Flying to the Falklands
Off the thread ...
Mr BEagle
Just the two legs down the back of the TriShaw and with videos. Had the pleasure of going on an Op about 4 years ago which involved 4 days down the back of said beast - one of those half and halfers, C2 - K9 or whatever. Back half 50 of us crammed into space for 30, front half was pallets of ammo - lovely and flat, ideal for sleeping on, or so you would have thought. The Capt and Alm decided that it was verboten and ve vould stay in our seats. How we laughed.
The consolation was our destination in same hemisphere as FI's but just about as far removed as it's possible to be - hurrah.
Just the two legs down the back of the TriShaw and with videos. Had the pleasure of going on an Op about 4 years ago which involved 4 days down the back of said beast - one of those half and halfers, C2 - K9 or whatever. Back half 50 of us crammed into space for 30, front half was pallets of ammo - lovely and flat, ideal for sleeping on, or so you would have thought. The Capt and Alm decided that it was verboten and ve vould stay in our seats. How we laughed.
The consolation was our destination in same hemisphere as FI's but just about as far removed as it's possible to be - hurrah.
Thread Starter
Thanks for all that chaps. I think BEagle's description of the flight is enough to put me off.
Maybe I'll revisit the Shetland Islands next time I hanker for that abandoned, desolate, 'kin cold feeling. SI also has the bonus of no unexploded nasties lying around the place, apart from the locals that is.........
Maybe I'll revisit the Shetland Islands next time I hanker for that abandoned, desolate, 'kin cold feeling. SI also has the bonus of no unexploded nasties lying around the place, apart from the locals that is.........
BEags,
It doesn't get any better on the trips down here. With any luck will be on the Timmy home this week. Only thing that makes it acceptable is the trip we did today in support of you-know-who and saw South Georgia again - majestic! Other than that this place is a dive.
It doesn't get any better on the trips down here. With any luck will be on the Timmy home this week. Only thing that makes it acceptable is the trip we did today in support of you-know-who and saw South Georgia again - majestic! Other than that this place is a dive.
Yes - South Gerogia was always a majestic sight!
Enjoy the trip home - you've just missed temperatures of 37.8 deg C at LHR (and the business class lounge ran out of ice.... such hardship is sooo hard to bear!).
And ponder those age-old TriShaw mysteries:
1. Why take-off going west and then turn left when your destination is invariably several thousand miles to the north?
2. Why go the wrong way round the ASI high-speed exit?
I always liked George Morris' description of crew activity in the descent in the TriShaw - "Like a Buddhist prayer meeting. Lots of chanting interspersed with the sound of gongs!"
PS - Edited to add, please say "Hi" from me to the recently arrived navigator with the large beak.....and I hope that he didn't get into any poo at ASI this time
Enjoy the trip home - you've just missed temperatures of 37.8 deg C at LHR (and the business class lounge ran out of ice.... such hardship is sooo hard to bear!).
And ponder those age-old TriShaw mysteries:
1. Why take-off going west and then turn left when your destination is invariably several thousand miles to the north?
2. Why go the wrong way round the ASI high-speed exit?
I always liked George Morris' description of crew activity in the descent in the TriShaw - "Like a Buddhist prayer meeting. Lots of chanting interspersed with the sound of gongs!"
PS - Edited to add, please say "Hi" from me to the recently arrived navigator with the large beak.....and I hope that he didn't get into any poo at ASI this time
Last edited by BEagle; 20th Aug 2003 at 19:08.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk(occasionally)
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You think you've got it bad. Next time you're unhappy about the tristar try it in an F3.
Crew in V early.
Get airborne, faff joining with tanker(s), head south. fly self for next 10-11 hours without being able to move from strapped in seat, or stop concentrating on something very boring (following tanker) have compulsory IMC close formation for 1 hour, tanker finds CAT spot on tanking bracket in the middle of nowhere (how do they do that?), get told by Nimrod that nearest boat is 400 miles away (what is that flickering caption?), eventually find aforementioned volcanic isle, land, go both ways round high speed loop cos you don't know which is the right way, park, get out after 12.5 hours. Piss (aaaaaaagghhhhhhhh!)
