7 little weeks of Sadness..... XV109 today
Join Date: May 2003
Location: No longer where I used to be: I've escaped!!
Age: 69
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smokin' Holes!
Don't think we lost any Dominies due to Ac/ Ground interface. Only when they were 'consolidated' by mixing the best wings and fuselages did the fleet shrink and then as they were taken out of service and finally sold off or scrapped.
Maybe it was because it also had a T- tail ?
I'm sure we never lost a Belfast or 146 either.
CNN
Maybe it was because it also had a T- tail ?
I'm sure we never lost a Belfast or 146 either.
CNN
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Southend
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading the above from Moggiee I was reminded of the very useful item in the old Air Clues titled 'I Learned about Flying from That'!
I think most of us will have been there, pressured by more experienced people, and I'm sure it still goes on. Until it goes wrong that is!
I think most of us will have been there, pressured by more experienced people, and I'm sure it still goes on. Until it goes wrong that is!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I certainly learned a lot. My new found assertiveness had a detrimental effect on my career though - my boss didn't take kindly to my more "frank" approach to dealing with senior officers
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: lowestoft
Age: 69
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was at Brize then and 109 was being ferried from Fields,Casle D. after a rewire. I know you said where you were but 109 hadn't been anyway near Brize for months. Did this happen twice?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,728
Received 2,722 Likes
on
1,157 Posts
Who?
They all went through and Fields offered to put in the tanker wiring for free, it was turned down as on a different contract. Last one out lost the panels out of the U/C bay.. Didn't note which was which as I see so many air raft it's like looking at car number plates, you don't unless the bugger is mowing you down.
They all went through and Fields offered to put in the tanker wiring for free, it was turned down as on a different contract. Last one out lost the panels out of the U/C bay.. Didn't note which was which as I see so many air raft it's like looking at car number plates, you don't unless the bugger is mowing you down.
Question about the tanker version. I had a couple of trips on these with ATC cadets in the 1980s and was interested in the escape hatch which was originally intended to be used for crew abandonment (just aft of the flight deck on the port side). I think the idea was binned fairly early on when it was realised that getting a crew of four out was one thing, but a crew of four and a dozen odd pax was something else again.
Anyone know what sort of trials were done on this escape hatch and how it worked? I think there was some sort of extending slide to take escapees clear of the aircraft, but as it was all welded up by that time, I'm not sure about that. I take it even at the development stage nobody ever actually jumped out of a VC10
Anyone know what sort of trials were done on this escape hatch and how it worked? I think there was some sort of extending slide to take escapees clear of the aircraft, but as it was all welded up by that time, I'm not sure about that. I take it even at the development stage nobody ever actually jumped out of a VC10
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,728
Received 2,722 Likes
on
1,157 Posts
Question about the tanker version. I had a couple of trips on these with ATC cadets in the 1980s and was interested in the escape hatch which was originally intended to be used for crew abandonment (just aft of the flight deck on the port side). I think the idea was binned fairly early on when it was realised that getting a crew of four out was one thing, but a crew of four and a dozen odd pax was something else again.
Anyone know what sort of trials were done on this escape hatch and how it worked? I think there was some sort of extending slide to take escapees clear of the aircraft, but as it was all welded up by that time, I'm not sure about that. I take it even at the development stage nobody ever actually jumped out of a VC10
Anyone know what sort of trials were done on this escape hatch and how it worked? I think there was some sort of extending slide to take escapees clear of the aircraft, but as it was all welded up by that time, I'm not sure about that. I take it even at the development stage nobody ever actually jumped out of a VC10
.
Last edited by NutLoose; 5th Oct 2013 at 12:38.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,728
Received 2,722 Likes
on
1,157 Posts
Vc10617
After the rewire at C Don they then went down to Bournemouth to get the wiring and tanker refuelling points installed, though cannot remember if it went straight away.
After the rewire at C Don they then went down to Bournemouth to get the wiring and tanker refuelling points installed, though cannot remember if it went straight away.
