VC10 Display (White Waltham 1977)
The lefthand side is a bit more interesting as there are two altimeters of the same type installed here. Looking at the photo I took in 1999 (see below) it looks as if some instruments have been moved around, particularly altimeters. On the image below there could be a Radio Altimeter on the lefthand side but I cannot be sure. As I mentioned, the RADALT with the grey bezel is easily identifyable on the RH side. Looking at some photos of the autoland system on the Supers (see here: Autoland on the VC10) there appear to have been at least two different models of RADALT in use through the years.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Finland
Age: 77
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris
It's a long time ago but I think, yes, the copilot originally called the heights.
Maybe it was the P3/pilot nav until we got INS (dual carousel?) and the three man flight deck.
I know you used specialist navs.
Later, it may have been the flight engineer who, unlike? Caledonian, was integrated into the 3 man crew.
I remember when I went to the DC10, as one of the first captains from BA after the merger, the FE's were being trained to read checklists and given their own set of plates.
I had the impression that that was not the Caledonian way.
I stand to be corrected.
How did you handle the flap retraction?
If all your aircraft had 14 1/2 flap there was no need to differentiate but we always took of with t/o flap (22 degrees?) and then went to 14 1/2 in the super to 3000ft, if memory serves, before retracting - the std used t/o flap till 3000ft.
Oil was cheap then!!
A hot day out of Jeddah or Kuwait was interesting, as was the inversion over Lake Vic..
Of no relevance to the current thread, I can remember an approach to Kuwait (2 1/2 degree glideslope to accomodate lightnings) in a std., at near +50c, requiring almost climb power to maintain the glideslope.
Those were the days, wish I was 25 again and would do it all again.
Alan.
It's a long time ago but I think, yes, the copilot originally called the heights.
Maybe it was the P3/pilot nav until we got INS (dual carousel?) and the three man flight deck.
I know you used specialist navs.
Later, it may have been the flight engineer who, unlike? Caledonian, was integrated into the 3 man crew.
I remember when I went to the DC10, as one of the first captains from BA after the merger, the FE's were being trained to read checklists and given their own set of plates.
I had the impression that that was not the Caledonian way.
I stand to be corrected.
How did you handle the flap retraction?
If all your aircraft had 14 1/2 flap there was no need to differentiate but we always took of with t/o flap (22 degrees?) and then went to 14 1/2 in the super to 3000ft, if memory serves, before retracting - the std used t/o flap till 3000ft.
Oil was cheap then!!
A hot day out of Jeddah or Kuwait was interesting, as was the inversion over Lake Vic..
Of no relevance to the current thread, I can remember an approach to Kuwait (2 1/2 degree glideslope to accomodate lightnings) in a std., at near +50c, requiring almost climb power to maintain the glideslope.
Those were the days, wish I was 25 again and would do it all again.
Alan.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Finland
Age: 77
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I reckon that that altimeter, on the captain's side in the place where the copilot's radio altimeter is, is not what was fitted in BA service when we autolanded.
I reckon the radio altimeter has been robbed and another fitted.
I can't imagine why there would have been two ordinary altimeters.
Having said the above, at some point the autoland was deactivated and, not neccessarily at the same time, BA went to using QNH for approach rather than QFE and it may be something to do with that.
I may have moved onto the Air New Zealand DC10 by then so, perhaps, that is what happened.
There was a little knob (not the right word but can't think how to decribe it), which came out of the altimeter setting knob, which allowed high speed winding of the setting to allow for places like NBO (5000ft or so) where the QFE was down in the low 800s.
In places like Addis (8200?ft) we had to land on QNH as the altimeter set datum didn't go low enough - special procedures - the cabin had to be climbed from cruise cabin altitude which was, again, unusal.
I reckon the radio altimeter has been robbed and another fitted.
I can't imagine why there would have been two ordinary altimeters.
Having said the above, at some point the autoland was deactivated and, not neccessarily at the same time, BA went to using QNH for approach rather than QFE and it may be something to do with that.
I may have moved onto the Air New Zealand DC10 by then so, perhaps, that is what happened.
