Is that 'not identical' to the mk1s or to the mk2s - or to each other? I seem to remember that it was not until after the C2s were purchased was it realised that not all -500s were the same.......

It's correct that there are some differences between the KC1's,K1's (which where built for BA) and the C2's, due to different Airlines wanting different specks (BA bought the GL version where the Yanks bought the Ghia). There were even more differences after Marshalls had finished butchering the KC1's and K1's. The C2's originally had digital autopilots which where removed and replaced with an analogue unit to make them standard with the others!! You could understand this if they had done this with everything, unfortunately there is a reason you have to do an "Aircraft Differences" package before you start the Flying phase of the conversion course.
The 3 new aircraft where being looked at just before I was posted, the rumour was that due to the FSTA contract, the RAF was prohibited from acquiring any other Large passenger jets, so the aircraft were to be purchased by Marshalls and leased to the RAF for a fee. No sure how true the rumour was. The one thing that was certain was that if the new jets did arrive there would be no increase in the number of crews.

Do you remember the plans to use them as freighters when they first got them, however as they had not freight doors fitted at the time someone designed some freight containers that were like the fullsize items but only wide enough to fit through the standard pax door lol.......

We just looked at them and burst out laughing when they arrived.....:D

Ahh, the "K1" bins, the system by which they have to be "shuffled" around the forward cabin in order to gain access to load/un-load each in turn is something of a joke.

For this reason, these 2 a/c are only really much good for AAR.

Is it not one of these frames that is currently enjoying a long break at Cambridge?

We can't keep a line of jets on one unit at the same standard. How do you exepct to acquire second-hand aircraft from multiple users to a common standard?

By moving a secret Oxfordshire air base to a secret desert in Arizona? :)

If there is such a shortage of L1011 capability within the RAF, why did one spend most of Christmas parked on the ramp in Calgary (CYYC)??

Or, was it broke???

If there is such a shortage of L1011 capability within the RAF, why did one spend most of Christmas parked on the ramp in Calgary (CYYC)??

That's probably exactly the same question the crew asked themselves, especially since they were supposed to be somewhere a lot warmer for Christmas!

Or, was it broke???

I couldn't possibly comment ......

Jack

Why would you want rearward facing seats on an aircraft that cruises 4º nose up for the body lift? Your lumpy box would slip off your lap . . .

Hi Union Jack,

I trust that Alberta treated you well with your enforced rest. Sorry about the temperature!!

The machine looked good with White trimmings!!

Speedbird 48.

Quite, which was why the the leather seats on the valetta and Britannia were sods as you slipped off. Can't remember the 10 but probably the same.

Matter of interest, what is the pitch on the T* and 10? On a 767-300 last month the 31 inch, I think, was quite adequate.

Horses for courses.

The solution is to choose the airframe for the job, not to just pick up whatever is around and make it do 3 separate jobs.

For the Iraq, Afghanistan run a large twin like the A300 would be adequate: there are freighter and passenger around.

For MPA, go for the 747-400: lots of capacity and 4 donks for long overwater legs, freight capacity and freighters also available.

Convert the T*s to tankers and let them concentrate on that.

6 A300s and 4 747s would cost around $300 mill on the secondhand market.

How many of you guys have actually been involved in the airbridge in the last 6 month's. All involved in this operation are fighting battles on a hourly basis. The solution is nice shiney new aircraft but the problem needs a short gap answer not one 18 months down the line.
Hats off to all involved at the home base,

Nomorefreetime, crisis management again. A stop gap solution becomes de facto a long term solution. A lack of foresight, planning and fundamental misunderstanding of the capabilities of a second hand civilian airframe will simply prolong the agony.

If the Army and RAF now have global commitments the RAF needs to be provided with a mix of transport aircraft optimised for each task.

SS

Question.
Whos flies said airplanes when we buy off shelf?
Who maintains above when delivered tomorrow?

2nd hand tristars are not the solution, but where do we go?

NoMoreFreetime,

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating an instant solution: the introduction of 10 new heavies would take at least 9 months but a long term solution is needed. The T*s may be a stopgap but they can't be expected to carry out med range airlift, long range airlift and tanking when, for the sake of $3-400mill other aircraft could be introduced to take on the transport tasks.

10 used 744s would cost around $400 mill: they have better fuel burns, lower maintenance costs, more seats, more freight capacity and can cover the ME and MPA routes. I only suggested the A300s as they provide almost the same capacity as the T* but cheaper to run.

So where is the MOD getting 3-400 mil from???

As for the Tri motor in Alberta over the last few days, the crew did not stay out there!

If the Govt can afford to throw money at RBS, Northern Rock and now another £20 Mill for employment schemes, the money is there, just not allocated to the MoD.

Alternately they shave it from the Social Security budget, which is bigger than NHS, Education and Defence combined.

ahh sorry forgot of course its that easy! so what about all the other procurment issues then!?

@Union Jack - said crew should thank their lucky stars they were in Canada then and not this week! Brrrrrrrrr....