Get told you're sharing rooms cos cabin crew don't want to. Get angry. Drink beer. Fall over. Sleep a bit. Get up next day and repeat above but end up in Falklands.
I miss the good old days
Crew in V early.
Get airborne, faff joining with tanker(s), head south. fly self for next 10-11 hours without being able to move from strapped in seat, or stop concentrating on something very boring (following tanker) have compulsory IMC close formation for 1 hour, tanker finds CAT spot on tanking bracket in the middle of nowhere (how do they do that?), get told by Nimrod that nearest boat is 400 miles away (what is that flickering caption?), eventually find aforementioned volcanic isle, land, go both ways round high speed loop cos you don't know which is the right way, park, get out after 12.5 hours. Piss (aaaaaaagghhhhhhhh!)
Get told you're sharing rooms cos cabin crew don't want to. Get angry. Drink beer. Fall over. Sleep a bit. Get up next day and repeat above but end up in Falklands.
I miss the good old days
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle - that is the best description of the trip to hell that I have ever read/heard. Herc travel was at least more honest - no-one pretended that it was an airline and you knew it was going to be sh!tty. At least no-one minded if you stretched out on the freight pallets (I once slept on a Tornado engine from LYN to Goose via Marham!).
Travelling longhaul down the back of a VC10 was not fun, either (I used to hate deadheading). I always used to feel sorry for our pax on the longer trips - unless they were Paras in which case they got what they deserved.
Travelling longhaul down the back of a VC10 was not fun, either (I used to hate deadheading). I always used to feel sorry for our pax on the longer trips - unless they were Paras in which case they got what they deserved.
I disagreeSo those who disagree with that are, by your definition......
Do learn the difference between talk and banter.
Just off to study my 'Boy's Book of Fat-bodied Jets' so that one day I might truly appreciate the art and skill involved in flying such things...
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, but try not to disagree with yourself. Years and years of A330 is rubbish, 767 is king. And now, as if by magic 767 is rubbish, A330 is king. I wonder....what can have changed your mind? I'm sure the Falklands TriStar could buy your favourable opinion just the same as Airbus did.
Meanwhile, back on the topic of flying to the Malvinas....
Around 100 lucky punters could do so direct from Brize in an A330-200 with South American diversion fuel.....
No-one could fly direct in an ex-BA 767 with any diversion fuel.
If you must bring up FSTA, the reason for my lack of enthusiasm regarding the old ex-BA 767-336s is that they only have 73.5 tonne of fuel and no probe. So not much better in the AR role than a VC10K3 and would be as old as even those were when they entered RAF service. Except that, unlike bankrupt EAAC, BA have actually been flying their aeroplanes....
Whereas KC-767A is entirely different. It has up to about 18 tonne more fuel than the ex-BA ac, a 767-400 glass flight deck with integrated tanker avionics and all the bolt-on goodies one would want. Except windows for the SLF - at least the ex-BA ac have those!
In contrast, the A330-200 offers vastly superior capability in both AT and AR roles with over 37 tonne more fuel than the old ex-BA767s. Offloading 20 tonne per hour on a North Sea towline, a K3 from Brize could probably stay on task for just over a couple of hours. An ex-BA 767 perhaps a few minutes more. But if you took off from the Airbus factory in Toulouse 500 miles to the south in an A330-200, flew up to the same towline and off-loaded fuel at the same rate before flying back to Toulouse, you could stay on task for an extra hour. And with over 200 passenegers enjoying the spectacle.....
The TriShaw mates have demonstrated quite clearly that fuel and time on task are nowadays more important than the Cold War 'hoses in the sky' days of AD CAP-support priority. Hence the need for maximum capability in any new tanker-transport aeroplane.
