Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Does The RAF Hang On To The VC-10?  
User currently offlineLHMARK From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 7255 posts, RR: 47
Posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 6149 times:

I'm just curious what these planes offer that keeps them flying for the RAF despite their age. I think they're utterly beautiful aircraft, so I'm glad they're still in the air, but I wonder why they haven't been replaced with newer types.

Of course, you could point to the KC-135s the USAF flies and ask the same question.


"Sympathy is something that shouldn't be bestowed on the Yankees. Apparently it angers them." - Bob Feller
16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11446 posts, RR: 76
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 6129 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

BEcause they are there, paid for, and have life left in them.

They will be replaced in the next several years, but in the interim they will continue to serve as the last all-British long range jet airliner in service.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 6107 times:

They are also very well cared for. The VC-10 is a great airplane.

User currently offlineJetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7405 posts, RR: 50
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 6099 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

With the RAF's retirement of the standard VC10's 2 years ago, there are plenty of spares to keep the Supers going for years to come. I wish we could see them over here more often.


Made from jets!
User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6021 times:

Quoting LHMARK (Thread starter):
I'm just curious what these planes offer that keeps them flying for the RAF despite their age. I think they're utterly beautiful aircraft, so I'm glad they're still in the air, but I wonder why they haven't been replaced with newer types.



Quoting DL021 (Reply 1):
BEcause they are there, paid for, and have life left in them

I'll add this to DL021s comment: RAF has them in QUANTITY, unlike the L1011s or in the USAF case the KC-10.


User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7413 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5934 times:

Actually, I suspect that some of these aircraft are geting decidedly old.

I think that there are twice as many KC10's as VC10's and Tristar's combined.


User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5916 times:

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 5):
I think that there are twice as many KC10's as VC10's and Tristar's combined

I was speaking relative to the assigned service. RAF does not have enough L1011s to replace the VC-10s. Same goes for USAF with the KC-10s and KC-135s


User currently offlineSaintsman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 2065 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 5883 times:

The RAF would get rid of them if they could. They are very expensive to keep in the air. The engines are not the most fuel efficient (Nice and powerful though) and the spares are getting harder and harder to get. I know that they have the retired aircraft to use but getting components serviced is very costly. They have to get things like seals specially made. One offs cost the earth.

If it was just transport aircraft they needed there would be no problem, but they need the AAR facility and they won't get the A330 replacement for a number of years. Until the contract is signed with AirTanker the aircraft will not be converted.

Of course it means that we will still be able to see it gracing the skies so its not all bad.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13165 posts, RR: 78
Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5815 times:

Around the time the last stored ex BA VC-10's got converted, around 15 years ago, a plan was mooted to do a comprehensive VC-10 upgrade, including 4 x V2500 engines.
It was soon dropped as it was then expected the VC-10's would retire by 1999.
Not only has that not happened, but since 2001, VC-10 tasking has increased.
For all that, better to wait for a really good replacement, in the A330, which can also replace L1011's.
L1011 in many ways is an inferior tanker, being only a centerline single point refueller.
It was procured as the need to maintain the link to the Falklands came up, at the same time that the nearly new BA L1011-500 fleet was up for sale.


User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12362 posts, RR: 47
Reply 9, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5805 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Spooky! I've seen a number of RAF VC-10s recently. One at CMB and a couple at BAH. Nice old bird.


Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineAerobalance From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 4681 posts, RR: 47
Reply 10, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5726 times:

Same reason as NWA holds on to their Dc-9's, they're paid for.


"Sing a song, play guitar, make it snappy..."
User currently offlineJc2354 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 570 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5640 times:

Does anyone know if the RAF will be bringing the VC-10 to Las Vegas this year for the Red Flag Ops?


If not now, then when?
User currently offlineLifelinerOne From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 1916 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5604 times:

Quoting Aerobalance (Reply 10):
Same reason as NWA holds on to their Dc-9's, they're paid for.

No, because they didn't had the money for years to replace them with better equipment. Now with the British economy going up for years, plans were made to modify the tankerfleet.

Cheers!



Only Those Who Sleep Don't Make Mistakes
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3475 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (7 years 5 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4931 times:

Why not hang on to such a great plane!  Wink

User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 14, posted (7 years 5 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4747 times:

Quoting 747400sp (Reply 13):
Why not hang on to such a great plane! Wink

t

They do it just to keep me (and a couple of others) happy and as a poke in the eye for those at BOAC that did not love them as they deserved!


User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4775 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4514 times:

Quoting Saintsman (Reply 7):
but they need the AAR facility and they won't get the A330 replacement for a number of years. Until the contract is signed with AirTanker the aircraft will not be converted.



Quoting LifelinerOne (Reply 12):
Now with the British economy going up for years, plans were made to modify the tankerfleet.

This blog says it's due to the FSTA delay.....

http://www.bizbuzzmedia.com/blogs/fl...ional/archive/2007/01/08/6246.aspx



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4511 times:

Simple. They're spiffy looking aircraft, they have good high-speed performance, and they have the biggest cockpit known to man (figuratively at least).

Andrea K


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why Does The RAF Hang On To The VC-10?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Does The A-7 Have That Weird Wing? posted Thu Jun 17 2004 01:20:11 by Mirrodie
The VC-10: posted Wed Jun 14 2006 05:55:39 by ZE701
How Much More Lift Does Shuttle Make On The 747? posted Sat Jul 16 2005 15:50:49 by Boeing nut
Why No Winglets On The Air Force One? posted Mon Aug 16 2004 09:03:19 by Squirrel83
Marks On The Eurofighter - Why? posted Tue Feb 10 2004 00:56:52 by Mr Spaceman
I Think I Am Almost Over Missing Out On The F-14. posted Fri Nov 10 2006 23:21:56 by 747400sp
The RAF Gulf War DVD posted Fri Oct 27 2006 20:53:23 by Wow400
Why So Long For A KC-135R To Get Into The Air? posted Sun Sep 10 2006 02:01:28 by 747400sp
Marine General On The V-22: How Do You Figure? posted Wed Jul 19 2006 21:53:03 by AirRyan
Are You In The RAF?Whats It Like Im Considering It posted Fri May 5 2006 22:38:43 by BradWray

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format