It was purely a wartime tanker contingency as Beagle hits upon, if it's an all out strike the Ten would deliver ALL of its fuel to the attacking force, after which it was an expendable asset as there probably wouldn't have been anything to come home to, we would all by that time have the Ready Brek glow.




.

I think that the clue is 'off-loading all available fuel'.

It was a chance for the crew to get out before it became a glider.

Despite it not working, it didn't stop the Cmk1s being fitted with a suicide switch though.

7 little weeks of Sadness..... XV109 today
 

The way I read it is that it was meant for a war situation where a tanker would be sacrificed to provide fuel for other aircraft, and then abandoned. Not as an emergency escape system.

Edit: I guess I took too long to type that. 😉

Which would never have happened. Quite how anyone would have thought that any VC10K tanker crew would ever have considered obeying such an absurd order is beyond me.

Yup... But that's what you got the big bucks for... Oh hang on though, they weren't that big.

quote
Moggiee
Trust me - I have the logbook to prove it (I could scan and email the requisite page if you want http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...lies/smile.gif ). I flew XV109 in June, August, September and November so it hadn't been away from Brize.

I'm sure that the re-wire at EMA was later - I think that I delivered at least one myself. My logbook says that we did a 1 way trip to EMA in XV108 on 3rd July 1989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe you, My mistake. Memory playing more tricks. PM inbound

Does anyone know why Fields had a full set of Conway engine stills in 91?
And when was the last rewire at Fields? Thanks in advance.

This thread continues to fascinate. The C Mk 1s with a "suicide switch?" Did I miss something, for I've no recollection of volunteering for self-immolation nor of hearing of anyone else being asked to do so. To what might that term refer, pray?

I am fairly certain that the only reason that the VC10K was going to have an escape system was that the Victor had one. Don't forget that, when the idea of the VC10K was being mooted , the Victor/Buccaneer accident was still fresh in the minds of some.

That would have required rather more than the 'million pound dustbin', vasco. The Victor / Buccaneer accident caused structural failure of the Victor which bunted and disintegrated; only one pilot, the late 'Neddy' Hanscombe, survived (just..) but there would have been no survivors of such an accident involving a VC10 unless the crew had ejector seats, which would have required a complete redesign of the VC10K flight deck at huge expense.

Most tanker aircraft have a fuel system which provides both receiver fuel and fuel for the tanker itself. Notable exceptions are the A310MRTT, whose outer tanks feed only the aircraft, the KC-135Q which supported the SR-71 and was configured with independent systems as the Habu needed special fuel - and AiMA's A310 boom demonstrator which, as purely a proof-of-concept aircraft, has only a single 7200 litre tank for receiver offload purposes.

With a 'common' fuel system, it is sensible to include a device which inhibits offload at a particular fuel value, so that the tanker is not put at risk of running itself out of fuel. When that level is reached, the crew may elect under certain circumstances to offload further fuel, having overridden the low level system. In the VC10 / VC10K this was a fixed fuel state; I suppose it could be considered a 'suicide switch' as incautious operation could indeed lead to a really, really dull crew transferring all their fuel to receivers, leaving themselves in control of a glider with only the ELRAT to provide electrical power - and no hydraulics.

More modern tankers (with mission planning systems which actually work, Mick :p ) allow the crew to set a 'Min Off-Task Fuel' value on the flight deck, so that the tanker will stop transfer at the minimum fuel required for the tanker to leave the AARA, transit back to base, make an approach, go-around, and divert to an alternate, reaching the alternate with 30 min final reserve. The transit from the area to destination also includes contingency fuel; the 'MOTF' can be calculated for either still-air, statistical met. or 'met. of the day' conditions. But it's important that, although the MOTF is accurately calculated by mission software, the actual MOTF is agreed and set directly by the crew, not some brainless computer which thinks it knows best. An example of which was some tanker aircraft which flew a hi-lo-hi profile to a distant AARA and started offloading to a receiver with a stiff tailwind. When they turned back into wind, 'HAL' decided that, at the low TAS and consequent low GS they were now flying, the tanker had reached MOTF and promptly closed the pod valves on the receivers! HAL didn't know that the plan was to climb to high level for recovery and assumed they would lumber all the way home at low level....:rolleyes:

It allowed the Eng to pump out all available fuel to the receivers. If the crew did that, they weren't going home. As BEagle has mentioned, it would have been extremely doubtful that it would have been considered by the crew, but it was still installed during the tanker conversions.

