Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

7 little weeks of Sadness..... XV109 today

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

7 little weeks of Sadness..... XV109 today

Old 10th Oct 2013, 22:32
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: lowestoft
Age: 69
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I was dragged off my cushy number the night shift Role desk, because someone down the line remembered me. I ended up down the hangar with a guy straight out of training and a gripper (supplier) I had to change to bottom rudder PFCU. Off giraffes. What a pain trying to kick over the rudder to get one out then the replacement in. Anyway, Catering Sqn. came up trumps. Constant supply of hot drinks and food at meal times. served from tables they'd bought down and plonked them on the hangar floor, so we didn't have to leave the hangar for "beans". Wasn't that nice? I think that it only took about two weeks. I remember it didn't drag on too long,Those cables were bad. If you twisted them against the manufactured twist the centre cable was dust and loose strands, just a void. And towards the end of all this, someone higher up decided we should check the engine control cables! Yeah, some of those were as bad, but not as many as the flying control cables. The whole operation went well though. The amount of work and the relatively short time taken was amazing, bearing in mind these cables, most of them had to be manufactured. Some had leave cancelled and TACEVALS were postponed. As soon as the operation was finished the gits called an exercise!! Is that supposed to be the way to build morale?
vc10617 is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2013, 06:58
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 509
Received 21 Likes on 6 Posts
A couple of points

The Voyager carries twice a Victor load not 3 times and burns at a higher rate. That said to my mind the RAF missed the golden opportunity to buy the KC10 when it was offered back in the late 70's (as well as choosing the wrong ac when we got the Tri*). For example 3 KC10 s could have supported 2 Vulcans attacking Stanley Airfield (it would have needed Tanker/Tanker transfers of course).

The reason for AAR consolidation in modern ops is to maximize the oft-limiting factor of tanker availability especially in a reactive situation. So instead of a number of ac with a small offload with little chance to contribute to the mission you end up a replenished ac which can support the task especially when the plot changes. It has nothing to do with how much fuel a particular ac has -we never seem to have enough fuel (or indeed the correct tanker config )when needed.
vascodegama is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2013, 07:26
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,783
Received 257 Likes on 103 Posts
Sorry, vasco. - the figure I had in mind was for the Victor K1 (replying to RetiredBA/BY) was 39T and the Voyager can theoretically carry 285% of this figure. I now note that the Victor K2 had a max. fuel figure of 58T, so don't doubt your figures. But is the Voyager fuel burn significantly higher than a Victor K2s? I do know that the Voyager's burn rate is considerably lower than the VC10/VC10K average burn rate, but I can't recall the exact figure I had for the Victor at present.

The rationale behind the VC10K rather than KC-10A purchase was no doubt down to cost. But when we asked why the VC10K wasn't configured as a tanker-transport, the answer was that the RAF would have had to lose some single role VC10 C Mk 1s if the VC10K had been given any official transport role.

Worthy papers were written when the VC10K Mk 4 was being converted, suggesting that it should be fitted with rather more passenger seats than planned, given that it didn't have any fuselage tanks. But They had made up Their minds and such logic was defeated.

I seem to recall that the RAF could have had 5 x 'white tail' DC-10s for the same price that was actually paid for the 3 x PanAm TriStars......??
BEagle is online now  
Old 11th Oct 2013, 08:16
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: UK, VN, TW.
Age: 60
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So, assuming unlimited tanker support and a motivated driver, how long would you have expected a Lightning to stay airborne without flashing lights starting to appear all over your cockpit? What was the limiting factor? I presume someone tried it.

Just curious :-)
hanoijane is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2013, 09:50
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,783
Received 257 Likes on 103 Posts
Well, the last 22 Saudi Lightnings flew non-stop from Tabuk to Warton. We supported our flight with a VC10K, then handed them over to a Victor for the remainder of the trip.

There were also some significant deployments in the 1960s/70s.
BEagle is online now  
Old 11th Oct 2013, 10:31
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blighty (Nth. Downs)
Age: 77
Posts: 2,107
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Kuchemann wing-tips

Thanks vc10617,

Looks like we're all in agreement on that aspect of VC10 wing evolution, and thanks for the extra gen on fences. Yes, the pic of G-ARTA being pushed back in latter-BUA livery (still marginally my favourite) - via your link to the BCAL website - does seem to confirm the droop-snoot, because the slats are usefully still retracted.

