VC 10 to fly again as a tanker
OK, thanks again Nutty. So the FAA will satisfy themselves if the a/c is airworthy or not. What I can't follow though is how they can do that when the RAF was unable/unwilling to discover that various aircraft and systems featured in this forum were unairworthy (though the VC-10 was not one of them, admittedly. A physical survey would seem to be the easy bit, it is the paperwork (or lack of it) that requires the real effort.
An overtightened bolt killed Sean Cunningham, but there was no Safety Case anyway for his seat and the Servicing Instruction to undo and do up that bolt was contrary to the mandatory procedure. If the RAF was unaware that the seat (and hence the a/c) was unairworthy, why would they know if this VC-10 was or not?
If the RAF/MOD/MAA cannot be relied upon to vouch for a VC-10's airworthiness, how can the FAA decide about it? Of course, as salad-dodger comments, the last 7 years would hardly have helped of course.
An overtightened bolt killed Sean Cunningham, but there was no Safety Case anyway for his seat and the Servicing Instruction to undo and do up that bolt was contrary to the mandatory procedure. If the RAF was unaware that the seat (and hence the a/c) was unairworthy, why would they know if this VC-10 was or not?
If the RAF/MOD/MAA cannot be relied upon to vouch for a VC-10's airworthiness, how can the FAA decide about it? Of course, as salad-dodger comments, the last 7 years would hardly have helped of course.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,837
Received 2,805 Likes
on
1,195 Posts
It depends on what you get with them when sold, no one thought the Vulcan would ever fly, but that was handed over with everything including the RAF spares holdings, and look how long that took to get back in the air even with design auth support And manufactures willing to overhaul components.. The Tens I doubt came with much more than the 700a and b. Personally I can’t see it happening, but I would love to be proved wrong.
Less hair the two at Brunty are runners, or one is, they are under threat as well and are owned by the company operating as middlemen in all this. Whether it’s a package I don’t know.
I can’t remember all of it now but when we got the Gulf Ten at Brize it was in superb condition, but I think it was missing paperwork that doomed that, hence it was broken up for spares.
Less hair the two at Brunty are runners, or one is, they are under threat as well and are owned by the company operating as middlemen in all this. Whether it’s a package I don’t know.
I can’t remember all of it now but when we got the Gulf Ten at Brize it was in superb condition, but I think it was missing paperwork that doomed that, hence it was broken up for spares.
Last edited by NutLoose; 31st Aug 2020 at 15:30.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Up North
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,837
Received 2,805 Likes
on
1,195 Posts
Cool, thanks for that, yes I should have worded it better, the Camo is the organisation but an individual(s) holds the position to certify the said aircraft within that organisation. Smilar with licences, to release an aircraft to service after maintenenance you need to hold a C certification on your licences.
I’ve done similar CAMO/ARC jobs on 757/767. The Airworthiness Certificate process is similar however there is a major snag in that this VC10 is now an ex-military jet making the whole certification process much much longer, reaching back as far as possible to Birth records and probably re-certifying previous work to a known standard. I’m quite sure an Export CofA/National ARC will be required in any case, but it will only be attached to a ex-Military Aircraft Permit to Fly for one non-revenue journey (which may be several flights) to a named destination for further work....If the FAA want it.If all the pooh can be heaped into one pile quickly, and is acceptable to all authorities, this exit flight could be as little as 6 weeks time. Another approach, falling certification, is that all the useful refuelling gear is stripped out and the hull sold for scrap.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,837
Received 2,805 Likes
on
1,195 Posts
I hadn't seen that post Rigga as he is blocked, I concur, the system is more or less the same regardless of size and I have done aircraft a lot larger than a 172.
ZA150 was on the East African Airways fleet prior to conversion, as for stripping the refueling gear, you wouldn't really get that much out of it and you would still end up needing something to fit it too.. one wonders what the FAA will make of the slide as it was disabled in UK use.
