VC 10 Pilots, please. [Archive]

Phantom Driver

24th Aug 2008, 17:31

I last flew the Tens (Standard, but with droop-snoot wing-tips to enable FL430) in '74 and manuals not with me at the moment as am on 'oliday.

Think the discrepancy between Tonks and POHL may be due to Tonks being current, wheras POHL may be like me. Perhaps recent revision of Vmo envelope?

By the way, what I do remember is that M0.886 indicated (Mmo) is M0.86 corrected. We used to cruise at 0.86 indicated, which was 0.835 corrected. Don't remember the error being that bad on the B707, with its pitot up on the fin?

The low Vmo at sea-level was a rather disappointing feature of a great aeroplane..

Nice to get back on topic with constructive info about the VC10, a classic aeroplane. B744 is the current "hotship" (.86 cruise-at least so it used to be prior to the now politically correct era of low cost indices). However, we have forgotten the high performance machines of decades ago; didn't the Convair 990 have a Mach .9 cruise? (Fuel cost not too important in those days!).

Stanley Eevil

24th Aug 2008, 18:05

Current Mno is IMN0.866 not 0.886

`Original` Vno was 337kts at MSL reducing linearly to 317kts at 20000ft increasing to 329kts at 31000ft. Then IMN0.886 above 31000ft.

411A

24th Aug 2008, 18:32

...didn't the Convair 990 have a Mach .9 cruise?

Designed as such, however most were cruised at M.88...this directly from a pilot and F/E, on type.

Stanley Eevil

24th Aug 2008, 19:54

Tonks data is now correct (0.866) having edited it at 2045hrs. ;)

Chris Scott

24th Aug 2008, 21:51

Phantom Driver,

Was hoping no one would notice my gaff about the B707 having its pitot up on the fin. :\

Having realised my “senior moment”, and shot in from the garden to edit it out, thought I’d got away with it. Now find that you’ve actually quoted it in your post, so there’s nothing I can do to conceal the blunder.

Actually, the “pitot” on the B707 fin is the HF antenna… [If memory serves this time, the VC10 uses its whole airframe as the HF antenna.]

Stanley Eevil’s “original” Vno/Mno figures sound right, except that we always referred to Vmo instead of Vno and Mmo instead of Mno. Subtle difference?
337kts at sea level was a bit pedestrian.

411A

24th Aug 2008, 23:12

Never mind, Chris Scott, but remember, there was a probe lower down on the B707 vertical fin...used for the Q-feel sensor for the powered rudder.

Chris Scott

25th Aug 2008, 09:50

That's true, 411A, the (single) "boosted" rudder being the only powered primary flight control on the B707; whereas the VC10's are all (electrically) powered. In the absence of the manuals, I recall 3 separate rudder surfaces, each with a PCU and (series) yaw damper; 4 elevators; and 2 ailerons per wing (outboard only, unlike the Seven-oh).

Having said that, I hasten to add that the balance-panel ailerons and elevators on the 707 seemed to work just as well.

The VC10 secondary controls are all hydraulic. The TPI (trimable horizontal stabiliser) can work off either of 2 hydraulic systems, whereas the 707's, as you well know, is electric with manual backup.

The trouble with the single rudder on the Seven-oh is that the Vmca rises to about 180kts when the "boost" fails, whereas the Ten normally still has 2 powered rudders remaining; unless you've lost all AC electrics, in which case there's no manual capability (which is why they fitted the EL-RAT).

Err.. apologies for the thread drift.

finncapt

25th Aug 2008, 16:50

Yes, I remember there were three rudder surfaces.

They were powered by electrical systems 4, 1 and 2 or fourpence ha'penny in old money!!!

The VC10 had thrust augmentors and the main spar was milled from the solid.

Don't make them like that these days!!

galaxy flyer

25th Aug 2008, 23:08

Thread drift, but curious how did the electrical primary flight controls work on the VC-10? By electric, I presume you mean NOT hydraulic, hence the question. Were there electric motors driving the surfaces with feel units providing artificial feel?

GF

BEagle

26th Aug 2008, 06:51

Mechanically signalled electro-hydraulic power flying control units.

Some also had electrically signalled inputs from autopilot and/or yaw damper systems.

Electro-hydraulic artificial feel motors in the whiffle-tree (honest!) compartment provided constant stick force per g in roll and pitch by increasing feel levels with TAS; rudder feel gradient was steeper and was IAS related.

POHL

1st Sep 2008, 12:23

I've just logged in after a few days away and yes I posted a typo mistake. Mea culpa!
337 kts at sea level the rest was correct.
I am currently looking at the aircrafts original placard as 'salvaged' when I delivered a Standard VC 10 to its final resting place!
Apologies all.

