probably has as much chance of flying again as the ones at Bruntingthorpe!

Is there any truth in the rumour that the RB 211 twisted the fuselage so much that the a/c was a write off ? Also that the contract with MOD did not specify that the a/c be returned in a serviceable condition ?

aa62:

I don't know about the twisted fuselage story. I was at Filton while RR were doing this flying, and certainly we heard that their contract with MoD did not include returning it to the original 4-engined fit on completion of the loan. Who were the smart people who wrote the contract, I wonder?

G-AXLR - originally XR 809

I seem to remember that there was a dispute over the engine winches and who would repair them, hence they were never fixed, they loaned electric? ones to RR who returned them U/S, hence forever and a day after we had to use the hand winches with their design flaw.

Given that 809 was 'returned' in 1975, another background factor is likely to have been that the reduction by half of the Air Transport Force was very much in play then, and it must have been inconceivable that MOD would have funded an airframe refurbishment in those circumstances.

Indeed, ICM, that was when they retired the Belfast. I was the last Flt Cdr Ops on 53, and I was on the last Belfast task on 12 Sep 1976. We all thought if they were gong to get rid of anything, it should have been the VC10 - after all, four good screws is better than a blow job any day....

That was before they thought of making VC10s tankers, of course - they were just airliners then.

airsound

I also flew on 12 Sep 76. Brize - Gutersloh - Brize in XR362 with Herbie Sutcliffe, Al Richey and Paddy Tranter.

Yes Nutty,
I believe a modified Jet Pipe was all that was required, to introduce cold air to the jet stream. That would have reduced noise levels and enabled landing at all EASAland airports...but possibly beyond MOD budgets at the time.

I had a quick look on google. Does anyone have any images of the flight deck and Engineer's panel for the flying test bed?

Just curious to see what they did when changing two engines for one.

Have a look at the link in post #76 and scroll down to the end of the page.

Jhieminga,

Do you know what was the exact cause of the fuselage distortion?

B1, see the earlier links....

.....”One hair-raising flight was the test bed's 44th flight on 7th august 1972. This was the first flight with a new pressure switch to prevent deployment of the thrust reverser on the RB211. With an expected flight time of five hours the aircraft took off laden with fuel. An initial warning light for the thrust reverser was investigated, but the crew decided to continue the flight as they didn't want to dump fuel this early in the flight.

After an initial performance test run at 250 knots at 20,000 feet, the aircraft was being prepared for a second run at 300 knots when the cold stream reverser of the RB211 slid back into the reverse position, sealing off the bypass duct. The effect of this was a reverse idle which produced an initial slight lurch on the aircraft. Shortly afterwards, a more violent lurch occurred, followed by aircraft buffet. There was adverse yaw and roll, and the throttles were closed, initiating a descent before recovering to wings level. Full power was set on the Conways but level flight could not be maintained. The aircraft continued to descend at 2,500 feet per minute as the RB211 was windmilling with the reverser extended.

Fuel jettison was initiated as the equation was quite clear to all on board - the aircraft would hit the ground in approximately twelve minutes unless the weight could be brought down to a value that the Conways could cope with. As the VC10 was aimed at the Bristol Channel, the crew was running through their sea survival kit and ditching drills. As the weight came down, the rate of descent improved, until, at 3000 feet, the aircraft weight was low enough to enable level flight on the thrust available. Fuel dumping was stopped at the coastline and the crew briefed for the approach and landing procedure for this new configuration. A go-around would not be possible with the drag of the RB211 and the available power on the Conways. A safe landing was carried out after a careful, wide circuit.“........

35 years ago, ZA150 arrived at Brize as the very first VC10K3:

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....2b524f2cc2.jpg
OC101 immediately decided that 'Juliet' would be his personal jet - and woe betide any planner who allocated him anything else if 150 was available!

ORAC,

Thank you, I have already read that, but it does not explain exactly how and where the fuselage was distorted

Aah, ZA150. Remember it well. Good pic with some familiar faces there.

I have never found an account that linked one to the other, but according to most accounts the distortion wasn't found until after the testbed's final flight and the reverser incident would appear to be the most likely suspect. There is a firsthand account of that flight here: https://www.vc10.net/Memories/Testflight.html
It could also have been the result of asymmetrical weight, drag or something else, but I haven't found an answer yet unfortunately.

As an engineer I would say it distorted the engine beams or rear fuselage structure where it is attached, the two beams run across the rear fuselage and are the main structural spars of the stub wings, they are also if I am correct fwd of the rear pressure bulkhead as you could see them through the access door behind the mirror in the rear bog. Not a place you want distortion as the fin is also nailed on in that area.

This might help, see

VC10 Engine Installation

quote from a post on the ZA150 farcebook page...

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....61dd374c5c.jpg
From 'The Aeroplane'.

SD:-
You may well say that SD but, despite all the professional input here corroborating your blanket condemnation of those who might differ, I still have a worrying suspicion that this a/c may yet wing its way stateside per the OP, airworthiness issues notwithstanding.

As to the FAA and the Max-8, I believe that abomination is about to be relaunched too. Money talks.

Call me a fool or just plain stupid. I'm quite sure you will.

All bar the few times it was in base, the VC10's have sat outside since the 60's, and in a maritime environment.

Absolutely correct! Airliners and cargo liners since the 1960’s have all been built to withstand “weather” because they are required to be in-use or available every day. They are all tough old birds, not like little fighter aircraft. Critical components may not have been exercised enough or documentation gaps will likely be the biggest source of delays in getting this flying. The biggest risk of corrosion is around the galleys and toilets,

absolutely correct Rigga, be difficult storing everything indoors. However, there’s a big difference between being sat, effectively abandoned, to being used and maintained regularly.

