Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UK Is Considering A340 As Replacement For VC-10!  
User currently offlineHkg_clk From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 999 posts, RR: 2
Posted (12 years 8 months 5 days ago) and read 2261 times:

This is in Airliner World Jan 02. Says that the UK is reviewing is Government/Royal Flight requirements for long range VIP transport.

It is apparently considering two categories of jets. One is the 340 as a replacement for the VC-10. Another is a jet in the Gulfstream/Global Express category.


See my homepage for a comprehensive guide to spotting and photography at HKG
23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineHkgspotter1 From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (12 years 8 months 5 days ago) and read 2145 times:

Would be very nice to see some A340 / Global Express aircraft flying for the UK Government. I'm sure they could get good prices for the A340 now.

User currently offlineArsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 19
Reply 2, posted (12 years 8 months 5 days ago) and read 2122 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I read in the newspaper about the gov posiibly getting 777


In Arsene we trust!!
User currently offlineRacko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4857 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (12 years 8 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2074 times:

i doubt that :

a) 2 engines vs 4 engines = safety
b) american vs european = support your local industry

Could you imagine the us president buying an A380 ?


User currently offlineFlying-Tiger From Germany, joined Aug 1999, 4161 posts, RR: 36
Reply 4, posted (12 years 8 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2067 times:

I suppose they will choose the A340-200 which is currently heavily promoted as a VIP-plane. The number of planes build is low, only few airlines operate it and most would like to dispose of them. The German Air Force has same thought, one as a VIP-plane, one as a transporter to support UN-missions. However nothing is fixed at the moment.

Regards
Flying-Tiger
http://fly.to/rorders



Flown: A319/320/321,A332/3,A380,AT4,AT7,B732/3/4/5/7/8,B742/4,B762/763,B772,CR2,CR7,ER4,E70,E75,F50/70,M11,L15,S20
User currently offlineSolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 852 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (12 years 8 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2012 times:

I´ve read they are about to buy A342, the new ABJ for
VIP´s......



Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineParra From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (12 years 8 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1978 times:

Why not an A340 plus 2 A318's rather than going for a Gulfstream.

User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (12 years 8 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1965 times:

How about a 777-200ER with RR engines and two Gulfstreams?


"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineParra From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (12 years 8 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1945 times:

On second thoughts why can't the Queen and Mr Blair etc travel on Ryanair or easyjet? I know the PM has travelled on Ryanair before on private trips.

User currently offlineKonstantinos From Greece, joined Jun 2001, 389 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (12 years 8 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1881 times:

With the Monarchy in the UK still going, they might even make a new SST Concorde for HM the Queen.

User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13208 posts, RR: 77
Reply 10, posted (12 years 8 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1864 times:

Rubbish Konstantinos, last Concorde built made it's first flight in April 1979. Production tooling was destroyed, in any case the Queen has only used Concorde a few times in 25 years, most recently in 1991.
I doubt that a VIP aircraft will be brought, apart from the cost look at the use of the dedicated VIP RAF aircraft of 32 sqn, with BAe-146 and BAe-125 aircraft;
Royal Flights - 8%
Goverment - 16%
Military - 56%
The rest being training.

So Chartered BA aircraft most of the time, when security demands the RAF. For long-haul that means a VC-10, less often a Tristar. For the future what ever aircraft replaces them, ex-BA B767s or new A330s are in the running for that requirement, but mostly these will be for refuelling and military transport.


User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (12 years 8 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1833 times:

What about them considering the RR Trent 500 powered A340-500/600?

User currently offlineRacko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4857 posts, RR: 20
Reply 12, posted (12 years 8 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1824 times:

Buying new aircraft is too expensive, i think.

User currently offlineFlight152 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 3397 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (12 years 8 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1814 times:

Racko

i doubt that :

a) 2 engines vs 4 engines = safety


That is incorrect Racko, 4 engines is NOT more safe than a twinjet. In fact, the likleyhood of something going wrong on a quadjet is doubled. Any twinjet can safely fly or finish a takeoff if nessessary and the chances of both engines having a problem is mathematically insignificant.


User currently offlineSlawko From Canada, joined May 1999, 3799 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (12 years 8 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1804 times:

The Global Express would be the better choice seeing as how it is already being used by the UK for maritime patrol and other military applications. GO GLOBAL!!!!


"Clive Beddoe says he favours competition, but his actions do not support that idea." Robert Milton - CEO Air Canada
User currently offlineRacko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4857 posts, RR: 20
Reply 15, posted (12 years 8 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1770 times:

Flight152, i know that twins are safe.
But anyway, VVIPs prefer quads - many arabian governments use A340s instead of 777s or A330s, AF1 is a 742 etc.