Chris Scott

1st Sep 2008, 14:17

You're lucky, POHL, all I got were a few jagged pieces of fuselage skin and a captain's chart/coffee table (from G-ARTA). But then I was merely a chief stoker (the one most vulnerable to a clip round the ear by the F/E).

Was that IX or DJ?

Jumbo Driver

1st Sep 2008, 16:12

Electro-hydraulic artificial feel motors in the whiffle-tree (honest!) compartment provided constant stick force per g in roll and pitch by increasing feel levels with TAS; rudder feel gradient was steeper and was IAS related.

The "wiffle-tree" (and not "whiffle", I recall, BEags) was an ingenious method of connecting the two feel units such that, if one feel unit was isolated or failed, the level of artificial feel fed into the system remained unchanged.

JD
:)

Chris Scott

1st Sep 2008, 17:25

Think BEagle's spelling is correct, JD. As you've picked up on this one, can I offer part of a piece I wrote a few days ago, but decided not to post in case it might be old-hat?
I'm deleting the VC10 bit, which you've just nicely covered. Here goes:

Imagine a wagon drawn by two horses, side-by-side. The idea is to ensure that they share the load equally. How do you make the lazier one do his share of the work? The solution is to attach their harnesses to either side of a transverse bar, which is pivoted vertically on the hitch of the wagon, and free to rotate. As the keener horse pulls ahead, the bar comes forward on his side, but pushes aft on the other side, increasing the load on the lazier horse.

This assembly is known as a whiffle-tree. If the angle of the bar reaches a set limit, as in the event of a failure of one feel-unit, a microswitch will activate a warning.

The BAC 1-11 also uses a whiffle-tree system for its rudder PCU (the only one on the A/C, if memory serves), supplied by 2 hydraulic systems. In the event of one hydraulic system failing, the other continues seamlessly to do the work, and a W/L illuminates. You are then invited to close a "kill lever" (can't remember what its proper name is) to isolate the rudder PCU from the failed (or failing) hydraulic system.

Jumbo Driver

1st Sep 2008, 17:56

Chris, I'm sure, when I did the "chalk-and-talk" conversion course on to the "Queen of the Skies" back in 1971, or so, it was referred to as "Wiffle Tree". However, I see from the magic of search engines now that it can be found under both spellings, with and without the "h", so I bow to accepting "Whiffle" as well.

Either way, the WT is an ingenious device. With such an equine history, maybe the "Iron Duck" should really have been the "Iron Horse" ...

JD
:)

Chris Scott

1st Sep 2008, 18:40

Touché, JD.

Shocked to hear that perjorative nickname again. Iron Duck, indeed!

Also had my chalk-and-talk course in 1971. At Gatwick. Presume yours was at Braincrank? We used to go there for the sim, invariably in the early hours of the morning, and try not to crash the camera...

Happy days,

Chris

BEagle

1st Sep 2008, 18:46

Unfortunately, ever since some Brize Norton station commander - who was a lousy pilot and an extremely arrogant and unpleasant so-and-so - decided that the well-proven VC10 ground school course was 'too long', much of the course was dumbed-down to Janet and John book level. So the delights of the whiffle tree were then lost to all susbequent students.....

As there were several whiffle trees, was that a whiffle thicket or a whiffle copse?

Seat62K

1st Sep 2008, 20:16

Thread drift (2),
I remember flying from Heathrow to Philadelphia in August, 1970 in a BOAC Standard VC10. Was it usual for Standard VC10s to cross the Atlantic or were they pressed into service as a result of the 747 pilots' strike which prevented the airliner's introduction into service in May, 1970? I'd welcome information from anyone in the know. Thanks.

Capt Chambo

1st Sep 2008, 20:40

Just on the off chance does anyone have a copy of the wonderfully "Pythonesque" take off briefing attributed to a VC-10 skipper IIRC. It appeared on these fora some years ago, and search as I might I have been unable to find it.
Reference to the "Whiffle Tree" reminded me of it.
Apologies in advance for taking the thread off at a tangent!

Jumbo Driver

2nd Sep 2008, 09:47

A while ago, I posted the following "Unwin-esque", which I witnessed being delivered deadpan on a VC10 many moons ago ...

"In the embly of a hapling on takeoff, I will bandload the takeover, spurn on the hornpecker, heavelip madly on the slideload levers and splatly most on the drake pedlars, with severe gripe on the bum loadings - most nauseacres!

Any questables?"

Was that it?

JD
:)

Capt Chambo

2nd Sep 2008, 10:30

Jumbo driver I am forever in your debt.....
I am looking forward to reciting it to my next Far Eastern ("ICAO English proficiency level 4" (sic)) F/O. And then asking if there are any questions on the T/O briefing?
It will amuse me anyway........ Once again many thanks.