Presumably the RAF C1s had the same wing as the Super VC10, which did not employ the "droop-snoot", but was otherwise identical to the 1103/1109.
The only thing I'm still in doubt about is the precise terminology: i.e., does "Kuchemann tip" refer to both the plan-view shape AND the droop-snoot, or just the former? If just the former, did the 1101s also have Kuchemann tips?

Last edited by Chris Scott; 11th Oct 2013 at 10:41.
Chris Scott is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2013, 10:55
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: near an airplane
Posts: 2,764
Received 46 Likes on 37 Posts
7 little weeks of Sadness..... XV109 today

I cannot recall the source but it refers to the shape in plan-view. The 1101s also had Kuchemann tips but without the extra camber.

Perhaps we should take this wing discussion back to the VC10 thread, I'll see if I can copy these replies to that thread later today.
Jhieminga is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2013, 11:24
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: lowestoft
Age: 69
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Chris Scott
I always thought it was the plan view, a large sweeping curve meeting the line of the trailing edge. Might not be though. Kuchmann also introduced/developed/invented winglets, that are on just about anything now. Is this droop on the BUA kites a sort of variation on that theme? I've read a paper by Kuchmann (NASA engineer)on winglet development. There are designs with something like a wing tip tank with vortex (like) generators ay varying angles when viewed from the front, down, level and up. As far as I know not fitted to any production aircraft.
The TSR.2 took it to the extreme, with a down ward tip. Partially developed and built (Fwd section) at Weybridge, Home of the 'Ten.

BTW.You are right about C.Mk.1s and Super wing tips. Not being cambered.

Jelle.
Which VC10 thread are you referring to in your last post? Got a link?

Last edited by vc10617; 11th Oct 2013 at 11:41.
vc10617 is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2013, 11:43
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: London
Age: 79
Posts: 543
Received 35 Likes on 15 Posts
Post

Quote

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.

Quote.

Yes you are correct. and my apologies. However, I do remember reading in the Australian press, aviation and other, that the RAAF tanker would have a freight door and it would be installed at Qantas military in Brisbane after the aircraft had been delivered.

It DOES seem to have receiving capability using a slipway though !

In this month's "Aeroplane" there is an extensive article on the F111 and description of the Libyan operation from the UK. Seems on that operation 3,000,000 pounds of fuel were transferred including topping up the KC10 from KC135s.
RetiredBA/BY is online now  
Old 11th Oct 2013, 12:13
  #130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: near an airplane
Posts: 2,764
Received 46 Likes on 37 Posts
vc10617/Chris Scott/other interested parties: I've copied the 'wing tip discussion' into the VC10 thread on Aviation History & Nostalgia, see here: http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...ml#post8093696

Last edited by Jhieminga; 11th Oct 2013 at 12:16.
Jhieminga is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2013, 16:17
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 114
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Tanker Comparisons

I am not a tanker man, except for a time as one of those reviled Albert tankers both in the UK and FI, so I will not comment on the need or otherwise for AAR consolidation. However, many comparative statements are revealed here with, as far as I can see, few real facts to back the statements.

I have a copy of HQ 38 Gp "AT and AAR Planning Parameters" dated November 1992 (even at that time marked as UNCLAS before anyone squeals).
This shows Max Normal Fuel Loads as follows: Victor 49.5, VC10K2 75.5, K3 82, C1K 68.5, K4 67 and Tri* 132.5.
Fuel transfers are then shown for:
3 hr sorties at a range of 1230 nms of 22.5, 41, 47, 34, 32.5 and 97.5.
4 hr sorties at a range of 1660 nms of 17, 34, 40, 27, 25.5 and 90.5.
5 hr sorties at a range of 2090 nms of 11, 27, 33, 20, 17.5 and 83.5.
all figures are in Tonnes.

Now moving to Voyager, and admittedly using the OEM's figures, the Max Fuel Load is 111 Tonnes. This fuel fills the wings and centre fuselage tank (but still part of the wing) and brings the ac to MTOW. There is no need for ACTs as with Boeing's offering so you permanently have full availability of space both above and below decks. However with a payload of 45 tonnes it has a range of 3800 nms and empty a ferry range of 8000nm. On a towline at 1000nms range and 4 1/2 hrs on station its fuel offload is 50 tonnes and at 500 nms and 5hrs on station 60 tonnes. On a trail it could take 4 Eurofighters 3600 nms (otherwise empty) or 2800 nms (20 tonnes of payload).

