Tri Star bowing out.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: England
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is indeed a unique day.
I actually find myself agreeing with Beagle.
Having flown with him on more than a few occasions, I know we would not willingly choose each other as social company, however I am still rather surprised we actually agree on something. Yes, the debacle on the glass cockpit on 949 is well documented and was an atrocious waste of money. Such is life when a certain Aero firm in Cambridge is involved. I'm not prepared to enter into into a bun fight as to whether the VC10 or the TriStar was the better AAR tanker. I am, fortunately, in a fairly unique position of having operated both to pass a valid point of view.
UK towline with small fast jet receivers. VC10 wins.
Any large receiver, or US fast jet, TriStar wins every time even with single hose. Flow rate of up 2,800 kg per minute sorts that out.
Plus the ability to regularly take off with over 115 tonnes of the stuff is a bit of a bonus. Which I have done on several occasions.
As is often regrettably the case, important decisions were made by those not best qualified. Classic case in point was the proposed fitting of wing hoses to the TriStar. Nothing to do with wing strength or jet blast from the pod engine. At the time, the customer receiver was deemed to be the F4. American aircraft. Large bore fuel pipes. Could not easily get the flow rate out to the wings.
As for the seating capacity of the TriStar, it is worth pointing out that several civilian operators used to fly it in the 300 seat plus configuration. The RAF chose not to, but could easily have fitted more seats.
My great sadness is that this mighty aircraft has now gone and went in what I came to accept as traditional 216 Sqn fashion.
As was once said 'This is how it will all end, not with a bang, but a whimper'
( Misquote intended)
I spent 1 tour on the VC10. I was not 'moved on' I left with a full CRA category. To say that I much preferred the TriStar was no secret and rather removes my anonymity to any that flew with me. I enjoyed my flying on the VC10. I met some wonderful people, got used to shutting engines down in flight with gay abandon (no, I never surged one......) and I broke down in several places I had never visited before.
I was dined out on the top table of Brize Officer's Mess when I returned to the TriStar and was invited to the 10 Sqn disbandment parade. I had lots of fun.
I spent almost 18 years on 216. 10 as a Flight Instructor.
Nothing. I couldn't even go to the disbandment parade.
I was even stood up by my own Wg Cdr for my final interview on my final day. After waiting for 3 hours I just walked out of the door.
216 could have learned a great deal from 10 Sqn. Especially when dealing with the Squadron's greatest asset. Its personnel.
Good luck to those operating the Voyager. Let us hope that the recent 'in flight excursion' does not reappear and that confidence in the aircraft will return. It would be nice if one day, it could also boast the same AAR capability as the L1011. Somehow, I doubt that.
What a tragedy that some of the money invested in that aircraft could not have been spent on the TriStar.
Possibly 216 Sqn should have had more than the occasional Navigator as an Ops Officer after all........
The RAF might have still had a capable tanker then.......
Rant over.
I actually find myself agreeing with Beagle.
Having flown with him on more than a few occasions, I know we would not willingly choose each other as social company, however I am still rather surprised we actually agree on something. Yes, the debacle on the glass cockpit on 949 is well documented and was an atrocious waste of money. Such is life when a certain Aero firm in Cambridge is involved. I'm not prepared to enter into into a bun fight as to whether the VC10 or the TriStar was the better AAR tanker. I am, fortunately, in a fairly unique position of having operated both to pass a valid point of view.
UK towline with small fast jet receivers. VC10 wins.
Any large receiver, or US fast jet, TriStar wins every time even with single hose. Flow rate of up 2,800 kg per minute sorts that out.
Plus the ability to regularly take off with over 115 tonnes of the stuff is a bit of a bonus. Which I have done on several occasions.
As is often regrettably the case, important decisions were made by those not best qualified. Classic case in point was the proposed fitting of wing hoses to the TriStar. Nothing to do with wing strength or jet blast from the pod engine. At the time, the customer receiver was deemed to be the F4. American aircraft. Large bore fuel pipes. Could not easily get the flow rate out to the wings.