Slats One

2nd Sep 2008, 11:45

Standard model VC10s were a regular moment across the Atlantic in the early days - then the Super mdoel took over. Of note BOAC kept a spruced up Standard in reserve at LHR in case the Super scheduled for a blue riband service to JFK, went tech.

Even the Super lacked the range for a non-stop- LHR to SFO. LAX, or YVR. That did not stop BOAC routing them Montreal- Vancouver or ORD -SFO/LAX and thence across the pacific on the round the world service though.

The lighter, less powerful 707-336 had more range andcould do the LHR- USA west coast hop in one go- which was one of the 707s few advantages of the VC10. Having said that of course, no 707 (nor 747!) could leave Nairobi at full load on a hot day and fly non stop to London or Frankfurt - the VC10 could of course.

And the EAA Supers use to thunder out of NBO at max AUW, on hot mornings for non stops to Europe, whilst the 707 operators had to reduce payload, reduce fuel and then drop into Cairo for refuel - an extra stop with less pax and freight out of NBO.

So, the so-called 'advantages' of the 707 -so often cited agains the VC10, were in fact, not so. And even the 747 100s and -200s were also limited out of NBO- whereas the 'old' SVC 10s were not.

According to published figures, teh oeprating costs of teh 707 adn teh Super VC10 across teh Atlantic were far clsoer than the statemetns adn legends portrayed at the time. Contrary to the BOAC 'Boeing' boardroom, the SVC10s were within about 6 cents (US) of the slightly cheaper to operate 707 - it certainyl was not the couple of dollars differnce per seat mile that was claimed - adn the VC10 did not rebuilding at 30,000 hours did it.

I best stop, thread creep and I can hear the criticism from here.

VC10- desinged, built and test flown by the men who did the same for Concorde.

Perrin

2nd Sep 2008, 12:21

Ah there was the most loved standard (Queen of the skys) and that was Victor Mike, remember working on it at Prestwick with the crew training. Was a great bit of kit and thats coming from a American who moved to the UK years ago.

Keep them up Boys :ok:

finncapt

2nd Sep 2008, 12:55

Slats one

Never routed via ord but the 591/592 used to go lhr, jfk, lax, hnl, nan, syd and mel.
Sometimes auk I think.
It was a 16 day trip if I remember.

Seat62K

2nd Sep 2008, 13:55

"Finncapt",
I think you are right about the London-New York-Los Angeles-Honolulu-Fiji-Sydney VC10 routing. I have a BOAC timetable somewhere but can't locate it immediately to check!
I recall a most memorable landing as a passenger at LAX on a Super VC10 from JFK: it was in the evening of 4 July, 1972 (Independence Day) with one of those gorgeous southern Californian summer sunsets. What made it memorable is that I'd never before arrived at an airport with parallel runways where both were being used for landings. A Western Boeing 720 was at our side as we descended.
The return LAX-JFK leg was a night transcontinental crossing - barely 5 hours in the Super VC10 - with the aircraft then operating the morning JFK-LHR run. What I remember about the landing at JFK was how "firm" it was.

point8six

2nd Sep 2008, 14:32

Firm touchdown? Must have been one of those rare occasions when the ground effect disappeared.;)

Brain Potter

2nd Sep 2008, 14:50

There is no doubt that the VC-10 suffered from being an unwanted child, forced onto BOAC by a government trying to support the British aircraft industry. However, as BOAC were also state-owned and supported organization, the government should not have tolerated their campaign against the VC-10, which seems motivated by a burning desire to place orders with Boeing.

I believe that people who have flown both the 707 and the VC-10 are fairly unanimous that the Boeing product was a superior commercial machine, with a generally much healthier range/payload. However, in the state-controlled economy of the 1960's, once the government had given approval for Vickers to go ahead with building the VC-10, it seems incredible that their own airline were allowed to order a rival aircraft, even if it was superior in many respects.

Before this thread becomes more suited to history and nostalgia, back to technical issues. The flying controls are actuated by self-contained hydraulic units powered from the aircraft's electrical system. Redundancy is achieved by split surfaces, each powered by a different AC bus. The aircraft has 4 engine-driven generators (rather than 3 on the 707) - plus a ram-air turbine to keep some surfaces powered if all gens fail. Reversionary control is achieved by using differential hydraulic spoilers for roll and the horizontal stabilizer for pitch. The latter is the only surface that has a duplex source of power (both hydraulic).

