Re: Keep one VC10 flying!
Posted: Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:52 am
BOB is being retired in two weeks, apparently.
I understand from, a reliable source, that BOB is being is still being retired to Cosford.
Dave
A Little VC10derness
A Tribute to the Vickers VC10
https://www.vc10.net/forum/
VC10 preservation (ex-Keep one VC10 flying) thread
Page 9 of 13
Re: Keep one VC10 flying!
Posted: Sun Jul 07, 2013 11:29 am
Re: Keep one VC10 flying!
Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:33 am
anyone know if there,s room left in the cold war hanger for bob to go under cover and not left outside like VM until she,s scrapped?
Re: Keep one VC10 flying!
Posted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:28 pm
Indoors would be ideal and Tonks & I both agree with this.
RVM was in a sorry state when I saw her back in 2004/5.
Dave
RVM was in a sorry state when I saw her back in 2004/5.
Dave
Re: Keep one VC10 flying!
Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:31 pm
not really worth her being sat outside going downhill slowly like VM, YES GET HER INDOORS AND LOOKED AFTER..
Re: Keep one VC10 flying!
Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:43 pm
Need some cash to build a hangar then. The RAF Museum still hasn't got any, has it?
Apparently "Bob" was doing ccts on the short runway at Cranwell this morning. Despite having an office about 300 yds away, I didn't notice!
Apparently "Bob" was doing ccts on the short runway at Cranwell this morning. Despite having an office about 300 yds away, I didn't notice!
Re: Keep one VC10 flying!
Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:53 pm
Charlie
How can you not notice a 10 from 300 yards, lol. Four Conways are a tad noisey.
Dave
How can you not notice a 10 from 300 yards, lol. Four Conways are a tad noisey.
Dave
Re: Keep one VC10 flying!
Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 9:11 pm
That's probably how he got the hearing impairment in the first place 
Re: Keep one VC10 flying!
Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 9:30 pm
I thought that too Jelle. lol
Re: Keep one VC10 flying!
Posted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:47 pm
I arrived late in work. Assumed there was some fast jet activity going on from a distance before that, as a '10 would never do ccts at Cranwell!Manofmendip wrote:Charlie
How can you not notice a 10 from 300 yards, lol. Four Conways are a tad noisey.
Dave
Re: Keep one VC10 flying!
Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:21 pm
Hi Guys
Any news of whats happening about keeping 'BOB' preserved for ground runs etc ???
Andy
Any news of whats happening about keeping 'BOB' preserved for ground runs etc ???
Andy
Re: Keep one VC10 flying!
Posted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 7:01 pm
It's waiting game at present. Hopefully Dave and I will be meeting with Gary again soon.
Re: Keep one VC10 flying!
Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 11:20 am
Interesting, as aparently 241 now belongs to the guy behind XH588..Tonkenna wrote:It is a wonderful idea to keep an VC10 flying, but one has to be realistic. The ac are coming to the end of their practical lives and one of the reasons for that is as they retire they are coming up to their next major servicing. To keep them flying would require that servicing as a start and the last ones cost £5-7 million and that was in a facility set up for the VC10.
But that could be the easy part... First you you would need the support of the Design Authority (BAe), without that you would not be able to fly. Secondly and perhaps even harder to achieve you would need the support of the CAA. That support (IMO) would be very difficult to get. The Vulcan trust spent many years convincing the CAA, and the Vulcan is technically a much simpler ac, the VC10 is a complicated piece of technology and it is also old. The RAF spends millions on spares and many parts have to be specially made. The CAA is not a big fan of privately run complicated ac and I would guess the VC10 would fit in that class.
So, if you can get past those two organisations you then need to fund it. The Vulcan trust is again a good example here... they have really struggled to maintain an income stream and they have an ac that is very impressive at airshows. The VC10 is beautiful, but it is not a spectacular airshow ac, so perhaps the way ahead is passenger flights, but there again is a problem. The VC10 is way behind in terms of safety related issues such as evacuation slides, floor mounted lighting etc and that would cost a fortune to fit. The ac is also not well know to the public... folks like us love the ac, but other that former air and ground crews and aviation enthusiasts who is likely to fund the adventure. It is unlikely that British Airways will sponsor as they were happy to see their VC10 at Cosford chopped up and the RAF doesn't have the money. It is unlikely that Branson would as there is no connection there and it is not really a Red Bull type project.
