Is it possible? A modern VC 10

[smallfry]

So thinking out loud.

The Super VC10 was a superb airframe with decent range and great cruise speed.
Its basic specs were 4 x 22500lbs Conways giving just under 6000nm with a full fuel load of 156000lbs fuel

What would it take to dust off the old blue prints, modernise the avionics, engines and systems, get them through certification and build them?

Its a mid size aeroplane. It could do hub and spoke, hub to hub, top end corporate, VVIP biz jets, military and pretty much anything you could ask!.
Modern powerplants could easily match the power with a much lower fuel burn so range would not be an issue. Modern avionics would improve efficiency and save tons of weight.

Surely its a win win for the (British ?) aviation industry?

Just wondering!.. What do you all think?

[FlightlessParrot]

What would it take to dust off the old blue prints, modernise the avionics, engines and systems, get them through certification and build them?


I would have thought that what it would take would be roughly equal to the effort and resources required to design a new aeroplane, fitted to contemporary circumstances (when we find out what they are going to be). Could be a bit more, who knows?

That is not to dismiss the idea entirely. In an age when "Mini" and "Fiat 500" are used as car badges, retro and nostalgia obviously have an appeal, and there might be a point in incorporating a few styling cues from the old machine. One might get another percentage point or two of margin in the premium market by dressing the cabin crew in swinging '60s gear, and maybe even have the cockpit announcements made by someone channeling the old BOAC barons.

But with all those aeroplanes sitting in the sun, decaying as slowly as possible, just in case they'll ever be needed again, I don't think it would work commercially. Not to mention the fact that the UK counted in the industrial world when it was innovative.

[WHBM]

Already done. It's called the A321XLR.

[ATSA1]

There was a "next generation" VC10 sized airliner...

It was called the Boeing 757

[Quemerford]

Already done. It's called the A321XLR.

Although "already done" might be a bit premature...

[ATSA1]

...But seriously, a re-engined VC10 with CFM56/V2500 engines, a glass cockpit, and maybe even FBW, would not offer anything better than the aforementioned A321XLR/Boeing 757...
Sure, it would have great short field performance, but I doubt it would cruise at anything like the speed of the original VC10...

And lastly...A QUIET VC10? are you mad?

[chevvron]

You youngsters wouldn't remember but way back in the '60s, an RB211 was fitted to a VC10 to replace the 2 Conways on one side as a testbed; it was so successful the Chinese offered to buy VC10s if they could be fitted with 2 x RB211s.
I'm not saying fit 2 x RB211s 'cos they're a bit long in the tooth nowadays, but there must be a more modern equivalent; now that WOULD be quiet.

[ATSA1]

Ah..but what happened to G-AXLR? the fuselage got twisted out of true, and the aircraft was scrapped after the trial.
When I was in the RAF, an engineer told me that the VC10 had the same fuel burn as the Tristar, but the Tristar could carry 3 times the payload over the same distance...
Those Conways were horribly thirsty!

The VC10 was a gorgeous airliner, the pinnacle of wholly British aviation technology...but that was in the 1960s...The British aircraft industry is now all but dead..we just make bits of aeroplanes now...and some very good engines!

[Momoe]

VC10 was designed as an 'Empire' transport, when Britain had more colonial interests, overpowered to get in and out of hot and high airports with relatively short runways, runways have in the most part been lengthened and mounting engines high and out of the way of FOD was innovative and successful then but unnecessary now.

Fuel burn is going to be higher as the aircraft structure is heavier than the ideal, 2 engine pods mounted on the wing is the optimum solution as demonstrated by virtually every modern airliner in production.

[washoutt]

Building an aircraft is not only designing new systems and engine mounting points, including a 1000 hr test/certification flight programme (maybe 2 or 3 billion euro's/pounds) but more the construction of manufacturing templates and factory stations, which is another so many billion. When they thought about resuming production of the Fokker F-100/70 after 15 years of closure, they came acros the same problem. That project never matrialised. But I agree, it would lighten up the skies.

