Page 2 of 4
Posted: 08 Jan 2007, 15:22
by jonesey2k
Surely the only thing the ten would need would be a general good going over of the airframe, new flight deck and some new engines.
The KC135 would have been a better example.
Posted: 08 Jan 2007, 15:29
by Garry Russell
It would be a major redesign to fit new engines and with a new cockpit would would be talking in cost about as much as building a new aircraft to extend a small number of old aircraft. :think:
Shame but the old girl will slowly fade away.....over a longer period now.
Garry
Posted: 08 Jan 2007, 16:01
by AndyG
Garry Russell wrote:It would be a major redesign to fit new engines and with a new cockpit would would be talking in cost about as much as building a new aircraft to extend a small number of old aircraft. :think:
Shame but the old girl will slowly fade away.....over a longer period now.
Garry
Engines wouldn't be a problem Garry, they can just slap a couple of Trents on, BAe should already have the drawings of how it is done in their archives.
http://www.vc10.net/History/Individual/XR809.html
AndyG
Posted: 08 Jan 2007, 16:24
by VEGAS
Im glad the VC-10 aint being abused and butchered with Trents anyway. It just would'nt be right. The engines are one of her main assets and a real beauty of the thing, leave the plastic surgery to the yanks..
Posted: 08 Jan 2007, 16:51
by AndyG
Guys, it was a little attempt at humour!!!
Any road up, these re-engine plans rarely come to much; how many times have we heard about new engines for the B-52? :think:
You'll know it's serious though Tonks, when they start asking around for anybody who can remember how to fly Victors and Valiants!
AndyG
Posted: 08 Jan 2007, 16:52
by Hot_Charlie
At least on the plus side someone is feeling optimistic about the C17, with apparently serials ZZ176-180 now allocated to it (the existing four, and the fifth on order being ZZ171-175).
I'll believe it when I see it.
Posted: 08 Jan 2007, 16:56
by Paul K
Would it not be better to lease some KC-135s from the Colonies until a permanent replacement for the VC-10 is ready ? With the E-3 AWACS in RAF service, its not as if we don't have the personnel or infrastructure to operate that airframe type ( if thats the correct expression ).
Posted: 08 Jan 2007, 16:56
by AndyG
Hot_Charlie wrote:At least on the plus side someone is feeling optimistic about the C17, with apparently serials ZZ176-180 now allocated to it (the existing four, and the fifth on order being ZZ171-175).
I'll believe it when I see it.
When the lease ends, and the RAF purchase them outright, will they be able to take that stupid 'extra' serial off the nose area?
AndyG
Posted: 08 Jan 2007, 17:13
by jonesey2k
Is there any engines out there similar in dimensions and power to the conway today?
Posted: 08 Jan 2007, 17:17
by Hot_Charlie
AndyG wrote:Hot_Charlie wrote:At least on the plus side someone is feeling optimistic about the C17, with apparently serials ZZ176-180 now allocated to it (the existing four, and the fifth on order being ZZ171-175).
I'll believe it when I see it.
When the lease ends, and the RAF purchase them outright, will they be able to take that stupid 'extra' serial off the nose area?
AndyG
I dunno. Maybe it's there because of length. It's a long way to walk to see the one on the back if you can't remember where you parked it.