I leave the true tanker aficionados to draw their own conclusions.

Last edited by Xercules; 11th Oct 2013 at 16:18.
Xercules is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2013, 17:51
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 509
Received 21 Likes on 6 Posts
XH -the fuel figs for the Victor & VC10 are within acceptable tolerances-the Tri* figure is a bit off the mark. At 122T ZFW and an almost unachievable MTOW (eg can't do it from BZZ normally) of 245 that gives 123 T.

As for the Voyager the 111T is just about possible but I am not disputing its payload range capability -the argument about consolidation is as above it is a matter of utilization of assets by keeping a usable load airborne in one ac rather than a number having to go home with an unusable offload. As an American speaker at ARSAG said a few years ago-we learnt that lesson.

If you want to talk big payload /range/offload look at the KC10 and don't even get me started on inter-operability between boom/drogue etc I have lost count of the occasions I have heard problems on ops with offload/rx compatibility.As I said above we made our big mistake in the late 70s when a fleet of 10-12 KC10s would have eliminated the need for the VC10K programme, the C-C1K programme and would have given us the chance to scrap the Victor much sooner. Not only that but those ac would still have had plenty of life left and we could have saved the odd 13 Billion.
vascodegama is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2013, 19:18
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 114
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
VdG

As I said I did not want to get involved with the purely AAR considerations because that is not my field. However, I must challenge your saving of 13 billion. People tend to forget that this figure covers the whole of the programme from procurement to operation of the aircraft over 25 years. You would certainly have been able to buy your KC10s for considerably less than this figure but would still have had to service and support them. All of this aspect is also covered by AirTanker within the overall headline figure.

Having said that I long ago questioned the wisdom of PFI programmes especially where the capital cost is extremely high. The balance between capital and service delivery has to be right, as it is on the service delivery that the theoretical efficiency savings pay for the higher cost of finance for a commercial company (typically about 2% higher than the Government can borrow). I am not convinced that this balance would be achieved in the Voyager contract although AirTanker and its backers (shareholders and banks) obviously are.
Xercules is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2013, 19:44
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 509
Received 21 Likes on 6 Posts
XH

The savings would have been the costs of the maintenance of the Victors, the costs of the 2 different VC10 programmes, the cost of the TRI purchase etc. Had we bought the KC10 we would still have the ac since it is the last USAF tanker to be replaced (KCZ programme). Perhaps by then we might have looked at the true cost of the PFI?
vascodegama is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2013, 20:33
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: lowestoft
Age: 69
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
In Gulf war1 Swartzkopf (spelling might be a problem!) singled out the VC10 K2 and K3's ( words to the effect of)for their operational success and reliability that allowed the air war to be carried out better than planned. There are guys on here that know what was actually said/written (I cant remember exactly). The VC10/101 got a slap on the back. I'm not sure that the KC10 could have done exactly what our 'ten did. Some of the stories the guys coming back told me. The KC10 couldn't have operated in the same way.
It was either 140 or 141 had to be pulled from the Gulf (just before the air war kicked off) for a running c class fuel leak. I got a call from a Sqn Ldr attached to Swartzkopf's command, asking me if I could turn it 'round in 4 days. What? I told him I could ,but with out seeing it etc. He told me the leak area and I ended up doing the longest temporary fuel leak ,never done before and doubt its been repeated because its an unbelievable task to stick that much before the sealant starts to "go off",on the outside of the lower surface Rib 22 down to Rib 8. They got it back in the time they wanted. It was a bit of a clue they were about to start and the VC10 K's were to leaned on. KC10? Wash your mouth out!

Last edited by vc10617; 11th Oct 2013 at 20:44.
vc10617 is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2013, 20:55
  #136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 509
Received 21 Likes on 6 Posts
I would have said that it was the approach of the crews in the air and ground crews who kept the jets going that was important. My point (and I do have a bit of time in the role) is that the KC10 is the best AAR platform around (note I have not said dual role)
vascodegama is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2020, 15:48
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: wrexham
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Lightbulb vc10 8th december 1988

with reference to the events that happened below, I was an air steward on this flight and have been searching for people who experienced this as there is very little information documented, I would be grateful if anyone on here could message me please.
many thanks Ally
Originally Posted by November4
Could well have been so very different

I flew on 109 as part of a MAMS team in Sep / Oct 1988 from Brize to Hong Kong and then two shuttles to Kathmandu. I think it was on that trip that that the Sgt (poss FS) Load Mistress ended up in the swimming pool, late at night, in Kathmandu...assisted a little by the Stewards and MAMS.