[RetiredBA/BY]

Complete non starter.

Yes the VC10 was a superb machine in its day but heavy ( much metal milled from the solid, plastic is the game these days ) and arguably over engineered. Not sure where the earlier poster got 6000 miles range, we struggled to get LHR _NBO non stop with a TOW of 152 tonnes ( ok 151953 for the purists !).

Thirsty, certainly. When I was on loan to GulfAir the despatcher showed me the TriStar fuel plan, almost exactly the same as our VC 10 with its 125 or so pax but with 300 or so on the 1011.

Was the VC 10 that fast in line ops. ? In BA we cruised at .84 imn .825 true, not that much faster than the B75/76 at .8 true. Burn per pax, vastly less on the Boeings.

Yes, she was a delight to fly and fly in but she’s had her day.

[DaveReidUK]

To be fair, the VC-10 (along with its contemporary, the Trident) was one of the most efficient ways invented of transforming jet fuel into noise ...

[RetiredBA/BY]

To be fair, the VC-10 (along with its contemporary, the Trident) was one of the most efficient ways invented of transforming jet fuel into noise ...
........and arguably THE most efficient, the Viper in the Jet Provost, Just 1750 pounds of thrust but made a noise like ripping calico. totally out of proportion to its grunt !

Loved it !

[chevvron]

........and arguably THE most efficient, the Viper in the Jet Provost, Just 1750 pounds of thrust but made a noise like ripping calico. totally out of proportion to its grunt !

Loved it !
Our test pilots at Farnborough referred to the JP as a 'constant thrust/variable noise'aircraft.

[thunderbird7]

........and arguably THE most efficient, the Viper in the Jet Provost, Just 1750 pounds of thrust but made a noise like ripping calico. totally out of proportion to its grunt !

Loved it !
Beat me to it. Fixed power variable noise....

[thunderbird7]

Our test pilots at Farnborough referred to the JP as a 'constant thrust/variable noise'aircraft.
Ha! Beat me to it again!!!

[chevvron]

Ah..but what happened to G-AXLR? the fuselage got twisted out of true, and the aircraft was scrapped after the trial.
When I was in the RAF, an engineer told me that the VC10 had the same fuel burn as the Tristar, but the Tristar could carry 3 times the payload over the same distance...
Those Conways were horribly thirsty!

The VC10 was a gorgeous airliner, the pinnacle of wholly British aviation technology...but that was in the 1960s...The British aircraft industry is now all but dead..we just make bits of aeroplanes now...and some very good engines!
The RB211 testbed was still flying in 1975,(I watched it both on radar and visually from Farnborough) long after the RB211 had notched up many million miles in service; the VC10 at RAE Bedford (ex BUA?) also suffered a 'bent' fuselage (or are you getting the two confused?)
Last VC10 I saw 'for real' was out of Heathrow taking Tony Bliar to King Hussein's funeral; we thought it was a Concorde until it came into view (just NW of Woking)

[ATNotts]

The British aircraft industry is now all but dead..we just make bits of aeroplanes now...and some very good engines!

Talking to my neighbour, who works for engine manufacturer, building said engines, and listening to the issues they're having I could easily question whether we do make "very good engines"; probably "some" I suppose.

[aeromech3]

Returned to Malawi on a Birmingham to Blantyre flight back in 1976/7 time. Don't forget the Mechanics had to trundle through the cabin to top up the hydraulics at the back of the rear toilet wall; no APU on ours just had the emergency start air bottles in the tail section, only tried them once before their hydrostatic test date, FE had to be be quick with his hands to catch the spool up. Still loved flying in her as did my babes swinging in the cots slung from the overhead.

