Tristars to be scrapped at Raf Scampton
 

I heard a little rumour today that once the Tristars are retired they will be flown to Raf Scampton for scrapping. Why would they fly them there when theres plenty of room at Bruntingthorpe? Seems rather strange.

I wonder if the owner of HHA has anything to do with it?

Surely there is a third world freight outfit that would love to have the things? OH.....sorry......that is who is getting rid of them!





Slinking off to the Bunker to await the Incoming Hostile Fire!

I can image the Brunty pikeys licking their lips at the thought of getting some RB211s..:E

Tristars, no.

GR4, yes. BAE are going to use Scampton up until 2019.

I can remember the first ex BA Tristar arriving at Farnborough to be assessed for its IR 'signature', staying for a couple of days for the boffins to look at it. Doing innumerable circuits with low 'go arounds' (overshoots!). Seems only a few years ago but must have been about 30.
I had one or two ATCO Fam flights in BA ones; most enjoyable as the jump seat I usually occupied (there was more than one) was on the left side next to a huge window giving a superb view. At the end of one trip to Larnaca, when we shut down at Heathrow, the chief steward entered the flight deck with a tray containing 4 glasses each consisting of a miniature of whisky which he had topped up with champagne!
Fond memories eah?

2 Tristars are currently at Cambridge awaiting scrapping. Expected to be scrapped by April 2014.

Another great asset going...going:oh:. And it was great value in true cost to capability.
I wait to see how the AirTanker contract compares over time. I suspect it will turn out even more expensive in real terms than the VC10 was latterly :ooh:.

OAP

Somewhat over-engineered by their military contractor manufacturer, they were known, in BA, as 'PFM'. (Pure F*****g Magic)
The autoland, which used an align and wing-down technique, was amazing; esp for Bas having come from a type which required wings strictly level at touchdown.

Indeed, the Autoland system was PFM. Nonetheless, during my time at Boscombe Down, we were tasked with assessing the Autoland by flying a series of Autolands at Bedford to assess the landing scatter (typical that the RAF had to assess something which already worked)! It was "spot on" each and every time... flawless (50 landings I recall).

AAR Trials were "interesting". I recall being behind the TriStar in a C130K to explore the limits of the in-contact AAR cone. The C130K fin strayed into the periphery of the centre engine exhaust of the TriStar and all hell let loose! All 16 wing O/H lights illuminated (on the C130K) and we took an instant diversion to LYE (after swiftly isolating the engine bleeds). When the LEs were removed almost ALL of the bleed couplings had pulled apart!!

That was 25 years ago... Happy Days.

TCF

Sad to read that about the Tri-Stars, I was part of the flight test team on 950. My introduction into flight test, Last one was the A330 for the Aussies.

Prime reason for greater sales of civil DC-10, over L.1011, was structure weight. L10 Hull had belly bilge, 2 skins. Good when you are sitting there under max. pressurisation, not so hot as dead weight. Gunk from galleys/lavs slurched around and caused corrosion. DoD choice of K-10 was presented as superior fuel transfer capacity, but was actually US Protectionism v.limey power.

I've always read that the L1011s lack of sales was down to delays with the RB211, and that no long range variant was offered at launch? Douglas did offer a longer range product with the DC-10-30, and the rest is history as they say...

-Dazza

Is Cosford or Duxford getting one? Undersung for the last 30 years, really.

S41

There was also the fact that the DC-10 longer range variants had a centre gear reducing the pavement loading (the L1011-500 pavement loads can be quite prohibitive) and that the design was much more technologically simple reducing costs.

We parked up beside a Tristar, a dirty white non-liveried beast in Tashkent back in '05... what a wondrerous site, even the Captain gaped and we both toodled over for a closer look... beautiful, the first time we had ever seen one for real (and the last...).

I'd rate it as the most beautiful Airliner built, 411A had taste despite some of his somewhat forthright views.

From a maintenance engineers point of view it was a nightmare to keep serviceable - the 747 was easy compared to it. Nothing was easy on the Tristar!

gr4's at scampton
 

gr4's are not getting scrapped at scampton. its just a pool flight of aircraft to keep fleet hours down. it is also not going to be operated by BAE. the facility at Leeming will be continuing to drawdown the fleet. :ok:

tornadoken wrote...
Where does he/she find this rubbish? Yes, it had a bonded double skin which negated the need for stringers and frames (which actually saved weight). No, "gunk from galley/lavs" did not "slurch" around in a belly bilge... utter rubbish! The reason why the DC10 was a much greater success was its ability to carry more fuel; therefore built for long range from the outset.

TCF

The early reliability of the RB211's created the Lockheed "Bi-star" as it was known at Cathay...

The engine issue really hurt the sales as it was only configured for the RR RB211 unlike the DC-10 which offered GE and PW options..

The other reason that the USAF chose the KC-10 over the L1011 was the configuration around the centre engines for the boom.

The L1011 however was wonderful to fly in....:D