7 little weeks of Sadness..... XV109 today
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: lowestoft
Age: 69
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The original RAF VC10, the C.MK 1 had the cabin freight door and load bearing floor panels from the start. You cant remove anymore than two floor panels without supporting the wings. I don't think you can tow a 'ten with any panels removed.
EX BA 'tens (K2&K4) weren't given cabin freight doors or load bearing floors
The refuel probes were removed and then scrapped early on, before 1972 anyway. I'm not sure if they were all delivered with them. During the Falklands war the eng. opps. controller got a signal from group instructing Brize to refit the probes. The controller (EOC) was on the team at Brize way back as a JT removing them RTS. They were then scrapped. He told the guy at group that they'd been scrapped years ago and hadn't any in stock. He proved it by finding the signal that removed the probes and scrapping order. That was that until some new ones were manufactured a few years later on the C1K conversion. I didn't work on a C1K anyway, I left there summer 92. The 1st C1K flew June 92, then Boscombe Down?
EX BA 'tens (K2&K4) weren't given cabin freight doors or load bearing floors
The refuel probes were removed and then scrapped early on, before 1972 anyway. I'm not sure if they were all delivered with them. During the Falklands war the eng. opps. controller got a signal from group instructing Brize to refit the probes. The controller (EOC) was on the team at Brize way back as a JT removing them RTS. They were then scrapped. He told the guy at group that they'd been scrapped years ago and hadn't any in stock. He proved it by finding the signal that removed the probes and scrapping order. That was that until some new ones were manufactured a few years later on the C1K conversion. I didn't work on a C1K anyway, I left there summer 92. The 1st C1K flew June 92, then Boscombe Down?
So where's the reply with quote button ?
or simply type [QUOTE] at the beginning of the piece from which you wish to quote and [/ (followed by QUOTE)] at the end.Given that the Voyager has roughly 3 x the fuel capacity of a Victor, it is difficult to imagine any potential conflict which would require the aircraft to be operated in the receiver role, given the cost of installation, testing, maintaining proficiency etc.
Although jousting is indeed the sport of kings
, I don't actually think that the lack of a receiver capability is particularly limiting for the Voyager.
Re BA/BY's post, and as Jhieminga will confirm, the 3 standard VC10s originally purchased by BUA were 1103s, with Kucheman (droop-snoot)wingtips and an extended wing chord to enable FL430. They had the cargo door and strengthened main-deck floor. When BUA added the prototype to the fleet (G-ARTA), it was configured as an 1109 with the same wing as the 1103s, but no cargo door. I don't remember the difference in APS weight between the 1103 and the 1109, unfortunately, but doubt it was remarkable, as we were often stretching the payload-range to the limit and a big reduction in empty weight would have been noteworthy.
The Omani a/c at Brooklands is, of course, an ex-BUA/BCAL 1103 (G-ASIX) with cargo door.
The Omani a/c at Brooklands is, of course, an ex-BUA/BCAL 1103 (G-ASIX) with cargo door.
Last edited by Chris Scott; 9th Oct 2013 at 22:14. Reason: Minor corrections.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,892
Received 2,832 Likes
on
1,210 Posts
The Cmk1 had refuel probes in the 80's as we used to fit them adhoc, 10 Sqn didn't like them as it ruined to look on the pax version, but when required we did fit them, I can remember at least 5 occasions we had them on various aircraft pre tanker days.
I would have thought a freight door on a voyager would have been ideal, after all when deploying a squadron, the ability to trail the aircraft, carry the Engineering staff and the tooling / spares etc that won't fit downstairs such as engines.
Might have Hercs etc, but using one aircraft surely must be better than two.
I would have thought a freight door on a voyager would have been ideal, after all when deploying a squadron, the ability to trail the aircraft, carry the Engineering staff and the tooling / spares etc that won't fit downstairs such as engines.
Might have Hercs etc, but using one aircraft surely must be better than two.
Last edited by NutLoose; 9th Oct 2013 at 21:35.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: lowestoft
Age: 69
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The BUA aircraft SIW, SIX and TDJ had the down turned wing tips. The RAF, BOAC, East African, Ghana A/W, did not. MEA might have. The prototype bought by Laker and immediately leased to MEA did I'm sure.
They had non drooping kuchemann tips on the C.MK. 1, Super (K3,K4)
I never worked on or ever saw a C.MK 1 (72-92)with a probe fitted. The fuel plumbing to the deleted probe was diabolical. There was no servicing instructions, SPs etc. for their inspection.