Around 100 lucky punters could do so direct from Brize in an A330-200 with South American diversion fuel.....
No-one could fly direct in an ex-BA 767 with any diversion fuel.
If you must bring up FSTA, the reason for my lack of enthusiasm regarding the old ex-BA 767-336s is that they only have 73.5 tonne of fuel and no probe. So not much better in the AR role than a VC10K3 and would be as old as even those were when they entered RAF service. Except that, unlike bankrupt EAAC, BA have actually been flying their aeroplanes....
Whereas KC-767A is entirely different. It has up to about 18 tonne more fuel than the ex-BA ac, a 767-400 glass flight deck with integrated tanker avionics and all the bolt-on goodies one would want. Except windows for the SLF - at least the ex-BA ac have those!
In contrast, the A330-200 offers vastly superior capability in both AT and AR roles with over 37 tonne more fuel than the old ex-BA767s. Offloading 20 tonne per hour on a North Sea towline, a K3 from Brize could probably stay on task for just over a couple of hours. An ex-BA 767 perhaps a few minutes more. But if you took off from the Airbus factory in Toulouse 500 miles to the south in an A330-200, flew up to the same towline and off-loaded fuel at the same rate before flying back to Toulouse, you could stay on task for an extra hour. And with over 200 passenegers enjoying the spectacle.....
The TriShaw mates have demonstrated quite clearly that fuel and time on task are nowadays more important than the Cold War 'hoses in the sky' days of AD CAP-support priority. Hence the need for maximum capability in any new tanker-transport aeroplane.
Last edited by BEagle; 22nd Aug 2003 at 04:25.
Farfrompuken, thank you for your well-researched and valuable contribution
I'm surprised that you didn't note the fact that it was your AR fleet which proved in GW2 that 'Cold Warrior' "hoses-in-the-sky are more important than off-load and time on task" attitudes need a rethink. Which was what I wrote; following recent operational experience, capability needs re-evaluation - and A330 wins on that score
I'm surprised that you didn't note the fact that it was your AR fleet which proved in GW2 that 'Cold Warrior' "hoses-in-the-sky are more important than off-load and time on task" attitudes need a rethink. Which was what I wrote; following recent operational experience, capability needs re-evaluation - and A330 wins on that score
Last edited by BEagle; 22nd Aug 2003 at 15:20.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't you also write
So wouldn't it be a really excellent idea to buy up a couple of dozen ex-BA 767s, get them modded to carry 94 tonne of fuel
and
'Hoses in the sky' are what matters! So better 11 aircraft with 73 tonnes than 7 aircraft with 111 tonnes - always assuming that both have 2 wing and 1 centre-line hose!
and
BEagle Tankers Plc would go to a commercial bank and ask for a loan to make Uncle Nigel happy to part with his RR-engined B767-300ERs
and
And then there's the ever-so-teensy snagette that the wingspan of an A330 is 60m and the internal width of the Base Area Gringo Timmy hangar is......??
So wouldn't it be a really excellent idea to buy up a couple of dozen ex-BA 767s, get them modded to carry 94 tonne of fuel
and
'Hoses in the sky' are what matters! So better 11 aircraft with 73 tonnes than 7 aircraft with 111 tonnes - always assuming that both have 2 wing and 1 centre-line hose!
and
BEagle Tankers Plc would go to a commercial bank and ask for a loan to make Uncle Nigel happy to part with his RR-engined B767-300ERs
and
And then there's the ever-so-teensy snagette that the wingspan of an A330 is 60m and the internal width of the Base Area Gringo Timmy hangar is......??
Yes - but things have moved on. And I have been persuaded by the reported GW2 TriStar experience that different capabilities are now more appropriate. "Hoses in the Sky" was possibly relevant when I wrote that, but less so now.
