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 !