There was a little knob (not the right word but can't think how to decribe it), which came out of the altimeter setting knob, which allowed high speed winding of the setting to allow for places like NBO (5000ft or so) where the QFE was down in the low 800s.
In places like Addis (8200?ft) we had to land on QNH as the altimeter set datum didn't go low enough - special procedures - the cabin had to be climbed from cruise cabin altitude which was, again, unusal.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Finland
Age: 77
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to be hogging the thread but, what does the rectangular box to the right of the doppler computer do?
I thought it may have been the weather radar but I don't think it is that.
As I said before, it is a long time ago, I left the fleet in 1978.
I thought it may have been the weather radar but I don't think it is that.
As I said before, it is a long time ago, I left the fleet in 1978.
finncapt, to keep things interesting that grey box is not installed on the photos that I took in 2013. There is just a doppler sized blanking plate there.
Going back to my 1999 photo and zooming in as far as the grainy picture will allow, I would hazard a guess at a transponder. But I cannot be sure.
Edit: looks like my guess was correct:
Going back to my 1999 photo and zooming in as far as the grainy picture will allow, I would hazard a guess at a transponder. But I cannot be sure.
Edit: looks like my guess was correct:
Last edited by Jhieminga; 20th Nov 2015 at 20:29. Reason: Added image.
Thanks Alan,
That makes sense. (On the DC-10, the F/E called the heights, IIRC.)
[Off-topic: BCAL never got INS or autoland retrofitted on its VC10s, which were all sold by the end of 1974. The flight crew consisted of pilot, co-pilot, F/E and specialist F/N, though not all our routes necessitated Navs. The PNF read all checklists, with the PF and F/E responding as appropriate. F/Es were not trained to monitor en-route or approach navigation procedures, although an increasing number of the younger ones took an interest. After Flaps 20 take-offs (rare in our case), I don't remember any early, initial retraction to 14½.]
Hi Jhieminga,
Yes, there's been a lot of juggling of instruments on G-ARVM since your 1999 photo! Am inclined to agree with finncapt that the space to the left of the instrument "T" on the L/H panel should site a second RA - surely there would have to be two on board for autoland certification? Also, I think there would be a baro altimeter near the S/B A/H on the centre panel; otherwise the scan would be tricky for S/B instrument flying. Our other VC10 at Brooklands (standard Type 1103, ex-BUA/BCAL/Omani) might settle the latter point, but I'd be surprised if the Sultan fitted RAs.
That makes sense. (On the DC-10, the F/E called the heights, IIRC.)
[Off-topic: BCAL never got INS or autoland retrofitted on its VC10s, which were all sold by the end of 1974. The flight crew consisted of pilot, co-pilot, F/E and specialist F/N, though not all our routes necessitated Navs. The PNF read all checklists, with the PF and F/E responding as appropriate. F/Es were not trained to monitor en-route or approach navigation procedures, although an increasing number of the younger ones took an interest. After Flaps 20 take-offs (rare in our case), I don't remember any early, initial retraction to 14½.]
Hi Jhieminga,
Yes, there's been a lot of juggling of instruments on G-ARVM since your 1999 photo! Am inclined to agree with finncapt that the space to the left of the instrument "T" on the L/H panel should site a second RA - surely there would have to be two on board for autoland certification? Also, I think there would be a baro altimeter near the S/B A/H on the centre panel; otherwise the scan would be tricky for S/B instrument flying. Our other VC10 at Brooklands (standard Type 1103, ex-BUA/BCAL/Omani) might settle the latter point, but I'd be surprised if the Sultan fitted RAs.
Last edited by Chris Scott; 20th Nov 2015 at 21:17. Reason: Error in first para.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 620
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Sultan of Oman's VC10 at Brooklands has two RA's as did all BOAC/BA aircraft.
G-ARVM during restoration at Brooklands
G-ARVM during restoration at Brooklands
Last edited by Airclues; 20th Nov 2015 at 22:06.
Thanks Airclues, I'm suitably surprised! Great picture. I wonder when BOAC first fitted RAs to their VC10s: none of our a/c had them. I see the S/B baro altimeter is under the S/B A/H.
