|
Ex RAF Tristars August 2018
Sorry for the poor quality, lousy weather coupled with the fact they they were quick grabs through the car window as stopping was frowned upon, but I knew some in here would like to see the old girls, the VC10 is ZA147 and plans are afoot to move her to display at St Athan I believe, anyway on with the photos. Bigger views on Flickr
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1847/...37d6e58b_c.jpg Tristar ZE705 by Tony Taylor, on Flickr https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1954/...93e68fab_c.jpg Tristar ZD951 by Tony Taylor, on Flickr https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1942/...34da242f_c.jpg Tristar ZD948 by Tony Taylor, on Flickr https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1895/...3deb8535_c.jpg Tristar N705CS by Tony Taylor, on Flickr https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1847/...47a26f22_c.jpg Tristar N405CS by Tony Taylor, on Flickr https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1935/...b9fae62b_c.jpg Tristar 948 by Tony Taylor, on Flickr |
oooh, they aren't half big buggers!
|
Who nicked all the AAR probes?
|
Originally Posted by 1.3VStall
(Post 10256240)
Who nicked all the AAR probes?
ZD949 Pinky ZD950 ZD951 Perky ZD953 1991 Aug - policy raised to remove fuel probes to save fuel and reduce noise http://www.216squadronassociation.or...rom%20F540.pdf |
Thank you for posting those Nutty! The TriStars were often poorly managed and undersold by the hierarchy of RAF. A great pity that they will probably end up scrapped at Brunters? The exploits and achievements of those aircraft with 216 Sqn run to far greater depths than the simple resume quoted from the association link. I do hope that some way of saving one of the tankers is found. At the very least, a full nose section back to the front doors should be professionally prepared as an indoor exhibit for Cosford. :ok:
OAP |
Ex-Adj of 216 regrets the passing of the Comet 4. ;)
(Her, not me) |
Originally Posted by MPN11
(Post 10256353)
Ex-Adj of 216 regrets the passing of the Comet 4. ;)
(Her, not me) OAP |
The first one taken over from BA by the RAF (we were told it had very few airframe hours logged being ex 'BOAC' fleet rather than ex 'BEA' fleet) came into Farnborough from Heathrow, still in BA colours and night stopped. Next day the crew enjoyed themselves doing low passes along the runway to enable the Farnborough 'boffins' to map its IR signature, then it departed to Brize.
|
Chevy, The RAF TriStars were all L1011-500, the hot-ship with RB211-524, reduced length, longer wings and increased MTOW to 233T. The ex BA RAF ones were all fairly new and, were modified as the tankers, with MTOW 249T.
OAP |
One was scrapped a year or so back - any idea why that one got the chop when these were saved pending a sale?
Or were more scrapped out of the fleet of 9? |
What happened to the proposed sale of these aircraft to an American company which was to operate them as tankers. ? Not sure we ever had them as BOAC aircraft, thought they were all introduced to “ BEA” when BEA. Paid Lockheed to remove , at great cost, the INS systems which were not required for short haul ops. Later they were used for long haul, when , guess what, INS was needed ! Or so the story went ! DG. |
I vaguely recall BA long haul or BOAC 'inherited' them through a takeover but didn't really want them as they were rather committed to the 747 so they got rid of them without using them too much.
|
Originally Posted by chevvron
(Post 10256466)
I vaguely recall BA long haul or BOAC 'inherited' them through a takeover but didn't really want them as they were rather committed to the 747 so they got rid of them without using them too much.
|
[QUOTE=RetiredBA/BY;10256442]
What happened to the proposed sale of these aircraft to an American company which was to operate them as tankers. ? Tempus Applied Solutions completed acquisition of the following 6 aircraft earlier in the year - announced March 12, 2018: https://www.tempus-as.com/media-press-release-L1011.php RAF KC1 - Lockheed MSN 1157 - RAF ZD948 - FAA N304CS RAF KC1 - Lockheed MSN 1164 - RAF ZD950 - FAA N405CS RAF KC1 - Lockheed MSN 1165 - RAF ZD951 - FAA N309CS RAF KC1 - Lockheed MSN 1174 - RAF ZD953 - FAA N705CS RAF C2 - Lockheed MSN 1186 - RAF ZE704 - FAA N507CS RAF C2 - Lockheed MSN 1188 - RAF ZE705 - FAA N703CS Tempus already has a number of DoD contracts for "special mission" aircraft: https://www.tempus-as.com/fly-bespoke-services.php They currently plan to use 3 of the Tristars as tanker / transports and 3 as spares sources. The company submitted a bid for a DoD contract in late-June 2018 and if successful it should be announced by end-September. I don't know what the nature of the bid was - I presume it was to provide additional services over and above those provided by Omega which only has one DC10-40 and 2 x B707-320 in its fleet. |
Originally Posted by MPN11
(Post 10256141)
oooh, they aren't half big buggers!