Last edited by NutLoose; 5th Oct 2013 at 12:37.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: lowestoft
Age: 69
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nutloose
Could have done, the 1st C.1K conversion,XV101, flew mid 1992.The re wire was running at the same time. I remember I needed engine stills for four Conways but there was a shortage. Fields had at least four as did FRA and maybe some at Filton on the K.4 conversion.
It took a while for someone to eventually get them to us.
Could have done, the 1st C.1K conversion,XV101, flew mid 1992.The re wire was running at the same time. I remember I needed engine stills for four Conways but there was a shortage. Fields had at least four as did FRA and maybe some at Filton on the K.4 conversion.
It took a while for someone to eventually get them to us.
Last edited by vc10617; 5th Oct 2013 at 14:10.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
). I flew XV109 in June, August, September and November so it hadn't been away from Brize.I'm sure that the re-wire at EMA was later - I think that I delivered at least one myself. My logbook says that we did a 1 way trip to EMA in XV108 on 3rd July 1989.
Last edited by moggiee; 5th Oct 2013 at 19:28.
Thanks Nutloose, that clears that up.
We rear crew had an escape hatch on the Victor, of course. It was called the door. Success rates in abandoning the Victor were very poor - not sure if there ever was a 100% successful abandonment. Sounds like it was a good plan to forget the whole thing - after all you got a £1m bin bag holder out of it! And in the event, because of the ten's 100% record, thankfully it would never have been needed.
We rear crew had an escape hatch on the Victor, of course. It was called the door. Success rates in abandoning the Victor were very poor - not sure if there ever was a 100% successful abandonment. Sounds like it was a good plan to forget the whole thing - after all you got a £1m bin bag holder out of it! And in the event, because of the ten's 100% record, thankfully it would never have been needed.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,728
Received 2,722 Likes
on
1,157 Posts
The Ten one used the forward pax door, it's a long time ago, says on VC10. Net
But we were told they hit the wing, so anyone's guess as to the truth.
The Tanker Conversions
Though the prototype escape chute on the very first one dropped out underneath and that said
Testing and early days to Escape from a VC10
The left front entrance door was converted to enable crew members to exit the aircraft by parachute in case of emergency. Because of this the right front service door would from now on be the main entrance door. The escape chute was extensively tested, but later on in the service life of the tankers a decision was made to block off the system as there was no need for it.
The Tanker Conversions
Though the prototype escape chute on the very first one dropped out underneath and that said
Testing and early days to Escape from a VC10
The first three aircraft had escape hatches for the flight test crew and one of my jobs was to help the photographer with his high speed cine-film photographs of simulated escapes from a model in the 13' x 9' tunnel. I pulled the string which released a model man who was then photographed, something that we did for various speeds and attitudes. All was well except for one particular combination and one hatch (the one forward on the side), when the man flew into the engine. We did that test again and he hit the tailplane. At the third attempt he just caught the wing downwash and went safely below the engines.
Some time later I asked the photographer what the flight test crew said when they saw the film. He told me that he had cut that bit out and only showed the safe exit as he didn't want to worry them! I never did find out whether he was pulling my leg or whether he really did edit the film."
Well, things could have been worse! On the subject of escape hatches I couldn't resist adding the following lines from Brian Trubshaw's 1998 autobiography 'Test Pilot'. In these lines Brian Trubshaw recalls one of the stall tests that he carried out with the prototype G-ARTA when things didn't go as planned. There is also some information about this flight on the Incidents and Accidents page, including some comments from an ex-Vickers ground crew member.
Some time later I asked the photographer what the flight test crew said when they saw the film. He told me that he had cut that bit out and only showed the safe exit as he didn't want to worry them! I never did find out whether he was pulling my leg or whether he really did edit the film."
Well, things could have been worse! On the subject of escape hatches I couldn't resist adding the following lines from Brian Trubshaw's 1998 autobiography 'Test Pilot'. In these lines Brian Trubshaw recalls one of the stall tests that he carried out with the prototype G-ARTA when things didn't go as planned. There is also some information about this flight on the Incidents and Accidents page, including some comments from an ex-Vickers ground crew member.
