VC10 preservation (ex-Keep one VC10 flying) thread

Any VC10 related discussions.....
Post Reply
Magnum
Posts: 270
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 9:07 pm
Location: Wantage

Re: Keep one VC10 flying!

Post by Magnum » Fri Sep 20, 2013 3:58 pm

Mr Branson and Mr Dickinson have both already been approached with regards to a VC10 Project.

Various other coporations, individuals etc have been approached with a view to support/sponsor a project too.

My advice for now is be patient, lets wait until the last two aircraft are retired from RAF service next week before jumping the gun.

Magnum
Posts: 270
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 9:07 pm
Location: Wantage

Re: Keep one VC10 flying!

Post by Magnum » Fri Sep 20, 2013 4:05 pm

Stewart wrote: 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.
The idea of a flying project has been well and truly nailed in it coffin by the likes of BAe. Without support from the design authority it will never happen. It is a lovely dream but realistically that is all it will ever be.

As for hours, ZA147 is the best option with XR808 being second choice.

Stewart
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:11 pm

Re: Keep one VC10 flying!

Post by Stewart » Fri Sep 20, 2013 7:58 pm

Magnum wrote:
The idea of a flying project has been well and truly nailed in it coffin by the likes of BAe. Without support from the design authority it will never happen. It is a lovely dream but realistically that is all it will ever be.

As for hours, ZA147 is the best option with XR808 being second choice.
That is interesting, Did EAA not use their VC10s? BOAC flight crew were always amazed to find how few hours the RAF aircraft had on them when they came across each other Compared to a BOAC VC 10 the RAF AC still had delivery hours, and I would imaging EAA used theirs as much as they could (IIRC ZA147 is an ex EAA AC) so I am surprised if it has fewer hours than Bob.

Out of interest who is the design authority for the Vulcan Bomber?

User avatar
Jelle Hieminga
Webmaster
Posts: 744
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2002 9:03 pm
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Re: Keep one VC10 flying!

Post by Jelle Hieminga » Fri Sep 20, 2013 9:48 pm

I think Marshall's has taken on the design authority for the Vulcan IIRC.
Buttons . . . check. Dials . . . check. Switches . . . check. Little
colored lights . . . check.

petet16
Posts: 262
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 10:09 pm

Re: Keep one VC10 flying!

Post by petet16 » Sat Sep 21, 2013 5:01 pm

Yes, Marshall's act as DA for the Vulcan.

As for flying hours if 147 is lower than 808 I would be amazed, it would not surprise me if 147 has less cycles than 808 as civil aircraft didn't bash the circuit in the same way that the RAF 10's did.

petet16
Posts: 262
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 10:09 pm

Re: Keep one VC10 flying!

Post by petet16 » Sat Sep 21, 2013 5:05 pm

Sadly Bruce Dickinson currently employs very few ex VC10 people, nearly all of us are spread to all corners of the aviation world.

Stewart wrote: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.

Manofmendip
Posts: 239
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:58 pm
Location: Midsomer Norton

Re: Keep one VC10 flying!

Post by Manofmendip » Sat Sep 21, 2013 5:26 pm

Just to confirm a few things, which those of you who are members of the VC10der Loving Carers group will have read in our last newsletter.

I met with Gary in March to discuss the 'flyer' project with him and he was able to advise that from the point of which frames would be the best choices it was ZA147 followed by ZA150, purely because of their time to the next 'Major', which is more important than the number of hours on each frame.

The VC10 is a very strong airframe and Gary advised me that they are not near the end of their fatigue life and, the amount of flying that we as group would do each year would be insignificant compared to what they would do in airline or RAF service. So the total hours on each frame was not something that concerned us only the time left to the next 'Major', as that would be an huge expense for us as a group.

I hope this clarifies things.

Certainly EAA used their Supers but not as much, probably, as BOAC/BA and EAA went bust and the frames were repossessed by BAC and then converted and sold to the RAF.

Best regards.

Dave

Gsxr600
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:19 pm

Re: Keep one VC10 flying!

Post by Gsxr600 » Sat Sep 21, 2013 5:39 pm

petet16 wrote:Yes, Marshall's act as DA for the Vulcan.

As for flying hours if 147 is lower than 808 I would be amazed, it would not surprise me if 147 has less cycles than 808 as civil aircraft didn't bash the circuit in the same way that the RAF 10's did.
I don't think it's a question of total hours flown as it is with the Vulcan. The VC10 was designed to fly a lot whereas old V Bombers were not expected to fly anywhere near as much. It might be that 147 and BOB have the most time left before needing their next major service. But therein lies the problem, getting a major done would be extremely expensive, and may not even be possible as there are very few spares left. I don't see that the VC10 has a big enough following to raise the amount of cash needed, but the lack of airworthy spares going into the future would be a major problem even if the money was there.

Keeping one in ground running condition at Bruntingthorpe is the next best thing to flying, and hopefully more than one of the airframes at Brunty can be kept in one piece. Running them on them ground means nothing has to be certified as airworthy so relatively inexpensive.

Manofmendip
Posts: 239
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:58 pm
Location: Midsomer Norton

Re: Keep one VC10 flying!

Post by Manofmendip » Sat Sep 21, 2013 5:45 pm

Agreed

Dave

Stewart
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:11 pm

Re: Keep one VC10 flying!