There are so many technical issues... where would the spare engines come from... there are very few left and we have seen the trouble the Vulcan has had with that. I could go on...
I know I sound like a bit of a misery guts, but I would hate to see a beautiful ac like the 10 have an incident in private hands and become well known to the public for the wrong reasons. I would rather see a big effort to get one preserved properly, in excellent condition. I think we have to accept that not all ac types can be kept flying...
Just my 2 pennies worth...
Tonks
I suspect that 241 being formerly G-ASGM has no small part in this, as such it's already halfway there with the CAA even if everything has expired. But a bit of help from a certain rockstar could also go a long way in this case, as he now runs St Athan. He's also not averse to using a 757 as a tourbus, a huge fan of british aviation and hey, 241 would make the fastest and loudest tourbus in rock history (and no CV990s for Matalica to resurect). Its lack of a cargo door might not help in this. Even better if opperated as 'Bruces Ordinary Aircraft Comany' or BOAC for short
Re: Keep one VC10 flying!
Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 1:59 pm
Don't forget to ask Richard Branson as well! 
I'm not sure how 241 is "halfway there" with the CAA as it's been converted to a military tanker and is therefore classified as a military aircraft with a mil serial. Mr Dickinson has a superb condition 757 (not sure if it is actually owned by him though?) with lots of spares readily available, I cannot see why he would be interested in shelling out money to acquire a battered old aircraft with no engines, a lack of spares, requiring a major service and has probably used up most if not all of it's fatigue life. I think it's a lovely idea, but in a dream world.
I'm not sure how 241 is "halfway there" with the CAA as it's been converted to a military tanker and is therefore classified as a military aircraft with a mil serial. Mr Dickinson has a superb condition 757 (not sure if it is actually owned by him though?) with lots of spares readily available, I cannot see why he would be interested in shelling out money to acquire a battered old aircraft with no engines, a lack of spares, requiring a major service and has probably used up most if not all of it's fatigue life. I think it's a lovely idea, but in a dream world.
Re: Keep one VC10 flying!
Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:55 pm
I have a feeling Mr Dickinson currently employs most of those who looked after the VC-10s when St Athen did most of the serviceing, as such has the workforce, Branson does not which in my view makes him the best bet. Indeed it won't make a profit but its an interesting project to attract attention to other things you may be doing and there are those about that would suport it
As for the CAA, ZD241 is G-ASGM, and so already on the civil register, While it is de-registered it can be (relativley) easily re-registered, and yes the red tape invovled makes it far easier to return it to being G-ASGM (even so this is still going to take time and be expensive) than putting XR808 on the civil register even if the former is a rotten old heap and the latter mint and boxed, it could still be cheaper to restore 241 than jump through the hoops to get the CAA to play ball on Bob.
BOB probably has the fewest hours of any VC-10 surviving as it's never been a civil AC, I'd almost bet that 241 had significantly more hours than BOB has now when it was parked at Abingdon in fact it probbly had more hours on it when BA was still BOAC and as such totally understandable it would seem a better bet to fly again but the red tape will kill it for flight just becuse it was never a civil AC just like XH588, yes it was done but it took a VERY long time.
As for the CAA, ZD241 is G-ASGM, and so already on the civil register, While it is de-registered it can be (relativley) easily re-registered, and yes the red tape invovled makes it far easier to return it to being G-ASGM (even so this is still going to take time and be expensive) than putting XR808 on the civil register even if the former is a rotten old heap and the latter mint and boxed, it could still be cheaper to restore 241 than jump through the hoops to get the CAA to play ball on Bob.
BOB probably has the fewest hours of any VC-10 surviving as it's never been a civil AC, I'd almost bet that 241 had significantly more hours than BOB has now when it was parked at Abingdon in fact it probbly had more hours on it when BA was still BOAC and as such totally understandable it would seem a better bet to fly again but the red tape will kill it for flight just becuse it was never a civil AC just like XH588, yes it was done but it took a VERY long time.