VC10's

[cmf146]

On 28Jan22 four VC10's ZA147, ZA148, ZA 150 & ZD241 were registered in the USA to Aerovision LLC of Florida. I assume that these are grounded at Bruntingthorpe with no prospect of moving?

[JimTom23]

Only ZA147 and ZD241 are at Bruntingthorpe.

ZA148 is at Newquay.

ZA150 is at Dunsfold.

There was talk of ZA150 being sold to the USA a few years ago for use as a tanker. Perhaps the others to do the same or be used for spares? ZA150 and ZD241 have been ground runners in recent years. Like the ex RAF Tristars possible also being used again as tankers, it all seems more than a little unlikely. Interesting though!

[Tanker Ray]

ZA147 was scrapped at Bruntingthorpe late last year so curious why that would be bought unless for spares?

Mark

[Kurnass]

Would there be a market for these 4 aircraft? Availability of spares I presume might be a nightmare after a while. And with the KC-46 and A330MRTT replacing many aging KC-135’s, the 135 seems to be a more economically understandable solution?

[JimTom23]

I hadn't heard ZA147 had been scrapped (shame as it was the last RAF flyer)
It is still on the US register as N147ZA presume this is just to make it easier to use spares from this aircraft as it has been chopped up
The other three are N148ZA N150ZA N241ZD, although VC10.net says only N150ZA/ZA150 is a potential flyer with the other two being registered just for spares use (although hopefully not to go the same way as 147...)

[Agent K]

Would there be a market for these 4 aircraft? Availability of spares I presume might be a nightmare after a while. And with the KC-46 and A330MRTT replacing many aging KC-135’s, the 135 seems to be a more economically understandable solution?

BUT…. The KC135 has never been a civilian certified aircraft, which I suspect would make any hopes of civilian operation significantly more difficult or at least expensive to obtain that certification?

[Kurnass]

At least one former Singapore AF KC-135, N573MA, is flying in the US. Or isthat one flying on another certification? Also the NASA flew a KC-135 on civil register in the past.

[Alf]

Would there be a market for these 4 aircraft? Availability of spares I presume might be a nightmare after a while. And with the KC-46 and A330MRTT replacing many aging KC-135’s, the 135 seems to be a more economically understandable solution?

BUT…. The KC135 has never been a civilian certified aircraft, which I suspect would make any hopes of civilian operation significantly more difficult or at least expensive to obtain that certification?

KC-135 N573MA has been flying on the US civil register for a while now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TX8ktxSnUA

[Agent K]

Would there be a market for these 4 aircraft? Availability of spares I presume might be a nightmare after a while. And with the KC-46 and A330MRTT replacing many aging KC-135’s, the 135 seems to be a more economically understandable solution?

BUT…. The KC135 has never been a civilian certified aircraft, which I suspect would make any hopes of civilian operation significantly more difficult or at least expensive to obtain that certification?

KC-135 N573MA has been flying on the US civil register for a while now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TX8ktxSnUA

Of course yes and I’ve even seen that fly at Ellington on a few visits there in times past, and saw the 135 based vomit comet N930MA fly there too before it was mounted on the plinth outside the base.

[page_verify]

I worked with someone a couple of years ago involved in the maths behind the Air Tanker deal who described the horrid reality of why it's so expensive. Commercial AAR firms have to pay retail prices for engineers, parts, and airliners to supply fuel to government customers that still want to pay close to their own tax-payer subsidised prices. Prices in the new airliner world are aimed at high-turnover/some-margin airlines who usually prefer paying a predictable, premium price for their airliners in the hope they require less unpredictable repair work that stops them earning. Private AAR firms can't usually afford to play in that market so they either buy up these small fleets of retired tankers - or charge the customer high prices in a PFI deal....

[DavieB]

...in the UK's case over a million pounds a *day* to AirTanker, and that's just to be available, they get that even if no flying is undertaken. Every sortie (and any dispensed fuel) costs extra.

[Agent K]

...in the UK's case over a million pounds a *day* to AirTanker, and that's just to be available, they get that even if no flying is undertaken. Every sortie (and any dispensed fuel) costs extra.

I assume, even if the assets were funded through a normal procurement cycle they would be depreciated over time, so, similarly in effect they would cost a hefty £ amount daily even if not used? (caveat: I'm not 100% familiar with MoD finances so stand happy to be corrected!)

[page_verify]

...in the UK's case over a million pounds a *day* to AirTanker, and that's just to be available, they get that even if no flying is undertaken. Every sortie (and any dispensed fuel) costs extra.

How does £1m/day compare to the cost of running other fleets of 14 modern airliners? £365m/yr is a lot, but I can't tell whether or not it's good value.

[DavieB]

The MoD is also stuck with it for 27 years. Good question on relative running costs. Did a few minutes some big handful numbers searching on BA (so it's ballpark) - they have about 290 aircraft which costs them about £13 million a day to operate. Over £1M/day for 14 frames with AirTanker vs £13M/day for 290 frames for BA who have a far more complex operation structure? One odd aspect of the contract (for the taxpayer) is that if the RAF tanks from another non AirTanker source (of any nation) the company is financially compensated.

[Agent K]

I'm not familiar with the fine detail of the Air tanker PFI, and what it includes? engines, spares, maintenance, full engineering support and provision, training? so it's difficult to compare like for like. That said reports and parliamentary questions do seem to indicate that the price is high. Purely from a financial, budgeting and accounting perspective, financing does have it's place when looking at capital and operation expenditure.

[page_verify]

£1m/day for 14 modern larger airliners (£72k/aircraft/day) compared to £13m/day for 290 airliners of varying sizes and ages (£45k/aircraft/day) doesn't suggest the Air Tanker deal is as bad as I thought. BA will get significant economies of scale from operating 21x more aircraft and I suspect there's additional costs BA reports elsewhere which might push that £45k to nearer £60k. The NAO's beef about the deal was the use of PFI to fund a short term need at the expense of long term flexibility and the lack of benchmarking against competitor costs.

[DavieB]

At the time the contract was placed govt was directing departments to seek out PFI deals which they duly did. I don't think any govt dept now truthfully considers any of them to have turned out to be good value for the taxpayer. Some of the NHS hospital ones are a disgrace. And don't forget that with AirTanker, until the pandemic when the Jet2 and Condor aircraft were returned, the actual available sqn size was only 11 frames for most of the contract to date. Personally I think it's a shocker unless you are an AirTanker shareholder.

But we seem to have digressed off VC10s - the Queen of the Skies! Still recall my first flight in a "big" aircraft - XV101 as an air cadet!

[andygolfer]

ZD241 is currently being scrapped at Bruntingthorpe, pictures on the Bruntingthorpe and ZD241 facebook pages taken yesterday show it with it's tail end missing and holes in the side of the fuselage, looks like very little is being salvaged for future use.
A sad end but was looking inevitable for some time

Andy

[red leader]

If these all get scrapped will there be any others preserved in the UK?

[Mike]

If these all get scrapped will there be any others preserved in the UK?

XR808 is preserved outside at Cosford.