They had non drooping kuchemann tips on the C.MK. 1, Super (K3,K4)
I never worked on or ever saw a C.MK 1 (72-92)with a probe fitted. The fuel plumbing to the deleted probe was diabolical. There was no servicing instructions, SPs etc. for their inspection.
Last edited by vc10617; 10th Oct 2013 at 20:46. Reason: typo
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,892
Received 2,832 Likes
on
1,210 Posts
Here you go 1989, Lyneham airshow
Vickers VC-10 C1, XV104, Royal Air Force
Calgary
Vickers VC-10 C1, XV104, Royal Air Force
Australia 89
Vickers VC-10 C1, XV108, Royal Air Force
All pre tanker conversion and 10 Sqn
Vickers VC-10 C1, XV104, Royal Air Force
Calgary
Vickers VC-10 C1, XV104, Royal Air Force
Australia 89
Vickers VC-10 C1, XV108, Royal Air Force
All pre tanker conversion and 10 Sqn
Last edited by NutLoose; 9th Oct 2013 at 23:31.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: lowestoft
Age: 69
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nutloose
The reason I said what I did is...We had a C.MK1 in bay 1 Base Hangar 1991. We were (I was BAe then) fixing fuel leaks, The Sqn guys came to get the thing ready for runs. they got power on and started flicking switches etc. There was a panic in the cockpit and one of them, I'd known him in the RAF asked me why they have a fuel leak in the cockpit entrance area. I couldn't believe it. You expect 80 leaks on a VC10 and I could tell you where they'd be without looking. Not here though. I said its the probe plumbing. He looked and some of the others thought I'd gone mad. Its a C.1 It hasn't got a probe. They didn't know anything about C.MK.1 probes, either the original fit or the new build probes you've mentioned. There was a meeting about the lack of anything in any servicing procedures, Vol 1 etc. They weren't serviced or checked, the seals weren't sealing and nobody knew what state the pipe work, bonding etc. was like. I never saw one, I was in Base so its possible that I just didn't see one as I was inside.
The lack of tech support for the probe system and the fact these RAF guys had never heard of C.MK 1 probes lead me to what I'd said.
The reason I said what I did is...We had a C.MK1 in bay 1 Base Hangar 1991. We were (I was BAe then) fixing fuel leaks, The Sqn guys came to get the thing ready for runs. they got power on and started flicking switches etc. There was a panic in the cockpit and one of them, I'd known him in the RAF asked me why they have a fuel leak in the cockpit entrance area. I couldn't believe it. You expect 80 leaks on a VC10 and I could tell you where they'd be without looking. Not here though. I said its the probe plumbing. He looked and some of the others thought I'd gone mad. Its a C.1 It hasn't got a probe. They didn't know anything about C.MK.1 probes, either the original fit or the new build probes you've mentioned. There was a meeting about the lack of anything in any servicing procedures, Vol 1 etc. They weren't serviced or checked, the seals weren't sealing and nobody knew what state the pipe work, bonding etc. was like. I never saw one, I was in Base so its possible that I just didn't see one as I was inside.
The lack of tech support for the probe system and the fact these RAF guys had never heard of C.MK 1 probes lead me to what I'd said.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,892
Received 2,832 Likes
on
1,210 Posts
we used to pop em on on the line 
AAR consolidation is (for those that can do it) a regular feature of modern ops.
Not many nations have the ability to consolidate nowadays.
Given the proposed number of Voyager crews and the small number of KC3s, the effort involved in maintaining the necessary probe-and-drogue receiving skills would be quite considerable. The cost of retrofitting the Voyager to KC-30A standard would be high, as would be the training costs for boom operators and receiver pilots.
Desirable for Voyager to be able to receive or transfer fuel to another tanker? Yes. Essential? I don't think so.
A pity the RAF didn't go for the 'Airbus Industrie' MRTT proposals of 15+ years ago though. That included a cargo door, combi flexibility, either a probe or UARRSI, a boom or FRU and 5 rather than 4 ACTs - if I recall correctly, we were anticipating around 2 dozen of such aircraft, each with a 77.5T fuel capacity.....
Last edited by BEagle; 10th Oct 2013 at 11:04.
Originally Posted by vc10617
The BUA aircraft SIW, SIX and TDJ had the down turned wing tips. The RAF, BOAC, East African, Ghana A/W, did not. MEA might have. The prototype bought by Laker and immediately leased to MEA didn't, I'm sure.
The photo below is of the wingtip of G-ARTA after conversion, is it downturned? It could be in my view.
