BEagle, the lack of a hangar for Voyager must be a faff, especially when battling hold-over times vs state vs environmental restrictions.

The wind vs hangar conundrum is slightly different. Predominately the Herc tankers were left outside but tied down. With the VC10 you had to balance the conditions vs the wind-speed limits on the hangar doors. There have been occasions where this has worked against the aircraft in the hangar. I know of 2 occasions where a dispensation has been given to ignore the door limits during Q leading to the doors failing partway open, trapping the aircraft inside for quite some time.

With my personal opinion mode switched on - Voyager is the wrong aircraft type to hold QRA AAR down south. The role should have transferred to the C130J with the A400M next. I guess politics, industry and PFI restrictions are more important than capability.

Indeed, a C-130J tanker would have been more suitable for QRA - but an A400M would be even better. If the strangulation of PFI allowed that option....

Given the flying rate in the sun-soaked South Atlantic, it can't do an airliner such as the A330 to be kept sitting out in the open subject to the vagaries of wind and rain. I wouldn't be surprised if corrosion sets in - the weather rots even Land Rovers down there, so I hate to think what it does to high-tech aircraft such as the Voyager.

But the RAF knew about the hangar limitations years ago - so presumably 'own' the risk?

The Spanish name for the archipelago, Islas Malvinas, derives from the French Îles Malouines—the name given the islands by French explorer Louis-Antoine de Bougainville in 1764.[10] Bougainville, who founded the islands' first settlement, named the area after the port of Saint-Malo (the point of departure for his ships and colonists).[11] The port, located in the Brittany region of western France, was in turn named after St. Malo (or Maclou), the Christian evangelist who founded the city.[12]

JENKINS wrote: Well, translated into aircrew-speak, it means "$hithole at the bottom of the world"...:uhoh:

The first questions I would have for any Argentinian firebrand banging on about ownership of the Islas would be "Have you any idea what an utterly wretched place it actually is - are you really, really sure you want it?"

Modern passenger carrying jets, for example the A330, are designed to fly 20 odd hours a day between servicing. They don't like being parked up for days at a time. OK you can hardly call the 'Queen of the Skies' modern but she was in her day designed for similar usage. We had more problems with her starting off from base because she wasn't flying enough. Get her down the route and keeping her moving there were relatively less unserviceabilities. You can't park a Voyager down there on QRA for days at a time, hangar or no hangar, and expect it to start the minute you turn the ignition key. Or is there something I don't know in my advancing years?

Even an empty FSTA cannot fly direct Brize to MPA using routine Pax div. TriStar with payload could though (with AAR at ASI!;)).

OAP

Fascinating. OAP.

Just remind me, when did the Tristar last do reciever AAR? Subsequent to that, when was the capability abandoned?

FSTA seems a funny term to use, at least the the F bit (and the T most of the time!)

Max Tristar payload to MPA was what? 25t?
Don't know what it is on a Voyager, but I'd hazard a guess at about 40t.