[ATNotts]

Returned to Malawi on a Birmingham to Blantyre flight back in 1976/7 time. Don't forget the Mechanics had to trundle through the cabin to top up the hydraulics at the back of the rear toilet wall; no APU on ours just had the emergency start air bottles in the tail section, only tried them once before their hydrostatic test date, FE had to be be quick with his hands to catch the spool up. Still loved flying in her as did my babes swinging in the cots slung from the overhead.

I assume that BHX / Blantyre flight was one of the couple of times the Air Malawi VC10 diverted into BHX due fog. I had always thought that the aircraft positioned back to Blantyre direct from BHX, which was an extremely long leg off BHS's 7,400ft runway back then. Were you actually a paying passenger on the aircraft; and did the flight actually go nonstop from BHX?

[Una Due Tfc]

In an age when "Mini" and "Fiat 500" are used as car badges, retro and nostalgia obviously have an appeal.

Difference being the two cars you mention were successful, whereas the VC-10 was a commercial failure.

[oldchina]

I don't want to be too serious on what is a lighthearted thread, but I'm amazed how often these "bring back the x" ideas pop up. Often
the 757.
Manufacturers fight for and argue over 1% fuel burn or 100kg empty weight. Proposing something that burns 5% more is like giving the
competition the keys to the safe. In fact the idea would be canned before the brochure is dry, and the marketing team sent to the gulag
for reeducation.
Certification? Well you could always try the FAA, they seem to be a soft touch.

[aeromech3]

I assume that BHX / Blantyre flight was one of the couple of times the Air Malawi VC10 diverted into BHX due fog. I had always thought that the aircraft positioned back to Blantyre direct from BHX, which was an extremely long leg off BHS's 7,400ft runway back then. Were you actually a paying passenger on the aircraft; and did the flight actually go nonstop from BHX?
No on this flight a freebee for a weekend home, and though I lived nearer BHX, I had to go to Gatwick to check-in, then get bused to BHX for the departure; and yes non stop, arrival there were issues at BHX with handling, customs and on departure catering, the girls managed some excellent meals between M&S and a local Chinese restaurant. The decision to non stop was a the last fuel etc calculation as I recall overhead Nairobi.

[Gipsy Queen]

Difference being the two cars you mention were successful, whereas the VC-10 was a commercial failure.

And whose fault was that?

I believe the VC10 was not a speculative initiative by Vickers; it was a response to a series of parameters drawn up by BOAC and others. BOAC/BA only more recently have found out that "off the peg" designs can be accommodated within its operations. If they had discovered this earlier, we might have been spared the horrid One Eleven.

Granted the VC10 was a noisy beast, but only on the outside; memory might be playing tricks but I think it must be the quietest aircraft I have experienced as a passenger. I flew in it quite often as pax and once when grounded in FRA (trouble with the eponymous engine on DH104) had breakfast with Flaps Rendall, a charming man and excellent company, so I'm rather attached to the old Vickers, but I think it is best left to remain a fond recollection in the memory of those who were privileged to have been associated with it.

Retired BA/BY. made a noise like ripping calico. totally out of proportion to its grunt ! Not sure about the calico but the noise/power disproportion could be applied to the Leonides in the piston Provost too. There seem to be a lot of old people contributing to this thread!

[ATSA1]

The RAE Bedford VC10 (XX914) was indeed ex BCAL, and served until July 83, when it was retired, and donated its tail to the first RAF VC10 tanker,ZA141, which suffered in flight damage during flight testing...
RB211 testbd G-AXLR did fly until September 1975, when it flew to Kemble to be scrapped, beyond economic repair...

[oldchina]

Gypsy.

What's horrid about the One-Eleven? It had nothing to do with BA/BEA.

[Bergerie1]

There are a lot of us oldies who have fond memories of the VC10
https://www.vc10.net/Memories/OperatingAfrica.html#African_routes

[pr00ne]

ATSA1

".....The British aircraft industry is now all but dead.."


Yeah, such a same that it's only the SECOND LARGEST ON THE PLANET!!!!!!!!

