VC10 to fly again?

[Max Headroom]

Nice thought but....

 

Bedek do a sideline of converting ex civil 767’s to KC767’s. I’m guessing there are many dormant airliners out there which could be converted for cheaper?

 

Trevor

[Work In Progress]

Cheaper than what?

 

TBH I reckon if it were a cheap and easy task to take airliners and turn them into effective tankers fit for service with major first-world air forces then the KC-46 programme,which had the stunning advantage of starting with new-builds, would not be the self-evident fiasco that it is.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/03/31/the-air-forces-kc-46-tanker-has-another-serious-technical-deficiency-and-boeing-is-stuck-paying-for-it/

 

I further suspect that if it were cheap and easy to turn a technically mid-life but economically redundant airliner airframe into a viable first-world military tanker, there would not have needed to be a KC-46 programme at $246 million per unit at all.

 

But I don't think this acquisition has anything to do with providing tanking to air forces. There's no suggestion anywhere in Kepler's own marketing or visible commercial activity that it has any interest in doing that.

Edited August 26, 2020 by Work In Progress

[Max Headroom]

The US Navy does/did use Omega Air with KC707’s as a literal top up capacity. So there is a small demand in the US.

 

As regards the KC-46, don’t forget that Airbus won the original bid with the KC-45 Pegasus and Boeing kicked up one heckuva stink about it. I imagine that Boeing fought for the contract for a few reasons and in no particular order Boeing is American (although a lot of the Pegasus work would have been in, I think, Mobile in Alabama), converting exist in airliners doesn’t protect Boeing jobs, or their bottom line. 
 

I do wonder what the USAF are asking for that’s so difficult (don’t have the details), because Japan and Italy both bought new build KC-767’s from Boeing.

None of this of course answers the question as to what will happen to the VC-10!

 

Trevor

[Truro Model Builder]

Why would any commercial concern purchase a retired VC10 for any flying operation when there are hundreds of more modern airliners in storage around the world looking for owners? It makes no sense at all.

[Work In Progress]

4 minutes ago, Truro Model Builder said:

Why would any commercial concern purchase a retired VC10 for any flying operation when there are hundreds of more modern airliners in storage around the world looking for owners? It makes no sense at all.

And yet they have, so it's not a hypothetical question - there must be an answer.

Mind you, we don't know what they paid for it, possibly not much more than scrap / parted out value, so it might not in economic terms be a very large question.

Edited August 26, 2020 by Work In Progress

[Mr T]

Are any of the A330s in tanker service boom equipped? I ask because that would be a fairly major airframe change with serious cost implications. Still buying what was a design based on a fairly old airframe at the time of the competition and even older by the time the dust from teddies being thrown out of corporate prams settled does not seem, to my non technical eyes, to make a huge amount of sense. I sometimes wonder if Boeing has lost the plot a bit and become a little complacent. 

[Truro Model Builder]

All of them except RAF Voyagers.

[Work In Progress]

42 minutes ago, Mr T said:

I sometimes wonder if Boeing has lost the plot a bit

On reflection the 737-MAX debacle suggests that Boeing has lost the plot more or less entirely. It was such a good company once.

Edited August 26, 2020 by Work In Progress

[Rick Brown]

And so the debate goes on.

I'm hoping something good will come out of this, but I just can't see a VC10 flying again.

It's just, well mad.

As already been mentioned, as far as I'm aware, all of the resources to commercially look after the VC10 has literally either died out or has closed it's doors.

Mind you, if they do get it up and running again I'll offer my services as a mover!

I've still got my Skydrol stained gear!

Lol.

Rick.

Still thinking it's an April Fool....

 

 

 

 

[Giorgio N]

3 hours ago, Work In Progress said:

Cheaper than what?

 

TBH I reckon if it were a cheap and easy task to take airliners and turn them into effective tankers fit for service with major first-world air forces then the KC-46 programme,which had the stunning advantage of starting with new-builds, would not be the self-evident fiasco that it is.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/03/31/the-air-forces-kc-46-tanker-has-another-serious-technical-deficiency-and-boeing-is-stuck-paying-for-it/

 

I further suspect that if it were cheap and easy to turn a technically mid-life but economically redundant airliner airframe into a viable first-world military tanker, there would not have needed to be a KC-46 programme at $246 million per unit at all.

