Originally Posted by
Genghis the Engineer
[...]
On the VC10 - lovely fast, comfortable, nice handling airframe. Also very inefficient low bypass engines located poorly for maintenance, heavy, and systems that should stay firmly in the 1960s where they belong. If you were to build a new one, it would probably look more like a C1(K) than anything BOAC ever operated, but would still be a lot less good for that job than an A330MRTT in terms of just about anything but handling. (Just ask some Airbus Flight Test Engineers about the fun they had creating FBW refuelling laws!).
[...]
G
Great post,
Genghis.
Re
"systems that should stay firmly in the 1960s where they belong", just want to point out for the information of others that the systems on the VC10 - a second-generation jet airliner - were in most respects vastly superior to those of the first-generation B707. That's not to say that Boeing did not do a terrific job in adapting what they had to get around the weaknesses evident in the early models. By the time the VC10 entered service, the B707-320 was a very different kettle of fish from the early models, and the JT3D turbofan (basically a JT3C turbojet with the front compressor stage replaced with a fan), although a bit lacking in thrust, greatly outperformed the low-bypass Conway in fuel efficiency.
Because the B707 and DC-8 had cornered the market, the VC10 did not have the opportunity to evolve like they did. And, with hub runways already lengthened, the tail-engine concept was never going to be as efficient on long-haul. But it gave the opposition a run for their money out of the plateau areas of Africa..