A Little VC10derness

Sadly another statement I have to disagree with, u/c legs got changed every 6 years, and really provide no guide to the state of the airframe, you can have nice clean units fitted to a average ac, and conversely scabby looking units fitted to a very good ac.

bring the phrase to mind :the emperors new clothes: when i hear all this about GASG-M?... .,and who are these ex BOAC 70 year olds gents who are going to work on her from Surrey?...can,t see it myself ??

shall we get a touch more realistic.

petet16 wrote:Not strictly true re fuselage tanks, the K2 also didn't have a cargo door so the top of the fuselage was opened up to fit tanks.

True enough, but that wasn't a BAe approved mod and generated a great deal of incredulity and concern from them! The RAF were effectively told that that's "your problem" now and I certainly don't think there'd have been much enthusiasm for repeating the process! From the grand old days of "bodge it"!

vc10boy wrote:bring the phrase to mind :the emperors new clothes: when i hear all this about GASG-M?... .,and who are these ex BOAC 70 year olds gents who are going to work on her from Surrey?...can,t see it myself ??

shall we get a touch more realistic.

The elephant in the room however remains that when BOB was going to Cosford, '241 was to be earmarked as the runner. It even got as far as an article in Flypast stating Dave Walton has bought it. Now suddenly that decision was wrong and everyone wants to scrap it because '147 has arrived after going through the wash facility at Brize? All the comments about mechanical condition are spot on, but I'm pretty sure these considerations will have been taken into account when the decision to keep '241 was made, after all 147's service did not come after that decision and I dare say it was made in the full knowledge of the condition of all the fleet. Airframe hours will count for very little however for a ground runner! So long as you're not going to fly it fatigue life etc counts for zero.

Craig wrote:

petet16 wrote:Not strictly true re fuselage tanks, the K2 also didn't have a cargo door so the top of the fuselage was opened up to fit tanks.

True enough, but that wasn't a BAe approved mod and generated a great deal of incredulity and concern from them! The RAF were effectively told that that's "your problem" now and I certainly don't think there'd have been much enthusiasm for repeating the process! From the grand old days of "bodge it"!

BAE can't have been that incredulous, they did the job !!!, and it was a Bae project team who managed it, so I think it's safe to say it was fully approved

petet16 wrote:

Craig wrote:

petet16 wrote:Not strictly true re fuselage tanks, the K2 also didn't have a cargo door so the top of the fuselage was opened up to fit tanks.

True enough, but that wasn't a BAe approved mod and generated a great deal of incredulity and concern from them! The RAF were effectively told that that's "your problem" now and I certainly don't think there'd have been much enthusiasm for repeating the process! From the grand old days of "bodge it"!

BAE can't have been that incredulous, they did the job !!!, and it was a Bae project team who managed it, so I think it's safe to say it was fully approved

Thanks for the correction, I was under the impression the RAF did the K2s "in house".

No, the K2,3,4 were done by Aerospace at Filton, and the pods and pylons on the C1 by Flight Refuelling at Hurn

Craig wrote:

vc10boy wrote:bring the phrase to mind :the emperors new clothes: when i hear all this about GASG-M?... .,and who are these ex BOAC 70 year olds gents who are going to work on her from Surrey?...can,t see it myself ??

shall we get a touch more realistic.

The elephant in the room however remains that when BOB was going to Cosford, '241 was to be earmarked as the runner. It even got as far as an article in Flypast stating Dave Walton has bought it. Now suddenly that decision was wrong and everyone wants to scrap it because '147 has arrived after going through the wash facility at Brize? All the comments about mechanical condition are spot on, but I'm pretty sure these considerations will have been taken into account when the decision to keep '241 was made, after all 147's service did not come after that decision and I dare say it was made in the full knowledge of the condition of all the fleet. Airframe hours will count for very little however for a ground runner! So long as you're not going to fly it fatigue life etc counts for zero.

However scince we are going to be realistic, to keep a runner will cost a lot of money.
241 due to being a BOAC AC is likely to get far more donations than any of the others, a lot of poeple flew on it or one of the other of the BOAC fleet and thus more people are likely to donate to its preservation, not just aviation enthusiasts. And remember these AC were flying when the cost of a ticket prevented most form flying so the demographic is likely to be high disposable income. That is probably why they went for what is possibly the worst airframe. Then there the BOAC staff, there's a fair number of them still around again a long haul pilot is not poorly paid. So I think it was money that pointed them at 241 rather than ZA147. To put it simply 'bums on seats'

All fair comments, except the "worst airframe" bit, it's been ignored that '241 was also one of the last to see a proper exam. There's no doubting that in terms of airframe hours '241 is high, but then as I said, when you're not intending to flyi it this doesn't matter. So long as it's mechanically sound (and I doubt any of these last few are anything but, they wouldn't have lasted so long if they weren't amongst the better ones) then anything else is irrelevant. Morayvia tried to save '241, now Dave Walton has apparently stepped in, there has to be something about it that has persuaded these people (who lets be fair are no mugs, they've got experience of preserving aircraft) that '241 is worth hanging onto. The BOAC may not be the decisive factor, but it cartainly can't do it any harm. Factor in it being the last K4 as well and historically there's plenty to justify its preservation. If '147 was such an outstanding airframe surely Newquay would have waited for its return from the Falklands rather than taking '148?

Craig wrote:All fair comments, except the "worst airframe" bit, it's been ignored that '241 was also one of the last to see a proper exam. There's no doubting that in terms of airframe hours '241 is high, but then as I said, when you're not intending to flyi it this doesn't matter. So long as it's mechanically sound (and I doubt any of these last few are anything but, they wouldn't have lasted so long if they weren't amongst the better ones) then anything else is irrelevant. Morayvia tried to save '241, now Dave Walton has apparently stepped in, there has to be something about it that has persuaded these people (who lets be fair are no mugs, they've got experience of preserving aircraft) that '241 is worth hanging onto. The BOAC may not be the decisive factor, but it cartainly can't do it any harm. Factor in it being the last K4 as well and historically there's plenty to justify its preservation. If '147 was such an outstanding airframe surely Newquay would have waited for its return from the Falklands rather than taking '148?

My apologies on 'worst airframe' however others have said it's not as nice as BOB or 147, as such of the three available it could be seen as such, but is it was such a heap I agree it would have gone some time back. As for airframe life, did the VC10 have one? I have a nagging feeling it didn't, not the same way say a 707 did, although I can't see how this could be so

lets have a vote [just for fun of-course] maybe jelle could organise it on this website on the opening page,votes open for say a week?,one vote for each signed up contributer on which vc10 we think should be saved,it might well mean nothing wotever we think,..but would be fun to know wot this site thinks as a whole,then its not just one person saying,i know best ect ect

i flew on alot of BOAC standards ,mainly kano to heathrow via rome often,flew also on nigeria airways and bua,i hold no misplaced loyalty to the aircraft i flew on,i just want the strongest and best airfame for long term preservation thats available,who knows what might happen to it in 10-20 years time

k2,s where very worn aircraft as boac and ba worked them very very hard,the undercariges took a heavy beating on the rough runways of the old empire routs,the supers where worked hard aswell,the fleet had an average of 54,000 hours in 1980 when they retired,i used to have all the hours each BA supers had flown by 1980.. when they wanted to fly them out of Abingdon the early 90,s they where all in a sorry state indeed,the keel area needed alot of complex fabrication work re new plates with the amount of corrosion that had taken a hold of the vital keel box section area.,most of them couldnt be saved,they stank inside aswell of damp in the cabin

wotever its futue i still think the best in terms of hours flown,service history ect should all be taken into account,if you knew the history of 2 classic cars,one had always been looked after and had had an easy life..and one sat in a ditch Unattended for ten years,then had had the floor welded up ,which would you tend to go for? [no matter what you intended to do with it?/,anyway lets fix up a vote to see what people think on this site?...democracy in action so to speak.

all jets have a design airframe life,presurised cabins,metal fatgue,lanings take off,s ect,yes the vc10 has one aswell..

I would normally agree with you on basing it all around condition, however this will not work with the general public, they like the 'story', even more if they feel they were part of it, and those with a Junior Jet club log book with G-ASGM written in it and so on

the classic car analogy does not work the way you think it does..
this


in that state is the worlds most expensive Austin Healey 100s, sold for £843,000. It is part of motor racing darkest hour, history is often worth a lot more than condition

I'm going to take a punt that the AH is the one that was hit at Le Mans by a Mercedes in 1955.

I don't really see the slightest relevance to this thread, but hey ho.

vc10boy wrote: wotever its futue i still think the best in terms of hours flown,service history ect should all be taken into account,if you knew the history of 2 classic cars,one had always been looked after and had had an easy life..and one sat in a ditch Unattended for ten years,then had had the floor welded up ,which would you tend to go for?

Yes it is that one! and it was in response to the above. Personally I'd save about £800K and buy a nice 100s (which is vc10boys view, get the best you can) if I was looking for one, however it seems those with the extra £800K do not agree. But with regards to donations preservation needs the extra £800k guys to donate (or a huge number of small donations)

An odd thought, anyone know which airframe ended up with GN's tail?