VC-10 tanker internal tanks - pics?
To add a few details, the escape door was hinged at the top, used some sort of explosive charge to open and incorporated side panels that protected the chute structure. The chute itself then slid down another 1,5m or so. Unfortunately I don't have a photo that I can share but there is a good view in Keith Wilson's Haynes Manual (on page 77). It was first fitted to ZA143 at Hurn and tested on this airframe. The other conversions also got this installation and it was retrofitted to ZA141, which flew before ZA143.
The escape chute having been removed, the port forward door was left sealed shut (the avionics bay access hatch is visible in the floor):
I think this is the remaining gauge that BEagle mentioned:
The door can be opened for maintenance purposes. The locking pins are retracted by using an operating handle in the fixture shown in the photo above and a tension strap that fixes the bottom of the door to the fuselage needs to be removed. The 'abandon aircraft' light in the photo above is also a remnant of the escape chute system.
The escape chute having been removed, the port forward door was left sealed shut (the avionics bay access hatch is visible in the floor):
I think this is the remaining gauge that BEagle mentioned:
The door can be opened for maintenance purposes. The locking pins are retracted by using an operating handle in the fixture shown in the photo above and a tension strap that fixes the bottom of the door to the fuselage needs to be removed. The 'abandon aircraft' light in the photo above is also a remnant of the escape chute system.
BEegle,
we carried chest type clip on parachutes on the C130K tanker and 'quickdon' immersion suits All stowed on a stretcher at the forward starboard side of the cargo compartment.. No bone domes as I recall and we also did the single man dingy drill.
I could never get my head around the likely scenario for using the kit.
The internal tanks (four of) were single skinned.
we carried chest type clip on parachutes on the C130K tanker and 'quickdon' immersion suits All stowed on a stretcher at the forward starboard side of the cargo compartment.. No bone domes as I recall and we also did the single man dingy drill.
I could never get my head around the likely scenario for using the kit.
The internal tanks (four of) were single skinned.
To answer a couple of queries thrown up earlier, the reason the cabin was cold during extended (2 hrs +) highish altitude was that someone in their wisdom left the K2/K3's with only 2 cabin compressors. It was deemed a "useful" weight saving by not having 2 big lumps on 2 of the engines, also to "aid" C of G by moving it further forward. Regarding the "escape chute", it was made inoperable once it was realized that there was a Skydrol item within the system which if a hydraulic leak occurred would not be very healthy for anyone in the cabin to be inhaling. After checking various Safety rules/regs regarding Skydrol it was decided to make the system inop, seem to remember likely to be during 1984 for K2's and as soon as the first K3 was delivered to 101 sqn.
That would fit, the first K2 was delivered in July 1983 (ZA140), the second one in September 1983 (ZA143) and the others followed in February, April and October 1984. The K3s started turning up in February 1985 (ZA150) with the last one delivered on 27 March 1986 (ZA148).
The TTF instructor crew gave a demonstration on the ground ( up to blowing the door ) of the crew drills required to AOC 1 Group. It took 10+ minutes. The AOC is reputed to have called it a "Complete Cake and Arse Party". Did dummies actually get dropped in the trials? I seem to remember it was deemed too dangerous.
Thanks for the answers chaps - very interesting. Final question, did the chap responsible for introducing this dog's breakfast get promoted, or perhaps an OBE?
Re Victor back seaters, Beagle, I always had a touching faith in my ability to get out of a Victor, but the statistics prove that my faith was somewhat misguided - successful rear crew abandonments from any of the V's were pretty rare.
Re Victor back seaters, Beagle, I always had a touching faith in my ability to get out of a Victor, but the statistics prove that my faith was somewhat misguided - successful rear crew abandonments from any of the V's were pretty rare.
Tengah Type, I don't think that dummies were dropped. The buffeting experienced whilst flying with the chute extended was considered to present excessive risk, we were told.
The VVSO who dictated that the VC10K should have a crew escape system paid a visit to 101 in the early days, although at the time I didn't know he'd been the one. On the jet, he asked me what I thought, so I gave him my frank views. 'Buff' was standing behind him giving me a "FFS shut up!" expression, so after the VVSO grunted "Well, I think the lives of you chaps happens to be very important", I agreed and said that concept was one thing, execution was another. If we were that important, then the aircraft should have been redesigned with all crew in M-B bang seats. At which he harrumphed and left; no doubt I had another 1369-limiting narrative comment that year.