They looked massive from the Runway Caravan at Akrotiri... Like a block of flats landing next to you! :eek: :D |
Originally Posted by chevvron
(Post 10256466)
I vaguely recall BA long haul or BOAC 'inherited' them through a takeover but didn't really want them as they were rather committed to the 747 so they got rid of them without using them too much.
OAP |
As Onceapilot says, the -500s were all 'bought' as BA aircraft (Older -1 were BEA orders) for South American routes. There are various stories as to why they were sold, the most recurring one that it was a balance sheet excercise prior to privatising BA. The deal for the 6 aircraft was about £50m (The Pan-am a/c were ~£20m each). BA then leased a couple of -500s a year or so later.
Originally Posted by rog747
(Post 10256415)
One was scrapped a year or so back - any idea why that one got the chop when these were saved pending a sale?
Or were more scrapped out of the fleet of 9? |
Originally Posted by Davef68
(Post 10256902)
As Onceapilot says, the -500s were all 'bought' as BA aircraft (Older -1 were BEA orders) for South American routes. There are various stories as to why they were sold, the most recurring one that it was a balance sheet excercise prior to privatising BA. The deal for the 6 aircraft was about £50m (The Pan-am a/c were ~£20m each). BA then leased a couple of -500s a year or so later.
ZD949 (The mid life update a/c with the glass cockpit) was scrapped at Marshalls in 2014, as was C2A ZE709. ZD952 was scrapped at Kemble, aslo in 2014 C2A was ZE706. :) OAP |
A rumour in the early 1980s was that ba binned its TriStars due to some bean counter noting that the engine fuel flow rate was greater than for the 747. Hence the TriStar went and the 747 stayed in service.
Only after the decision had been made did someone point out that the TriStar had one less engine than the 747, so the total burn rate was actually less....:uhoh: |
Originally Posted by Onceapilot
(Post 10256920)
C2A was ZE706. :)
OAP |
Beagle you are entirely correct regarding the miscounted engines by the BA bean counters, I was the single POC for the initial operation using BA crews and this story was related to me by a number of BA personnel. Also, very soon after selling these aircraft to the RAF BA were leasing back Tristars from Air Lanka to fill a gap on the South America routes. Of interest the original BA 500's were 'returned' to Lockheed to be uprated as they failed to meet the advertised payload/range which I believe was based on a London - Vancouver direct sector and as a result were at the time significantly more capable than any other L1011s.
|
Originally Posted by bspatz
(Post 10258349)
Beagle you are entirely correct regarding the miscounted engines by the BA bean counters, I was the single POC for the initial operation using BA crews and this story was related to me by a number of BA personnel. Also, very soon after selling these aircraft to the RAF BA were leasing back Tristars from Air Lanka to fill a gap on the South America routes. Of interest the original BA 500's were 'returned' to Lockheed to be uprated as they failed to meet the advertised payload/range which I believe was based on a London - Vancouver direct sector and as a result were at the time significantly more capable than any other L1011s.
|
Originally Posted by BEagle
(Post 10257718)
A rumour in the early 1980s was that ba binned its TriStars due to some bean counter noting that the engine fuel flow rate was greater than for the 747. Hence the TriStar went and the 747 stayed in service.
Only after the decision had been made did someone point out that the TriStar had one less engine than the 747, so the total burn rate was actually less....:uhoh: Jack |
Ahh bean counters.....watched in awe when the bean counters at a certain UK Company had worked out it was cheaper to get contractors in to do a Major on an aircraft belonging to the Company that surprisingly shut its doors soon after.