As for the seating capacity of the TriStar, it is worth pointing out that several civilian operators used to fly it in the 300 seat plus configuration. The RAF chose not to, but could easily have fitted more seats.
My great sadness is that this mighty aircraft has now gone and went in what I came to accept as traditional 216 Sqn fashion.
As was once said 'This is how it will all end, not with a bang, but a whimper'
( Misquote intended)
I spent 1 tour on the VC10. I was not 'moved on' I left with a full CRA category. To say that I much preferred the TriStar was no secret and rather removes my anonymity to any that flew with me. I enjoyed my flying on the VC10. I met some wonderful people, got used to shutting engines down in flight with gay abandon (no, I never surged one......) and I broke down in several places I had never visited before.
I was dined out on the top table of Brize Officer's Mess when I returned to the TriStar and was invited to the 10 Sqn disbandment parade. I had lots of fun.
I spent almost 18 years on 216. 10 as a Flight Instructor.
Nothing. I couldn't even go to the disbandment parade.
I was even stood up by my own Wg Cdr for my final interview on my final day. After waiting for 3 hours I just walked out of the door.
216 could have learned a great deal from 10 Sqn. Especially when dealing with the Squadron's greatest asset. Its personnel.
Good luck to those operating the Voyager. Let us hope that the recent 'in flight excursion' does not reappear and that confidence in the aircraft will return. It would be nice if one day, it could also boast the same AAR capability as the L1011. Somehow, I doubt that.
What a tragedy that some of the money invested in that aircraft could not have been spent on the TriStar.
Possibly 216 Sqn should have had more than the occasional Navigator as an Ops Officer after all........
The RAF might have still had a capable tanker then.......
Rant over.
The only US FJs that could take fuel at a high rate left service a long time ago (F4, F14) and even they could not take it at 2800 kg/min. FA18s don't take fuel any quicker than a GR4 (admittedly much better than Typhoon). Am surprised at the argument for not proceeding with wing pods, firstly the F4 was by no means the only rx and 2 F4s on the pods would be as quick as one on the centre.
The Curator, sorry to learn of your rather shabby treatment 
With which I can sympathise, having had much the same treatment myself some 11 years ago 
If the TriStar had been updated with a glass cockpit and 2 x wing pods, things could have been very different. Particularly if an AAR planning and management system had been included.
Certainly the wing pod mod. would have been a challenge, but would have been fine for the F3 / Harrier etc. Prodding the centreline from the VC10 wasn't as simple as prodding another VC10, but entirely acceptable.
'Gone with a whimper'? Well, I don't know about that, because coverage in the local media was pretty good - when the local BBC news is down to a 13 min segment from Oxford, to have a 4 minute item was good going - and both the disbandment parade and final operational sortie were given good coverage in both the Oxford Mail and Witney Gazette.
When you look at the case originally presented for the FSTA and compare it with the current size of the RAF, it is perhaps not surprising that, notwithstanding its capability, an increasingly expensive-to-maintain 30 year old aeroplane with a single (OK, dual redundant) hose had a limited remaining lifetime, compared with a brand-new, 2 hose aircraft with less burn and up to 111 tonnes of fuel. Particularly since MoD beancounters didn't have to consider acquisition costs under A PFI....
...just the astonishing £1.2M per day cost!
At least the TriStar was still permitted to carry passengers on its last operational trip - unlike the poor old VC10 which, having once carried HM The Queen, was no longer permitted to carry anything other than essential crew
PS - Happy Birthday, vascodegama!
With which I can sympathise, having had much the same treatment myself some 11 years ago If the TriStar had been updated with a glass cockpit and 2 x wing pods, things could have been very different. Particularly if an AAR planning and management system had been included.
Certainly the wing pod mod. would have been a challenge, but would have been fine for the F3 / Harrier etc. Prodding the centreline from the VC10 wasn't as simple as prodding another VC10, but entirely acceptable.
'Gone with a whimper'? Well, I don't know about that, because coverage in the local media was pretty good - when the local BBC news is down to a 13 min segment from Oxford, to have a 4 minute item was good going - and both the disbandment parade and final operational sortie were given good coverage in both the Oxford Mail and Witney Gazette.