To add to the information about speed limits; the aircraft had warning horns that sounded at the Mmo of IMn 0.886. The circuit breakers for these could be pulled and the aircraft flown up to IMn 0.925 (Mne) for "crew-training" purposes (although the autopilot was only cleared to Mmo). It's quite amazing how much "crew-training" took place on VIP tasks! In it's later years the speeds were all reduced for airworthiness reasons and with all the AAR kit hanging from the aircraft it could only be coaxed to reach the airtest limit in a gentle descent. The IMn is 0.02 higher than true, so for comparison the old Mmo was really .866 (nowadays even lower) - which puts paid to a lot of the "fastest airliner" claims. The 747-400 routinely cruises at .85 or .86 true and is still RVSM compliant at .90. The old VC10 is still faster than Airbus ships though!

finncapt

2nd Sep 2008, 15:02

B.P:

You've reminded me of the aileron/spoiler disconnect lever.
If you disconnect it and apply full opposite lateral control on each stick, the aicraft turns in the direction of the co-pilots control wheel - the spoilers are the more powerful.

Chris Scott

2nd Sep 2008, 17:43

Quote from Slats One:
The lighter, less powerful 707-336 had more range and could do the LHR- USA west coast hop in one go- which was one of the 707s few advantages of the VC10. Having said that of course, no 707 (nor 747!) could leave Nairobi at full load on a hot day and fly non stop to London or Frankfurt - the VC10 could of course.
[Unquote]

You’ve summarised it nicely, but I think it was the VC10 that had the “few advantages”. As one who was posted from RHS Standard VC10 to RHS B707-320C(advanced), when BCAL sold our last ‘Ten’ (G-ASIW) at the end of 1974, it was not long before I operated to both LAX and NBO in the Seven-oh.

On the 707, LGW-LAX (~10:30) was pushing it with a charter load, but easily done with 140-150 pax. I think the longest flight-time on a laden Standard VC10 was little over 9hrs, retaining reserves.

Out of Nairobi, our under-powered 707s − operated under the conventional take-off techniques of the day − were limited to about 129T (tonnes), about 22T below structural. Our Standard VC10s (with the droop-snoot wing tips to enable FL430), could manage about 142T (only ½T below structural). This didn’t handicap the 707 quite as much as it seems, because the Boeing was a lighter airframe and burned much less fuel at a given gross weight. But it certainly couldn’t carry a decent payload NBO-LON (which we ex-VC10 pilots were well advised not to point out, if we wanted a smooth conversion course in that cramped, uncomfortable cockpit…).

This embarrassing situation was ameliorated in 1975/6, when we managed to increase the Nairobi RTOW to about 136T: partly by a dispensation to over-boost the engines; but mainly by introducing the increased-V2 technique − now the norm − to improve second-segment climb gradient, taking advantage of the 13000-foot runway. By that time, however, our slots on the route had been given to BOAC in exchange for somewhere else, so it was only the occasional freighter that benefited.

Yet again, the ubiquitous 707 had been “tweaked” to improve its performance and profitability. The VC10s that we flew were among the first 20 off the production line; the 707s nearer the thousandth. The “Ten” design never had a chance to mature.

Once the 707 is above the safety altitude, its configuration makes it inevitably more efficient than the VC10. The “Ten” is also heavily over-engineered. By the 1970s the Conway by-pass engine, far superior to the JT3C turbojet on early Seven-ohs, had been bettered in efficiency − though notably not in power − by the JT3D turbofan of later 707s. Presumably, no suitable replacement engine was available. If the VC10 had been re-engined with two big turbofans like the RB211, CF6 or JT9D − all available by the mid-1970s − it might have been a (stretchable?) improvement, but long-haul twins were non-existent in those pre-ETOPS days. And I can’t imagine any VC10 derivative being able to carry 39T of tomatoes from Las Palmas to Schiphol.

It was all BOAC’s fault, apparently, in insisting on short-hot-high runway performance…
But what a beautiful thing she is.

Slats One

3rd Sep 2008, 10:28

Quite.

And let us not forget that Vickers BAC tried desperately to upgrade the VC10 but met a BOAC brick wall. The SVC10 Super 200 was ready to go- seating 212 pax, with tip and leading edge root fillet tanks added, bigger cabin doors and true LHR - LAX capability.

Then BOAC asked for it to be made smalelr, and it was a 200s eater, adn then smaller still - all for one airline's (BOAC) needs- thus losing any hope of selling to world wide. Which is also what BEA did to the Trident by insisting it was made smaller with weaker engines - thus handing the world market to the 727.

The Super Super VC10 212 had massive commerical appeal adn I have seen the paper work that rpvies that Pan Am adn toerhs looked at it. It had massive payload/range capacity and could have competed/ exceeded the stretched DC-8s and later 707s - except of course for the Conway's thirst.

And Vickers also came up with not just teh swing nose cargo VC!0 proposal, but also a nose -loading VC10 cargo freighter with a raised cockpit upper lobe fuselage- a picture of which is in the book, 'VC10' by Cole- published by The Crowood Press adn with a B Trubshaw forward.

As Trubshaw says, we Brits faield to develope teh VC10.

Most people blame BOAC - whatever the paradox of that airline's superb VC10 marketing campaign..

