new life for RAF Tristar tanker role?

[rog747]

heard that most of the retired fleet being reactivated to be contracted tankers http://www.tempus-as.com/media-press-release-10.php

is that so?

[chopper2004]

Originally Posted by rog747

heard that most of the retired fleet being reactivated to be contracted tankers Media & Press - Tempus Applied Solutions, LLC

is that so?

Strange as thought that AGD Systems in Florida bought them back in 2015, shipped them stateside to be used as contracted AAR?

I guess Tempus have them now

cheers

[rog747]

Originally Posted by chopper2004

Strange as thought that AGD Systems in Florida bought them back in 2015, shipped them stateside to be used as contracted AAR?

I guess Tempus have them now

cheers

they are still here in UK are they not?
until Tempus agrees they are flyable etc

[chopper2004]

Originally Posted by rog747

they are still here in UK are they not?
until Tempus agrees they are flyable etc

http://nebula.wsimg.com/7a474ad5aaab...&alloworigin=1

They're in USA all six
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinqu...Val=0&PageNo=1

Cheers

[CAEBr]

http://nebula.wsimg.com/7a474ad5aaab...&alloworigin=1

They're in USA all six
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinqu...Val=0&PageNo=1

Cheers

Chopper,

They've been put on the US register, yes - in anticipation of an agreed sale - but they are still at Bruntingthorpe and require maintenance and approval before they can be ferried. Registration is not proof of location.

CAEBr

[rog747]

thanks for the clarification they are sill here

[camelspyyder]

Its the same dodge (the US reg) that was used to allow the Dominies to be ferried away from Cranwell without UK C of A. I believe a US licensed engineer had to inspect and sign them off for flight.

[Brian W May]

Still my favourite day job.

Best office I ever worked in (once they removed the Refuelling Lighting above the flightdeck anyway).

[esscee]

Ah, yes. The "noisy" little lights keeping you awake.

[Onceapilot]

I have posted about the disgraceful (political!) waste of the RAF TriStar AAR asset in previous posts. The basic fact is that the AAR modified TriStar airframes in RAF service could have easily achieved far longer service at far less cost than the A330 contract. Good luck to anyone who operates those venerable L1011-500's in the future.

OAP

[Fareastdriver]

I can see six of them at Bruntingthorpe on Google Earth.

[Always a Sapper]

Originally Posted by Onceapilot

I have posted about the disgraceful (political!) waste of the RAF TriStar AAR asset in previous posts. The basic fact is that the AAR modified TriStar airframes in RAF service could have easily achieved far longer service at far less cost than the A330 contract. Good luck to anyone who operates those venerable L1011-500's in the future.

OAP

Sadly I cant see the MOD bean counters getting embarrassed if they go onto fly in an operational role for another 10 to 20 years.

Was the A330 contract a political buy, bit like the A400? Time will tell.... Out of interest, where do we stand in respect to Airbus and the UK based operations when we finally leave the EU, how long before the UK based factories move?

[salad-dodger]

Originally Posted by Fareastdriver

I can see six of them at Bruntingthorpe on Google Earth.

Oh that's it then, they must be at Bruntingthorpe.

S-D

[Saintsman]

Whilst the Tristar may have a longer lifespan in service, what would the serviceability have been like? I seem to recall lots of cancellations / delays in the AT role towards the end of its RAF time.

[TURIN]

Are there any Tristars still in commercial service?

Who is responsible for the Design Authority?

[pr00ne]

It cost the RAF a fortune to keep the ancient VC10 going as "sole operator," and the Tristar, another "sole surviving operator" serviceability was appalling toward the end, drawing heaps of well publicised criticism from the Army who were constantly being delayed and stranded by u/s Tristars between the UK and Afghan.
It was time to go.
Replacements are modern state of the art properly supported efficient and fit for purpose brand new aircraft.

[salad-dodger]

Originally Posted by pr00ne

It cost the RAF a fortune to keep the ancient VC10 going as "sole operator," and the Tristar, another "sole surviving operator" serviceability was appalling toward the end, drawing heaps of well publicised criticism from the Army who were constantly being delayed and stranded by u/s Tristars between the UK and Afghan.
It was time to go.
Replacements are modern state of the art properly supported efficient and fit for purpose brand new aircraft.

I would agree with all of that, including the fitness for purpose bit, if our tankers also had a boom. It would be nice to be able to refuel our own RJ, C17, P8 etc.

S-D

[pr00ne]

salad-dodger,

That is true. Was being mooted as being "looked at" a while back.

[Heathrow Harry]

By 2015 only the Orbital Stargazer was left in commercial service

[Onceapilot]

Here they are, all the anti TriStar nay-sayers "oh, it cost a fortune, oh, it was u/s all the time, oh, the A330 is nice and shiny etc, etc".
Certainly the RAF had issues with supporting a proper big-jet, mainly in the planning and long-term concept side (at high rank level!). Also, during a long period, tech support manpower was drastically lacking and the few techies worked like slaves! Maybe that is why the RAF has been forced to civilianise the role!
As far as cost, it was about £10,000 per flying hour, servicability was v.good when supported properly and, surprise, surprise, only suffered when support was insufficient. It could also lift over 15t of fuel more than the RAF A330.
As an aside, TriStar tanker serviceability on Ops was outstanding. So, what is wrong with a £30Billion PFI ?

OAP