With reference to the events that happened below, I was an air steward on this flight and have been searching for people who experienced this as there is very little information documented, I would be grateful if anyone on here could message me please.
many thanks Ally

My trip on 109 was the one that could have been a different ending for her.

8 Dec 1988 109 was tasked to recover RM pax from Gardermoen when a Hercules went u/s. Gardermoen - Leuchars - Brize no problem except over, Birmingham a bang was heard from the wheel well. Apparently one of the main wheels had exploded and the debris had taken out the fuel lines to 2 of the engines as well as the auto pilot and hydraulic system. The crew managed to recover to Brize and the 50 or so RM and crew evacuated the aicraft via the enmergency slides. We later heard that this was the closest to losing a VC10 that the RAF had come.

8 months later though, 109 brough me home from a 6 month tour in Belize. Not sure if that was a good move or not as I got engaged not long after. But I suppose after almost 20 years of marriage....yes it was a good thing.
Lisa Ally Singleton is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2020, 22:04
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,783
Received 257 Likes on 103 Posts
Ally - from another thread:
Originally Posted by moggiee
I was the co-pilot up front on that. It was an interesting half hour or so!

We didn't lose the autopilot, if memory serves me right, but we did lose the LH hydraulics (requiring manual gear lowering) and perhaps more seriously we lost all 15,000lbs of fuel from the port wing, leaving us a bit tight for fuel on approach at BZN.

matkat and others:

For those who are speculating upon the decision making process that led to the aeroplane getting airborne with a faulty tyre, allow me to explain:

The tyre problem was spotted during the turnaround and the GE wanted to change it as we had a spare in the boot.

The Flt Lt Captain and MEng FE weren't keen on the delay that this would incur. Myself and the nav both thought that we should change it and said so.

Capt and FE went down to have a look at it and came back up to the flight deck to say that the GE now agreed that it was fit for one flight home and that he had signed the tech log (F700) to this extent. The nav and I accepted this as the truth on the basis that if all three of them were in agreement then we were happy to go with their decision.

At the subsequent BoI it transpired that the captain and FE had bullied the GE into signing it off and had then lied to myself and the nav about it, saying that the GE was happy when he in fact was not.

I gave the BoI a 100% correct statement of my understanding of the events and I believe that the nav and GE did the same. I made it clear that the GE had had his doubts but that we'd been told by the captain and FE that he was in agreement that it was OK to go. I'm not sure what the captain and FE told the board as I was not there when they gave evidence and they did not want to talk to me afterwards because they felt that I had failed to "back them up" - and that suggests to me that they were feeling uncomfortable with their actions and possibly with what they'd told the BoI. For my part, I felt that it was important to be honest with the board as the fact needed to come out, and if that upset the captain and FE then so be it.

The board came to the conclusion that the captain and FE had put unfair pressure upon the GE, had lied to myself and the nav and had been unprofessional. They were both punished for their actions. The nav, the GE and I were all reminded that it was our responsibility to be more assertive in the face of such pressure and to stand our ground - other than that there was no sanction against mhyself and the nav but I can't recall what happened with the GE.

I was annoyed with myself for not being more assertive but as a relatively junior co-pilot I was less confident than I should have been with regard to my knowledge of what was and was not right. The nav was also relatively new to type and we both made the "mistake" of trusting more experienced crew members who were, in fact, telling us lies. When not in possession of the full facts it's hard to make the right decision. I do not now, and never have, place any blame upon the GE - only the captain and FE for telling lies to us and myself and the nav for not being assertive enough.

I have never taken anyone's word at face value since then - I always check!

If anyone wants to discuss it further, I'm available by PM.
BEagle is online now  
Old 12th Jun 2020, 15:03
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Civ/HAL/SHY/FYY/PWK/AAS/WAD/AVI/GPT/BZN/BSN/WAD/BAS/FLK/WIT/MND/WAD/WIT/WAD/Civ
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's a shame BZN couldn't have kept one complete.
IIRC BZN is one of the few, if not ONLY RAF Station to NOT have a Gate Guardian. Some have more than one, with others on Sqns.
unclenelli is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2020, 15:08
  #140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,575
Received 18 Likes on 10 Posts
Honesty, I don't think that'll buff out
dead_pan is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.