Death Cruiser Flight Crew
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Vaucluse, France.
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is from Horizon, the magazine of BOAC Flight Operations May/August 1968, which was edited by VC10 flight engineer and cartoonist Oscar Ingham.
Last edited by Georgeablelovehowindia; 21st Nov 2015 at 15:33.
Thread Starter
The RAF didn't use the 14½° flap setting on the VC10K3 / K4. The idea being to keep SOPs the same for all VC10K marks and ultimately for the C1K.
In Gulf War 1, a VC10K3 max weight t/o at high OAT in Seeb was very tricky to handle, given that flap/slat were retracted simultaneously at 210KIAS and the aircraft had to achieve the 1.35G low speed buffet IAS before climbing....
In Gulf War 1, a VC10K3 max weight t/o at high OAT in Seeb was very tricky to handle, given that flap/slat were retracted simultaneously at 210KIAS and the aircraft had to achieve the 1.35G low speed buffet IAS before climbing....
Death Cruiser Flight Crew
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Vaucluse, France.
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the commentator on the video is Len Martin, who used to read the football results on BBC TV Grandstand on a Saturday afternoon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btdm5hLl6JI
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Cyprus
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VC10 at White Waltham......Tony Smith
As mentioned above, I was lucky to be the co-pilot on the above flight.
Tony and I did some flights to White Waltham in a Cherokee from Airways Flying Club at Booker to see the lie of the land and get landmarks for the runs over WW.
We got much lower in VM than we did in the Cherokee trips!
Sadly Tony passed away earlier this year. His son Martyn, another pilot and friend, told me Tony had a picture of the Flypast over the hospital bed when he died.....
Tony and I did some flights to White Waltham in a Cherokee from Airways Flying Club at Booker to see the lie of the land and get landmarks for the runs over WW.
We got much lower in VM than we did in the Cherokee trips!
Sadly Tony passed away earlier this year. His son Martyn, another pilot and friend, told me Tony had a picture of the Flypast over the hospital bed when he died.....
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About 1996/7 when I was about 8 or 9 and my brother 10 or 11 we made one of our regular unaccompanied flights from London to USA in the first of our many BOAC Super VC 10 flights, our favourite airliner by far, and still unsurpassed!
I remember the Captain telling us that this was the first public flight of a plane equipped with a device which kept the plane at a consistent altitude automatically. That day there was a big storm on the Atlantic and my memory is that the plane was copying the Atlantic swell due to this new equipment. There was also a fair amount of turbulence, leading my brother to "decorate" a Flight Attendant's uniform profusely.
We had a very bumpy landing at JFK (I think) and one of the three USAF Pilots in the row behind us jokingly shouted "Not bad for an amateur!" about the landing.
I have vague memories of being told that a Radio signal was being beamed down to the surface and bounced back to a receiver on the plane to maintain altitude. Does my memory make any sense to the experts here? Would this have been the RA referred to in this great thread?
I remember the Captain telling us that this was the first public flight of a plane equipped with a device which kept the plane at a consistent altitude automatically. That day there was a big storm on the Atlantic and my memory is that the plane was copying the Atlantic swell due to this new equipment. There was also a fair amount of turbulence, leading my brother to "decorate" a Flight Attendant's uniform profusely.
We had a very bumpy landing at JFK (I think) and one of the three USAF Pilots in the row behind us jokingly shouted "Not bad for an amateur!" about the landing.
