Stuff like this never suprises me, I watched a large maintenanceo base go down with the help of Accountants, at the time they had one large four engined prop driven aircraft in on contract maintenance..
Accountants had costed it and found labour wise it was cheaper to use Contractors to carry out the check so flooded the hangar with contractors to do the inspection, the fact it was the only aircraft in and all the companies staff had no other work to do seemed to go over their heads, so they ended up with the strange situation of a hangar full of qualified and competent company engineers standing around forbidden to work on the aircraft and a load of extra contractors brought in to do the work, so they were then paying twice plus wages , something lost on the Company Accountants.. Wasn't suprised when it later went down the tubes..

Really NutLoose, given the terms most contractors are employed on, you do surprise me.

S-D

Hmm! Never thought this was going to turn into a mini series but here goes:

Pete 268; It does seem a bit odd, doesn't it, that an original requirement for 4 aircraft should end up with the RAF having a fleet of 9. However, the 4 aircraft requirement was a post Op CORPORATE idea to support the South Atlantic theatre ( Alex W got it about right despite confusion over numbers). The idea was to have 4 aircraft, 2 based at Ascension, 2 at Brize - the ASI aircraft would rotate back to Brize via British Caledonian at Gatwick (for servicing and de-snagging) and be replaced at ASI by aircraft from Brize. This idea sort of collapsed when they got the wrong number of the wrong aircraft supported by the wrong contractor - still, anyone can make a mistake can't they?

Having got the Tristar, the Air Staff took a look at the longer term tanker needs (bear in mind this was still in the Cold War era) and many learned papers were circulated covering quantity of fuel and number of hoses required to meet all the perceived defence commitments. The upshot was that a further 3 Tristars were procured with the intention of these being converted to tankers (K Mk 2s) to supplement the K/KC Mk 1s and the VC10 K Mk2s and K Mk 3s and Victors as the future tanker fleet. Incidentally, an option considered early in this process was to get hold of some Tristar-1 (long bodied) aircraft. At the time, the arrangements for the construction of Mount Pleasant airfield were being finalised and these included sizing the hangar that would accommodate the Tristar (should the need arise). The -1 Tristar is some 13 odd feet longer than the -3 (-500) so the hangar was specified to be capable of accommodating the larger aircraft. As it happened, the Tristar -1 plan was not progressed, however, several years later, following the demise of the C130 C Mk 1(K) (really useful ship), it was decided to deploy the VC10 K Mk 3 to Mount Pleasant. The VC10 K Mk 3 is some 13 odd feet longer than the Tristar -3 and the hangar at Mount Pleasant was just the right size for it - pure serendipity!

The 3 Tristars procured from Pan Am were intended to be converted into tankers. There would have been some minor differences from the ex BA aircraft due to cargo door configs but nothing really substantial. It would have been some time before these aircraft could have been fed in for conversion so it was decided to operate 2 of them in their existing AT config on the South Atlantic airbridge (save the cost of chartering BA 747s and give RAF crews experience on the aircraft pending the intro of the tankers). One of the 3 ex Pan Am aircraft (706) was retained at Cambridge to become the design slave and prototype K Mk 2 and work commenced to this end. By this time, post CORPORATE euphoria was starting to wear off and the need for 9 tankers with the fuel capacity of the Tristar K/KC Mk 1 was being questioned. A scaled down version, the C Mk 2(K) (much as Alex W alluded to) was considered but then the whole thing descended into indecision and 706 began its 'long term corrosion trial' at Cambridge. The recovery of 706 was considered after 705 did its whoopsie but it would have taken as long to generate 706 as it would to repair 705 so that idea was a non-starter.

Overlaid on all this was the saga of the wing pods. Much has been written on this forum about the supposed inability of the Tristar to carry Mk 32 pods and a lot of it is ill-informed. The pods requirement was there from the start but the need to get a tanker into service to support the South Atlantic led to the installation of pods being deferred. At the start there were problems with putting pods on the Tristar -3. There were 2 possible sites on the wing on which the pods could be mounted - one of these (outboard) risked interference to stable drogue flight from the active outboard ailerons. The other (inboard) placed receiver aircraft too close to the horizontal stab of the Tristar. However, the development of a Mk 32 pod with a 79 ft long hose offered the possibility of the pod being positioned on the wing clear of the active ailerons and with the drogue flying well clear of the stab. However, at that time MoD(PE) was in thrall to the deity of competition - everything had to be competed whether or not that actually achieved anything. The arrangement prposed was for Marshalls to design the pod installation, carry out the first installation, flight test then prepare a bidders package to enable the installation of pods on the remaining aircraft to be competed. The installation was to be carried out concurrently with aircraft scheduled maintenance and the whole programme would have taken about 9 years. Pods slipped into the background! Whether or not the installation would have been successful must remain a matter for conjecture.

