The guy who said they were getting a VC10 did say it was a VC10 ‘tanker’ but a lot of people view the VC10 as a tanker only though even though it is not really.

Well, he would technically be correct… If they got a VC10, it would be a tanker!:D

Sounds like a personal story there?!

No, I was still at school at the time!:)

It was more of a sympathetic “whoops”. Ironically, one wonders had it not happened, whether it would have been earmarked for preservation instead of ‘808.

Anyone notice the sticky air brake on the stbd wing of 109 on landing? only pops up once shes turned off of the runway

You’re not wrong. It’s not unknown for them to be a little sticky, which would seem the case seeing as the middle spoiler on the port wing deployed quite normally. It also pops out just as the loads on the hydraulics from the flaps being retracted and the nosewheel steering (as it straightens) come off.

I can’t view the vid, but the wing spoilers pop up with rudder movement as well, so if it turned right the stbd ones will lift.

They are mixed with aileron control, but not rudder input. At that speed, directional control will be via the nosewheel steering, with no rudder input. 🙂

I realise that the RAF will be able to donate VC10’s in the near future but it was a commercial airliner first & foremost, especially the Super model.

Just as well the RAF has some VC10s (the K3s) that were not only airliners (with EAA), but later served in both Gulf Wars and Afghanistan.

I wonder apart from the modern electrical instrumentation added in recent years to the VC10 , just what usable spares there will be, ??, even the cockpits, to strip them down in a few days to a bare shell, which could take many a year for a museum to rebuild, seems so harsh, still its the way of the world i suppose

I think the continued safe operation of the VC10 takes precedence over any later attempt to rebuild a cockpit. As for other spare, there’s going to be hundreds, if not thousands of parts saved I suspect.

The last picture encouraged me to look on google streetview. I see the bank is a pub in real life! 😀

How on earth can you assume it will be higher? Commercial airlines will operate at most efficient speed for cruise. When at their refuelling waypoints, tankers can operate at the most efficient speed for endurance (somewhat slower).

Pfcem is correct. AAR operations are conducted far lower than commercial aircraft, generally for fixed wing ops in the 15000-30000ft (rarely, if the receiver can manage it) bracket. This is limited by both the receiver aircraft (some of which will struggle to even reach the mid 20Ks) and airspace restrictions (in non war situations and conflicts). Then of course, in order to conduct refuelling, either a boom or drogues will be hanging off the back, an causing an increase in fuel burn (10-20% wouldn’t be unreasonable I suspect, certainly on a drogue equipped tanker).

As for speed, subject to it’s own performance limitations (at heavy AUW), the tanker will fly a speed suited to the receiver.

Tankers OTOH do many more climb/acceleration & decend/decelerate during the course of a ‘typical’ refuel mission.

It often tends to be climb/decelerate (to make up as much fuel as possible between serials) and then descend/accelerate back down to the refuel altitude for the next receivers.:)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the UK haven’t either. They’re being leased via a stupidly extortionate PFI arrangement that’ll bleed future defence budgets even further. Thanks NuLabour/MOD, your treatment of this country’s armed forces has been nothing short of treasonous.

Technically true. Maybe it’d be more accurate to say we were “taking delivery of” as opposed to bought.:D At least we’re finally getting an aeroplane!