I have vague memories of being told that a Radio signal was being beamed down to the surface and bounced back to a receiver on the plane to maintain altitude. Does my memory make any sense to the experts here? Would this have been the RA referred to in this great thread?
alanharkness, I'm sorry to hear that Tony Smith is no longer with us. I've sent you a PM.
joy ride, your description indeed matches the workings of a radio altimeter. However a radio altimeter is only accurate within a few thousand feet of the surface and therefore isn't used to maintain altitude at regular cruise levels, it is purely for use during the approach to land. I'm guessing that the year you meant was 1966/7 or perhaps slightly later, as confirmed by Georgeablelovehowindia's scan. This also confirms my suspicion that autoland was only fitted to the Supers. The system was certified in 1968 (which matches the Horizon article) and I guess that by that time BOAC may already have been thinking about getting rid of the Standards (G-ARVA was sold in 1969) and standardising on the slightly more fuel-efficient Supers. In such a case refitting expensive equipment to all of them wouldn't have made sense and they settled on just fitting the RAs to the Standards.
joy ride, your description indeed matches the workings of a radio altimeter. However a radio altimeter is only accurate within a few thousand feet of the surface and therefore isn't used to maintain altitude at regular cruise levels, it is purely for use during the approach to land. I'm guessing that the year you meant was 1966/7 or perhaps slightly later, as confirmed by Georgeablelovehowindia's scan. This also confirms my suspicion that autoland was only fitted to the Supers. The system was certified in 1968 (which matches the Horizon article) and I guess that by that time BOAC may already have been thinking about getting rid of the Standards (G-ARVA was sold in 1969) and standardising on the slightly more fuel-efficient Supers. In such a case refitting expensive equipment to all of them wouldn't have made sense and they settled on just fitting the RAs to the Standards.
But you are correct in saying that they never had Autoland, only the Super VC-10s, where it wasn't particularly successful and the kit was subsequently removed.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many thanks Jhieminga and Dave. This particular trip might have been any time between 1964 and 1968. I certainly remember being told that this was the first public use of RA and can now assume that the turbulence at altitude was part of the stormy conditions rather than the RA. Indeed I do have an even vaguer memory of announcement telling us it had now been turned off. Thanks for comments!
We had already flown in many planes, like Comet 4s, Viscounts, Electras, 707s and DC8s before our first Super VC 10 flight soon after they entered service to USA, and despite our age we were both indelibly impressed with the 10s we flew on. At the time it was exiting to us to be among the first to experience a new technology and further enhanced our opinion of the 10.
We had already flown in many planes, like Comet 4s, Viscounts, Electras, 707s and DC8s before our first Super VC 10 flight soon after they entered service to USA, and despite our age we were both indelibly impressed with the 10s we flew on. At the time it was exiting to us to be among the first to experience a new technology and further enhanced our opinion of the 10.
Hello joyride,
As Jhieminga says, conventional radio altimeters (RAs) are not able to assess heights at jet cruising altitudes. In any case, the pilots and ATC need to know an aircraft's ALTITUDE relative to sea-level, not its HEIGHT above the local terrain (unless the latter is dangerously low).
In an imperfect world, the best and least unreliable way to do this even today is with a barometric altimeter. Unfortunately, these are subject to various errors: not least of which are the varying atmospheric pressure at the sea-level itself, and the fact that the rate of fall in pressure with increasing altitude is not a constant. So, in the cruise, the altitude shown on the pilots' baro altimeters may be greatly different from the true (geometric) altitude. In the tropical latitudes, for example, the a/c may easily be a couple of thousand feet higher than indicated, or in high latitudes a couple of thousand feet lower,
Crews need to be aware of this phenomenon, but it doesn't matter from the point of view of a/c performance calculations or the ATC separation of proximate a/c. At altitudes well above the local terrain, all a/c are instructed to fly at "flight levels" (FL), which they achieve by setting their altimeters to show meteorological pressure altitudes, based on a sea-level,pressure of 1013.2 milibars/hectopascals. Because of the atmospheric changes described above, an a/c cruising at FL350 (35000 ft pressure altitude) will gradually rise and fall during the course of the journey, but an a/c flying directly above it at FL370 will remain a safe margin of approximately 2000 ft higher.
Autopilots on jet airliners have incorporated altitude-hold modes from the late 1950s, I think, but some of them allow a slight variation (say 100 ft) to avoid over-control in turbulence. That may be what your VC10 captain was referring to, but I stand to be corrected (and often am in these columns
).
As Jhieminga says, conventional radio altimeters (RAs) are not able to assess heights at jet cruising altitudes. In any case, the pilots and ATC need to know an aircraft's ALTITUDE relative to sea-level, not its HEIGHT above the local terrain (unless the latter is dangerously low).