The VVSO who dictated that the VC10K should have a crew escape system paid a visit to 101 in the early days, although at the time I didn't know he'd been the one. On the jet, he asked me what I thought, so I gave him my frank views. 'Buff' was standing behind him giving me a "FFS shut up!" expression, so after the VVSO grunted "Well, I think the lives of you chaps happens to be very important", I agreed and said that concept was one thing, execution was another. If we were that important, then the aircraft should have been redesigned with all crew in M-B bang seats. At which he harrumphed and left; no doubt I had another 1369-limiting narrative comment that year.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: One Three Seven, Disco Heaven.
Age: 65
Posts: 2,537
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
16 Posts
There was a VC10 tanker came into Kinloss, 83/84, and it was the first one I had seen. Myself and another guy from my section went to have a look at it, and the Loadie allowed us on to have a look. As shown in the pics above the interior was gutted and tanks fitted. I can't recall how long it had been on the ground for, but it was ffffff freezing in there.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,836
Received 2,805 Likes
on
1,195 Posts
Ahh the million pound dustbin.. I was told on my course that they did chuck a dummy out on the trial and it hit the wing, hence it reverted to being the bin. I do love the photo of it deployed with the flaps and slats down, thus giving you even more to hit on the way past 
I also remember there was talk that when the first tanker conversion was carried out it wasn't stress jacked properly, so when they took out the section to put in the tanks it sagged resulting in the hole being bigger than the bung to be reinstalled, thus calling for some hasty jacking to bring it all back into shape and allow the section to go back in.
I also remember there was talk that when the first tanker conversion was carried out it wasn't stress jacked properly, so when they took out the section to put in the tanks it sagged resulting in the hole being bigger than the bung to be reinstalled, thus calling for some hasty jacking to bring it all back into shape and allow the section to go back in.
The Boeing E-3 aircraft also have an extending escape chute, they were all inhibited after trials with dummies, the dummies were shredded by the antennae along the underside of the fuselage.
I cannot point to a primary source (will keep an eye out for one) but Scott Henderson's books about the VC10 refer to dummies (multiple) having been dropped over Lark Hill on Salisbury Plain from ZA143. I know that he talked to a lot of people while doing research for his books and with the specific info about the location, I have no reason to doubt that at least one dummy was dropped. There may well be a bit of truth in both sides of the story. I don't doubt that the buffeting was severe and that the results from the test were not what was hoped. The project was well advanced seeing as all the K2s and K3s received the escape chute and they probably needed a bit of convincing to throw away the investment.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: coltishall
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahh the million pound dustbin.. I was told on my course that they did chuck a dummy out on the trial and it hit the wing, hence it reverted to being the bin. I do love the photo of it deployed with the flaps and slats down, thus giving you even more to hit on the way past
I also remember there was talk that when the first tanker conversion was carried out it wasn't stress jacked properly, so when they took out the section to put in the tanks it sagged resulting in the hole being bigger than the bung to be reinstalled, thus calling for some hasty jacking to bring it all back into shape and allow the section to go back in.
I also remember there was talk that when the first tanker conversion was carried out it wasn't stress jacked properly, so when they took out the section to put in the tanks it sagged resulting in the hole being bigger than the bung to be reinstalled, thus calling for some hasty jacking to bring it all back into shape and allow the section to go back in.
Yep, as a teenage liney it was perfect for bodge taping a black bin liner to and emptying all the ash trays into! how things have changed? Seem to remember that there were some smoking rules though....not allowed to smoke down the back when tanking
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Cambridge
Age: 57
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
very, very different. The KC-135 has forward and aft fuselage tanks below the floor - 4 cells forward and 5 aft. There is also an aft tank above floor level. The main fuselage interior has a cargo floor and is normally set up with webbing type seats along the sidewall. There are also two APUs inside the rear of the cabin.
The KC-135 was built from the start as a tanker, and it shows.
The KC-135 was built from the start as a tanker, and it shows.
Always problematic refuelling a C-130. Because the VC10K HDU when fitted with the normal drogue was very difficult to set up at the low speed needed to refuel the C-130 and the hose would often run in and put the brake on as soon as the probe touched it....
Fitting a low speed drogue worked OK and we had a procedure for extending flap and slat to fly at around 180-200KIAS at FL200 with the centreline hose trailed. But the tanker fuel burn was colossal!
Fitting a low speed drogue worked OK and we had a procedure for extending flap and slat to fly at around 180-200KIAS at FL200 with the centreline hose trailed. But the tanker fuel burn was colossal!
Exavcert
The Door was forced open and the chute deployed by compressed Nitrogen as you say. However the bottom of the door had a metal sealing strip which is what was severed explosively when the system was activated .
The Door was forced open and the chute deployed by compressed Nitrogen as you say. However the bottom of the door had a metal sealing strip which is what was severed explosively when the system was activated .