I remember the CMk4Ks that were stored at Abingdon for years looked pretty tatty and required a fair bit of work before they were flown to Filton for conversion.

That was when there was a DA and abundance of spares.

Yes, they changed the PFCU’s and Engines for airworthy items amongst other things.

But they were a different kettle of fish, the RAF stuffed them in big bags to protect them as recommended by an engineering officer, however the same engineer recognised this would turn them into giant greenhouses, so he also recommended that they had dehumidifiers installing, the RAF chose to skimp on that and the result was the spars sitting in their own swimming pools for years, the bags soon deteriorated in the wind and they were never maintained as far as I could see....

Then we had the fire that destroyed a lot of the RAF VC10 spares holding meaning we started to rob them, I took a booster pump housing out of one wing to replace a porous item on one of the C1’s and all though we taped over the resulting open hole, the wing was in effect compromised.

We were amazed at how in a relatively short time they had deteriorated especially as the none bagged gulf one back at Brize was still in good condition, the consensus amongst us All at the time was they would have faired better if simply parked and left.

The surviving 10’s have been maintained on a part time basis often by ex RAF VC10 engineers and following RAF procedures, they also have been ran and the systems functioned on high speed taxy runs. They have been well looked after under the care of the teams involved, an example of how well they get looked after was the inadvertent Victor tanker short flight and controlled landing some 10 years after its retirement.

Very kind of you to say so. ‘241 was maintained very well until access to Bruntingthorpe was limited earlier this year. She was taxied (with the essential system’s functioning - hyds, electrics, flying controls etc) at least twice per year and had anti det runs through the autumn and winter every couple of months. She also had anti corrosion treatment in various places.

Obviously, in no way did this make her airworthy, but it improved the base product. If she did “do a Victor” (she wouldn’t - SOPs to stop that) I think most would be confident of a safe return to earth - if she had sufficient fuel on board!

Full page spread in Aeroplane mag, the plan is to ferry ZA150 gear down to St Athan where GD services will prep it for delivery to Texas where it will support that companies satellite programme, it says the two at Brunty are also rumoured to be involved. They bought the sims too.

So despite it being generally agreed here that these aircraft are unairworthy (how could they be otherwise?) and flying them with the gear down won't alter that, neither the CAA nor the MAA are expected to intervene? Presumably the FAA will register them and provide a permit to fly to St Athan and thence stateside. Does that supersede our own Authorities say so for flight in our airspace? What a mockery it would make of the hype re the Victor's hop skip and jump.

I remember an incident from the Cmk1 conversion which involved the stick shaker going off when coming into land after the first aircraft’s test flight. Although everything was checked out okay, it still happened on the next flight and obviously the crew were not too happy.

The cause was traced to corrosion on relay contacts within the flap drum switch, which upset the values when the AOA was set up. The corrosion occurred during the 18 months it was sat on the ground being converted.

You can prepare an aircraft for flight iaw the manuals, but things can still catch you out because the manuals assume regular operation. A short hop within the UK will be hard enough. I’m not sure I would like to be on board during a trip across the pond.

A Special Flight Permit (SFP) issued by Designated Airworthiness Representatives (DAR’s) from the geographical Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) doesn't authorise an OCONUS flight UNLESS that nations airworthiness authority gives its permission for the flight to occur. So in this case the UK CAA will need to give approval for the flight to take place, this will be very interesting to follow over the coming weeks and months.

The CAA have granted that before that I can think of. The three ex-RAE Buccaneer's were allowed to make test flights in the UK, on the civil register in preparation for their ferry flights out of the UK and all the way down to South Africa, with the first one leaving in 1996, and the next one the following year in 1997. The final one didn't fly out of the UK until 2002.

Yep, Chug, But they will get them sufficiently airworthy for a single ferry flight to the satisfaction of the authorities otherwise it won’t happen.

The flights will be classified under a limited Permit To Fly and the CAA, on behalf of the local government in who’s airspace they will fly, will need to be notified and indeed give written permission for the flights to take place even if they are supported by an ‘acceptable’ foreign authority. The CAA can still say no if they wish to....but a convincing presentation, and money, may smooth the way.

Indeed, Rigga. As I said in a previous post, money talks! Presumably those who it overflies won't be invited to the presentation, whether it be convincing or otherwise.

Interesting - how will the crews be formed, no one can be current on type.

IG

Has ‘Beags’ been headhunted

I seem to remember the last ones ferried they threw lots of money in the crews direction.. it worked. And of course that could also open up employment opportunities states side, if they’d get the sims running then they could do a refresher..

Such negativity it seems. Where is the British spirit of adventure. I once flew my B-25 across the Pacific pre-GPS days. It was only 40 years old then. Subsequently my A-26 Invader from Canada to Australia single pilot with only a ginger beer for company!

TBM, not sure what you're suggesting here, that your B-25 or A-26 were knowingly unairworthy? That is the issue here, not the age of these airframes. Much older ones fly in both UK military and civil airfleets, including WWII vintage types such as yours. Even if these VC-10s were airworthy on arrival at Bruntingthorpe, they certainly aren't now, and never will be on any commercial basis. No way would the CAA contemplate restoring them to the UK register, why then should it allow flight in/from UK airspace on a foreign register?

Not sure the Pacific Ocean would try to sue you if you’d crashed into it.