In an imperfect world, the best and least unreliable way to do this even today is with a barometric altimeter. Unfortunately, these are subject to various errors: not least of which are the varying atmospheric pressure at the sea-level itself, and the fact that the rate of fall in pressure with increasing altitude is not a constant. So, in the cruise, the altitude shown on the pilots' baro altimeters may be greatly different from the true (geometric) altitude. In the tropical latitudes, for example, the a/c may easily be a couple of thousand feet higher than indicated, or in high latitudes a couple of thousand feet lower,
Crews need to be aware of this phenomenon, but it doesn't matter from the point of view of a/c performance calculations or the ATC separation of proximate a/c. At altitudes well above the local terrain, all a/c are instructed to fly at "flight levels" (FL), which they achieve by setting their altimeters to show meteorological pressure altitudes, based on a sea-level,pressure of 1013.2 milibars/hectopascals. Because of the atmospheric changes described above, an a/c cruising at FL350 (35000 ft pressure altitude) will gradually rise and fall during the course of the journey, but an a/c flying directly above it at FL370 will remain a safe margin of approximately 2000 ft higher.
Autopilots on jet airliners have incorporated altitude-hold modes from the late 1950s, I think, but some of them allow a slight variation (say 100 ft) to avoid over-control in turbulence. That may be what your VC10 captain was referring to, but I stand to be corrected (and often am in these columns
).
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Here
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's more mute footage of the event here:
MovieTone : Search Results View
As you can see I'm knew here having been looking for quite some while, so I hope I've posted the link correctly.
MovieTone : Search Results View
As you can see I'm knew here having been looking for quite some while, so I hope I've posted the link correctly.
Quote from BEagle:
"The RAF didn't use the 14½° flap setting on the VC10K3 / K4. The idea being to keep SOPs the same for all VC10K marks and ultimately for the C1K."
The understandable precaution of standardising Flaps 20° for T/O could have been a considerable disadvantage in a WAT-limited situation (as in an airfield with a very long runway). Take the example of BUA/BCAL's Type 1103/1109 standard VC10s with super (chord-extended) wing, on which we had the choice of flap setting. The MTOW (structural) happened to be just under 142.5 tonnes. However, at sea-level at the max-permitted OAT of +50C (ISA +35), such as found in the Gulf airfields, the WAT-limited RTOW with Flaps 14½° is 136T, whereas with Flaps 20° it's only 130T. Not sure the RAF necessarily conforms to Performance 'A' regs in wartime
, and the up-rated engines on the RAF C1s and the ex-civil Supers would push those figures up a bit, but the weight differential would be similar. 6 tonnes less fuel knocks nearly an hour off the range in the cruise, for a given payload, although BEagle may have been doing something rather different...
Quote:
"In Gulf War 1, a VC10K3 max weight t/o at high OAT in Seeb was very tricky to handle, given that flap/slat were retracted simultaneously at 210KIAS and the aircraft had to achieve the 1.35G low speed buffet IAS before climbing...."
BEagle refers to what may be the only challenging aspect of the VC10's flight handling in normal ops. Seeb is a sea-level airfield with very long runways, so WAT (weight/altitude/temperature) would be the limiting performance parameter.
Using the BUA/BCAL Type 1103/1109, Flaps 20°, Performance-A (civil) RTOW of 13O tonnes at +50C (see above) purely as an example, the V2 was 154 (kt IAS). Under BCAL SOPs, that would dictate a minimum climb speed (clean) of 214 (V2 [Flap 20] + 60), at which speed the buffet margin would exceed 1.35G. The "MIN FRIS" (minimum flap-retraction initiation speed), however, was 179 (V2 + 25). At the acceleration altitude, the a/c would be flown level until MIN FRIS was achieved (anything more with the flaps extended would likely be a struggle at that temperature). Then the slats/flaps retraction would be started, with the PF aiming to reach the 214 kt as the retraction was completed. Meanwhile, the F/E would keep a close eye on the stall-ignition warning-lights on his panel (the first line of stall protection, automatically activating engine igniters if the AoA went too high). Most F/Es were prepared to select rated thrust (using their own set of throttles) if the lights came on, to improve the acceleration slightly.