Post by Stewart » Tue Sep 24, 2013 6:53 am

Unfortunately you are all forgetting the CAA. 241 is already on the civil register as G-ASGM. All it actually needs to fly is a C of A, that's it. Because BOB and ZA147 are not they would actually be far more problematic to get onto the register and thus in the air

I realise as a lapsed holder of A and C licences what is involved in getting a C of A, but as the Vulcan guys will confirm 241 status as a British civil airliner puts it way out in front of any of the other choices (yes the CAA are that bureaucratic) Ringing is another option but I didn't say that.

G-ASGM may be de-registered but so was G-BOAC for a short while when it was us registered it's not that difficult to put the record live (compared to getting a 'foreign' AC that's never been on the register).

The best bet is if you can is to acquire all the best bits of 147 to improve 241 (as I believe BOB is the sole RAF from new VC-10 and as such should be preserved) almost to the point of ringing 241

Magnum
Posts: 270
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 9:07 pm
Location: Wantage

Re: Keep one VC10 flying!

Post by Magnum » Tue Sep 24, 2013 7:51 am

The simple answer is that there are too many influential bodies that don't want to see a VC10 fly again.

We need to accept this situation. All we are doing is getting the likes of BAe, the MOD etc very annoyed. All they want yo do is cut them all up.

Stewart
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:11 pm

Re: Keep one VC10 flying!

Post by Stewart » Tue Sep 24, 2013 11:04 am

Manofmendip wrote:Just to confirm a few things, which those of you who are members of the VC10der Loving Carers group will have read in our last newsletter.

I met with Gary in March to discuss the 'flyer' project with him and he was able to advise that from the point of which frames would be the best choices it was ZA147 followed by ZA150, purely because of their time to the next 'Major', which is more important than the number of hours on each frame.

The VC10 is a very strong airframe and Gary advised me that they are not near the end of their fatigue life and, the amount of flying that we as group would do each year would be insignificant compared to what they would do in airline or RAF service. So the total hours on each frame was not something that concerned us only the time left to the next 'Major', as that would be an huge expense for us as a group.
The CAA are not known for taking a lot of notice of the RAFs maintainance records, they would probbably require a D check regardless of what documentation the RAF have on the airframe. The beaurocracy invloved in getting either XR808, or an EAA AC on the UK civil register is not to be underestimated, this is where 241 becomes the only choice if it is ever to have a hope of flying, as it's aready on the civil register as G-ASGM. You would have to undo everything that was done when it was converted, all the refuleing gear would have to go and any RAF mods to the systems and avionics, and that goes for any airframe that you choose (you might as well do the D check at the same time). Are the seats the same as the BOAC seats but turned round? As while not as iconic as a Vulcan it does have one huge advantage when it comes to raising funds, you can actually take passengers (although this will open up another can of worms compared to just flying it)

Craig
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 12:23 am

Re: Keep one VC10 flying!

Post by Craig » Tue Sep 24, 2013 11:36 am

Stewart wrote:
Manofmendip wrote:Just to confirm a few things, which those of you who are members of the VC10der Loving Carers group will have read in our last newsletter.

I met with Gary in March to discuss the 'flyer' project with him and he was able to advise that from the point of which frames would be the best choices it was ZA147 followed by ZA150, purely because of their time to the next 'Major', which is more important than the number of hours on each frame.

The VC10 is a very strong airframe and Gary advised me that they are not near the end of their fatigue life and, the amount of flying that we as group would do each year would be insignificant compared to what they would do in airline or RAF service. So the total hours on each frame was not something that concerned us only the time left to the next 'Major', as that would be an huge expense for us as a group.
The CAA are not known for taking a lot of notice of the RAFs maintainance records, they would probbably require a D check regardless of what documentation the RAF have on the airframe. The beaurocracy invloved in getting either XR808, or an EAA AC on the UK civil register is not to be underestimated, this is where 241 becomes the only choice if it is ever to have a hope of flying, as it's aready on the civil register as G-ASGM. You would have to undo everything that was done when it was converted, all the refuleing gear would have to go and any RAF mods to the systems and avionics, and that goes for any airframe that you choose (you might as well do the D check at the same time). Are the seats the same as the BOAC seats but turned round? As while not as iconic as a Vulcan it does have one huge advantage when it comes to raising funds, you can actually take passengers (although this will open up another can of worms compared to just flying it)
'241 was removed from the civvy register when the RAF acquired it. Sorry to say its former civilian status would be of no help whatsoever. Getting a VC-10 flying in civvy hands, cool as that would be, would be extraordinarily expensive.

Stewart
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:11 pm

Re: Keep one VC10 flying!

Post by Stewart » Tue Sep 24, 2013 2:26 pm

Not true. Look it up! It's 'de registered' which is not the same as removed. All the Concorde fleet were the same for a few years while they flew as US aircraft (yet another curious story) but it not hard at all to change get the record change

petet16
Posts: 262
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 10:09 pm

Re: Keep one VC10 flying!

Post by petet16 » Tue Sep 24, 2013 5:18 pm

It's status with regard to the civil register is pretty academic, the CAA won't even entertain the idea of a VC10 flying in private hands

Post Reply