Yup the C Mk1 had the switch but not the slide, hence the suicide switch.

No mention here of the K2 that went into Dunsfold last month. A source of 'dubious accuracy' tells me that no-one is allowed near it as it is being kept semi-airworthy 'in case':eek:

VC10K3 ZA150 flew to Dunsfold on Tue 24 Sep and has been acquired, I understand, by the Brooklands Museum.

All the K2s have long since been scrapped.

But it's good to hear that people are being kept away from the aircraft at Dunsfold - so less chance of pilfering or vandalism.

It was once rumoured to be getting dismantled and moved to Brooklands, though the website says it will be open to the Public at Dunsfold

Brooklands Museum

'Queen of the Skies' lands with a roar at Dunsfold Park

- see caveat.

The 'million pound dustbin' was a complete and utter waste of time and money.

It replaced the front door and was supposed to be extended into the airflow to enable a controlled abandonment. We were told that only one flight was ever made with the device extended, but that the noise and buffeting were so extreme that the aircraft landed early.

We were taught how to use it on #3 VC10K course, but refused to waste any time on it. It worked as follows:

1. The decision was made to off-load all available fuel to receivers and the low-level override system was selected on.
2. The aircraft was then depressurised. Or rather, the pressurisation was turned off and the cabin allowed to climb until the min. diff. pressure for chute deployment was reached. This could take several minutes.
3. Individual crew members were then supposed to use walk-round Mk4 oxygen bottles, before going into the cabin to don parachutes and oxygen systems as the flight deck seats weren't modified to allow for parachute packs. Pilots would take it in turns, but it was physically impossible to sit in any crew seat wearing the emergency AEA.
4. When the diff. pressure gauge suggested it was 'safe' to do so, the escape chute was deployed by pulling a large lever. The first item in the sequence was for the external door seal to be severed; however BWoS suggested that this would be ingested by the left engines, causing an uncontained failure of at least one engine..... 3 of the 4 crew might get out, but the last pilot was supposed to fly the thing by leaning over the seat to hold the control column in order to maintain at least wings-level flight, then let go, turn round, make his way back to the chute and jump out - probably to join his colleagues in the remains of the left engines.

Eventually common sense prevailed and the stupid system was removed. But the K2 and K3 were left with just the starboard service door.

There was never any proposal to enable the system to be used by passengers.

One legacy of the system was that the squadron had a large room allocated for immersion suit storage. In later days this became the 'new' Duffy's bar!

I recall being asked by some visiting multi-starred personage what I thought of the system. So I did so.... I pretended that I didn't know that he was the idiot who had approved it!



This sounds as daft an idea as the decision to introduce a new tanker/transport into the RAF without a refuelling probe/ slip way or a cargo door !

Or have i missed something (and the RAAF on whose A330 tankers they have installed both.)

I mean, a tanker which cannot receive fuel, imagine that on Black Buck !!

RetiredBA/BY, if you're going to quote others, it is normal PPRuNe courtesy to use the 'quote' option....

Regarding probe/receptacle on Voyager, that probably falls into the same court as the original probe on the TriStar. Which, much to the relief of their crews, was soon de-modded.

A cargo door on Voyager? The existing underfloor compartments are entirely adequate; if not, then there's always the C-17A fleet! Shortly to be joined by the Atlas.

BEagle, Saintsman, Nutloose: Thanks for clarification on that "Suicide switch" - my time on 10 Sqn was well before any thought of receivers. (And I'd forgotten about the Victor/Buccaneer incident.)

Also if a tank outlet valve would not open because of a malfunction of the low level system, operating the switch might allow the valve to open, so not necessarily a suicide switch!

Beagle,
So where's the reply with quote button ?

Perhaps the probe on the TriStar was removed, surely no big deal as the main body of the tanker fleet, the VC10, DID have a probe and could therefore receive fuel retaining operational flexibility. My argument is that if the Voyager cannot receive fuel it may, in the 20 year future projected for it with AirTanker, (my guess is it will turn out to be a lot longer) severely limit its capability, a conclusion the RAAF, who are most certainly no fools, came to and incorporated a slipway onto their 330s. I would put it into the same category of mistake as that which removed the guns from the Lightning, later reversed when the penny dropped.