The VFE with any slat/flap setting from 0° - 20° was 229, so in this case the a/c was being accelerated into a 15 kt envelope. Slightly more challenging was the scenario out of higher-altitude fields like Entebbe (3789 ft) and Nairobi (5327 ft). These airfields rarely exceed temperatures of ISA + 25, with long runways. As in the Seeb example above, the limiting performance parameter would be WAT. Using Flaps 14½°, we could depart NBO at MTOW on the Type 1103/1109 at temperatures up to +25C. That gave a V2 [14½] of 165, a MIN FRIS of 187, and a minimum climb speed (clean) of 222. That reduced the target speed-envelope at the end of slat/flap retraction to a mere 7 knots.
"The RAF didn't use the 14½° flap setting on the VC10K3 / K4. The idea being to keep SOPs the same for all VC10K marks and ultimately for the C1K."
The understandable precaution of standardising Flaps 20° for T/O could have been a considerable disadvantage in a WAT-limited situation (as in an airfield with a very long runway). Take the example of BUA/BCAL's Type 1103/1109 standard VC10s with super (chord-extended) wing, on which we had the choice of flap setting. The MTOW (structural) happened to be just under 142.5 tonnes. However, at sea-level at the max-permitted OAT of +50C (ISA +35), such as found in the Gulf airfields, the WAT-limited RTOW with Flaps 14½° is 136T, whereas with Flaps 20° it's only 130T. Not sure the RAF necessarily conforms to Performance 'A' regs in wartime
, and the up-rated engines on the RAF C1s and the ex-civil Supers would push those figures up a bit, but the weight differential would be similar. 6 tonnes less fuel knocks nearly an hour off the range in the cruise, for a given payload, although BEagle may have been doing something rather different... Quote:
"In Gulf War 1, a VC10K3 max weight t/o at high OAT in Seeb was very tricky to handle, given that flap/slat were retracted simultaneously at 210KIAS and the aircraft had to achieve the 1.35G low speed buffet IAS before climbing...."
BEagle refers to what may be the only challenging aspect of the VC10's flight handling in normal ops. Seeb is a sea-level airfield with very long runways, so WAT (weight/altitude/temperature) would be the limiting performance parameter.
Using the BUA/BCAL Type 1103/1109, Flaps 20°, Performance-A (civil) RTOW of 13O tonnes at +50C (see above) purely as an example, the V2 was 154 (kt IAS). Under BCAL SOPs, that would dictate a minimum climb speed (clean) of 214 (V2 [Flap 20] + 60), at which speed the buffet margin would exceed 1.35G. The "MIN FRIS" (minimum flap-retraction initiation speed), however, was 179 (V2 + 25). At the acceleration altitude, the a/c would be flown level until MIN FRIS was achieved (anything more with the flaps extended would likely be a struggle at that temperature). Then the slats/flaps retraction would be started, with the PF aiming to reach the 214 kt as the retraction was completed. Meanwhile, the F/E would keep a close eye on the stall-ignition warning-lights on his panel (the first line of stall protection, automatically activating engine igniters if the AoA went too high). Most F/Es were prepared to select rated thrust (using their own set of throttles) if the lights came on, to improve the acceleration slightly.
The VFE with any slat/flap setting from 0° - 20° was 229, so in this case the a/c was being accelerated into a 15 kt envelope. Slightly more challenging was the scenario out of higher-altitude fields like Entebbe (3789 ft) and Nairobi (5327 ft). These airfields rarely exceed temperatures of ISA + 25, with long runways. As in the Seeb example above, the limiting performance parameter would be WAT. Using Flaps 14½°, we could depart NBO at MTOW on the Type 1103/1109 at temperatures up to +25C. That gave a V2 [14½] of 165, a MIN FRIS of 187, and a minimum climb speed (clean) of 222. That reduced the target speed-envelope at the end of slat/flap retraction to a mere 7 knots.