[pr00ne]

The VC10 was a beautiful looking thing but was a commercial disaster, and BOAC had to be financially compensated by the Govt even to order the second batch, they wanted Boeing 707's with which they could make a profit. As to bringing the VC10 back, not going to happen I'm afraid as the modern equivalents such as the A321XLR would eat it for breakfast financially and commercially. There is a reason why Airbus have to date made and sold 5, 243 A321 whereas Vickers/BAC only made 54 VC10's.

What on earth Vickers and BOAC thought they were doing when they specified an airliner for "Empire routes" and ignored the Atlantic is beyond me. I know it was a long time ago but even then the sun had set on the vast majority of the British Empire and this should have been so obvious to BOAC and, more importantly, Vickers.

[oldchina]

There is one thing I remember from 30 years in the business: manufacturers should listen to the airlines, but not too much.
If a plane turns out to be a dog the operator can get out after five years or so.
The builder is stuck with its enormous investment and support commitments: a drag on the company for twenty years.
No one airline has the knowledge and experience of the manufacturer

[ShyTorque]

Our test pilots at Farnborough referred to the JP as a 'constant thrust/variable noise'aircraft.

During our BFTS course at Linton, over the winter of 1977/8 we were grounded for about a fortnight due to freezing fog over snow and nothing moved on the airfield. Then one morning we heard what seemed to be the sound of a “mighty” Viper starting up. We all rushed to see who was brave enough, only to quickly realise it was the sound of the automatic water boiler on the crew room wall kicking in.....

[Una Due Tfc]

Gypsy.

What's horrid about the One-Eleven? It had nothing to do with BA/BEA.

And outsold the VC by 4 to 1, making it relatively successful.

Again it was a loud one though!

[Gipsy Queen]

Gypsy.

What's horrid about the One-Eleven? It had nothing to do with BA/BEA.

A lot of people operated the BAC1,11 and I don't dispute that it was a model more commercially successful than the VC10 but I believe BA had a substantial input in its design/production. I used to commute to Germany nearly every week and in the turbulent financial times of the '70s, we were encouraged to fly/buy British which, most conveniently meant BA and their One Elevens. I hated them. Mind you, I have to admit that my recollections may be a little jaundiced by the cabin service. At the time, Trust House Forte had the catering contract and included in this was Arc de Triomphe wine, a glass of which was handed back to the hostess by my companion with the comment "This horse is pregnant". I rebelled and transferred to LH and their Boeings; so much nicer.

A few years later when in Nigeria, I was obliged to be a pax with Okada and a 1,11. Hairy isn't the word.

[ShotOne]

Odd that pruners can tell us our aircraft industry “is all but dead”, harking back to supposed glory days when we built 50 odd VC10’s -but ignoring the significant parts of many thousands of airliners we do build.

[treadigraph]

The only 1-11s I flew on were Dan-Air's and I enjoyed those flights very much...

BEA had no input into the original 1-11 design, but their interfering influence undersized the Trident 1.

[bean]

Gypsey queen
the 1-11 was launched in 1961. Lainch customer was British United airways. It was sold to four US operators.
The series 500 first flew in 1967. It was sold to BEA who would have preferred the 737 but the government forced them to by British
.

[VictorGolf]

I thought the Supers made money on the North Atlantic as it was preferred to the 707 for quietness and service but what do I know.?

[bean]

Victor Golf you're dead right

[tdracer]

I think you'll find there are very good reasons why no clean sheet design in the last three decades has put the engines on the tail.

