FSTA delays may force the UK to prolong VC10 operations

jonesey2k · Post by **jonesey2k** » 08 Jan 2007, 15:22

Surely the only thing the ten would need would be a general good going over of the airframe, new flight deck and some new engines.
The KC135 would have been a better example.

Post by **Garry Russell** » 08 Jan 2007, 15:29

It would be a major redesign to fit new engines and with a new cockpit would would be talking in cost about as much as building a new aircraft to extend a small number of old aircraft. :think:

Shame but the old girl will slowly fade away.....over a longer period now.

Garry

AndyG · Post by **AndyG** » 08 Jan 2007, 16:01

Garry Russell wrote:It would be a major redesign to fit new engines and with a new cockpit would would be talking in cost about as much as building a new aircraft to extend a small number of old aircraft. :think:

Shame but the old girl will slowly fade away.....over a longer period now.

Garry

Engines wouldn't be a problem Garry, they can just slap a couple of Trents on, BAe should already have the drawings of how it is done in their archives.

http://www.vc10.net/History/Individual/XR809.html

AndyG

VEGAS · Post by **VEGAS** » 08 Jan 2007, 16:24

Im glad the VC-10 aint being abused and butchered with Trents anyway. It just would'nt be right. The engines are one of her main assets and a real beauty of the thing, leave the plastic surgery to the yanks..

AndyG · Post by **AndyG** » 08 Jan 2007, 16:51

Guys, it was a little attempt at humour!!!

Any road up, these re-engine plans rarely come to much; how many times have we heard about new engines for the B-52? :think:

You'll know it's serious though Tonks, when they start asking around for anybody who can remember how to fly Victors and Valiants!

AndyG

Hot_Charlie · Post by **Hot_Charlie** » 08 Jan 2007, 16:52

At least on the plus side someone is feeling optimistic about the C17, with apparently serials ZZ176-180 now allocated to it (the existing four, and the fifth on order being ZZ171-175).

I'll believe it when I see it.

Paul K · Post by **Paul K** » 08 Jan 2007, 16:56

Would it not be better to lease some KC-135s from the Colonies until a permanent replacement for the VC-10 is ready ? With the E-3 AWACS in RAF service, its not as if we don't have the personnel or infrastructure to operate that airframe type ( if thats the correct expression ).

AndyG · Post by **AndyG** » 08 Jan 2007, 16:56

Hot_Charlie wrote:At least on the plus side someone is feeling optimistic about the C17, with apparently serials ZZ176-180 now allocated to it (the existing four, and the fifth on order being ZZ171-175).

I'll believe it when I see it.

When the lease ends, and the RAF purchase them outright, will they be able to take that stupid 'extra' serial off the nose area?

AndyG

jonesey2k · Post by **jonesey2k** » 08 Jan 2007, 17:13

Is there any engines out there similar in dimensions and power to the conway today?

Hot_Charlie · Post by **Hot_Charlie** » 08 Jan 2007, 17:17

AndyG wrote:
Hot_Charlie wrote:At least on the plus side someone is feeling optimistic about the C17, with apparently serials ZZ176-180 now allocated to it (the existing four, and the fifth on order being ZZ171-175).

I'll believe it when I see it.
When the lease ends, and the RAF purchase them outright, will they be able to take that stupid 'extra' serial off the nose area?

AndyG

I dunno. Maybe it's there because of length. It's a long way to walk to see the one on the back if you can't remember where you parked it.