VC 10 to fly again as a tanker
 

I am surprised none have you picked up on it in the Brunty thread, but ZA150 has been sold with the ambition to get her back into service tanking, see link.

https://ukaviation.news/kepler-aeros...lid=IwAR2kQjEN

And if they couldn't any of those Tristars back in the air I can't see a cat in hell's chance for ZA150.

Good luck finding spares. 20 years ago they never came back from a trip fully serviceable and I doubt there is any stock sat on shelves waiting to be used.

Though I would like to see it again in the air.

Is it April 1st?

Good luck getting any support from RR for those Conway's.

Believe it when I see it.

Would BAe provide the necessary Design Authority support? Only at a high price, I reckon, but even so I can't see how it could be cost-effective unless they are going to get several going.

What's the state of the Tristars, have they been scrapped yet?

Why?
 

We have a perfectly good, modern fleet of Voyagers, currently under utilised?

Nothing to do with UK needs.
'We' haven't bought it.

The rumour going around is 'the deal' also includes the two others at Brunty as well as the sims in store at Brooklands museum.

Wouldn't there be cheaper KC-10 and KC-135 available for tanker needs, now that KC-46 and MRTT and A400M take over quite a bit of tanker work?

This has the Tristar Air LLC debacle written all over it.........NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

Hasn't the USAF just retired its first KC-10 to the boneyard? Would be better off getting that dusted down.

Just answered my own question - https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...for-retirement

KC-10 is a boom tanker, and I suspect the requirement is for hose n drogue, as someone has pointed out, this sounds like a continuation or variation of the continuing USN Omega/AirTanker debacle.

One of the amazing things about human beings is to hold on to the past - long after it has past.

I adored the VC-10, it was magnificent but it is gone.
Look at marks & Spencer - for years they have been trying to rescue the clothing side of the business. Yet, it was apparent more than 15 years ago that it was dead in the water. Still they spend money trying to make it work. The only part of M&S that works is the food hall.

Let this beautiful bird rest in our memories.

I'm quite fond of saying "never say never" but on this occasion I'm prepared to make an exception. This will NEVER happen.

They could use the Guppy, currently at Bournemouth to transport the sims and spare parts.

Nope, KC10 has a centreline drogue too - at least the ones I’ve got gas from did. The tanker of choice if you couldn’t have a Voyager!

Maybe Omega have already got first dibs on that recently retired one then, to add to the one they already have?

As a result of the KC-46A debacle - particularly the Rear Vision System that will take 3 > 5 years to fix - the procurement rate has been slowed down.

It is also unlikely in my opinion that the full quantity originally envisaged under what was the KC-X and KC-Y recapitalization programs will be proceeded with. The money is needed for other priorities (plenty of references out there).

US TRANSCOM / USAF AMC is currently looking at multiple options for contracting out a significant part of the overall requirement - any would take 5 to 7 years to materialize.

Airbus is a potential bidder with the A330-MRTT (the irony !) but the production line is spoken for over the next 4 years - including the NATO MRTT Fleet orders..

30% of the US TRANSCOM requirement is for "hose and drogue" - ideally from dual method tankers. Currently all the KC-10s are and some KC-135Rs are (such as those on 100 ARW at RAF Mildenhall and those used to refuel SOC assets).

The US TRANSCOM requirement is in addition to the small USN contract that Omega has for "probe and drogue" only.

Omega is not capable of meeting the latest increased USN requirement on its own - even with the additional assets it is getting eg ex-RNethAF KDC-10s (which are not KC-10s) and an additional old B707 it is converting.

Therefore, it looks like there may be a medium term market for any retired already converted tanker - however expensive it might be to get airworthy and operate - given the huge difference between what it would cost to get a Tristar or VC-10 back up and running compared to a new A330-MRTT at $300M a copy (which can't be produced anyway for another 4 years).

One of the options being looked at by US TRANSCOM does include transferring KC-135Rs to contractors to get the overhead costs and maintenance liability off the USAF books. Many of the KC-135Rs have had significant upgrades including glass cockpits fairly recently.

In any contract, contractors would get paid "by the minute" on AAR task so there are a lot of calculations that go into what is viable - with a big driving factor being the transferable fuel load of one type compared to another - which in turn affects the number of take-off / landing cycles - which in turn affects fatigue and maintenance cost considerations.

I was personally shocked to discover that the off-load capacity of a KC-46A is not a huge amount more than a KC-135R given the comparative sizes - only 10% more.

Report to US Congressional Committees here:

http://lignesdedefense.blogs.ouest-f...h%2Bsig%29.pdf

Yes. They should have bought the KC30!

4 x A310MRTT are due to be retired by the Luftwaffe as they convert to the A330MRTT.

No centreline hose, but 2 pilots + ARO and fitted with up-to-date systems.

Congratulations to whoever managed to sell ZA150 though! I really cannot imagine 'Juliet' flying again, nice though that would be.

RAFEng, any rumors on why 86-0036 was chosen as the first KC-10 to go? I always find it interesting how it is decided which go first based on fatigue life, which updates they have had and other factors: like the AF Concorde that was retired before the rest due to never being quite the same after a heavy landing and weighty repair; the B-1B's seemed to all be early blocks that had a few differences from later blocks, and the first C-5A retirements were the very early blocks plus 3 or 4 "problem children" that were know as maintenance pigs or with certain quirks.

Lots of factors would be considered - including those you mention. Once a decision has been made to start divesting the entire fleet first - in preference to KC-135Rs - which appears to be the case now due to the huge difference in maintenance costs per flying hour - it is likely to be as simple as which aircraft is next due a depot level maintenance or has major components coming up to lifex.

KC-10A 86-0036 had 33,000 flying hours on it when it was retired.

https://www.airforcemag.com/air-forc...kc-10-retires/

This isn't entirely accurate as the base ordering period for PMA226 in NAVAIR against the two relevant Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) is 855,000 flight minutes (14,250hrs) over the 5-years or 2,850hrs per year, so I'd suggest Omega can easily meet this demand from within current available resources. Although NAVAIR has an expectation that multiple contractors could receive an award through the Task Order Request (TOR) process (if they meet the stand-up requirements) it's quite possible that one awardee could fly all 2,850hrs which given the current market space I'd suggest this is the most likely outcome. I can't see NAVAIR falling for another Tempest/Tristar LLC debacle, or more recently the Strategic Airborne Operations JV LLC over the HEEWJ contract award.

:D My thoughts!

Hopefully they will take the two from Brunty as well to stop them being scrapped.

I suspect no one 'picked up on it' because it's clearly a story straight from la la land!

Looks like most of the posts here agree. Likelihood of BAES and RR resuming DA for the VC10, must be very, very close to zero.

But do you need a DA when you put the aircraft on a US experimental registration? Asking for a friend....

The roar of 4 mighty Conways, likely to be heard at max power with VC-10 in the air? As others have already mentioned, somewhat unlikely. However the thread has probably got some "grey matter" in a few heads recalling some interesting times.

I think you already know the answer to that one := :O folk here might be more interested in the verbiage from the PWS.

3.2.1.1 FAA Standard Airworthiness Certificates

For aircraft with FAA Standard Airworthiness Certificates, the Contractor shall maintain the aircraft IAW 14 CFR § 43. The Contractor shall secure FAA approval for each change to the configuration that is not defined in the aircraft’s Airworthiness Certificate before the change is used in support of this contract. For each such modification, the Contractor shall secure and provide the valid FAA-approved data within 90 days of task order award and as generated or requested (Exhibit A, CDRL A001). For Type Certificated aircraft, if this data references FAA regulations as the standard, the Contractor shall provide approved data as defined in the FAA Order 8300.16A for any major alteration or major repair. Major alterations to aircraft with Standard Airworthiness Certificates shall have been certified as airworthy and properly documented using FAA Form 337 signed in blocks six (6) (Conformity) and seven (7) (Return to Service) by persons authorized under 14 CFR § 43, and citing FAA Approval Data. The FAA may only certify modifications relating to powered systems for captive carriage if the operation of that system in not considered commercial purposes, per 49 United States Code (USC) § 40125.

