VC 10 to fly again as a tanker
Is there any truth in the rumour that the RB 211 twisted the fuselage so much that the a/c was a write off ? Also that the contract with MOD did not specify that the a/c be returned in a serviceable condition ?
aa62:
I don't know about the twisted fuselage story. I was at Filton while RR were doing this flying, and certainly we heard that their contract with MoD did not include returning it to the original 4-engined fit on completion of the loan. Who were the smart people who wrote the contract, I wonder?
G-AXLR - originally XR 809
I don't know about the twisted fuselage story. I was at Filton while RR were doing this flying, and certainly we heard that their contract with MoD did not include returning it to the original 4-engined fit on completion of the loan. Who were the smart people who wrote the contract, I wonder?
G-AXLR - originally XR 809
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,921
Received 2,843 Likes
on
1,214 Posts
I seem to remember that there was a dispute over the engine winches and who would repair them, hence they were never fixed, they loaned electric? ones to RR who returned them U/S, hence forever and a day after we had to use the hand winches with their design flaw.
Given that 809 was 'returned' in 1975, another background factor is likely to have been that the reduction by half of the Air Transport Force was very much in play then, and it must have been inconceivable that MOD would have funded an airframe refurbishment in those circumstances.
another background factor is likely to have been that the reduction by half of the Air Transport Force was very much in play then
That was before they thought of making VC10s tankers, of course - they were just airliners then.
airsound
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.
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.
I believe a modified Jet Pipe was all that was required, to introduce cold air to the jet stream. That would have reduced noise levels and enabled landing at all EASAland airports...but possibly beyond MOD budgets at the time.
I had a quick look on google. Does anyone have any images of the flight deck and Engineer's panel for the flying test bed?
Just curious to see what they did when changing two engines for one.
Just curious to see what they did when changing two engines for one.
Jhieminga,
Do you know what was the exact cause of the fuselage distortion?
Do you know what was the exact cause of the fuselage distortion?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
B1, see the earlier links....
.....”One hair-raising flight was the test bed's 44th flight on 7th august 1972. This was the first flight with a new pressure switch to prevent deployment of the thrust reverser on the RB211. With an expected flight time of five hours the aircraft took off laden with fuel. An initial warning light for the thrust reverser was investigated, but the crew decided to continue the flight as they didn't want to dump fuel this early in the flight.
After an initial performance test run at 250 knots at 20,000 feet, the aircraft was being prepared for a second run at 300 knots when the cold stream reverser of the RB211 slid back into the reverse position, sealing off the bypass duct. The effect of this was a reverse idle which produced an initial slight lurch on the aircraft. Shortly afterwards, a more violent lurch occurred, followed by aircraft buffet. There was adverse yaw and roll, and the throttles were closed, initiating a descent before recovering to wings level. Full power was set on the Conways but level flight could not be maintained. The aircraft continued to descend at 2,500 feet per minute as the RB211 was windmilling with the reverser extended.
Fuel jettison was initiated as the equation was quite clear to all on board - the aircraft would hit the ground in approximately twelve minutes unless the weight could be brought down to a value that the Conways could cope with. As the VC10 was aimed at the Bristol Channel, the crew was running through their sea survival kit and ditching drills. As the weight came down, the rate of descent improved, until, at 3000 feet, the aircraft weight was low enough to enable level flight on the thrust available. Fuel dumping was stopped at the coastline and the crew briefed for the approach and landing procedure for this new configuration. A go-around would not be possible with the drag of the RB211 and the available power on the Conways. A safe landing was carried out after a careful, wide circuit.“........
.....”One hair-raising flight was the test bed's 44th flight on 7th august 1972. This was the first flight with a new pressure switch to prevent deployment of the thrust reverser on the RB211. With an expected flight time of five hours the aircraft took off laden with fuel. An initial warning light for the thrust reverser was investigated, but the crew decided to continue the flight as they didn't want to dump fuel this early in the flight.
After an initial performance test run at 250 knots at 20,000 feet, the aircraft was being prepared for a second run at 300 knots when the cold stream reverser of the RB211 slid back into the reverse position, sealing off the bypass duct. The effect of this was a reverse idle which produced an initial slight lurch on the aircraft. Shortly afterwards, a more violent lurch occurred, followed by aircraft buffet. There was adverse yaw and roll, and the throttles were closed, initiating a descent before recovering to wings level. Full power was set on the Conways but level flight could not be maintained. The aircraft continued to descend at 2,500 feet per minute as the RB211 was windmilling with the reverser extended.
