VC10 - The truth

[Corrona]

OK guys, I've heard all the "now Concorde is grounded it's the fastest passenger aircraft in the world" stuff, but how fast could/can the VC10 fly really? And is it true that it could fly faster than the RAF chaps are allowed to fly it?

It's still beautiful all these years later regardless of the answers to above questions.

[hval]

I believe that the original VC10 type 1100 was limited to Mach 2.5 where as the Type 1664 and Type 1170 are able to achieve constant speeds approaching Mach 3 at altitudes of 84,000 feet

[Corrona]

wow that really is fast.:ugh:

[hval]

Corrona,

Glad you don't believe me.

Have you had a look here (http://www.vc10.net)? It's a wonderful web site.

There is a page that provides the information here (http://www.vc10.net/Technical/1-5-4.html)

[hval]

I agree that it is one of the most beautiful aircraft designed

[CoffmanStarter]

Concorde and the VC-10 ... the two best passenger aircraft shapes to have ever flown IMHO :ok:

[hval]

CoffmanStarter,

I agree

[TURIN]

Rumour has it the 787 'cruised' above M0.9 regularly during testing.
The phrase 'goes like a scalded cat' is probably in poor taste though. :)

[longer ron]

What is the melting point of plastic ???:)

[longer ron]

Just to clarify...I was talking about skin heating temp due to speed...nothing to do with electrickery LOL

[hval]

Longer ron,

Depends on the plastic. "Plastics" are a group of materials that can have vastly differing characteristics. You can get plastics that can maintain their properties in extremely hot temperatures. Polyetherimide (I think that's how you spell it) can be used up to 340°F (170°C) - ish. But that is a special plastic

[TURIN]

For the 787 about 100C upsets the engineers. :suspect:

[dragartist]

I must be blind, I could not see any ref to M2 or M3 or 84k ft in the links. I did fly out of Embakasi (Niarobi) in 1965 in one. then back from Changi in 1970. Did the Washington Saturday run several times in the 80s. recall people saying we were overtaking 747s. Miss BOAC 1954 was the senior steward or what ever they called them at the time. Was Concorde banned from IAD due to noise. My mate who lived at Fairfax Va always new when we had arrived so had the steak in the smoker for when we had cleared customs. VC10 was the noisiest thing flying into IAD at the time. Very strong aircraft. I did some design work on the Super tankers when it was found they had extruded stringers. the assumption had been they were the same bent tin as the standard. The original RAF ones had a wet fin. I went down to Weybridge just before the design office moved to Chadderton (may have been Woodford for a while). I miss those days - rose coloured specs!

[NutLoose]

He was joking about speeds, read the follow on posts :E

Yup the RAF ones were standard fuselage with super engines and wings, plus a wet fin, the tail plane was a bit bigger than a Hunters main planes if I remember correctly. Noisy outside even with noise abatement, but quiet inside.

[hval]

dragartist,

NutLoose is correct. I was joking. I promise.

I have a really crap sense of humour. I admit it. My wife tells me that I never grew up past the age of seven. I reckon seven and a half.

[longer ron]

Sorry HVAL...plastic - as in plastic pig - which could of course be a reliant 3 wheeler or a GR5/7/9/10...or indeed a Boing Nightmare liner :)

[Chris Scott]

Can't speak for the military birds. For what it's worth, on the Standard 1103s and the 1109 (to which spec the prototype, G-ARTA, was modified for airline service) Mmo was M0.86 (true) = M0.886 (indicated). I don't know Vd. On entry into service with BUA in 1964-65, they cruised them at Mmo, with the overspeed bell often ringing intermittently in gusty conditions. By 1971, as BCAL, we normally cruised at M0.835 (true). After the 1972 fuel crisis, we were down to M0.82.

The 1103 was a Standard VC10 with main-deck cargo door and what was referred to as a "super" wing, with Kuchemann (droop-snoot) wing tips, to enable cruise at up to FL430. (BOAC's Standards were limited to FL410.) Unlike the RAF transports, there was no APU, a dry fin, and the engines were as for the Standard VC10. The 1109 was similar to the 1103, but no cargo door.

G-ASIX, which had cracked its tailplane bullet in an upset over Mendoza in about 1972, was sold to the Sultan of Oman in 1974 as his personal jet. He donated her to the Brooklands Museum around 1989, where she can be visited. That cockpit...

[RedhillPhil]

I'm more than happy to bow down to greater knowledge. I only speak as someone with an interest but...
I had a pal many moons ago who's Pa was a Trident captain. He (Ian's Pa) claimed that the Trident 2 was the fastest airliner and indeed I can remember reading the same in the Guiness book of records circa 1972.
Mind you, his Pa also told me that every aircraft landed bu a Trident had a controlled crash. He also told me that they were a bugger to get off the ground(?)