What is wrong with that you ask, well.... the Company had a full staff of its own engineers and only the one plane in which the Companies engineers were forbidden to work on, because they were more expensive labour wise than contractors, so the Company was now employing two engineering staff, the cheaper contractors doing the job and their own staff standing around all day being paid to do nothing. Nothing bean counter wise surprises me these days. |
Another beancounter story.
Re-clad the 4 hangars at RAF Bovingdon in about 1967. Beancounters looked at the cost and said 'this airfield is too expensive'. Closed Bovingdon in 1968. |
Originally Posted by DODGYOLDFART
(Post 10256551)
I think some may have been acquired by BA when they bought British Caledonian.
ZD948 ZD950 ZD951 ZD952 I believe these were all built around 1979/1980 and were direct from Lockheed to BA and then to the RAF. No other operators were involved. https://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/...istory-l10.htm |
Originally Posted by bbrown1664
(Post 10265051)
B-Cal ran the superior DC10 whilst BA had the Tri-buckets. BA intended to get rid of the DC10 but soon realised they were too good and kept them a bit longer.
ZD948 ZD950 ZD951 ZD952 I believe these were all built around 1979/1980 and were direct from Lockheed to BA and then to the RAF. No other operators were involved. https://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/...istory-l10.htm |
I was working for BA at the time.Only worked on the Tristar a very short while & never on the DC10,but do remember the DC10 being the airframe of preference. Can’t recall why. |
Originally Posted by woptb
(Post 10267173)
I was working for BA at the time.Only worked on the Tristar a very short while & never on the DC10,but do remember the DC10 being the airframe of preference. Can’t recall why.
|
Originally Posted by NutLoose
(Post 10259377)
Ahh bean counters.....watched in awe when the bean counters at a certain UK Company had worked out it was cheaper to get contractors in to do a Major on an aircraft belonging to the Company that surprisingly shut its doors soon after.
What is wrong with that you ask, well.... the Company had a full staff of its own engineers and only the one plane in which the Companies engineers were forbidden to work on, because they were more expensive labour wise than contractors, so the Company was now employing two engineering staff, the cheaper contractors doing the job and their own staff standing around all day being paid to do nothing. Nothing bean counter wise surprises me these days. |
Originally Posted by bbrown1664
(Post 10269567)
From an engineering perspective, the DC10 was cleaner (less leaks etc) and tended to have less faults. No idea about from a flight deck perspective though.
Much greater range, LGW to LAX nonstop, Tristar had to tech stop Bangor to get to Carribean. DC-10 was able to carry alternate fuel for Bermuda opposed to Tristar requiring island hold. Both flight decks quite large and comfortable with large windows for excellent viewing and galley just aft of flight deck door for easy access. |
|
Originally Posted by ORAC
(Post 10286861)
OAP |
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....b6b095d4c3.jpg
Forgive the slight thread hijack please.. I've posted this before but no takers then so I'm trying again now.. If any ex-Tristar crew or engineers would like a small die-cast model of ZD953, I've one here that I'll happily send to someone who'd apprciate it. In return for a fair/decent donation to SSAFA or RAFA.. It's a Gemini Jets 1:500, ref: GJ034RAF, one of a limited edition of 2,000 and has never been out of the box (ends are still sealed ), dating from the mid 1990s when I acquired it. The clear plastic top cover has discoloured to yellow (the Gemini models tend to do that) but otherwise is immaculate. The pic above is a representative example, out of the box. And I'm trying to post two more of this particular one. If anyone's interested then please shout, Regards CS |
Enquiry re the Tristar model
@cargosales I'd be very interested in taking up your kind offer. I was detached from 20(R) Sqn to 216 San for Gulf 1 in 1990-91 and was appointed as what was termed an "SVC" flying in and out of the Middle East twice per week ostensibly to evacuate casualties. The only casualty I recall was a chap with a leg in plaster having broken it while playing football. Nobody was ever able to tell me what "SVC" meant - I assume the VC was voluntary crew - the S might have been 'supplementary', certainly unlikely to be 'special'. Although an avionics tech by trade much of my role involved BF's, AF's and turnarounds. The memorable bit being a check and top-up of the engine oil, the centre engine invariably spewing out a good cup-full of its hot contents down your arm and neck as I recall. After close of play around mid 1991 I returned to 20(R) Sqn having had quite an exciting 6 months or so with 216 which I look back upon with a fair degree of nostalgia. How may I contact you? Kind regards Rob Brown |
