Competent − but too big?

[Chris Scott]

Fascinating, 411A (and others). Just for the record, the standard entry to the pilots’ seats on the VC10 is also from the outside. Is that why the fuel flows are higher than on the B707/KC135?

Looks like 411A has established the B377 Stratocruiser as a strong candidate. But we don’t yet have a definitive reason for it not selling in larger numbers. Was it simply too big? Or was it the technical impracticality and unreliability?

Quote:
Not many were built mainly because there were not that many customer airlines that a) could have afforded to operate the beast, b)needed it for very long range flights, and c)had the expertise to keep this mechanical nightmare in the air.
[Unquote]

Bearing in mind that this was an era of unreliability, particularly in the propulsion compartment, maybe the B377 was competent for its day?


Moving on reluctantly from this delicious piston nostalgia, can I propose another candidate from a different era? Suspect that 411A might prefer the sophisticated Lockheed, but mine is the VC9.

Was it too big a jump in size from the Viscount?
Am currently hampered by the limitations of a dial-up connection, but don’t think the (one?) structural failure and consequent pressurisation restrictions come soon enough to affect sales in the early years.
Don’t recall any initial problems with the excellent RR Tyne, although the waves of de-synchronous vibration that slowly swept the length of the cabin could be unnerving.
Was its payload-range sufficient?
Was it eclipsed from 1965 by the much smaller − and only slightly faster − BAC OneEleven because of the latter’s passenger appeal, because it was too big, or for some other reason?

Any Vanguard drivers/engineers out there?