 

But I don't think this acquisition has anything to do with providing tanking to air forces. There's no suggestion anywhere in Kepler's own marketing or visible commercial activity that it has any interest in doing that.

 

One thing is to put in service a simple adaptation of an existing airliner for IFR operations, particularly if using the probe-drogue system. Another thing is to put into service a new tanker for the USAF capable of meeting their requirements and with the use of the most advanced technology available.

The former is a relatively simple task and several air forces have done this with the support of a number of specialised companies. Thinking about it, the RAF did it with a range of older bombers even before anyone started looking at converting airliners.

The latter does not seem to be an easy task, partly because of the USAF requests and parly because Boeing do indeed seem to have lost the plot recently..

But adding a couple of pods and the relative control systems on an existing airliner is not that difficult and many have done this with success. None of these aircraft is particularly advanced and they are limited to probe-and-drogue so there's no chance of using them to refuel USAF types, For many users however such performance are sufficient

Edited August 26, 2020 by Giorgio N

[alex]

Just wondering, how does the F-35A refuel? Do they need a boom or can they do it with the probe/drogue?

 

Alex

[Giorgio N]

38 minutes ago, alex said:

Just wondering, how does the F-35A refuel? Do they need a boom or can they do it with the probe/drogue?

 

Alex

 

The A require a boom while the B and C variants have a probe

[Max Headroom]

55 minutes ago, Giorgio N said:

 

The A require a boom while the B and C variants have a probe

To go further off a tangent (!) - if/when the RAF get the A’s they apparently prefer would they keep the probe?!

 

Trevor

[alex]

4 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

 

The A require a boom while the B and C variants have a probe

 

Thanks, that's what I assumed. So, all operators of the A version need a full sized tanker and can not refuel, say, with an A400 or C-130. Unless the probe can be added on request.

 

Alex

 

 

[Truro Model Builder]

13 hours ago, alex said:

 

Thanks, that's what I assumed. So, all operators of the A version need a full sized tanker and can not refuel, say, with an A400 or C-130. Unless the probe can be added on request.

 

Alex

 

 

Most F-35A operators also fly boom-equipped tankers. Those that don't have access through the new NATO Multinational Multi-Role Tanker Transport Fleet.

[Paul J]

If that is the case and they do get it airworthy and out of Dunsfold , they want to get a move on as already there are signs of work around the boundary of the airfield particularly alongside the A281  main road!  Before you know it the runway will be turned to builders rubble.

[Archer_VC10]

FYI, the news about the ZA150 sale was not supposed to be shared yet, but here we are. Like you all, I am not privy to the precise plans but I do know that there is a significant shortfall in AAR capacity over the next couple of years for the US military due to the KC-46 fiasco and the imminent retirement of several KC-10s. About 30% of the needed capacity will for US Navy types that use a probe and drogue system. If a company can jump in and fill that gap, I'm sure that there will be a suitable compensation available that could pay for putting air under the wings of a VC10. That's speculation on my part, but we can hope.... We'll have to wait and see.

[Max Headroom]

There is an article in the October issue of Aeroplane Monthly. The deal is for it to fly wheels down to St Athan, make it properly airworthy and then to Midland in Texas. ZA241 and ZA147 are also allegedly involved. Throw in a couple of simulators owned by Brooklands too into the equation.

 

Trevor

[Rick Brown]

Yes, I saw that too.

If it happens I'd love to see/hear it.

Just once more would be great. I miss the old girl.

Rick.

[Max Headroom]

1 hour ago, Rick Brown said:

Yes, I saw that too.

If it happens I'd love to see/hear it.

Just once more would be great. I miss the old girl.

Rick.

Get your CV polished up!

 

Trevor

[Rick Brown]

44 minutes ago, Max Headroom said:

Get your CV polished up!

 

Trevor

 

 

Rick.

[Seahawk]

10 hours ago, Rick Brown said:

If it happens I'd love to see/hear it.

Just once more would be great. I miss the old girl.

Yes, mornings aren’t the same without the sound of 4 RR Conways powering a heavily laden tanker out west.

[GrahamS]

Now if only we could persuade Kepler that they have use for a TSR2....

 

Graham