Fuel jettison was initiated as the equation was quite clear to all on board - the aircraft would hit the ground in approximately twelve minutes unless the weight could be brought down to a value that the Conways could cope with. As the VC10 was aimed at the Bristol Channel, the crew was running through their sea survival kit and ditching drills. As the weight came down, the rate of descent improved, until, at 3000 feet, the aircraft weight was low enough to enable level flight on the thrust available. Fuel dumping was stopped at the coastline and the crew briefed for the approach and landing procedure for this new configuration. A go-around would not be possible with the drag of the RB211 and the available power on the Conways. A safe landing was carried out after a careful, wide circuit.“........
35 years ago, ZA150 arrived at Brize as the very first VC10K3:
OC101 immediately decided that 'Juliet' would be his personal jet - and woe betide any planner who allocated him anything else if 150 was available!
OC101 immediately decided that 'Juliet' would be his personal jet - and woe betide any planner who allocated him anything else if 150 was available!
ORAC,
Thank you, I have already read that, but it does not explain exactly how and where the fuselage was distorted
Thank you, I have already read that, but it does not explain exactly how and where the fuselage was distorted
It could also have been the result of asymmetrical weight, drag or something else, but I haven't found an answer yet unfortunately.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,921
Received 2,843 Likes
on
1,214 Posts
As an engineer I would say it distorted the engine beams or rear fuselage structure where it is attached, the two beams run across the rear fuselage and are the main structural spars of the stub wings, they are also if I am correct fwd of the rear pressure bulkhead as you could see them through the access door behind the mirror in the rear bog. Not a place you want distortion as the fin is also nailed on in that area.
This might help, see
VC10 Engine Installation
This might help, see
VC10 Engine Installation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,921
Received 2,843 Likes
on
1,214 Posts
4 x A310MRTT are due to be retired by the Luftwaffe as they convert to the A330MRTT.
No centreline hose, but 2 pilots + ARO and fitted with up-to-date systems.
Congratulations to whoever managed to sell ZA150 though! I really cannot imagine 'Juliet' flying again, nice though that would be.
No centreline hose, but 2 pilots + ARO and fitted with up-to-date systems.
Congratulations to whoever managed to sell ZA150 though! I really cannot imagine 'Juliet' flying again, nice though that would be.
During the open day I had chat to one of our visitors who told me he worked on the 'line constructing ZA150. His particular area to the engine spectacle beams and the stub wings. He said as this was the last a/c off the line there were a certain amount of missing components as during the assembly of earlier a/c if a component didn't fit for some reason they would go to stores and take the same component that was ready for the next airframe, so naturally it all came to a head with the construction of CN885 5H-MOG.
SD:-
You may well say that SD but, despite all the professional input here corroborating your blanket condemnation of those who might differ, I still have a worrying suspicion that this a/c may yet wing its way stateside per the OP, airworthiness issues notwithstanding.
As to the FAA and the Max-8, I believe that abomination is about to be relaunched too. Money talks.
Call me a fool or just plain stupid. I'm quite sure you will.
The reality is that the VC10 last flew about 7 years ago. They have been left to rot outside in what the US regards as a maritime atmosphere. They have certainly not been carefully stored. They have seen years of military service and abuse. Going through the paperwork, if it can all even be found, would be an interesting exercise. Each one of them will be at a different configuration. Good luck with that.
It will also be very interesting to see how the approach taken by the FAA has changed in the post 737-Max world, and of course the views of other state regulators to these aircraft.
Anyone thinking there is a realistic chance of the VC10 ever flying again is either a fool or just plain stupid.
It will also be very interesting to see how the approach taken by the FAA has changed in the post 737-Max world, and of course the views of other state regulators to these aircraft.
Anyone thinking there is a realistic chance of the VC10 ever flying again is either a fool or just plain stupid.
As to the FAA and the Max-8, I believe that abomination is about to be relaunched too. Money talks.
Call me a fool or just plain stupid. I'm quite sure you will.