Ex RAF VC10 reg'd as G-ALXR flew around with an RB211 on tis port side for months as trial -to test the RB 211. Suitably re-engined with x 2 RB 211s, the VC10 could have been the first big twin!

And the thing was as Chris says, over engineered - but that is why it never suffered an airframe related crash -unlike the 707s - remember the Dan- Air cargo 707 and a failed tailplane spar crack...to cite one example.

The VC10 is also the only T tailed airliner never to have suffered a deep stall and subsequent loss. This is becasue the very large, very powerful
tailplane is high and swept back -placed well aft from the wing wake and thus less subject to the T tail dipping into the stalled main wing wake as it is on the Trident or 1-11 for example.

Such was the excellence of Vickers design work - which Fokker copied for the F28/F100 - which has also never deep stalled into a loss.

All this lack of development was such a waste- as with the hovercraft, the Whittle work, the Rover car company, and so much else we failed to develop or market. All at a time when the French were selling Caravelles by teh bucket load to the Americans...

Oh and on the original thread, Trubshaw did the RAF VC10 tanker conversions test flying using XV 141 I think, and once accidently allegedly exceeded the velocity /height envelope -not his fault -. The VC10 went fast- smoothy and serenely you understand.

Jo90

6th Sep 2008, 09:08

The longest VC10 flight in my logbook is 9h 55m. LHR to Barbados in January 1971.
Aircraft was GASGO ( how's that for a classic reg! ) a super.
Headwind too strong for direct flight so planned tech stop in Bermuda.
Fastest track to BDA was via o/h Gander (and within sight of Greenland enroute).
Made fuel so recleared to Antigua with Barbados as alternate then climbed to 410, made more fuel and recleared again to Barbados with Port-o-Spain.
Not a lot left in the tanks on arrival!

Can anyone beat that ( without in flight splash'n'dash ) ?

quartermilltopo

6th Sep 2008, 10:46

Thanks again to all respondents for their input to my original question in this post. And to all who apologised for 'going off at a tangent' - please don't apologise! That's half the fun, and there were some fascinating insights, information and history from those of you who are really in the know.
Brilliant stuff!

Bat Fastard

7th Sep 2008, 00:12

0100, up early in the morning but had to read all this thread, it's really great general a/c chat, thank you all!
Few trips in RAF pax and tkr VC10s and a few trips "jousting" the basket behind them.
On the ground and in the air it always looked great. The best colour scheme must be the BOAC one though as at Duxford. As a child of the 60/70s I had the airfix model in this colour scheme and it epitomised the romantic era of aviation to me.

ExSp33db1rd

7th Sep 2008, 10:49

Great ex-BOAC stuff, now how about Connies. Strats. and Brits. ? :ok:

tubby linton

7th Sep 2008, 11:28

Was anything from the aircraft (G-ASGN)destroyed at Dawson's Field salvaged and what happened to the remains?

Rainboe

7th Sep 2008, 11:40

It was pretty violently destroyed along with a Swissair Convair and a TWA 707. I very much doubt if there was much salvageable, if anything. Unlike the VC10 destroyed at Amsterdam where the tailplane was recovered and allowed a rotation around the fleet for repairs as cracks were affecting the tailplane screwjacks.

Now someone will say that was totally wrong.

I flew with the Captain of the Jordan one, an absolute gentleman of the old school called Cyril Goulbourn. He described the sheer violence of the hijack and the crew and passengers subsequent travails in the middle of a civil war in Jordan. Fascinating and sobering saga that went on for about 10 days.

So, we lost 2 BOAC VC10s to hijacking. One at Kano, one at Addis. One quite badly bent over the Andes....... I was not involved!

You've got me going now! I was lying in bed on standby one Sunday morning when I was called out for a 'test flight'. So off we went over Anglia in a VC10 just off maintenance. There followed 4 hours of sheer terror. Maximum speed extension of everything, but what really got my goat was stalls....to stick push. Bearing in mind the superstall incidents with BAC 1-11 and Trident were not that far in the past, watching an angle of attack gauge creep up to 15 degrees, then start twitching, then jump to 17 degrees (I gather if it jumped over 17 degrees, you were living dead) with speed below 95 kts on a 4 engine jet, accompanied by stick push and horns and panoramic view of Anglia was not my idea of an enjoyable Sunday morning which was lying in bed with the Mrs (awful woman, she preferred Boeing pilots), the Sunday Times and mug of tea. I was absolutely bloody petrified, and resolved never to continue my short, and very unpopular 'test flying' career. The horror still comes back after over 30 years. In fact I was complaining bitterly afterwards that this was no occupation for a new father who fancied watching his children grow up and under no circumstances was I ever doing that again! Respect to test pilots, but not for me! I'm a coward through and through- which makes me a superb pilot (well Mum thought so anyway).

forget

7th Sep 2008, 12:14

Dawson's Field. I very much doubt if there was much salvageable, if anything.