[NutLoose]

Brooklands got it earlier than 89 as I came out in 89 but we took a search to coat it with some fancy resin, so it must of arrived 87 88 ish, the throttles had seized when we were there. Had a nice tour round what was a new museum followed by taking the RAF Sherpa round some of the track, got quite far up the embankment too :oh:

[OldHunter]

We used to refer to the Tridents as Quadrants at Edinburgh as when fully laden they had to have the extra thrust from the APU to get off the ground...

[Trim Stab]

now Concorde is grounded it's the fastest passenger aircraft in the world"

Possibly fastest airliner, but there are business jets that are faster, eg Citation X. Citation X can go supersonic if are prepared to put up with the overspeed siren!

Cessna Citation X - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_Citation_X)

[Wycombe]

I recall a Mil Funbus driver telling me (early 2000's) that the RAF limited the cruise to 0.84 (IIRC) in order to preserve airframe fatigue life, I think.

He also said that if I saw the Mach-meter reading higher than that whilst visiting the cockpit, that I was "seeing things" ;)

[Motleycallsign]

I always thought the Flt Eng had a set of throttles to keep the funbus subsonic.

[Lionel Lion]

IIRC it was the bottom right cb's on the Eng's panel to 'rig for silent running' or so I was told :E never saw them used pre SFI.....

Or was it cb's 70+71? Or were they for slat isolation?

Thank god for ECAM!

[BEagle]

At the risk of disturbing playtime, VC10 MNE was M0.94; in latter times indicated MMO was reduced from M0.886 to M0.866 under an SFI. However, air test captains were authorised to conduct high IMN checks on specific post-maintenance flight tests. We accelerated from M0.84 to M0.88 indicated at FL350, then flew a gentle descent to reach an IMN of M0.91, noting speed horn warning operation and handling qualities. We checked for neutral longitudinal stability and slight buffet during recovery. Recovery was effected with speedbrakes extended to the baulk, which caused a nose-up pitching moment. Then after regaining FL350, we carried out an emergency descent at an indicated M0.88 / 315 KIAS with speedbrakes to the baulk down to FL200. This was followed by a high IAS run to 360KIAS, some 50KIAS above the reduced VMO introduced in later years.

I’ve certainly flown pond crossings in the VC10K at an IMN of M0.88 before the limit was reduced – no great problem but the fuel burn was huge! Compared to the normal VC10K cruising IMN of M0.82, it only saved 5 minutes every hour and a half and more time could be saved with a few direct routeings and a visual approach on RW08 if the wind was within limits, rather than an instrument approach on RW26. Before the wretched micro-manager stuck his unwelcome nose into the VC10 training syllabus, we used to do a Brize-Keflavik-Brize trip (in the same day, so no T&S bill) and the co-pilot would fly the return leg at FL410 and M0.88 indicated, before the SFI was introduced – it was probably the highest and fastest they had ever flown or would be likely to again.

'Silent running' would have meant cruising above the speed horn limit; totally pointless really*, but something which a VIP crew might need to ensure that the PM or whoever arrived at the correct 'doors time' :rolleyes:. The Russians had an easier way - if a VIP was going to be late at Moscow, they just stopped the airport clock at the correct time...:D





*Unless, of course, there was a danger of missing the 1200-1400 local time lunch 'ching'......:oh:

[Lionel Lion]

I'll plead the 5th amendment on speeding up for lunch

happy days

:)

[Pontius Navigator]

Rumour has it the 787 'cruised' above M0.9 regularly during testing.
The phrase 'goes like a scalded cat' is probably in poor taste though. :)

Nooo, VC10 definitely faster than the 787 today, well at least the Japanese ones :}

[ICM]

The aircraft now at Brooklands was delivered there on 6 July 1987. The story is all here:

The 1st and last VC10 flight (http://www.vc10.net/Memories/A4OAB_Royalflight.html)

As someone else has already mentioned, that's the site to visit for almost anything regarding VC 10 ops, whether civil or military.

[Truck2005]

I do recall a night flight back from IAD when the FE call me, (GE), up and asked if I could go down the Radio Rack and check the HF boxes, (quite common in them days). He would accompany me down there. (This was in the days when smoking had just been banned on board). Prior to going down one of the checks he did was to pull the speed wasp CB.

During the subsequent smoke downstairs, beside the open frwd thrust augmentor, we felt a bit of vibration so decided to go back up only the find that we were going at .92!!!

