enough to get a free ride in a VC10 as a space cadet back in the 80's. Great!!!
PS: Not much hope of preserving anything with the 'Brown Bounce' in office. Smacks of Empire and not sufficiently Scottish etc...