Not a great fan of PPP/PFI - but that isn't germane to the issue here. 94 (that should have been 91) tonnes in a thoroughly modified ex-BA 767 with all the KC-767A features, yes, very nice. But is that on offer? I don't know. I doubt it. TTSC talk (in their website) of a 'substantial refit including engine upgrades' being needed whereas AirTanker talk in theirs of 'minimal modifications'. Which poses the less risk and offers the greater capability?
Let the debate continue.
..and you probably won't now need to base an A330 tanker in the S Atlantic as A400M could be used for in-theatre AR. Which wasn't necessarily the case when I wrote of the Timmy hangar limit as the ac hadn't been signed up to at that time.
Not a great fan of PPP/PFI - but that isn't germane to the issue here. 94 (that should have been 91) tonnes in a thoroughly modified ex-BA 767 with all the KC-767A features, yes, very nice. But is that on offer? I don't know. I doubt it. TTSC talk (in their website) of a 'substantial refit including engine upgrades' being needed whereas AirTanker talk in theirs of 'minimal modifications'. Which poses the less risk and offers the greater capability?
Let the debate continue.
..and you probably won't now need to base an A330 tanker in the S Atlantic as A400M could be used for in-theatre AR. Which wasn't necessarily the case when I wrote of the Timmy hangar limit as the ac hadn't been signed up to at that time.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Needs re-evaluation after recent operational experience or after BEagle gets a new job with Airbus (formerly Airbooooos in BEagle speak)?
As for flying towlines from Toulouse, what happened to:
"If some whoopy-do new tanker design (carrying, say, 100+ tonnes of fuel) is so
huge that it can only use a limited number of bases and alternates, but another
new tanker design carrying less can be based closer to the area of operations
because it can use any aerodrome a VC10 can, would the perceived fuel capacity
advantage of the former by lost by virtue of the extended transit times needed
to get from where it lived to where it was needed and back again?"
and
"PLUS I trust Boeing's military understanding far more - and in any case, the
A330K would be used to capacity on very rare occasions indeed - hence usually
inefficiently. Whereas the 76K will be operated efficiently far more often."
And what about the size problems:
"PLUS, and don't let Airboooooooooos fool you, the A330 is T O O F * C K I N G B
I G for virtually ALL military aerodromes except Brize. Try taxying one at
Lossiemouth! Whereas the 767K will fit where a VC10 will, the A330K won't even
fit where a TriStar or C-17 might...... "
Who is it you work for now Beags ?
As for flying towlines from Toulouse, what happened to:
"If some whoopy-do new tanker design (carrying, say, 100+ tonnes of fuel) is so
huge that it can only use a limited number of bases and alternates, but another
new tanker design carrying less can be based closer to the area of operations
because it can use any aerodrome a VC10 can, would the perceived fuel capacity
advantage of the former by lost by virtue of the extended transit times needed
to get from where it lived to where it was needed and back again?"
and
"PLUS I trust Boeing's military understanding far more - and in any case, the
A330K would be used to capacity on very rare occasions indeed - hence usually
inefficiently. Whereas the 76K will be operated efficiently far more often."
And what about the size problems:
"PLUS, and don't let Airboooooooooos fool you, the A330 is T O O F * C K I N G B
I G for virtually ALL military aerodromes except Brize. Try taxying one at
Lossiemouth! Whereas the 767K will fit where a VC10 will, the A330K won't even
fit where a TriStar or C-17 might...... "
Who is it you work for now Beags ?
Myself!
....and, as I've said, requirements and capabilities aren't now what they were then. In the words of a (non-retired) senior officer who knows far more about such things, "It's now a different world order to that which we imagined 2 years ago..."
So, snipe as ye shall and quote my comments from a bygone time if you must, but the world has changed. So have my opinions.
....and, as I've said, requirements and capabilities aren't now what they were then. In the words of a (non-retired) senior officer who knows far more about such things, "It's now a different world order to that which we imagined 2 years ago..."
So, snipe as ye shall and quote my comments from a bygone time if you must, but the world has changed. So have my opinions.