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

VC 10 to fly again as a tanker

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.

VC 10 to fly again as a tanker

Old 31st Aug 2020, 15:02
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Sussex
Age: 79
Posts: 4,438
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.
Chugalug2 is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2020, 16:11
  #62 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 18,212
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.

Last edited by NutLoose; 31st Aug 2020 at 16:30.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2020, 10:16
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Up North
Posts: 51
Originally Posted by NutLoose View Post

What rank do you have to hold in the RAF these days to be a CAMO?
If you mean to be a Mil CAM then it's Wg Cdr on almost all platforms, as the CAMO is the organisation.
sturb199 is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2020, 12:57
  #64 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 18,212
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.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2020, 18:35
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Leatherhead
Posts: 1
VC-10 ZA150

Will be used by a Stateside firm who have private/military contracts
Adam Hermitage is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2020, 22:24
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Anglia
Posts: 1,963
Originally Posted by salad-dodger View Post
Chug, no, he wouldnít. We are talking VC10 here. I am thinking that he has actually done this for nothing more complex than a 172.
Iíve 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. Iím 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.
Rigga is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2020, 22:50
  #67 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 18,212
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.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2020, 22:59
  #68 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 18,212
you would think a better option would have been

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
https://www.military.com/daily-news/...-fighters.html
NutLoose is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2020, 00:45
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 1,047
Originally Posted by NutLoose View Post
you would think a better option would have been



https://www.military.com/daily-news/...-fighters.html
That article is bypassed and not now happening at the rate or in the timescale stated - not approved by Congress.

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; 2nd Sep 2020 at 00:59.
RAFEngO74to09 is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2020, 09:36
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 158
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
turbroprop is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2020, 10:27
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Anglia
Posts: 1,963
Originally Posted by turbroprop View Post
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
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. I have seen 17 aircraft re-born from Nevada deserts after years of storage there during which the interiors had completely melted. A few million dollars later and "hey presto!" - Germania was created!
Rigga is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2020, 11:27
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: derbyshire
Posts: 182
I can't wait to see the VC10 flying again, I wish I'd flown on one. Maybe if they get it flying they could use it to refuel Concorde when she flies again.....!
VC10man is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2020, 11:59
  #73 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 18,212
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
Prey tell, what was it? a modified jetpipe?

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.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2020, 12:07
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 1,230
Originally Posted by NutLoose View Post
I always thought 2 RB211 on the back end would have been superb, after all they tested on on them.
There's loads going cheap now as well, with all those British Airways 747's now heading off to the scrappy.

GeeRam is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2020, 12:32
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: 50+ north
Posts: 855
Originally Posted by NutLoose View Post

I always thought 2 RB211 on the back end would have been superb, after all they tested on on them.
G-AXLR if I remember correctly, which was subsequently scrapped due to the fuselage twisting?
TCAS FAN is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2020, 12:33
  #76 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,833
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."
ORAC is online now  
Old 2nd Sep 2020, 12:53
  #77 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 18,212
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..
NutLoose is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2020, 15:02
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: near an airplane
Posts: 1,757
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.
Jhieminga is online now  
Old 2nd Sep 2020, 16:29
  #79 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 10,833




ORAC is online now  
Old 2nd Sep 2020, 21:11
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Sunny Side
Posts: 99
Originally Posted by NutLoose View Post
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..
I very much doubt it....
salad-dodger is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.