ZA150 was on the East African Airways fleet prior to conversion, as for stripping the refueling gear, you wouldn't really get that much out of it and you would still end up needing something to fit it too.. one wonders what the FAA will make of the slide as it was disabled in UK use.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,837
Received 2,805 Likes
on
1,195 Posts
you would think a better option would have been
https://www.military.com/daily-news/...-fighters.html
It also plans to retired 44 A-10 Thunderbolt II close air support mission aircraft; roughly 30 older-model KC-135 Stratotanker and KC-10 Extender refuelers
you would think a better option would have been
https://www.military.com/daily-news/...-fighters.html
https://www.military.com/daily-news/...-fighters.html
KC-135s operated by contractors is one of the several options being considered - but not anytime soon even if agreed - 5 to 7 years as previously stated before US TRANSCOM is likely to get any contract up & running (which would have a 30% probe and drogue method element).
At present, it is the 2020 USN Multi-Award Contract that is being competed for - assumed to be Omega + one other (100% probe and drogue for USN/ USMC aircraft + relevant Foreign Military Sales delivery flights such as F-35B & F-18 variants).
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020...-the-boneyard/
Last edited by RAFEngO74to09; 1st Sep 2020 at 23:59.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NOISE CERTIFICATE
Throw enough money and I any aircraft can be made safe and fit to fly. Without some form of modification I can not see now a noise certificate would be issued to allow the aircraft to operate commercially.
With the US and Germany retiring younger aircraft would they not be a more viable option. Spares, fuel burn, noise etc
With the US and Germany retiring younger aircraft would they not be a more viable option. Spares, fuel burn, noise etc
Throw enough money and I any aircraft can be made safe and fit to fly. Without some form of modification I can not see now a noise certificate would be issued to allow the aircraft to operate commercially.
With the US and Germany retiring younger aircraft would they not be a more viable option. Spares, fuel burn, noise etc
With the US and Germany retiring younger aircraft would they not be a more viable option. Spares, fuel burn, noise etc
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,837
Received 2,805 Likes
on
1,195 Posts
The Noise MOD is already out there but the RAF decided to live with the ban on VC10's landing at civil airports across EASA Land
They were looking at adding three core engines from the v2500 I think when I was in, in a triangular fit on either side. It was one mooted Idea.
I always thought 2 RB211 on the back end would have been superb, after all they tested on on them.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://www.vc10.net/History/Individual/XR809.html
"On 26th September 1975 the aircraft was delivered to RAF Kemble. Initially the aircraft would return to RAF service but it was found that the airframe was distorted, and repairs were deemed too costly. In the end the airframe was used for SAS training purposes and was left to decay at the site, eventually being scrapped."
"On 26th September 1975 the aircraft was delivered to RAF Kemble. Initially the aircraft would return to RAF service but it was found that the airframe was distorted, and repairs were deemed too costly. In the end the airframe was used for SAS training purposes and was left to decay at the site, eventually being scrapped."
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,837
Received 2,805 Likes
on
1,195 Posts
Also had concrete poured in through a DV window to ballast it down from what I was told by a RR chap, he said they went to see it with the intention of using it for some more testing and found that the army? were worried about it in high winds so decided to add some weight to the front end, the tops of the seats were still visible surrounded in ready mix. Whether true or not one does not know..
The pedestal and F/E panel have been used for training, see here; https://www.vc10.net/History/bitsandpieces.html#XR809
So, if the ballast story is correct, these parts were removed before it was added. That, to me, suggests that the airframe was basically 'abandoned' already.
So, if the ballast story is correct, these parts were removed before it was added. That, to me, suggests that the airframe was basically 'abandoned' already.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also had concrete poured in through a DV window to ballast it down from what I was told by a RR chap, he said they went to see it with the intention of using it for some more testing and found that the army? were worried about it in high winds so decided to add some weight to the front end, the tops of the seats were still visible surrounded in ready mix. Whether true or not one does not know..