Hi Jhiemingha,
(Sorry to be responsible for this thread-drift, chaps!) We've been here before:
http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...ml#post6715449
As you know well there are three factors here, all of which were definitely present on the 1103s, (e.g., the Brooklands a/c):
(1) chord extension inboard (so the L/E has a mid-span kink);
(2) Kuchemann tip (as you said, this seems to refer to the shape visible in the plan view, not the "droop-snoot";
(3) the "droop-snoot".
Having flown G-ARTA in 1109 config with BUA/BCAL, I'm absolutely sure it had (1) and (2), not least because she was FL430 capable and we used the same cruise-performance charts as the three 1103s, proving the buffet margins were the same. What I cannot confirm is that she had (3), because I simply can't remember (and the F/Es did the walkrounds). I wonder what effect(s) the droop-snoot had on performance. Pity that photo is in silhouette... I cannot disagree with anything vc10617 says.
(Sorry to be responsible for this thread-drift, chaps!) We've been here before:
http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...ml#post6715449
As you know well there are three factors here, all of which were definitely present on the 1103s, (e.g., the Brooklands a/c):
(1) chord extension inboard (so the L/E has a mid-span kink);
(2) Kuchemann tip (as you said, this seems to refer to the shape visible in the plan view, not the "droop-snoot";
(3) the "droop-snoot".
Having flown G-ARTA in 1109 config with BUA/BCAL, I'm absolutely sure it had (1) and (2), not least because she was FL430 capable and we used the same cruise-performance charts as the three 1103s, proving the buffet margins were the same. What I cannot confirm is that she had (3), because I simply can't remember (and the F/Es did the walkrounds). I wonder what effect(s) the droop-snoot had on performance. Pity that photo is in silhouette... I cannot disagree with anything vc10617 says.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAAF KC-30A does not have an upper deck cargo door. To date, the cancelled KC-45 for the USAF is the only variant of the A330MRTT that has been ordered with this option.
Given that the Voyager has roughly 3 x the fuel capacity of a Victor, it is difficult to imagine any potential conflict which would require the aircraft to be operated in the receiver role, given the cost of installation, testing, maintaining proficiency etc.
It is difficult, BUT when I was sitting in a nuclear armed Valiant on QRA and someone had seriously suggested that a V bomber would be used to bomb a tiny British Island in the South Atlantic and need 12 tankers to get it there and back, I think we would have assumed the guy really had flipped under the pressure !
The Black Buck raids needed so many tankers because:
1. The Vulcan burned about 3 x times the fuel per hour that a modern fighter-bomber requires.
2. The Victor K2 had a relatively small offload capability compared to its own fuel burn rate.
3. The Vulcan was using dumb bombs and unsophisticated bomb aiming equipment, so to stand any chance of hitting Stanley aerodrome, needed a large bomb stick.
4. Down-track RV procedures were difficult, relying on very accurate navigation and A/A TACAN. Hence an accompanied cruise was preferred.
Were it to be necessary ever to repeat such a mission, a single Tornado or Typhoon with an appropriate, very accurate weapon would need far, far less fuel. Modern tankers carry HUGE amounts of fuel; the Voyager carries around 40 tonnes more than a VC10, a difference which would keep a Tornado airborne for another 20-ish hours...
As for AAR consolidation, that's fine if 'hoses in the sky' is not an issue. Otherwise having a single tanker with lots of fuel and only 2/3 hoses is perhaps of less worth than 2 tankers with less fuel but 4/6 hoses in the sky - and which can be in 2 places at once!
1. The Vulcan burned about 3 x times the fuel per hour that a modern fighter-bomber requires.
2. The Victor K2 had a relatively small offload capability compared to its own fuel burn rate.
3. The Vulcan was using dumb bombs and unsophisticated bomb aiming equipment, so to stand any chance of hitting Stanley aerodrome, needed a large bomb stick.
4. Down-track RV procedures were difficult, relying on very accurate navigation and A/A TACAN. Hence an accompanied cruise was preferred.
Were it to be necessary ever to repeat such a mission, a single Tornado or Typhoon with an appropriate, very accurate weapon would need far, far less fuel. Modern tankers carry HUGE amounts of fuel; the Voyager carries around 40 tonnes more than a VC10, a difference which would keep a Tornado airborne for another 20-ish hours...
As for AAR consolidation, that's fine if 'hoses in the sky' is not an issue. Otherwise having a single tanker with lots of fuel and only 2/3 hoses is perhaps of less worth than 2 tankers with less fuel but 4/6 hoses in the sky - and which can be in 2 places at once!