"The last day of 1963 nearly brought the stalling programme to an abrupt end. I was just recovering from a clean stall when at about 250 Kts all hell broke loose as G-ARTA started shaking violently. There was a shout from the Senior Observer, Chris Mullen, who was looking at the tail through his periscope, 'Right inner elevator'. I was quite certain that G-ARTA was going to come apart and it nearly did, so I fired the escape hatch door and ordered the crew to bale out. The flight engineer, Roy Mole, could not get out of his seat and the same applied to the co-pilot Captain Peter Cane of BOAC, while the crew in the back could not hear me above the general racket. I managed to reduce speed to about 160 Kts which put me very close to a pre-stall buffet, whereupon the violent vibrations and oscillations calmed down to a smaller amount. The escape hatch chute which went through the front forward hold had collapsed and gone out when the door was jettisoned, so it was as well nobody tried to use it and only a jangled bunch of metal remained. I made a very gentle return towards Wisley under Mayday conditions and soon realized that I had lost half the aircraft services. However, the split system principle worked very well but I had to free-fall the right landing gear. After flight inspection revealed that the two right-hand engines had rotated 2 inch and in doing so pulled off hydraulic pipes and air-conditioning pipes. The right inner elevator had broken its attachment bracket which had set up flutter of that surface. Two fin attachment bolts were severed. In fact poor G-ARTA with whom I had developed a great bond of affection was in a sorry state. I think that we had done about 2,300 stalls together."
The type of escape hatch discussed above was fitted to both the VC10 and also to the BAC 1-11 (and perhaps other types of aircraft but I'm not sure about that). They consisted of a metal tunnel (the escape chute) that slid down through the forward freight hold to extend down below the aircraft through the freight hold door aperture after the door was removed using explosive bolts. Whether this would have provided a safe exit for the flight crew is a debatable issue, especially when the stories above are taken into account. The BAC 1-11 prototype G-ASHG was lost in October 1963 - just months before the incident with G-ARTA - when it got itself into a stable stalled condition and the flight crew did not have enough elevator authority left to regain control. The escape system was fired but the aircraft hit the ground shortly after the freight hold door was explosively removed. The flight test crew of seven did not survive the accident.
The type of escape hatch discussed above was fitted to both the VC10 and also to the BAC 1-11 (and perhaps other types of aircraft but I'm not sure about that). They consisted of a metal tunnel (the escape chute) that slid down through the forward freight hold to extend down below the aircraft through the freight hold door aperture after the door was removed using explosive bolts. Whether this would have provided a safe exit for the flight crew is a debatable issue, especially when the stories above are taken into account. The BAC 1-11 prototype G-ASHG was lost in October 1963 - just months before the incident with G-ARTA - when it got itself into a stable stalled condition and the flight crew did not have enough elevator authority left to regain control. The escape system was fired but the aircraft hit the ground shortly after the freight hold door was explosively removed. The flight test crew of seven did not survive the accident.
Last edited by NutLoose; 5th Oct 2013 at 20:56.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One extra bonus of the design of the VC10 - the primary flight controls were not powered by the main hydraulic system but by individual electro-hydraulic PFCUs. This means that even if both hydraulic systems are lost then the full range of primary flight controls are still available - and conversely, the physical separation of a primary control surface (elevator, aileron, rudder) from the airframe would not cause a loss of hydraulic services.
The 'million pound dustbin' was a complete and utter waste of time and money.
It replaced the front door and was supposed to be extended into the airflow to enable a controlled abandonment. We were told that only one flight was ever made with the device extended, but that the noise and buffeting were so extreme that the aircraft landed early.
We were taught how to use it on #3 VC10K course, but refused to waste any time on it. It worked as follows:
1. The decision was made to off-load all available fuel to receivers and the low-level override system was selected on.
2. The aircraft was then depressurised. Or rather, the pressurisation was turned off and the cabin allowed to climb until the min. diff. pressure for chute deployment was reached. This could take several minutes.