When you look at the case originally presented for the FSTA and compare it with the current size of the RAF, it is perhaps not surprising that, notwithstanding its capability, an increasingly expensive-to-maintain 30 year old aeroplane with a single (OK, dual redundant) hose had a limited remaining lifetime, compared with a brand-new, 2 hose aircraft with less burn and up to 111 tonnes of fuel. Particularly since MoD beancounters didn't have to consider acquisition costs under A PFI....
...just the astonishing £1.2M per day cost!
At least the TriStar was still permitted to carry passengers on its last operational trip - unlike the poor old VC10 which, having once carried HM The Queen, was no longer permitted to carry anything other than essential crew
PS - Happy Birthday, vascodegama!
Last edited by BEagle; 27th Mar 2014 at 10:49.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Erehwon
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Curator,
Yep. I had applied for VC10 for years - to no avail, so assume your observations to be correct.
Then an AOC's commendation got me to the Tristar (from the Canberra OCU). It was undoubtedly the finest flight deck I've ever operated on.
The Hercules (at low level) was more fun, but the Tristar more satisfying.
Your treatment at the hands of the Establishment . . . well, nothing new there, doubt you're particularly lonely. Pete Hoskins was 216 boss when I got there and was a great bloke, he was replaced by Dave Vass, known for his warmth, sense of humour and all-round bonhomie, so the squadron 'dipped' - classic Sine wave often seen in the RAF.
Operating both the Tristar and DC10 as a civvy was most enjoyable and IS different. Especially when ex-Sqn Execs turn up as co-pilots . . .
I think we need to arrange to meet up between here and Lincoln and have a beer mate. I think you've got my number (in Donny). I'll bring my lancet
The 'system' proves again that Loyalty is a one-way phenomenon, but they were paying you so the contract was fulfilled (which is all the civvies ever asked for - simples).
Nil Illegitimus Carborundum (or somesuch).
Yep. I had applied for VC10 for years - to no avail, so assume your observations to be correct.
Then an AOC's commendation got me to the Tristar (from the Canberra OCU). It was undoubtedly the finest flight deck I've ever operated on.
The Hercules (at low level) was more fun, but the Tristar more satisfying.
Your treatment at the hands of the Establishment . . . well, nothing new there, doubt you're particularly lonely. Pete Hoskins was 216 boss when I got there and was a great bloke, he was replaced by Dave Vass, known for his warmth, sense of humour and all-round bonhomie, so the squadron 'dipped' - classic Sine wave often seen in the RAF.
Operating both the Tristar and DC10 as a civvy was most enjoyable and IS different. Especially when ex-Sqn Execs turn up as co-pilots . . .
I think we need to arrange to meet up between here and Lincoln and have a beer mate. I think you've got my number (in Donny). I'll bring my lancet
The 'system' proves again that Loyalty is a one-way phenomenon, but they were paying you so the contract was fulfilled (which is all the civvies ever asked for - simples).
Nil Illegitimus Carborundum (or somesuch).
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 71
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the RAFs greatest failings; with regard to operational aspects; is the apparent need for new commanders to make sweeping changes with respect to 'improving' what is already in-place. For only one specific reason... OJARS!! Those very people, at the senior level, who are only in-post for one tour of duty, never become truly proficient at what they do. Consequently, high level contractual matters have been blundered by lack of expertise within their area of responsibility. Hence, 'Policy Matters' have never been accurately addressed by those who ought to know what they're talking about.
The ZD949 debacle was an ill-conceived project that only came about because of the perceived lack of 'flight instrumentation' spares. It was never going to be a true 'glass cockpit'... just a cockpit made of glass! The benefits of which were never going to be cost effective nor making any significant inroads into making it a better aeroplane.
I truly believe that our, then, policy makers were ill-advised by lessor mortals with a desire to show 'change' for the sake of 'change'... with an eye for promotion and nothing else! In many respects we have been our own worst enemy; with the expectation that 'social climbers', who are perceived to be 'going places', will become instant experts; particularly within the area of writing/negotiating 'contracts' to civil industry.
Rant over.