Nobody, but nobody, can predict the operational requirement of tanking for the next 20 years (Falklands !) so limiting its capability may prove "unfortunate".

Forgive me for being so outspoken but I MAY have a little idea of flight refuelling ops. having flown Victor (1) tankers and refuelled the first RAF VC10 on its FR trials from Boscombe. (Oct 7th 1966 from XH 651 ) which is why I firmly believe a tanker, the only type of tanker in the fleet, which cannot receive is a limited resource.

As for the cargo door, perhaps there is a case for deleting it as the overall performance affect of the heavier door and the freight floor might outweigh the predicted total benefit. But didn't the RAF VC10 have a cargo door installed for military application, even though we had Belfasts in those days, never saw it on my BOAC/BA VC10 ! The performance loss couldn't have been that great as East African Supers had a cargo door installed making it a combi. Again the RAAF who have the C17 (and own them, they are not leased !!), and Hercs., did decide a cargo door was required and Qantas military installed them, I believe). Wonder why Airbus offer freight door facility for the 330 tanker ? They, the RAAF, now have a true multi-role tanker/transport.

Best of luck to the RAF when they have urgent palletised freight, no C17 availability and can't get it into the belly of the tanker/transport voyager ! I suppose they will have to wait for a Herc. or Atlas to get it there, eventually !

I rest my case, m'lord !

The original RAF VC10, the C.MK 1 had the cabin freight door and load bearing floor panels from the start. You cant remove anymore than two floor panels without supporting the wings. I don't think you can tow a 'ten with any panels removed.
EX BA 'tens (K2&K4) weren't given cabin freight doors or load bearing floors

The refuel probes were removed and then scrapped early on, before 1972 anyway. I'm not sure if they were all delivered with them. During the Falklands war the eng. opps. controller got a signal from group instructing Brize to refit the probes. The controller (EOC) was on the team at Brize way back as a JT removing them RTS. They were then scrapped. He told the guy at group that they'd been scrapped years ago and hadn't any in stock. He proved it by finding the signal that removed the probes and scrapping order. That was that until some new ones were manufactured a few years later on the C1K conversion. I didn't work on a C1K anyway, I left there summer 92. The 1st C1K flew June 92, then Boscombe Down?

Either click on this icon:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a3...ps5ec09026.jpg or simply type [QUOTE] at the beginning of the piece from which you wish to quote and [/ (followed by QUOTE)] at the end.

Given that the Voyager has roughly 3 x the fuel capacity of a Victor, it is difficult to imagine any potential conflict which would require the aircraft to be operated in the receiver role, given the cost of installation, testing, maintaining proficiency etc.

Although jousting is indeed the sport of kings :ok: , I don't actually think that the lack of a receiver capability is particularly limiting for the Voyager.

Re BA/BY's post, and as Jhieminga will confirm, the 3 standard VC10s originally purchased by BUA were 1103s, with Kucheman (droop-snoot)wingtips and an extended wing chord to enable FL430. They had the cargo door and strengthened main-deck floor. When BUA added the prototype to the fleet (G-ARTA), it was configured as an 1109 with the same wing as the 1103s, but no cargo door. I don't remember the difference in APS weight between the 1103 and the 1109, unfortunately, but doubt it was remarkable, as we were often stretching the payload-range to the limit and a big reduction in empty weight would have been noteworthy.

The Omani a/c at Brooklands is, of course, an ex-BUA/BCAL 1103 (G-ASIX) with cargo door.

The Cmk1 had refuel probes in the 80's as we used to fit them adhoc, 10 Sqn didn't like them as it ruined to look on the pax version, but when required we did fit them, I can remember at least 5 occasions we had them on various aircraft pre tanker days.

I would have thought a freight door on a voyager would have been ideal, after all when deploying a squadron, the ability to trail the aircraft, carry the Engineering staff and the tooling / spares etc that won't fit downstairs such as engines.

Might have Hercs etc, but using one aircraft surely must be better than two.

Sorry BEags you are wrong on this one. AAR consolidation is (for those that can do it) a regular feature of modern ops.

