RAF VC-10 in San Diego?!?

I had an interesting sighting today.

I live on the departure path out of Lindbergh Field, San Diego's major airport.

Anyway, I heard an awesome roar that I don't usually hear from the 737's I see all day, I look up, and am shocked: a Vickers VC-10 tanker with RAF roundels on her!

What was it doing in San Diego at the civilian airport?
Anyway, I didn't have my camera handy, but here's a pic that looks just like the one I saw:



A very handsome aircraft IMO, and the noise coming out of those four RR Conways was very impressive

[edit on 11/28/08 by xmotex]

They go into civilian airports a lot. If we couldn't get them into Hickam they'd go to Honolulu. I've even seen an RAF C-17 parked on the South Ramp of Honolulu International. You have to get a PPR number to go into a military base. If something is going on or they can't get the number they can't land at the military base, so they go to a civilian base.

Saw that same aircraft when I was in Calgary International a few months back. Very odd-looking aircraft if you haven't seen it before. Quick question: THe prove on the front is for refueling, right?

Yes. It's similar to how the US military helicopters refuel. Most other countries use the probe and drogue refueling system. The USAF is the only service that uses the boom system.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Yes. It's similar to how the US military helicopters refuel. Most other countries use the probe and drogue refueling system. The USAF is the only service that uses the boom system.

Actually, I found this...

Flying Boom Systems in Service
USAF fixed wing aircraft use the flying boom system exclusively. In addition to the US Air Force, the boom system is in use by the Netherlands (KDC-10), Israel (modified Boeing 707) and Turkey (ex-USAF KC-135R). Possibly the largest tanker aircraft, Iran took delivery of Boeing 747 tankers equipped with a single boom and three drogues in early 1976, but the current status of these aircraft is unknown. Both Japan and Italy have contracted with Boeing for tankers based on the B767.

Source

A 747 tanker... think of all that fuel.

Originally posted by xmotex


A very handsome aircraft IMO, and the noise coming out of those four RR Conways was very impressive

On a slightly separate note... I never feel comfortable seeing two (or even three) engines that close together - there have been plenty of disasters because one engine threw a wobbly and took out the other.

I say that with the exception of the B-52, they have 8 engines on 4 pylons!! who cares if 2 are out, you probably wouldn't notice - but no one builds civil aircraft to that standard.

Originally posted by Amniodarone
Actually, I found this...

Yeah I was kinda in a rush when I typed that. I forgot that some other countries use it for their US built planes. Turkey bought KC-135s from the US, Israel uses a modified 707 similar to a -135 but without the extra fuel tanks. The irony is that I did a huge thread on the Iranian 747 tankers. All of them are used for refueling US built planes.

Thats what I get for being in a hurry.

Originally posted by Now_Then
I say that with the exception of the B-52, they have 8 engines on 4 pylons!! who cares if 2 are out, you probably wouldn't notice - but no one builds civil aircraft to that standard.

Most RECENT engine failures that you're talking about are contained engine failures. Most of the engines out there have kevlar linings inside them to keep that from happening.

There was a B-52 on a flight once that lost four engines on one side and kept flying. Barely, but they kept flying. The funny part with the B-52 is that when we'd have planes taxi in they'd shut down half their engines. Most planes would shut down 2, B-52s- 4.

Originally posted by Now_Then

I say that with the exception of the B-52, they have 8 engines on 4 pylons!! who cares if 2 are out, you probably wouldn't notice - but no one builds civil aircraft to that standard.

You are quite correct! Noone builds civil aircraft to that standard, everyone builds civil aircraft to a much better standard than military aircraft.

Thats why the C-17 will not be seen on the civil market - Boeing got laughed at by the FAA when they asked the FAA to forego the standard certification requirements for large civil transport aircraft. The FAA of course said 'No chance, certificate as normal or dont sell the aircraft', so Boeing had to withdraw their BC-17 offering.

Rumour has it, it would have cost Boeing billions of USD to bring the C-17 up to civil certification - a cost which made selling the aircraft harder to do (the market is only big enough for a few hundred sales, not the 500+ market normal civil aircraft have).

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by Amniodarone
Actually, I found this...

Yeah I was kinda in a rush when I typed that. I forgot that some other countries use it for their US built planes. Turkey bought KC-135s from the US, Israel uses a modified 707 similar to a -135 but without the extra fuel tanks. The irony is that I did a huge thread on the Iranian 747 tankers.

All of them are used for refueling US built planes.

Thats what I get for being in a hurry.

I know. I read that thread! Just wanted to make sure that you got credit where credit was due.

reply to post by Amniodarone


It is interesting to note that since the retirement of concord the VC10 is now the fastest passenger carrying aircraft in the world! yes is its old and has had its top speed limited (by the RAF big wigs) due to life-ing/fatigue issues.

The RAF does often land at civilian airports as part of normal training sorties for the pilots as well as transporting troops etc. So nothing uncommon about them being in a civvie airport. In regards to noise they havnt been allowed to do a full power take off as the noise level produced by the engines is soo loud it breaks all CAA regulations and sets off car alarms quite a long way away, for example if on takes of at full power on the main runway at Brize Norton (VC-10 home UK RAF base) it will see off the car alarms in the officers mess carpark!

In regards to things being "wobbly" with the engine configuration it is apparently fine to fly with no issues as such. However during production some supersonic trials were conducted with the aircraft (it made it past mach 1!) the controls lost effectiveness and became very hard to fly.

Hope you guys find this useful/interesting

Toby Rose

(RAF engineering officer)

likely that aircraft was from NWC China Lake Calif.

we see it on a regular bases when the RAF is flying out here.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.navair.navy.mil...
www.deagel.com...
www.fencecheck.com...


there are also RAF C-130s and tri-star tankers here to.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
It is interesting to note that since the retirement of concord the VC10 is now the fastest passenger carrying aircraft in the world! yes is its old and has had its top speed limited (by the RAF big wigs) due to life-ing/fatigue issues.

I had thought that honour would go towards the Cessna Citation X topping out at above 700 mph? Also really quick is the surprising 747 (actually due to the humped fuselage and some area rule kung-fu it's better at transonic speeds. But only just.) at over 600 mph. Another aircraft that is probably faster would be the Tu-154 with 3 engines and a crazy sweepback angle on the wings.

reply to post by RichardPrice


How is it that military aircraft are built to lesser standards than civilian?

From my understanding, military aircraft must be designed and constructed to survive extreme conditions and have redundancy...

Shattered OUT...

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


the info i can get says the VC-10 top end is 580 mph give or take a bit , the 747 is rated to 608 mph and the citation is rated to 625 mph

Originally posted by ANNED
likely that aircraft was from NWC China Lake Calif.

we see it on a regular bases when the RAF is flying out here.

Ah that makes sense, thanks

Makes me hope I'll get to see a Typhoon flying around at some point

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
reply to post by RichardPrice

 

How is it that military aircraft are built to lesser standards than civilian?

From my understanding, military aircraft must be designed and constructed to survive extreme conditions and have redundancy...

Shattered OUT...

Military aircraft are built for survivability, but that doesn't mean they are built to FAA or EASA civilian standards - military standards are far below that of their civilian counterparts.

Military aircraft treat everything but 'the job' as secondary - if it doesn't allow you to do the job, its unwanted expense, and its not catered for during build.