Memory tells me all four engines were recovered. They were virtually untouched being 'gently' lowered to the ground as the fuselage broke up.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/dawson2.jpg

Rainboe

7th Sep 2008, 12:31

Those tail colours cause a stirring in the heart! To think they went to that garish red white and blue 'ice cream van' colour scheme from that lovely gold Speedbird/blue background. Shocking. But that's what the marketing companies charge a fortune for. And do you remember the 'BEA' logo that nobody could read?

forget

7th Sep 2008, 12:41

Those tail colours cause a stirring in the heart!

Marketing companies. Don't get me started.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b270/cumpas/boac_vc10_tshirtimage.jpg

Rainboe

7th Sep 2008, 12:48

Remember the 2 feel unit motors in the preflight check and the loud whirring noise they used to make in an otherwise silent flight deck? I could do a fantastic imitation of the loud hum they made after a couple of really deep breaths. It used to cause consternation when the switches were observed off, or when the tone changed as I ran out of puff.

And one of the first things you did when you walked on the flight deck was put the 10 switches (the 'top ten') inside the door on the left hand side on. What were they?

forget

7th Sep 2008, 12:56

...10 switches (the 'top ten') inside the door on the left hand side on. What were they?

Wouldn't know being (ex?) avionics :) - and BEA at that. Anyway, here's a Boys' Own VC-10 story for after Sunday lunch.

http://www.vc10.net/Memories/funandgames.html

PS. One more. I was aboard this one. The only time that Transport Command came close to writing me off - that I know of. :bored:

HERE. (http://www.vc10.net/History/incidents_and_accidents.html#Navigation_error_over_the_North _Atlantic)

diesel addict

7th Sep 2008, 16:44

During 1967-8 I distinctly remember BOAC ( or their advertising copywriting minions ) coming up with the phrase "Try a little VC-10 derness" - this when the Viet Nam war was in full swing ....... it must have struck quite a note with our transatlantic cousins.

Rainboe

7th Sep 2008, 17:58

At the height of the Vietnam war in the early 70s, we used to use a route to HKG that took us due east over head Da Nang or Qui Nonh in the centre of the country in the middle of the night. At 37,000', there were no missiles that could get up to us. It seemed remarkable flying with passengers over a Vietnam in full war mode in the dark and seeing it lit up with white flashes from horizon to horizon, and the ring of lights around Da Nang, the giant airbase. Now we fly over all parts of Afghanistan.

ExSp33db1rd

7th Sep 2008, 19:57

Rainboe - I remember those days as well, but then I was a Boeing pilot. Other airlines flew a longer route around Sth. Vietnam if I recall ? but then we used to shove a Union Flag out of the sextant hole - they wouldn't shoot a Brit. - would they ? Ignorance was bliss ! :ok:

Rainboe

7th Sep 2008, 20:11

The traditional method on which the British Empire was built was to stick a Union Flag (carefully the right way up) out of the window, if they put you in a cooking pot, then a large number of redcoat would follow some time later and make a new swathe of the world pink on the map. Seemed to work well, but failed a bit in the US for some reason, but I think that was because George III went a bit loopy. Perhaps we'll try again one day when Northern Rock is fixed. God knows we've got enough youf itching to stick it to somebody...usually us.

Jumbo Driver

7th Sep 2008, 22:06

And one of the first things you did when you walked on the flight deck was put the 10 switches (the 'top ten') inside the door on the left hand side on. What were they?

Weren't they for the VGs and DGs and busbars ... and things like that ... ?

And do you remember the 'BEA' logo that nobody could read?

Back Every Afternoon ...
or
Bu**er Everybody About ...

aka Hounslow Flying Club ...

JD
;)

Seat62K

8th Sep 2008, 05:42

Jumbo Driver

8th Sep 2008, 08:32

What would be the shortest? ... Was the VC10 ever used for those short hops in the Gulf (Abu Dhabi-Doha or similar)?

Early days certainly saw a timetabled MAN-PIK-JFK and return service, although we had no traffic rights between MAN and PIK. Also, I recall shortish sectors like DHA-BAH (Dhahran-Bahrein), and MBJ-KIN (Montego Bay-Kingston).

One particular flight does come to mind here -an unplanned SHJ-DXB (Sharjah-Dubai) sector, which followed an inadvertent landing at SHJ at the end of a very long duty period from LHR to DXB. This had already included a significant delay at (I think) Kuwait, awaiting a weather clearance at their destination further down the Gulf in DXB. If my memory serves me correctly, the skipper was a newly promoted (but not inexperienced) Les Hawkes and I think it may even have been his first trip in command but I'm not sure. I seem to remember they were carrying out a procedural let-down into DXB when they were asked by ATC to extend their outbound leg; when they eventually turned back in, the picture was misleading as both airfields had runways aligned 30 and they mistook SHJ runway for DXB, and landed. However, they soon realised their mistake and, clearly pretty tired by then, adopted the very practical solution of taking off again and flying the short hop across to DXB, just a few miles away.