User currently offlineWingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2263 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (12 years 8 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1764 times:

On Racko's second point, and assuming that the 345/6 are not in the running, I wonder what's more valuable to British Industry, BAe's wings on the 342 or the Trents, spares and maintenance on the 777's propulsion system? Over the life of the aircraft, my guess is that the 777 option ultimately brings more money to the home team than the 342.

User currently offlineStrickerje From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 723 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (12 years 8 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1760 times:

a) 2 engines vs 4 engines = safety

Please not this argument again...


User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (12 years 8 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1736 times:

Is the ACJ even under consideration?

User currently offlineFlight152 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 3397 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (12 years 8 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1727 times:

Racko

VIP's don't perfer quads, why do you think 99% of all Busness jets are twins? Bill Gates is a pretty important person for just flying in a twin (757).


Air Force one is a quad, yes, but there was no other large twin around to even consider.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13208 posts, RR: 77
Reply 20, posted (12 years 8 months 21 hours ago) and read 1690 times:

I money were no object, a military A340.
It would have the fuselage of an A345, but stronger floors for cargo, plus a side freight door.
But the wings/engines of an A346.
Also, one hose for refuelling large aircraft under the rear fuselage, and two hoses for fighters, one under each wing. In other words, the standard RAF tanker layout.
Above the cockpit, a probe for taking on fuel in-flight.
Then the usual military equipment like secure radios, additional nav. gear, ability to be flown while crew are wearing chemical/biological protection gear, missile warning/jamming equipment.
22 of these would be built, plus 2 without the refuelling gear for crew training/pure transport and squadron support plus of course VIP when required.
Sounds outlandish? In the mid 60's the RAF got new VC-10's with the standard fuselage, plus the wing and engines of the super variant.
They also, unlike the civil VC-10s, had an APU.
Also this would be by far the best solution for UK industry, and would give the RAF, (who remember are deployed all over the place, often in action), a highly capable tanker/transport with impressive range and lift, plus not too bad a runway requirement for a civil jet, though not a real short-field jet like the VC-10.
But money is an object, and it aint a perfect world.


User currently offlineRacko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4857 posts, RR: 20
Reply 21, posted (12 years 8 months 21 hours ago) and read 1680 times:

please, don't compare bill gates or the ceo of a company with a head of a state ...
I wrote "VVIP" and not "VIP",

Wingman, i think you are right, an a340 is not "more british" than a 777 - but the 777 is a Boeing while a A340 is an Airbus  Smile Sounds stupid, but if Tony Blair wants to continue his pro-european politics he'll buy an Airbus and not a 777.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13208 posts, RR: 77
Reply 22, posted (12 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1644 times:

The RAF is due to get some modified Global Express jets modified for the ASTOR programme, basically a land surveillance radar system.
Not bad for industry, R/R-BMW engines, main fuselage by Shorts.
One or two extra without the radar gear, could be justified, for
crew- training/support etc, with VIP as an extra.
But the usual Prime Ministrial/Royal Flight, has the entourage of security and press office people, so any biz-jet based solution may be too small.


User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (12 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1609 times:


Boeing Nut,

ACJ is offering an A342 and targeting specifically the head-of-state crowd.



Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Is The 773ER A Good Replacement For The 744? posted Sat Apr 5 2003 09:14:32 by B747-4U3
A Modified A310 As A Replacement For Itself? posted Sun Sep 15 2002 20:20:13 by Ammunition
A330-200 As A Replacement For A300-600R posted Fri Jan 18 2002 11:37:12 by Qatar
787 As A DC-10 Replacement For Worlds Airways posted Fri Jun 23 2006 20:59:40 by 747400sp
Aeroflot Now Is Considering 10 Second Hand A330s posted Mon Nov 27 2006 14:28:04 by SU
787 Seen As Ideal Replacement For MAS A330s posted Sun Nov 13 2005 01:00:29 by Squirrel83
Is There Any Good News For AS? posted Mon May 16 2005 06:46:54 by Blackhawk144
KMSP, A Vickers VC-10 And A A340-200 posted Sun Jul 11 2004 17:15:50 by JetJock
Replacement For AS Inter-Alaska Service? posted Mon Sep 15 2003 06:40:31 by Expressjetphx
Will Iberia Use Heathrow As Training For A340-600 posted Mon Jun 30 2003 11:38:31 by Funny