Originally Posted by robertwbrown
(Post 10346050)
@cargosales I'd be very interested in taking up your kind offer. I was detached from 20(R) Sqn to 216 San for Gulf 1 in 1990-91 and was appointed as what was termed an "SVC" flying in and out of the Middle East twice per week ostensibly to evacuate casualties. The only casualty I recall was a chap with a leg in plaster having broken it while playing football. Nobody was ever able to tell me what "SVC" meant - I assume the VC was voluntary crew - the S might have been 'supplementary', certainly unlikely to be 'special'. Although an avionics tech by trade much of my role involved BF's, AF's and turnarounds. The memorable bit being a check and top-up of the engine oil, the centre engine invariably spewing out a good cup-full of its hot contents down your arm and neck as I recall. After close of play around mid 1991 I returned to 20(R) Sqn having had quite an exciting 6 months or so with 216 which I look back upon with a fair degree of nostalgia. How may I contact you? Kind regards Rob Brown That'd be great if it goes to a good home where it will be appreciated. I'll send you a PM with some details and we'll take it from there. David |
Originally Posted by bbrown1664
(Post 10269567)
From an engineering perspective, the DC10 was cleaner (less leaks etc) and tended to have less faults. No idea about from a flight deck perspective though.
As a tanker, the DC10-30 would have been the better bet as it had the 'extra' centre gear which vastly improved its LCG, the Tristar was too heavy in terms of wheel loading for many airports and taxiways (esp in the AAR role). |
ATTN robertwbrown
Your inbox is full. SVC only meant Servicing Crew ie, not a qualified Ground Engineer, but someone along to either help the GE or a jolly. |
Originally Posted by robertwbrown
(Post 10346050)
@cargosales I'd be very interested in taking up your kind offer. I was detached from 20(R) Sqn to 216 San for Gulf 1 in 1990-91 and was appointed as what was termed an "SVC" flying in and out of the Middle East twice per week ostensibly to evacuate casualties. The only casualty I recall was a chap with a leg in plaster having broken it while playing football. Nobody was ever able to tell me what "SVC" meant - I assume the VC was voluntary crew - the S might have been 'supplementary', certainly unlikely to be 'special'. Although an avionics tech by trade much of my role involved BF's, AF's and turnarounds. The memorable bit being a check and top-up of the engine oil, the centre engine invariably spewing out a good cup-full of its hot contents down your arm and neck as I recall. After close of play around mid 1991 I returned to 20(R) Sqn having had quite an exciting 6 months or so with 216 which I look back upon with a fair degree of nostalgia. How may I contact you? Kind regards Rob Brown Hello Rob Brown, I don't feel that you set the appropriate tone here. The overall effort involved in supporting a major military offensive will always include many tasks that appear mundane or nugatory. However, the capability to rapidly reinforce, evacuate or support in different ways was essential for the effective action in GW1. There are many who use this site who might well have needed the support of the airlift capability and notwithstanding the relative success of the action, grievous losses were suffered by the coalition forces. Possibly, unseen to you, the capability you supported provided the strength in depth that would have also supported you if you had become a casualty of war. This type of support is almost mandatory in modern Western warfare planning. So, yes your efforts were worthwhile. OAP |
Originally Posted by Onceapilot
(Post 10352084)
Hello Rob Brown,
I don't feel that you set the appropriate tone here. The overall effort involved in supporting a major military offensive will always include many tasks that appear mundane or nugatory. However, the capability to rapidly reinforce, evacuate or support in different ways was essential for the effective action in GW1. There are many who use this site who might well have needed the support of the airlift capability and notwithstanding the relative success of the action, grievous losses were suffered by the coalition forces. Possibly, unseen to you, the capability you supported provided the strength in depth that would have also supported you if you had become a casualty of war. This type of support is almost mandatory in modern Western warfare planning. So, yes your efforts were worthwhile. OAP |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:31. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.