It seems that Les took the attitude of "least said, soonest mended" and simply annotated the Voyage Report "1 extra landing SHJ", or similar and, after slipping in DXB, continued with his crew on his planned trip. Normally, this type of event would have required self-suspension of himself and his crew pending approval (or otherwise) from London to continue. Instead, it seems the news only came to light when a bill for the landing fee at SHJ was presented back at Base some time after the event. By then, it was far too late to suspend the offenders and I don't think any disciplinary action ensued. Those were the days when a practical attitude often prevailed, especially if "initiative" had been used.

JD
:)

Captain Airclues

8th Sep 2008, 09:03

I believe that the shortest scheduled service was Bahrain to Dhahran. The two airfields were 25 miles apart with the runways more or less in line. The shortest flight in my logbook is 22 minutes chock to chock with 8 minutes airborne (we just managed to get the flaps up) (19/08/71, G-ARVK).

Dave

Slats One

8th Sep 2008, 10:46

Rainboe: forgive me my cheek, but you said 'we' lost Vc10s at 'Kano and Addis' - surely you mean Lagos- not Kano. (Addis is correct though for the EAA - 5X-UVA )

I know I am not wrong about Lagos -even if I was but a boy - who lived there who had people killed on it. We were all regualrs on the BA and WT VC10 services to LOS via either Frankfurt, or Rome, and thence Kano.

BOAC had just sold the a/c to the Nigerians. The crew was mix of ex EAA people and others I think.

The cause was a combination of ATC and procedural and weather events and the acident was a key pointer in the promotion of GPW and CVR improvements.

Rainboe

8th Sep 2008, 11:45

Yes it was Lagos, not Kano. Memory fails, but it was 2/3 of my lifetime ago. Nearly 39 years ago in a couple of months!

Chris Scott

8th Sep 2008, 12:25

BOAC was still running the “VC Tenderness” adverts, I think, when I went on the Ten in 1971. We hated the state airline, of course ;), but the advert was superb. I don’t think it has ever been bettered, from an aviation anorak’s point of view; although − in later years − our “Caledonian Girls” and “Start Spreading the News” campaigns were pretty good.

Moving on swiftly, as this is the Tech Log forum: am interested that you remember the Andes incident, Rainboe. The aeroplane (G-ASIX, I think) might have been lost, but arrived in Santiago with cracks somewhere up in the “bullet”, which remained undetected until it returned to Gatwick. It even operated the return schedule… We’ll never know precisely what G-loadings were achieved during what had been effectively a mountain-wave-induced “jet upset”, because shifting freight apparently disconnected the power supply to the analogue FDR − which was a lot more sophisticated than the scratch-foil recorders typical on American aircraft.

One European airline with long experience of the Andes (Swissair?) had published an in-house paper about the dangers of flying near the tropopause. From then on, we used particularly to compare the QNHs at Mendoza and Santiago. If there was enough difference, we would avoid the trop by about 8000ft, i.e., fly low. The fact that we nearly lost an aeroplane through ignorance is another example of my mantra: “lessons (not always) handed down…”

Like Rainboe, the most terrifying experience of my career was a CofA air-test (called from home-stand-by), and it also included testing the stall-protection system − up to and including the stall-ident. The VC10 has two duplicate angle-of-attack sensors for this, but no gauges for the pilots; so a temporary bolt-on system is provided for air tests, and a pro-forma for the test crew to fill in. This provided maximum safe values of alpha for the guidance of the pilots. [Despite what Slats One has said above, it is presumably considered possible to deep-stall the VC10 − hence the provision of the stick-pusher.]

Unfortunately, our stall-ident (klaxon, accompanied by pneumatic stick-push), just wouldn’t work at the prescribed alpha values. The captain − our chief trainer, with considerable experience in these tests (it was my first and last) − seemed to be determined to achieve the “push”; regardless. Each time, he had to exceed the recommended alpha to make it go. The final test was conducted with gear and landing slats/flaps. As always, the pre-stall ignition came on first, at about the right value; followed by the stick-shaker. Approaching the stall, the vibration seems to increase; but I’m not sure how much is merely the effect of the stick-shaker. If memory serves, the first attempt was unsuccessful, leading to a second. Suffice it to say, I (like Rainboe?) never thought I would see an IAS below 100kts on a 4-engined jet in flight. When mine was reading just over 90, the captain finally relented. Whether this was to any extent influenced by my protests remains unclear; he may just have reached full up-elevator. We returned to base, and I think the aircraft was later cleared for service.