The BUA aircraft SIW, SIX and TDJ had the down turned wing tips. The RAF, BOAC, East African, Ghana A/W, did not. MEA might have. The prototype bought by Laker and immediately leased to MEA did I'm sure.
They had non drooping kuchemann tips on the C.MK. 1, Super (K3,K4)

I never worked on or ever saw a C.MK 1 (72-92)with a probe fitted. The fuel plumbing to the deleted probe was diabolical. There was no servicing instructions, SPs etc. for their inspection.

Here you go 1989, Lyneham airshow

Vickers VC-10 C1, XV104, Royal Air Force

Calgary

Vickers VC-10 C1, XV104, Royal Air Force

Australia 89

Vickers VC-10 C1, XV108, Royal Air Force

All pre tanker conversion and 10 Sqn

Nutloose
The reason I said what I did is...We had a C.MK1 in bay 1 Base Hangar 1991. We were (I was BAe then) fixing fuel leaks, The Sqn guys came to get the thing ready for runs. they got power on and started flicking switches etc. There was a panic in the cockpit and one of them, I'd known him in the RAF asked me why they have a fuel leak in the cockpit entrance area. I couldn't believe it. You expect 80 leaks on a VC10 and I could tell you where they'd be without looking. Not here though. I said its the probe plumbing. He looked and some of the others thought I'd gone mad. Its a C.1 It hasn't got a probe. They didn't know anything about C.MK.1 probes, either the original fit or the new build probes you've mentioned. There was a meeting about the lack of anything in any servicing procedures, Vol 1 etc. They weren't serviced or checked, the seals weren't sealing and nobody knew what state the pipe work, bonding etc. was like. I never saw one, I was in Base so its possible that I just didn't see one as I was inside.
The lack of tech support for the probe system and the fact these RAF guys had never heard of C.MK 1 probes lead me to what I'd said.

we used to pop em on on the line :)

Well yes, vasco. - it was also used a lot during GW1. But the squadron allowed its receiver skills to wither rapidly thereafter, so that the effort required by the AARIs to restore full day/night receiver capability for Bliar's bring-a-bottle wars was considerable. Particularly if that included receiving from a TriStar.

Not many nations have the ability to consolidate nowadays.

Given the proposed number of Voyager crews and the small number of KC3s, the effort involved in maintaining the necessary probe-and-drogue receiving skills would be quite considerable. The cost of retrofitting the Voyager to KC-30A standard would be high, as would be the training costs for boom operators and receiver pilots.

Desirable for Voyager to be able to receive or transfer fuel to another tanker? Yes. Essential? I don't think so.

A pity the RAF didn't go for the 'Airbus Industrie' MRTT proposals of 15+ years ago though. That included a cargo door, combi flexibility, either a probe or UARRSI, a boom or FRU and 5 rather than 4 ACTs - if I recall correctly, we were anticipating around 2 dozen of such aircraft, each with a 77.5T fuel capacity.....

MEA used a leased Ghana type 1102 and the prototype leased from Laker, so no downturned wingtips on those aircraft. Although the question of whether G-ARTA had them after its conversion to type 1109 is still open as far as I'm concerned.
The photo below is of the wingtip of G-ARTA after conversion, is it downturned? It could be in my view.
http://www.vc10.net/div/OD-AFAwingtip.jpg

Hi Jhiemingha,

(Sorry to be responsible for this thread-drift, chaps!) We've been here before:
http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...ml#post6715449

As you know well there are three factors here, all of which were definitely present on the 1103s, (e.g., the Brooklands a/c):
(1) chord extension inboard (so the L/E has a mid-span kink);
(2) Kuchemann tip (as you said, this seems to refer to the shape visible in the plan view, not the "droop-snoot";
(3) the "droop-snoot".

Having flown G-ARTA in 1109 config with BUA/BCAL, I'm absolutely sure it had (1) and (2), not least because she was FL430 capable and we used the same cruise-performance charts as the three 1103s, proving the buffet margins were the same. What I cannot confirm is that she had (3), because I simply can't remember (and the F/Es did the walkrounds). I wonder what effect(s) the droop-snoot had on performance. Pity that photo is in silhouette... I cannot disagree with anything vc10617 says.

The RAAF KC-30A does not have an upper deck cargo door. To date, the cancelled KC-45 for the USAF is the only variant of the A330MRTT that has been ordered with this option.

