You refer to the DC-10 as an old airframe, and yet you prefer the VC-10, which first flew nearly 50 years ago? I'm willing to bet the DC-10 is *way* more fuel efficient and cheaper to operate. Probably safer too. And according to Wikipedia, the only flying VC-10s are tankers - the rest are there for spare parts.
Wikipedia also says that some of the Tristars passenger/tanker combos, and some of the passenger Tristars have counter measures against ground fire so they are used to fly people into possibly hostile places like Iraq and Afghanistan. So it's not that they don't use the Tristars, just that they don't waste them on moving people around in safe airspaces.
Why do we use Civilian carriers (normally the cheapest bidder, like the recently bust 'Fly Globespan', or the oldest airframes, like Omni Air's DC-10s) when the sides of the runway at Brize are lined with RAF VC-10s and Tristars? What is the point having RAF passenger aircraft if we don't use them regularly?
RAF Brize Norton
Latest comments on RAF Brize Norton
[Write a new comment.]
You refer to the DC-10 as an old airframe, and yet you prefer the VC-10, which first flew nearly 50 years ago? I'm willing to bet the DC-10 is *way* more fuel efficient and cheaper to operate. Probably safer too. And according to Wikipedia, the only flying VC-10s are tankers - the rest are there for spare parts.
Wikipedia also says that some of the Tristars passenger/tanker combos, and some of the passenger Tristars have counter measures against ground fire so they are used to fly people into possibly hostile places like Iraq and Afghanistan. So it's not that they don't use the Tristars, just that they don't waste them on moving people around in safe airspaces.
Why do we use Civilian carriers (normally the cheapest bidder, like the recently bust 'Fly Globespan', or the oldest airframes, like Omni Air's DC-10s) when the sides of the runway at Brize are lined with RAF VC-10s and Tristars? What is the point having RAF passenger aircraft if we don't use them regularly?