A Little VC10derness

i just had a quick look on wickipeadia re vc10...and i see while at Abingdon the ex BA vc10,s were defueled and then for balance the fuel was replaced with water for balast..but it caused bad corrosion problems over the decade of storage and the ex BA fleet always had problems with corrosion on the underside planking of the wings as a direct result of this,even after conversion to tanker k4...Are there any RAF boys that can throw light on this?..You would have thought the RAF would know the best way to store a VC10 outdoors as they had huge experience with them?...

Yes, it is true that the wing tanks were filled with water to act as ballast, it was a Bae solution rather than the RAF, all of the K4 fleet had ongoing issues with wing corrosion, ZD241 had some of the wing planks replaced at Filton, if you're ever at Brunty take a look at the lower wing skins, they are pock marked with areas were corrosion was blended out, you can also see the reskinned area on the lower surface of the l/h wing, inboard of rib 22, the new skin is in pristine condition compared to the rest of it.

thanks so much for that Pete..in your veiw were the ex East African machines in all round better shape as they did,nt have the decade of outside storage behind them?...

Yes, in my opinion the ex East Af Supers were in better shape than the ex BA supers, 10 years of outdoor storage did the BA aircraft no favours at all, initially attempts were made to seal the airframes in weatherproof wrapping, but it proved to be a constant battle with the weather trying to keep the wrapping intact, so in the end it was removed and the exterior surfaces were heavily coated in a preservative wax type substance.

In retrospect it might have been worth flying the frames to the US for long term storage in a better climate, and where there was much more experience in long term storage than was available in the UK at that time, we were amazed when we found out the wing tanks were full of water, water and aviation fuel are a very bad combination from the bacterial contamination issues, and also the potential corrosion problem.

I didn't realise there was still visible remnants of the corrosion on 241. Of the BA Supers that did fly again was the corrosion not too bad, or were they repaired back to the same condition as the others in the fleet? It's obviously a concern since 241 is going to be the runner at Bruntingthorpe, that the effects of the corrosion from the storage in the 1980s doesn't mean that it will corrode any quicker in the future long term outdoor storage at Bruntingthorpe. What do people think of this? Is 241 basically as sound as any of the rest of the fleet, albeit with some cosmetic pock marks on the wings, or could there be deeper unseen problems that will become an issue in the future?

241 is never going to fly again so I'm sure this won't an issue if it is kept as a runner, is that right guys?

I don't believe it has any long term implications for 241 as ground runner.

It was just a bit of background info for the op.

One of our future plans for the Brunty runner is to build a hanger.

Magnum wrote:One of our future plans for the Brunty runner is to build a hanger.

It would be great if that can be achieved, although it would also be nice to see the Victor, Nimrod, Comet and the rest under cover too. The LPG managed to get a hanger built but it took a lot of time.

petet16 wrote:I don't believe it has any long term implications for 241 as ground runner.

It was just a bit of background info for the op.

Thanks petet16. I really didn't want to reignite the debate over 241 being the 'one' to be kept, but there is always that nagging doubt that the 'one' should be the example in the best possible condition.

Was there much done in the way of ongoing maintenance while they were stored? Or was just a case of applying the wax and being left untouched for many years?

Gsxr600 wrote:

petet16 wrote:I don't believe it has any long term implications for 241 as ground runner.

It was just a bit of background info for the op.

Thanks petet16. I really didn't want to reignite the debate over 241 being the 'one' to be kept, but there is always that nagging doubt that the 'one' should be the example in the best possible condition.

Was there much done in the way of ongoing maintenance while they were stored? Or was just a case of applying the wax and being left untouched for many years?

Sorry my comment wasn't intended to strike a debate, it was merely to point out the fact that she's never going to fly again:( will keep me mouth shut next

ACLVC10 wrote:

Gsxr600 wrote:

petet16 wrote:I don't believe it has any long term implications for 241 as ground runner.

It was just a bit of background info for the op.

Thanks petet16. I really didn't want to reignite the debate over 241 being the 'one' to be kept, but there is always that nagging doubt that the 'one' should be the example in the best possible condition.

Was there much done in the way of ongoing maintenance while they were stored? Or was just a case of applying the wax and being left untouched for many years?

Sorry my comment wasn't intended to strike a debate, it was merely to point out the fact that she's never going to fly again:( will keep me mouth shut next

No need to keep your mouth shut, it's a forum, opinions get expressed, and debated

I don't want people thinking I was stirring trouble, I was just merely pointing the facts out that's all

Hi Guys and girls.

Having loved cared and restored 241 since her return to Filton from Abingdon to detachment to 101, I can honestly say, every bit of corrosion was removed. The lower wing planks that fell outside of acceptable recovery were replaced. The 'pot-marks' [craters] on the remaining were 'gentle blends' iaw SRM limits to remove the affects of 10 years of unintentional neglect.

Zaffie03

Pictures from the Abingdon years.
http://www.vc10.net/Photos/vc10s_in_storage.html