It is difficult, BUT when I was sitting in a nuclear armed Valiant on QRA and someone had seriously suggested that a V bomber would be used to bomb a tiny British Island in the South Atlantic and need 12 tankers to get it there and back, I think we would have assumed the guy really had flipped under the pressure !

The Black Buck raids needed so many tankers because:

1. The Vulcan burned about 3 x times the fuel per hour that a modern fighter-bomber requires.

2. The Victor K2 had a relatively small offload capability compared to its own fuel burn rate.

3. The Vulcan was using dumb bombs and unsophisticated bomb aiming equipment, so to stand any chance of hitting Stanley aerodrome, needed a large bomb stick.

4. Down-track RV procedures were difficult, relying on very accurate navigation and A/A TACAN. Hence an accompanied cruise was preferred.

Were it to be necessary ever to repeat such a mission, a single Tornado or Typhoon with an appropriate, very accurate weapon would need far, far less fuel. Modern tankers carry HUGE amounts of fuel; the Voyager carries around 40 tonnes more than a VC10, a difference which would keep a Tornado airborne for another 20-ish hours...

As for AAR consolidation, that's fine if 'hoses in the sky' is not an issue. Otherwise having a single tanker with lots of fuel and only 2/3 hoses is perhaps of less worth than 2 tankers with less fuel but 4/6 hoses in the sky - and which can be in 2 places at once!

Ken Scott

The BUA originals, SIW, SIX and TDJ, all had the "droop snoot" tips and were modified with the inbd chord extensions. The prototype, GARTA/OD-AFA MEA was modified too, it was the the 1st to get both as part of the flight test programme. It ended up that only the BOAC/BA/RAF K.2 didn't have either Chord growth and (sure it didn't) K/tips. BTW The chord growth was in the L/E panels not the main wing box /tapered torque box the wing box didn't "step" just the panels and therefor the Slats. Wing tanks were the same internal volume throughout all models.
The inbd Wing fences on the other hand are a nightmare of detail. The BOAC standards were further inbd and were fitted across the forward 1 and 2 tank access panel.There is a removable piece of fence for access to the tank panel.It also had the full chord fence outbd of rib 22. The Ghana A/W "fence" continued around the leading edge ending underneath the L/E panel. Some were slightly bent inbd at front . Never mind the Beaver tail styles over the production run!
Link for pics of..
VC10 G-ARTA

Go down till the BUA picture ,you can see the downward tip.

I was on 10 Sqn in the late 80s and every one of our aeroplanes had a probe and I had a great view of them from my seat up front. They would sometimes glow pink and purple with St Elmo's fire in the right weather conditions (out in the tropics).

We even used the probes on exercises to Oman and the Falklands to prove the AAR receiving capability (getting to Oman with a full load of pax and no refuel stop)

I saw the three 1989 shots Nutloose linked. I've also seen some more from 88. I cant understand why that RAF team in my post didn't know anything about C.MK1 probes. On the engineering front, non of the APs Vol1, Maint manual and Vol 3, catalogue of parts (IPC)had any probe details, No Sect/Ref So you couldn't demand any spares. No servicing plan.



It wasn't the 1st time something was overlooked, If you remember "control cable gate" where ALL the flying control cables were changed because they'd been left out of the servicing procedures, one shredded down route and the more they looked the more they found. All had to be changed when the our fleet was grounded, late 1983 or early 84,where ever they were, Ascension etc. . It was a nightmare. Imagine LSS with every available wall, table and floor space bags of every control cable required for every line VC10. Base looked after the two they had in.

It was indeed...literally. Once the jets had been fixed, they launched at all times of day and night to catch up on the backlog of route task requirements. I'd just arrived at Brize and my room was 3 floors up at the front of the OM, with a grandstand view of the RW. The 'Sound of Freedom' was quite considerable!!

Then I remember ( I think the Eng O off one of the shifts ) deciding he would go out to Dulles to do an engine change.. Great plan, rushed through so they could go instead of the on coming shift...until they got there that is and realised they'd left the engine lifting beam back at Brize.... Personal call put through by said Eng O to the line to avoid going through ops etc frantically asking if we could secrete the lift beam in the front hold on the next Dulles flight, whilst they stalled with excuse after excuse :E

VC10617, base would not have a lot to do with them, they were fitted by LSS as and when required by tasking, but as said " it ruined the lines" so we would remove them post task.