When, eventually, it was decided to bring 706 into service the airframe had been seriously mucked about to prepare it for life as a tanker. The changes were retained and the aircraft came into service as a C Mk 2A. Thus the RAF ended up with a fleet of 9 aircraft comprising 4 discrete marks - you couldn't make it up, could you?

Thank you for that amazing insight, AM. Well put and fascinating. MOD(PE) et al at their best, then.

Whereas it is too small for the A330 - a fact which was first flagged up some 12 years ago.....:rolleyes:

When some of the Marshall Design Team went flying in a VC10K, they were horrified at the small amount of hose whip which always occurs during winding/trailing. "It looks like we'll have to think again about the pylons", was their comment. And yet the programme had been underway for quite some time. If I recall correctly, it was only after questions were asked in parliament about the amount of money being spent on the pod programme, that the proposal was canned.....:uhoh:

Ive heard tales that 705 has the nick name Damien due to its constant bad luck and faults.I'm pretty sure it flew me out to afghan a few years ago.

AM,

Many thanks for that. Very enlightening and an exercise in 'good' procurement if ever there was!!

I particularly liked the bit about 706 having its 'long term corrosion trials' at Marshall's. I gather K1 949 has since taken on this mantle!

Thanks again.

Pete

Interesting - so the story peddled that they couldn't be converted to tankers because the different rear cargo door configuration meant they couldn't fit the HDU in was just that, a story?

L-1011 Design
 

In response to Jumbojet, I worked at Weybridge on 1-11s and at Burbank on the L-10 and met nobody there who worked on the 1-11. I can think of nothing about the 1-11 design that transitioned to the L-10. Yes, there were a few Brits working on the L-10 but they were from Astronaut House in Feltham and had worked on the C-5 wing and transferred to the L-10 wing in Burbank.
The biggest problem for the L-10 was the engine choice. Airlines had a 'choice' of one engine - the R-R RB211-22B. Putting out 42,000 lbs thrust on a standard day barely gave it US transcontinental range. The -524B engine improved things a bit with 48,000 lbs thrust but this version of engine was the most problematic of all the RB211 types. The -524B4 with the same thrust was a lot better and this engine was on the -500s. Probably the 'best' version of the L-10 was not developed by Lockheed but by Delta Airlines who converted all but one of their -200s into the hybrid -250s which combined the longer fuselage of the original -1 with the engines and fuel capacity of the -500.
Not sure why Direct Lift Control (DLC) did not catch on with others. It sure did provide a smooth descent with indescernable pitch changes. The system was remarkably reliable. The other 'first' on the L-10, Maneuvering Direct Lift Control (MDLC) using uplift on the outer aileron has caught on with a few others. If nothing else, the L-1011 was SAFE!

Ah, Mr BEagle, we have been expecting you!

How very innovative of someone to let the designers see the kit in action even if it was some way into the project. I'm sure they saw, as you say, some aspects of pod operation that provided cause for thought. I'm also fairly confident they would have found a solution - designers tend to be quite clever chaps (sometimes)( But for goodness' sake don't let them know I said so). You may well be right about Parliamentary questions leading to the project's being canned (or so they thought - it did end up like Dracula - one thought it was dead but it kept rising from the grave with monotonous regularity).

Now, sir, about your impatient outburst regarding this Mount Pleasant hangar business. Twelve years, is that all? These things can't be rushed you know. Far better to wait unit we have a Voyager stranded down there for 6 weeks or so for want of a hangar slot. Then we shall be able to collect actual costs and put together a proper business case for the extension of the existing plane shed thingy instead of trying to justify expenditure on the basis of common sense or similar abstractions. Really! Do get a grip!

XV277,

It's true that the Pan Am Tristars did not have the C3 cargo door like the ex-BA aircraft. Whereas the HDUs on the K and KC Mk 1 came out of the side of the pressure box, those on the proposed K Mk 2 would have come out the front on right-angled rails through the C2 door (according to sketches I saw many years ago). This would have required a reduction in the number of fuel tanks in the rear cargo bay and I suppose this would resulted in a loss of 6 or so tonnes from the overall fuel load - can't remember what fuel figures were intended for the K2 (if I ever knew!).