LHMark
Posts: 7048
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 2:18 am

Why Does The RAF Hang On To The VC-10?

Sat May 07, 2005 8:59 am

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
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Why Does The RAF Hang On To The VC-10?

Sat May 07, 2005 1:10 pm

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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11006
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Why Does The RAF Hang On To The VC-10?

Sat May 07, 2005 4:00 pm

They are also very well cared for. The VC-10 is a great airplane.
 
User avatar
jetjack74
Posts: 6585
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:35 am

RE: Why Does The RAF Hang On To The VC-10?

Sat May 07, 2005 4:51 pm

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!
 
SATL382G
Posts: 2679
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 12:02 am

RE: Why Does The RAF Hang On To The VC-10?

Sun May 08, 2005 4:06 am

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.
"There’s nothing quite as exhilarating as being shot at and missed" --Winston Churchill
 
bennett123
Posts: 7456
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Why Does The RAF Hang On To The VC-10?

Mon May 09, 2005 7:17 am

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.
 
SATL382G
Posts: 2679
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 12:02 am

RE: Why Does The RAF Hang On To The VC-10?

Mon May 09, 2005 12:17 pm

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
"There’s nothing quite as exhilarating as being shot at and missed" --Winston Churchill
 
saintsman
Posts: 2037
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 12:34 am

RE: Why Does The RAF Hang On To The VC-10?

Mon May 09, 2005 4:02 pm

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.
 
GDB
Posts: 12653
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Why Does The RAF Hang On To The VC-10?

Tue May 10, 2005 3:31 am

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 avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13466
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Why Does The RAF Hang On To The VC-10?

Tue May 10, 2005 4:03 am

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. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
aerobalance
Posts: 4309
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:35 am

RE: Why Does The RAF Hang On To The VC-10?

Wed May 11, 2005 1:46 pm

Same reason as NWA holds on to their Dc-9's, they're paid for.
"Sing a song, play guitar, make it snappy..."
 
jc2354
Posts: 601
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 9:56 am

RE: Why Does The RAF Hang On To The VC-10?

Sat May 14, 2005 1:01 am

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?
 
LifelinerOne
Posts: 1498
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 10:30 pm

RE: Why Does The RAF Hang On To The VC-10?

Sun May 15, 2005 4:38 am

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
 
747400sp
Posts: 3850
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

RE: Why Does The RAF Hang On To The VC-10?

Sun Feb 18, 2007 1:49 pm

Why not hang on to such a great plane!  Wink
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Why Does The RAF Hang On To The VC-10?

Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:17 pm

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!
 
Devilfish
Posts: 5255
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

RE: Why Does The RAF Hang On To The VC-10?

Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:37 am

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
 
Blackbird
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Why Does The RAF Hang On To The VC-10?

Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:42 am

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests