VC10 preservation (ex-Keep one VC10 flying) thread

[Broadwas]

There's some real twaddle being preached around here isn't there?

Do none of you remember the Shackleton that would never fly again, under any circumstances. Only for one to defy all the guff that was being spouted and fly off to America giving it's former home base in Scotland a cheeky little flypast on it's way across the pond! It remained flying Stateside for several years. Any of you remember that?

Some of very same, very wealthy people who were behind the Shackleton project could be planning to do the same with another recently retired airframe, no names no packdrill. Don't be surprised if you get a surprise.

One other little comment, there is a Bucaneer that is stored and would be returned to airworthy condition. But, only if it could earn it's keep on a MOD contract. It would not be just a display bird (Not enough money in that game. ask the Vulcan supporters). There are also three more Buccs for sale in airworthy condition in SA

Food for thought.

[vololiberista]

There's some real twaddle being preached around here isn't there?

Do none of you remember the Shackleton that would never fly again, under any circumstances. Only for one to defy all the guff that was being spouted and fly off to America giving it's former home base in Scotland a cheeky little flypast on it's way across the pond! It remained flying Stateside for several years. Any of you remember that?

Some of very same, very wealthy people who were behind the Shackleton project could be planning to do the same with another recently retired airframe, no names no packdrill. Don't be surprised if you get a surprise.

One other little comment, there is a Bucaneer that is stored and would be returned to airworthy condition. But, only if it could earn it's keep on a MOD contract. It would not be just a display bird (Not enough money in that game. ask the Vulcan supporters). There are also three more Buccs for sale in airworthy condition in SA

Food for thought.

At the end of the day it's money isn't it. Throw enough money at a project and it can get done. That's where the Americans succeed and the Brits fail. Having said that the fuselage has pretty much reached the end of its predicted life from the perspective of constantly being pressurised. So it "could" be altitude limited to avoid that problem.
But, even the Connies are now being grounded. One would never be able to keep a VC10 airframe airworthy for many more years in any case max 10 I would say.
Who was that fella who is building a new version of the Titanic? Perhaps he could also build a "new" VC10!!!!!!!!!!
vololiberista

[vc10boy]

There's some real twaddle being preached around here isn't there?

ummm..twaddle..no i dont think so,there,s veiws and suggestions on all things vc10,some may happen some may not?,but the main thing is participation,and respect

there is a site for the bucanear ect i beleive,but lets concentrate on the preservation and suggestions for the vc10 ,did,nt the buck have huge problems with crecks ect while it was in still service?,funnily enough my dad helped build them at brough near hull...anyway lets concentrate on the vc10.

[Gsxr600]

I know some of the users of this forum have connections with Brooklands, so would any of you know if Brooklands would have any objection to ZA150 being kept in taxiable condition at Dunsfold? It seems a shame with a nice runway to play on it ends up as a static exhibit.

[Jelle Hieminga]

If this works, then behind this link there's the press release about the arrival of ZA150 at Dunsfold.

As for objections? Probably not but as the press release states, longer term arrangements for access to the VC10 will be confirmed later. The first hurdle was getting the aircraft, the next steps may take a while but they will include future plans for her and we will have to exercise some patience for that.

[vololiberista]

I know some of the users of this forum have connections with Brooklands, so would any of you know if Brooklands would have any objection to ZA150 being kept in taxiable condition at Dunsfold? It seems a shame with a nice runway to play on it ends up as a static exhibit.

As long as Jeremy Clarkson doesn't object !!!
vololiberista

[Stewart]

I know some of the users of this forum have connections with Brooklands, so would any of you know if Brooklands would have any objection to ZA150 being kept in taxiable condition at Dunsfold? It seems a shame with a nice runway to play on it ends up as a static exhibit.

As long as Jeremy Clarkson doesn't object !!!
vololiberista

And no pianos!

[Stewart]

There's some real twaddle being preached around here isn't there?

Do none of you remember the Shackleton that would never fly again, under any circumstances. Only for one to defy all the guff that was being spouted and fly off to America giving it's former home base in Scotland a cheeky little flypast on it's way across the pond! It remained flying Stateside for several years. Any of you remember that?

Some of very same, very wealthy people who were behind the Shackleton project could be planning to do the same with another recently retired airframe, no names no packdrill. Don't be surprised if you get a surprise.

One other little comment, there is a Bucaneer that is stored and would be returned to airworthy condition. But, only if it could earn it's keep on a MOD contract. It would not be just a display bird (Not enough money in that game. ask the Vulcan supporters). There are also three more Buccs for sale in airworthy condition in SA

Food for thought.

The Americans have very different rules, this is why you find so many older types flying there, even airliners in private hands (such as John Travoltas 'experemental' 707). They way they do it is register the AC as 'Experimental' I believe the removes the need for what they would refer to as the DA, however it does not remove the need for airworthiness checks and certification. The number of 'expermental' B17s is unreal, there were 2 B-29s in the experimental register and a 727 for a while. However we can't post a VC-10 to the US, taking it a part and sending it as a kit of parts won't work either, I believe the royal mail won't take VC-10 wings in one piece so unless they will fit in the super guppy we are stuck. Hangerage there is much cheaper as well

Anyway, step one; preserve airframe!

[Gsxr600]

The same suggestions about getting a Vulcan over to the US went round the houses, even as far back as Roy Jacobson registering XM655 with the US FAA in the 1980s. The simple fact is who would be interested in the VC10 (or Vulcan) in the US - not many - majority of people who are interested in seeing one fly, are in the UK. So even if rules were easier for flying in the US the money and motive to have one flying wouldn't be there. Best option is get one under cover in this country and kept in good running condition, that at least leaves a possible dream of flying again in the future no matter how unlikely that may be.

[Thumper]

The other problem with regards to someone in the US purchasing a Vulcan or a VC10 to have flying is getting it out there. I doubt very much the CAA would let it take off from the UK, remember the problem Mike Beachy Head had with the Lightnings and Buccs and it's going to take a very big ship to take a VC10 across the water.

Having a VC10 flying is a mere fantasy, even if by some strange miracle someone in the US (or wherever) does purchase a VC10 and returns it to flight the chances of it coming to the UK to display are zero to nil. It's a very different type of aircraft but Art Nalls has been constantly refused a permit to bring his AV8B over to the UK to display, despite it being a different type of aircraft it's still classed as complex and I would imagine the VC10 is a complex type too.

It would be lovely to have Harriers, Buccaneers, Jaguars, Victors and VC10's flying but it's just not possible so all the angst surrounding not having them in the air needs to be put to good use to getting one preserved, nothing is going to happen if we're all sat here moaning about it. Join the VC10der Loving Carers Group and make a start!

[Manofmendip]

Well said Helen.

Yes, please join our group and then be very patient until Gary calls a meeting with us; there is nothing we can do until he does.

It is certainly his intention that if and when he acquires a frame the group will be responsible for the preservation and ground running of the aircraft.

ATB

Dave

[Stewart]

The other problem with regards to someone in the US purchasing a Vulcan or a VC10 to have flying is getting it out there. I doubt very much the CAA would let it take off from the UK, remember the problem Mike Beachy Head had with the Lightnings and Buccs and it's going to take a very big ship to take a VC10 across the water.

I think I made referance to this with regards to posting!

Having a VC10 flying is a mere fantasy, even if by some strange miracle someone in the US (or wherever) does purchase a VC10 and returns it to flight the chances of it coming to the UK to display are zero to nil. It's a very different type of aircraft but Art Nalls has been constantly refused a permit to bring his AV8B over to the UK to display, despite it being a different type of aircraft it's still classed as complex and I would imagine the VC10 is a complex type too.

That is interesting, as I had thought that both the FAA and CAA were both signed upto JAR which would mean the CAA have to accept the FAA 'C of A' as you can opperate an N registerd 'exepremental' AC in the UK for a maximum of 30 days a year under JAR as long as it's a type that has been certifed by the CAA that means a type 1101, 1103, or 1151 of the three airframes left at brunty only one even remotly qualifies, and that's 241. I doubt any such type approval certification exits for an AV8B, or even a Harrier

[Thumper]

Yes in America a lot (or maybe all?) ex military aircraft in civil hands are classed as experimental including Art Nalls SHAR. Art has some very serious experience with the SHAR's and a long and distinguished aviation career but as has been said this is in America and it's a whole different ball game in the UK.

I do not have enough (in fact little to none) knowledge of the CAA, FAA and JAR with regards to operating a US experimental aircraft in the UK but I do know that Art Nalls has run into serious difficulties, namely a complete lack of support by official bodies trying to get his SHAR over here to display.

Have a listen to this interview with Art Nalls courtesy of the UKAR Display Frequency Podcast (Number 5)

http://www.airshows.co.uk/podcast/

Due to the Sea Harrier being a complex type of aircraft it requires OEM approval and support from BAe Systems and Rolls Royce. The SHAR does not have a particularly shining safety record and coupled with the fact that it's a single engine aircraft with poor glide characteristics makes the whole thing bloody difficult.

Now the VC10 has a good safety record and is multi engine but it's still a complex aircraft and is old. This makes it too much of a risk for anyone to entertain the idea of one flying, the chance of it making a big crater in the ground may be low but it's still too high to risk.

I would never "write off" ex BOAC staff so presume you are referring to someone else.

[Jelle Hieminga]

That is interesting, as I had thought that both the FAA and CAA were both signed upto JAR which would mean the CAA have to accept the FAA 'C of A' as you can opperate an N registerd 'exepremental' AC in the UK for a maximum of 30 days a year under JAR

It doesn't quite work that way. Both the USA and the UK (through the European Commission) have their own legislation about aircraft certification. In the USA this is FAR-23/25 or whichever one applies and in the UK it is EASA's CS-23/25 etc. There is a great deal of commonality between the two sets as they are based on the relevant ICAO Annex and there has been some coordination throughout the years.

The US 'Experimental' category is strictly a national certification status that loses all its validity once you cross a border. It is only the normal certification categories that can overfly other ICAO member states. Once a country has signed the Chicago convention it is obligated to accept that foreign (but ICAO member states) registered, and thus certified, aircraft have a CofA which is based on Annex 8 and can therefore safely operate in their airspace.

The UK CAA accepts 'Experimental' registered aircraft for a duration of 30 days as a courtesy, mainly so that rare aircraft are allowed a chance to display at UK airshows. This is definitively not a right though and such aircraft do not have a full CofA! One has to apply for such a waiver and this can be denied by the CAA.

[Stewart]

Now the VC10 has a good safety record and is multi engine but it's still a complex aircraft and is old. This makes it too much of a risk for anyone to entertain the idea of one flying, the chance of it making a big crater in the ground may be low but it's still too high to risk.

I would never "write off" ex BOAC staff so presume you are referring to someone else.

I didn't say you did, but somone else did.

Anyway, What is interestesting is that there are a fair number of Ex RAF Dominies still flying as HS125s, this is classed as a 'large aircraft' by the CAA (interesting as it's the same classification as a 747...) and probably 'Complex' as it's just as 'complex' as a VC-10, certainly it is presursised, has multiple gas turbine engines, powered controls etc, although it is smaller. All they had to do was.. convert them to a known civil type. Although in the HS125 case the DA was still interested