My shortest flight as PF was an empty ferry Hurn – Gatwick, after a charter to Tenerife-North and back. [Perhaps the only jet capable of flying 150 pax out of a 6000-foot runway on a 4-hour sector.] The clearance was to FL70, I think. Not possible to use “Graduated” thrust for the take-off, as BOH Rwy26 was not on our list of approved runways. At the standard thrust-reduction height of 1500ft, it became apparent that I would have to continue reducing power to avoid busting the cleared flight-level and/or the (227kts?) slat/flap limiting speed…

VictorGolf

8th Sep 2008, 13:50

I'm afraid my experience of the VC-10 is as SLF but this fascinating thread has brought back a couple of memories. I was up at Embakasi (Nairobi) one (hot) lunchtime waiting to collect one of engineers who was due in from Malawi. An Ethiopian Boeing 720 taxiied out and in the midst of clouds of black smoke use all the runway and looked as though it was going to go through the dead volcano Ol Donyo Sapuk (?) about 20 miles away. It didn't but an East African VC-10 to Addis taxiied out to the intersection, which was about halfway down the runway and blasted off from there. Doing what it was designed to do I guess.
The other memory was of standing in the queue to get my bags and I overheard somebody ask a BA steward what he thought of the new red/white/blue colour scheme and he replied "It makes us look like b****y British Rail". The BCal guys rather liked that.

Rainboe

8th Sep 2008, 15:01

That is so achingly familiar! I wonder as to the wisdom of airline Training Captains doing some of the stuff we used to do. The dreadful shaking in the stalls, the demonstrations to all new pilots the Dutch Roll characteristics (with somebody at the periscope station rear left side with periscope up like a U-boat captain observing the fin and tailplane waggling and shaking- really scary sight! No wonder the tail used to crack up and the poor screwjack got overstressed!

Talking about the periscope, you could see the tailplane and top of the engine cowlings through the upper periscope, and looking out through the electronics bay periscope was fascinating too. What an over-engineered aeroplane in places!

moggiee

8th Sep 2008, 15:12

"Jo90" mentioned the longest VC10 flight in his logbook. What would be the shortest? Didn't BOAC use VC10s between Aldergrove and Prestwick before dedicating a Viscount to the operation? (Does anyone have a photo of that Viscount in BOAC colours?) Weren't there Birmingham-Manchester flights, too? Was the VC10 ever used for those short hops in the Gulf (Abu Dhabi-Doha or similar)?

RAF VC10 C1s for me so we often did odd jobs.
The shortest I ever did was 9 minutes - Boscombe Down to Brize Norton. We rounded it up to 10 for the log books. Routes like Aldergrove-Liverpool or Liverpool-Teesside were not uncommon.

My longest was 9:35 - Las Vegas to Brize - not bad when the RAF C1 carried all the extra weight of the cargo door and re-inforced floor.

Slats One

8th Sep 2008, 18:09

Ref: VC10 deep stall - Chris- I was not saying the Ten could not or would not deep stall, what I was saying- clumsily it seems- was that unlike other t tailers, no VC0 airframe has ever been lost due- repeat due to a deep stall.

Yes it would stall, and the protective systems then stepped in to stop that stall becoming the deep or super stall.

Of note, such was the excellence of the aerofoil perfromance that the standard VC10 exhibited nose drop at the stall- remarkable for a rear cg, rear pressure biased, T tailed airframe.

EAA gave up the full stall test after several close calls and after persuading the Kenyan DCA that an actual stall was over kill- so to speak.

With its long front fuselage moment arm and very heavy rear end, it is remarkable that the VC10 was so docile at the stall - the ILushyin 62 copy certainly was not!

I worked closely with B. Trubshaw and he told me once flew a VC10 at the very edge fo the stall envelope after an elevator hinge bolt broke - cited in his book -in fact he ordered a bail out and Mayday but that proved imposible so he palmed the VC10 down to safe but hairy landing. BOAC crawled all voer that one.

But he confirmed that that very high tail and very big elevator sweep back saved the VC10 from being a T tail deep stall dipper. Although the 727 has lost an airframe to the dreaded deep stall, that aircraft too had a very high tail and very big sweepback on the empenage - hence its amazing performance- allied to the big slat parasol wing.

The dear old trident was frankly, handicapped by its stub tail adn low power. The Late Grp Cpt John Cunningham told me of a day when he got the Trident nose too high and very very nearly lost his life. It took about 10,000 feet to coem down- nasty- very nasty.

Does anyone remember when Davies of the ARB had a Standard VC10 spin during a flight test and it was discovered that one of the rubber seals on the wing fence was missing on one wing only? Apparrently BOAC discovered 4 others in the fleet with the same problem...

One of my neighbours was Capt Ronald Ballantine- ex Imperial, RAF and
SVC10 senior Captain. He told interesting stories.