3.2.1.2 FAA Special Airworthiness Certificates

For aircraft with FAA Special Airworthiness Certificates, the Contractor shall provide the Program Letter (PL) submitted to the FAA for application of the airworthiness certificate used in support of this contract or latest PL associated with the current airworthiness certificate. Under this certificate, the aircraft must be maintained in accordance with the operating limitations issued as part of that certificate. For each subsequent aircraft modification deviating from the FAA issued certificate, the contractor shall secure and provide an updated FAA airworthiness certification, and associated operating limitations (Exhibit A, CDRL A001), before the modification is used in support of this contract. Where the modification is a major change (as defined by 14 CFR § 43), the Contractor shall provide the PL and secure the FAA's determination regarding the need for new or amended certificates. All major alterations incorporated before contract award and during contract execution shall have sufficient data to determine that the equipment or provisions for the equipment meet the applicable civil, Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM), (MIL-STD), or some other recognized engineering substantiation data, for the type of aircraft concerned. Unless directed otherwise by the Government, the Contractor shall remove any major alteration incorporated before contract award that was not certified as airworthy by an appropriately rated FAA certified mechanic, aircraft manufacturer or repair station.

3.2.1.3 For aircraft with FAA Special Airworthiness Certificates, in addition to the FAA approved Aircraft Inspection/Maintenance Program, the contractor shall prepare Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (ICA) consistent with 14 CFR § 25 Subpart H – Electrical Wiring Interconnection Systems (EWIS) and provide IAW Exhibit A, CDRL A001. This includes any modifications done to the aircraft from the baseline that involves electrical wiring not currently covered in the AIP or the existing maintenance plan.

3.2.2 NAVAIR Airworthiness Supporting Data

3.2.2.1 The Contractor shall provide a single point-of-contact to manage the airworthiness certifications and to coordinate Contractor and Government certification efforts during the Stand-up phase of each aircraft type or during any significant aircraft modification requiring a new or updated USN IFC.

3.2.2.2 All aircraft under this contract require a USN issued IFC (NAVAIRINST 13034.1F). All aircraft must be able to perform IAW Table 3.1 and a complete substantiation data set shall be submitted IAW Exhibit A, CDRL A001. If additional substantiation data is required during the Government’s review the contractor shall promptly deliver the data. In the absence of FAA, OEM, or Military approved data, the contractor shall follow the recommended repair and alteration processes and procedures described in: AC 43-210A, Standardized Procedures for Obtaining Approval of Data Used in the Performance of Major Repairs and Major Alterations, the Major Repair and Alteration Data Approval Job Aid, or MIL-HDBK-516, the Department of Defense Handbook Airworthiness Certification Criteria. For initial airworthiness assessment in support of a USN IFC, all airworthiness data shall be provided to the Government after contract award in accordance with Exhibit A, CDRL A001. For subsequent aircraft modifications substantiation data shall be provided at least thirty (30) days prior to the required mission.

So that'll be a 'no' then?

Same issue arose on, for example, Hunters. Ultimately, in 2009 the CAA approved flight predicated on the RAF (not MoD) being Design Authority for what were now civilian owned and operated aircraft. It is unclear if the RAF or MoD knew this, but they found out soon after Shoreham. One of the issues the Coroner might be wrestling with.

So how did the Shack fly in the states beaing in mind waste of space probably wouldn't be the design auth... I cannot see why they cannot set themselves up as it.

As far as I recall Waste o Space tried to stop anyone flying a Shack post RAF retirement flights. The folks that bought the 2 UK Shacks bought all the original documentation etc etc so they have DA or something to that effect.

The same way many private owner/group flies imported warbirds in the USA, Experimental Category.

The same way a company like ATAC operates Hunters, Kfirs, L-39s and such on civil registrations. I think that the text above sort of says that you have to show the FAA that you've got an airworthy aircraft and will maintain it in accordance with the operating limitations and following an approved maintenance program. You will be limited in where you can operate, but that should not be too big a problem.

So the US owner and operator (if indeed it is) of this VC-10 is essentially its own DA, having acquired all the paperwork and satisfied the FAA that it has the skills and expertise to keep it airworthy as an "Experimental" a/c?

No, see Duck Dodgers earlier post #32 above.

The Shack in the USA wasn't being flown on contract work, hence it was flown like all the other private ex-mil stuff for airshows and private flying etc., in the Experimental Category.