3. Individual crew members were then supposed to use walk-round Mk4 oxygen bottles, before going into the cabin to don parachutes and oxygen systems as the flight deck seats weren't modified to allow for parachute packs. Pilots would take it in turns, but it was physically impossible to sit in any crew seat wearing the emergency AEA.
4. When the diff. pressure gauge suggested it was 'safe' to do so, the escape chute was deployed by pulling a large lever. The first item in the sequence was for the external door seal to be severed; however BWoS suggested that this would be ingested by the left engines, causing an uncontained failure of at least one engine..... 3 of the 4 crew might get out, but the last pilot was supposed to fly the thing by leaning over the seat to hold the control column in order to maintain at least wings-level flight, then let go, turn round, make his way back to the chute and jump out - probably to join his colleagues in the remains of the left engines.
Eventually common sense prevailed and the stupid system was removed. But the K2 and K3 were left with just the starboard service door.
There was never any proposal to enable the system to be used by passengers.
One legacy of the system was that the squadron had a large room allocated for immersion suit storage. In later days this became the 'new' Duffy's bar!
I recall being asked by some visiting multi-starred personage what I thought of the system. So I did so....
I pretended that I didn't know that he was the idiot who had approved it!
It replaced the front door and was supposed to be extended into the airflow to enable a controlled abandonment. We were told that only one flight was ever made with the device extended, but that the noise and buffeting were so extreme that the aircraft landed early.
We were taught how to use it on #3 VC10K course, but refused to waste any time on it. It worked as follows:
1. The decision was made to off-load all available fuel to receivers and the low-level override system was selected on.
2. The aircraft was then depressurised. Or rather, the pressurisation was turned off and the cabin allowed to climb until the min. diff. pressure for chute deployment was reached. This could take several minutes.
3. Individual crew members were then supposed to use walk-round Mk4 oxygen bottles, before going into the cabin to don parachutes and oxygen systems as the flight deck seats weren't modified to allow for parachute packs. Pilots would take it in turns, but it was physically impossible to sit in any crew seat wearing the emergency AEA.
4. When the diff. pressure gauge suggested it was 'safe' to do so, the escape chute was deployed by pulling a large lever. The first item in the sequence was for the external door seal to be severed; however BWoS suggested that this would be ingested by the left engines, causing an uncontained failure of at least one engine..... 3 of the 4 crew might get out, but the last pilot was supposed to fly the thing by leaning over the seat to hold the control column in order to maintain at least wings-level flight, then let go, turn round, make his way back to the chute and jump out - probably to join his colleagues in the remains of the left engines.
Eventually common sense prevailed and the stupid system was removed. But the K2 and K3 were left with just the starboard service door.
There was never any proposal to enable the system to be used by passengers.
One legacy of the system was that the squadron had a large room allocated for immersion suit storage. In later days this became the 'new' Duffy's bar!
I recall being asked by some visiting multi-starred personage what I thought of the system. So I did so....
I pretended that I didn't know that he was the idiot who had approved it!
There was never any proposal to enable the system to be used by passengers.
Not surprised the system was abandoned. How many stars did said personage acquire, I wonder. Doubt if he loses any sleep as he collects his not inconsiderable pension
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,728
Received 2,722 Likes
on
1,157 Posts
I must admit when I first saw the thing I thought someone had a nut loose to design it and it wasn't me. I struck me as a system that was based on a lot of If's having to all fall in place for it ever to have worked. Still one supposes anything was better than nothing.
Last edited by NutLoose; 6th Oct 2013 at 17:55.
I have to admit to having read these last posts in some amazement. What was the perceived need to have an escape system on the new Ks after the multiple hours they had flown without, and some 15 years of C Mk1 ops ditto? Is there a history of tankers having to be abandoned after in-flight incidents? Did/do the KC-135s have some such system? I ask in the spirit of genuine enquiry for the absurdity that Beagle mentions seems so obvious to me, yet clearly did not to a number of folk who must have been involved in the specification.
