Rick Brown Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 Really? https://ukaviation.news/kepler-aerospace-aims-to-get-former-raf-vc10-flying-again/ Love to think it could happen, but..... Rick. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Brown Posted August 25, 2020 Author Share Posted August 25, 2020 Where do we start with this one? At least new types of engines. The Conway's were thirsty, noisy beasts and I'm pretty sure the last company (Croydon based Co out of Imperial way, ex customer of mine) to work on them went under years ago(?). Jeez, such a complex task just to keep one aircraft flying. But we can dream.... Rick. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Britman Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 IF this were to happen, maybe they could take the Bruntingthorpe aircraft as well given that it is still live. Keith 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan B Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 It seems very fanciful, more like someone is speculating. I notice that there is another article stating the Bruntingthorpe Tristar deal has fallen through so maybe they would have been a better bet for the VC10 end customer's intended use? Duncan B 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truro Model Builder Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 I hate to approach these stories with a sceptical air but I think there's as much chance of me flying to the moon. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coors54 Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 VC10 to fly again? Oh how we laughed..... Nice thought. Dave 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAT69 Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 Even if they can get the airplane airworthy again, would the money made from refueling services provided be enough to offset the investment of money required to get the airplane restored to flying status? I'm no economist by any means but I suspect not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 (edited) There is no sign of them intending to make money offering commercial refuelling services. I imagine they want it for their own use in refuelling their fast-jet fleet. Their whole schtick seems to be using high performance ex-mil platforms to get past most of the atmosphere to launch smaller rocket payloads. I note that they have recently hired a number of people with fast-jet and spaceflight piloting experience. They are operating a number of ex-Italian air force F-104S ,single-seat and two-seat airframes for operations like this, which is one of their subsidiary operations: https://www.starfighters.net/research-platform They have others. Edited August 25, 2020 by Work In Progress 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan B Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 I still don't see why any Company would look at 50 year old airframes when there are so many newer commercial aircraft sitting in storage right across the planet at the moment. Duncan B 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 (edited) Presumably because those others aren't fitted out as tankers. There is a significant global shortage of tanker assets, and as I am sure you know the USAF is still operating numerous examples of the KC-135, many of which are more than 60 years old, and the youngest is 55. I gather they have contingency plans in place to run some of the fleet up to the age of 80 if necessary (and the KC-46 keeps being delayed and/or faulty) Edited August 25, 2020 by Work In Progress 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Riot Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 Hypothetically, how much would it cost to operate, maintain and pay crews, engineers, etc? I wish there was an oil sheikh who loved old RAF jets and just had a cold war air force of Lightnings, Hunters, Phantoms and suchlike as a plaything based at an old RAF airfield. Probably cheaper than how much they spend on buying football teams and players! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exdraken Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 2 hours ago, Work In Progress said: There is no sign of them intending to make money offering commercial refuelling services. I imagine they want it for their own use in refuelling their fast-jet fleet. Their whole schtick seems to be using high performance ex-mil platforms to get past most of the atmosphere to launch smaller rocket payloads. I note that they have recently hired a number of people with fast-jet and spaceflight piloting experience. They are operating a number of ex-Italian air force F-104S ,single-seat and two-seat airframes for operations like this, which is one of their subsidiary operations: https://www.starfighters.net/research-platform They have others. I do not think thst is the case here.... These Starfighters are not in-flight refueling capable, I 'd think those are ex Canadian... never heard of Italians still flying... stand to be corrected! As others have stated, certified tanker aircraft with remaining life in them are rare... Maybe it is worth to bring them back to life... after all you do not need to meet airforce / military mission survivability requirements... ss long as you only provide fuel for training missions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Poultney Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 Isnt the USAF retiring some older KC10s? Would have thought they'd be a better fit for an American company, but I'm not complaining if we get to see a VC10 fly again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 (edited) 39 minutes ago, exdraken said: . never heard of Italians still flying... stand to be corrected! Prepare to be corrected then, because at least one of them is ex Italian Air Force F-104S now registered as N993SF. They also own the following ex Italian air force TF-104G two-seaters: N990SF, ex MM54251; N991SF, ex AMI MM54258; and N992SF, ex AMI MM54261. It looks like they did own a CF-104D at one point, ex RNoAF 4632, but apparently sold it in 2019. Found another: they have a CF-104 registered as N104RN, ex RNoAF. 39 minutes ago, exdraken said: As others have stated Not others: that was me Edited August 25, 2020 by Work In Progress Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 (edited) 25 minutes ago, exdraken said: I do not think thst is the case here.... OK, I'm all ears. What do you think the case is, then? If you have a better explanation for why an organisation with multiple jet fighters has bought an air-to-air refuelling platform, I'm very willing to hear your reasoning. Incidentally they do have other aircraft as well. I looked around and foumd they have a company which operates a fleet for zero-G parabola training, that has several aircraft including a Gulfstream jet, I don;t know what the other types are. They may have other fighters too, which I have not spotted yet, in other parts of their little empire. They have a prominent photo of a Phantom on their corporate holding company website, with no explanation Edited August 25, 2020 by Work In Progress Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Lord Riot said: Hypothetically, how much would it cost to operate, maintain and pay crews, engineers, etc? I have not checked it personally but have seen it quoted that Vulcan XH558, with a lot of volunteer labour, was costing around £1.4m a year to run for around 70 flying hours in private hands, so probably not a million miles from that, suitably inflated for current prices, plus some additional labour costs. Edited August 25, 2020 by Work In Progress Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exdraken Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 55 minutes ago, Work In Progress said: Prepare to be corrected