It was a massive turnout at the Hangar Bash last night. Was it good? Well, it was OK-ish. When the Sqn Cdr took his turn on-stage with the microphone, no-one had the courtesy to stand and listen to what he had to say. It would appear that 'The Party Bus' attitude lives-on! It was quite an embarrassing moment... a b
y rude audience. Disappointing!
TCF
The ZD949 debacle was an ill-conceived project that only came about because of the perceived lack of 'flight instrumentation' spares. It was never going to be a true 'glass cockpit'... just a cockpit made of glass! The benefits of which were never going to be cost effective nor making any significant inroads into making it a better aeroplane.
I truly believe that our, then, policy makers were ill-advised by lessor mortals with a desire to show 'change' for the sake of 'change'... with an eye for promotion and nothing else! In many respects we have been our own worst enemy; with the expectation that 'social climbers', who are perceived to be 'going places', will become instant experts; particularly within the area of writing/negotiating 'contracts' to civil industry.
Rant over.
It was a massive turnout at the Hangar Bash last night. Was it good? Well, it was OK-ish. When the Sqn Cdr took his turn on-stage with the microphone, no-one had the courtesy to stand and listen to what he had to say. It would appear that 'The Party Bus' attitude lives-on! It was quite an embarrassing moment... a b
y rude audience. Disappointing!TCF
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Oxfordshire
Age: 54
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plenty of us did listen to him, and the embarrassment was the point where he told us not to get drunk and have too much fun or the Staish wouldn't be pleased.
So fing what?
They've just scrapped our beloved aircraft for utterly stupid reasons.
Sod the arse licking, why not encourage us to have one final blast?
Talk about bloody social climbers...
So f
ing what?They've just scrapped our beloved aircraft for utterly stupid reasons.
Sod the arse licking, why not encourage us to have one final blast?
Talk about bloody social climbers...
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Curator
As someone involved in the 216 Sqn disbandment activities, I will take issue with you. A number of events were planned with the aim of catering to as many relevant groups as possible. There was a parade on 20 Mar which was open to selected invited guests, Sqn members and families of Sqn members. With 100 on parade, capacity remaining at the parade venue from the other 380 personnel, their families and the invited guests precluded an open invite.
There was a dining in night that same night attended by 130 personnel (max Mess capacity) to say thank you to representatives from units that have supported the Tristar over the years - think industry (Marshalls, Rolls Royce, Cobham, NG and Thales), project team, affiliated livery companies, previous OCs and station heads-of-sheds as well as 75 Sqn personnel. Industry generously paid for this.
There was a Hangar Bash last night open to all previous and serving members attended by some 700 folk and there is still a Gala Dinner in Apr for up to 180 current, previous and Association members. The details for those open events are all on the 216 Sqn website.
Furthermore, with regards to press, there was a specific press day which allowed 50 members of the press to go on one Tristar to watch another Tristar with 50 aviation enthusiasts on board conduct the last operational AAR sortie. There was, as Beagle points out, much local coverage - what the nationals chose to pick up on is their business. There are plenty of aviation magazine articles yet to come as a result of that press day.
With the Sqn as busy as ever until the last moment, particularly after the Voyager pause, what it did not have the capacity to do was try and contact the circa 5000 people that have served on 216 Sqn over the last 30 years, however worthy, to see if they wanted to come. Those that have a genuine interest in the Sqn join the Association and would have known about those open events or kept themselves informed via the 216 Facebook page. If you want details of the Gala dinner then either take an active interest or even PM me for details.
I'm sorry that you were stood up by your OC - I am sure that it wasn't the current one.
As for you Glum, the 'embarrassing moment' of people continuing to talk during the OC's speech began long before the bit about behaviour. Your comment about not drinking or the Staish wouldn't pleased are a lie. The point was made to make sure your mates weren't left in a ditch, not to do drugs and not to drink-drive - all current and recent issues at Brize. Basically, not to ruin the 30 year reputation of the Sqn on the final night by being an ar$ehole. If any of those things are your idea of a good night out then point made. If you couldn't hear correctly, then maybe you were one of the 'rude audience' TCF referred to?
Roger D
As someone involved in the 216 Sqn disbandment activities, I will take issue with you. A number of events were planned with the aim of catering to as many relevant groups as possible. There was a parade on 20 Mar which was open to selected invited guests, Sqn members and families of Sqn members. With 100 on parade, capacity remaining at the parade venue from the other 380 personnel, their families and the invited guests precluded an open invite.
There was a dining in night that same night attended by 130 personnel (max Mess capacity) to say thank you to representatives from units that have supported the Tristar over the years - think industry (Marshalls, Rolls Royce, Cobham, NG and Thales), project team, affiliated livery companies, previous OCs and station heads-of-sheds as well as 75 Sqn personnel. Industry generously paid for this.
There was a Hangar Bash last night open to all previous and serving members attended by some 700 folk and there is still a Gala Dinner in Apr for up to 180 current, previous and Association members. The details for those open events are all on the 216 Sqn website.
Furthermore, with regards to press, there was a specific press day which allowed 50 members of the press to go on one Tristar to watch another Tristar with 50 aviation enthusiasts on board conduct the last operational AAR sortie. There was, as Beagle points out, much local coverage - what the nationals chose to pick up on is their business. There are plenty of aviation magazine articles yet to come as a result of that press day.
With the Sqn as busy as ever until the last moment, particularly after the Voyager pause, what it did not have the capacity to do was try and contact the circa 5000 people that have served on 216 Sqn over the last 30 years, however worthy, to see if they wanted to come. Those that have a genuine interest in the Sqn join the Association and would have known about those open events or kept themselves informed via the 216 Facebook page. If you want details of the Gala dinner then either take an active interest or even PM me for details.
I'm sorry that you were stood up by your OC - I am sure that it wasn't the current one.
As for you Glum, the 'embarrassing moment' of people continuing to talk during the OC's speech began long before the bit about behaviour. Your comment about not drinking or the Staish wouldn't pleased are a lie. The point was made to make sure your mates weren't left in a ditch, not to do drugs and not to drink-drive - all current and recent issues at Brize. Basically, not to ruin the 30 year reputation of the Sqn on the final night by being an ar$ehole. If any of those things are your idea of a good night out then point made. If you couldn't hear correctly, then maybe you were one of the 'rude audience' TCF referred to?
Roger D
Roger D, it's a pity that a couple of folk should have used the occasion for throwing their teddies in such an ill-mannered way.
For those who may not have seen it before, this is a link to the Oxford Mail article: RAF bids farewell to trademark TriStar jets (From Witney Gazette)
I hope that your gala dinner will be a success and will be enjoyed by those worthy enough to attend. Our VC10 do certainly was!!
For those who may not have seen it before, this is a link to the Oxford Mail article: RAF bids farewell to trademark TriStar jets (From Witney Gazette)
I hope that your gala dinner will be a success and will be enjoyed by those worthy enough to attend. Our VC10 do certainly was!!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,974
Received 2,882 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
Seems like you did your best to include everyone and hold a hangar bash too for ex members, something sadly that never happened for the departure of the 10, so kudos to you all Roger.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: England
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roger,
I had a thoroughly enjoyable time at the Hangar party thank you. My thanks have already been passed to all involved. I personally thanked the current OC for his fine speech and apologised for the poor manners shown by many.
I will also be at the Gala Dinner hopefully. My criticism was not aimed at those who worked hard to provide the party and the upcoming dinner.
More than happy to discuss my points in person.
I had a thoroughly enjoyable time at the Hangar party thank you. My thanks have already been passed to all involved. I personally thanked the current OC for his fine speech and apologised for the poor manners shown by many.
I will also be at the Gala Dinner hopefully. My criticism was not aimed at those who worked hard to provide the party and the upcoming dinner.
More than happy to discuss my points in person.
A link to the local BBC News coverage of the last operational TriStar sortie: BBC News - Final operational mission for RAF's Tristar fleet
Thank you for posting the link BEagle. Possibly should have been titled "last mission for RAF AAR ". Ladies and Gentlemen, you were watching demise of the most cost-effective widebody AT/AAR aircraft, scrapped before its time.
OAP
OAP