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: lowestoft
Age: 69
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken Scott
The BUA originals, SIW, SIX and TDJ, all had the "droop snoot" tips and were modified with the inbd chord extensions. The prototype, GARTA/OD-AFA MEA was modified too, it was the the 1st to get both as part of the flight test programme. It ended up that only the BOAC/BA/RAF K.2 didn't have either Chord growth and (sure it didn't) K/tips. BTW The chord growth was in the L/E panels not the main wing box /tapered torque box the wing box didn't "step" just the panels and therefor the Slats. Wing tanks were the same internal volume throughout all models.
The inbd Wing fences on the other hand are a nightmare of detail. The BOAC standards were further inbd and were fitted across the forward 1 and 2 tank access panel.There is a removable piece of fence for access to the tank panel.It also had the full chord fence outbd of rib 22. The Ghana A/W "fence" continued around the leading edge ending underneath the L/E panel. Some were slightly bent inbd at front . Never mind the Beaver tail styles over the production run!
Link for pics of..
VC10 G-ARTA
Go down till the BUA picture ,you can see the downward tip.
The BUA originals, SIW, SIX and TDJ, all had the "droop snoot" tips and were modified with the inbd chord extensions. The prototype, GARTA/OD-AFA MEA was modified too, it was the the 1st to get both as part of the flight test programme. It ended up that only the BOAC/BA/RAF K.2 didn't have either Chord growth and (sure it didn't) K/tips. BTW The chord growth was in the L/E panels not the main wing box /tapered torque box the wing box didn't "step" just the panels and therefor the Slats. Wing tanks were the same internal volume throughout all models.
The inbd Wing fences on the other hand are a nightmare of detail. The BOAC standards were further inbd and were fitted across the forward 1 and 2 tank access panel.There is a removable piece of fence for access to the tank panel.It also had the full chord fence outbd of rib 22. The Ghana A/W "fence" continued around the leading edge ending underneath the L/E panel. Some were slightly bent inbd at front . Never mind the Beaver tail styles over the production run!
Link for pics of..
VC10 G-ARTA
Go down till the BUA picture ,you can see the downward tip.
Last edited by vc10617; 10th Oct 2013 at 22:34.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We even used the probes on exercises to Oman and the Falklands to prove the AAR receiving capability (getting to Oman with a full load of pax and no refuel stop)
Last edited by moggiee; 10th Oct 2013 at 20:21.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: lowestoft
Age: 69
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw the three 1989 shots Nutloose linked. I've also seen some more from 88. I cant understand why that RAF team in my post didn't know anything about C.MK1 probes. On the engineering front, non of the APs Vol1, Maint manual and Vol 3, catalogue of parts (IPC)had any probe details, No Sect/Ref So you couldn't demand any spares. No servicing plan.
It wasn't the 1st time something was overlooked, If you remember "control cable gate" where ALL the flying control cables were changed because they'd been left out of the servicing procedures, one shredded down route and the more they looked the more they found. All had to be changed when the our fleet was grounded, late 1983 or early 84,where ever they were, Ascension etc. . It was a nightmare. Imagine LSS with every available wall, table and floor space bags of every control cable required for every line VC10. Base looked after the two they had in.
It wasn't the 1st time something was overlooked, If you remember "control cable gate" where ALL the flying control cables were changed because they'd been left out of the servicing procedures, one shredded down route and the more they looked the more they found. All had to be changed when the our fleet was grounded, late 1983 or early 84,where ever they were, Ascension etc. . It was a nightmare. Imagine LSS with every available wall, table and floor space bags of every control cable required for every line VC10. Base looked after the two they had in.
Last edited by vc10617; 10th Oct 2013 at 22:03.
All had to be changed when the our fleet was grounded, late 1983 or early 84,where ever they were, Ascension etc. . It was a nightmare.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,892
Received 2,832 Likes
on
1,210 Posts
Then I remember ( I think the Eng O off one of the shifts ) deciding he would go out to Dulles to do an engine change.. Great plan, rushed through so they could go instead of the on coming shift...until they got there that is and realised they'd left the engine lifting beam back at Brize.... Personal call put through by said Eng O to the line to avoid going through ops etc frantically asking if we could secrete the lift beam in the front hold on the next Dulles flight, whilst they stalled with excuse after excuse 
VC10617, base would not have a lot to do with them, they were fitted by LSS as and when required by tasking, but as said " it ruined the lines" so we would remove them post task.
VC10617, base would not have a lot to do with them, they were fitted by LSS as and when required by tasking, but as said " it ruined the lines" so we would remove them post task.
Last edited by NutLoose; 10th Oct 2013 at 22:03.