then, because at least one of them is ex Italian Air Force F-104S now registered as N993SF. They also own the following ex Italian air force TF-104G two-seaters: N990SF, ex MM54251; N991SF, ex AMI MM54258; and N992SF, ex AMI MM54261. I stand corrected thanks! more here: http://www.916-starfighter.de/F-104_Starfighters_2015.pdf, and nice photos here: https://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=82851 still, those Starfighters are not in-flight refueling capable, please correct me again! back to the VC-10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, exdraken said: those Starfighters are not in-flight refueling capable, please correct me again Why can't they use the same bolt-on probe as any F-104G? Or adapt one, or even engineer their own retractable probe if they want to? Bear in mind that this appears to be a hi-tech aerospace and technology group of companies, with a declared strategy of modifying surplus military aircraft to serve new purposes as part of a commercial spaceflight programme. Not some amateur preservation society hoping for a National Lottery grant. And they have abundant airframe space and payload capacity from discarding all the un-needed weaponry and outdated military avionics. Edited August 25, 2020 by Work In Progress Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truro Model Builder Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 That company was unable to get any of the ex-RAF Tristars into the air, which was a much more viable option than a VC10. There are plenty of Tristars sitting in boneyards and the spares would be readily available. Add to that the airframes are newer, more flexible and meet rather more noise restrictions than the VC10 ever did. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 Not entirely convinced a company operating a fleet of F-104s supersonically out of Cape Canaveral to launch spacecraft is going to be that constrained by noise factors, but yes, maybe they should have bought something else. Maybe they *have* bought something else and only want the tanker gear off this one. No idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan B Posted August 26, 2020 Share Posted August 26, 2020 14 hours ago, Work In Progress said: Presumably because those others aren't fitted out as tankers. There is a significant global shortage of tanker assets, and as I am sure you know the USAF is still operating numerous examples of the KC-135, many of which are more than 60 years old, and the youngest is 55. I gather they have contingency plans in place to run some of the fleet up to the age of 80 if necessary (and the KC-46 keeps being delayed and/or faulty) So which do you think would be cheaper to buy, airworthy spares for VC10's or A to A refuelling kits to fit into airframes with readily available spares and type qualified engineers that aren't in their 70's (the youngest of the ex Brize VC10 guys I know are very nearly 60!)? They may well intend to buy one of the VC10 tankers but is it to return the airframe to flight or to strip the gear out of it to fit into something newer? No, I am just not buying it, there is no way any Company intent on making a profit is looking at restoring these relics to the air to operate a reliable service to support their own operations or anyone else's. The USAF continues to spend millions of (Taxpayer's) $, which they don't need to make a profit on, keeping some of their KC's in the air but to compare operating those to restoring these VC10's is a nonsense and I'm sure you know that. If the VC10's had still been viable then the MoD would have kept them flying for a few more years rather than spend money on other assets (or did they miss something that you have insight into?). 9 hours ago, Truro Model Builder said: That company was unable to get any of the ex-RAF Tristars into the air, which was a much more viable option than a VC10. There are plenty of Tristars sitting in boneyards and the spares would be readily available. Add to that the airframes are newer, more flexible and meet rather more noise restrictions than the VC10 ever did. Exactly. Duncan B 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted August 26, 2020 Share Posted August 26, 2020 1 hour ago, Duncan B said: So which do you think would be cheaper to buy, airworthy spares for VC10's or A to A refuelling kits to fit into airframes with readily available spares and type qualified engineers that aren't in their 70's (the youngest of the ex Brize VC10 guys I know are very nearly 60!)? They may well intend to buy one of the VC10 tankers but is it to return the airframe to flight or to strip the gear out of it to fit into something newer? I have no information on that at all. I have no connection with Kepler or any of its subsidiaries, and nor am I making any claims that they will succeed. I don't know how deep their pockets are, nor do I know the sources of their investment funding, because it's a privately-held group and I haven't had time to ask around the VC world. I do know there's a lot of money sloshing around in general for investment in space launch capabilities, with several players having raised multiple billions of dollars each in external venture capital, or as internal ventures from established military-industrial players. Clearly any organisation which can tap that pool of capital effectively has the potential to act on a completely different scale of economic activity from the usual penny-ha'penny world of vintage aircraft preservation, or indeed the cut-throat returns of regular commercial aviation. I have no specific insight into what access Kepler has to that capital pool, but it's out there. All I did yesterday was a quick scan of the publicly available information surrounding the buyer and their activities, and having fleshed out the facts as much as I was able to yesterday, establish what seems to me to be the most plausible explanation that fits those facts. If anyone else has a superior theory for why they've bought the VC-10, and can stand such a theory up in the context of what is known about Kepler's operations, capabilities and future intentions, then I'm listening. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted August 26, 2020 Share Posted August 26, 2020 It is indeed a very stange purchase. It would make more sense from a technical and financial point of view to get a common commercial type and add a couple of modern pods rather than purchasing an old aircraft for which there's little spare parts and there are likely not that many people trained on. I can understand using the F-104, in the end more modern types of such performance are not really available, but there are plenty of liners that could be easily enough be converted into tanker. Still, guess that we'll only know when things start moving, at some point we'll see if they have managed to reuse the VC-10 as tankers or what. Just have to wait 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Des Posted August 26, 2020 Share Posted August 26, 2020 If there is profit to be made in the private sector providing AAR for the military I cannot imagine that it is a huge market with room for a lot of competition. Perhaps buying up a retired tanker with possibly no real intention of returning it to the air is intended to prevent other players from entering what must be a limited market and possibly at the same time depending on what condition it is in might offer a cheaper way to source AAR equipment for use in a more economical and regulation compliant modern airframe. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted August 26, 2020 Share Posted August 26, 2020 I have found absolutely no evidence whatsoever of Kepler being interesting in offering commercial AAR to military clients Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now