Bit naughty but the practise stopped as we all reaped the benefits of actually tasting our first beers on the deck!

[Heathrow Harry]

http://www.pprune.org/questions/114439-fastest-airliner-except-concorde-tu-144-a.html

[622]

I was always led to believe the TU154 was/is a bit nippy.

[Cornish Jack]

'60s memory (pretty crap, nowadays!) says that the Coronado 880/990, whatever, was reckoned to be the nippiest around.

[Brain Potter]

The VC10 machmeter over reads by 0.02; which is why BEagle has quoted IMN (indicated mach number) in his post. It is quite possible that the erroneous 0.02 is partly responsible for the myth that has grown-up about VC10 cruise performance. Subtract 0.02 from the figures and they sound a bit more ordinary.

[hval]

Longer Ron,

With carbon composites it is very difficult (as with plastics) to be able to define the melting temperature. Carbon composites are not a single material type.

For a start the diameter of the carbon used, as well as the type of carbon used has a major effect on what temperature the carbon will fuse.

The temperature and method used to cure the carbon also has an effect on the temperature that the carbon will melt at

To make the carbon composite a resin or epoxy is used to bind the carbon composite. Depending upon what the role of the material different types of resin or epoxy will be used

The you can include additives such as ceramics which have an effect.

The B787 is made up of a number of different types of carbon composites depending upon their function.

The carbon fibres on their own might melt between 3500 C to3650 C. The epoxy or resin are more likely to melt at 300C.

Construction of a CFRP (Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic) matrix using ceramics will increase the temperature but reduce flexibility.

Please remember that plastic deformation occurs prior to melting

[1.3VStall]

How many VC10s are still flying?

[Type1106]

Six

The RAF C Mk1 (Vickers Type 1106 - one of them is still flying as a C Mk1 K) had three cruise modes: M0.84 - long range; M.86 - normal; M.88 - high speed. All indicated - knock off 0.02 for true.

Before the restrictions Beags refers to, for crew training purposes - as defined in the AFM - we routinely took the lady to M.925. Why? To demonstrate that, unlike most airliners of that era, the VC10 had no tendency to Mach tuck in the approach to transonic flight and therefore a speed excursion on the high side was not something to be worried about. There was a nose down tendency after M.895, easily held manually, which returned to neutral by M.92.

This is off the top of my old head and if you want more, I'll have to dig out the old manual.

[exeng]

He also told me that they were a bugger to get off the ground(?)

The Trident in BEA service (and subsequently BA) was generally referred to as the 'Gripper' - name shortened from the 'Ground Gripper'.


Regards
Exeng

[TheWestCoast]

Interesting - a somewhat related article was posted on the Smithsonian website a couple days ago.

http://blogs.airspacemag.com/airrecon/2013/01/15/some-thing-on-the-wing/

[Old Fella]

Don't know much about the VC10. It is indeed an impressive looking aircraft however I reckon the Lockheed L1011 TriStar is equally good looking. As for speed, the L1011 is Queen among the sub-sonic passenger airliners I think. Depending on operator preferences it can be operated at up to Mach 0.95 with Max Continuous Cruise of Mach 0.90 although most would operate around Mach 0.84 for Long Range Cruise. I recall operating at mid levels just under the "Barbers Pole" to beat a curfew on one occasion. The Flight Plan called for
LRC and 2hours14mins flight time. We completed the flight in 2 hours flat and saved just on 1000 lbs of fuel.

[Corrona]

Thanks for the answers chaps. I get the feeling that although obviously on paper VC10 was/is at least 'one of the faster ones' the differences over distance don't strike me as being all that great, and could easily be lost waiting for clearance to land vs getting a lucky straight-in in one of the 'slower' aircraft.

All good for 'Top-Trumps' though! It really does put in to perspective what an incredible thing Concorde was.

[stilton]

L1011 MMO .95 ?


Doesn't sound right.


Fantastic, wonderful Aircraft but everything I can find on the MMO shows .90

[Old Fella]

Stilton, you are "on the same tram" as me. I wrote that Max Continuous Mach, or Mmo was Mo.90 and that Max Operating or Mne was Mo.95. In practice most operators cruised at lower Mach to conserve fuel, around M0.84. If my recollection is correct, and that may be debated, the company Mne was M0.89 or thereabouts. I never operated the Convair 880 however they were renowned as a very fast aircraft, if if you could afford the fuel burn.

[stilton]

Understood OF,


In any case I envy you enormously, would love to have operated the Tristar.


Was it your favourite ?


Best wishes.

[Old Fella]

Stilton, the L1011 is certainly a very crew friendly aircraft. Check your PM's.

Regards

OF