[TheOddOne]

I was on the last VC10 flight from Heathrow on 30th March 1981. It was a LHR - LHR charter and cost me £32, as I recall. We assembled in Tech Block 'A' and were seen off by a liveried silver band. We got on board in the maintenance area and taxi'd live across the Eastchurch Crossing. I don't think many people can say they've done that! We then routed up to Manchester for a low approach and go-around, then up to Prestwick for the same, followed by a steep turn around Ailsa Craig (looked like a jewel set on a cushion) then a (very!) low pass at about 250kt back along the Prestwick runway. We then climbed to height over the Irish Sea for lunch before another low pass at Bristol - (Filton, not the one up the hill), where Brian Trubshaw was apparently in the Tower. He had been the test pilot on the prototype. Then back East, for a low pass at Weybridge, the aircraft's birthplace, but the crew demurred to do that one, the vis wasn't great and they didn't fancy 'plunging about the North Surrey countryside at 200kt, looking for the place'. Can't say I blame them. Then back to London Airport (beware imitations). Definitely the most comfortable transport aircraft I've ever flown in, though hopelessly un-economic, sadly.
You're right, there's a lot of old people on this thread!

TOO

[Mooncrest]

I have family in Canada. In the late 1970s/early 1980s, whenever they went back home to Montreal/Toronto, their flight from Manchester was always on a Brutish Airways VC10. Never a 707 or TriStar. Not even a 747. I believe BOAC once operated these flights with the Bristol Britannia, but that's way before my time.

[DaveReidUK]

I think you'll find there are very good reasons why no clean sheet design in the last three decades has put the engines on the tail.

COMAC ARJ21 ?

[Chris Scott]

Some random jottings, guys...

A twin-engine, stretched Super VC10 might employ the Trent 500s developed belatedly for the A340-600/500, which may not be too different in size and weight from that asymmetric RB211 installation on G-AXLR? I guess the thick wing-root and reduced wing-bending relief of rear-engine jets is less of a penalty on short-haul, Dave?.

On our (BUA/BCAL) VC10 Type 1103s (Standard, combi, with super wing), which lacked the Super's 4 tonnes of fuel in the fin, the forward CG when the centre tank was full resulted in an inefficient TPI (THS) setting. Iinitially, it was nearly 2 deg nose-up trim, if memory serves. That exacerbated the high fuel flows of the thirsty Conways, mitigated only slightly by the Type 1103's ability to climb to at least FL330 after take-off at max weight.

Re speed, MMO was M0.886 indicated (M0.86 true), and that's how they flew them in the early days when fuel was cheap. After the fuel crisis of 1972/3, we reduced our normal speed from M0.86 indicated to M0.84 or less.

The Air Malawi VC10 had been the first of our 1103s (G-ASIW). It was also the last of them to go (1974). Air Malawi presumably chose it because, unlike the otherwise excellent B707-320 with underslung outboard engines, it could operate into Blantyre-Chileka's narrow (90 ft) runway, which was also fairly short. And its WAT performance out of aerodromes with long runways at high altitude in the region, like Lusaka and Nairobi, was superior to the relatively underpowered "Seven-oh". BHX/BLZ would certainly have been pushing it. What sort of load was it carrying, aeromech3 (https://www.pprune.org/showthread.php?p=10938892)? The Type 1103 had a ceiling of FL430, but I guess in those days on that route FL410 would have been the final available cruise altitude. We never had to top up the hydraulics in flight...

As chevvron says (https://www.pprune.org/showthread.php?p=10938749), the VC10 at RAE Bedford would have been another of our Type 1103s: G-ATDJ. (G-ASIX went to the Sultan of Oman, who kindly donated it to Brooklands Museum in the end, where it still resides and is well worth a cockpit visit.)

The One-Eleven-200 was a jet trailblazer on short-haul in 1965, Gipsy Queen. Preceded the DC-9 and B737 into service by several years. Handled like a fighter in roll and - as others have pointed out - had nothing whatsoever to do with BEA! Had BUA (the launch customer) been allowed to operate out of LHR as well as LGW, it would have emptied BEA's ponderous, shuddering Vanguards in 1966 on the Glasgow and Edinburgh routes. Later, however, the Spey engines could not be uprated much for the stretched 500 series, which was underpowered and struggled against the DC-9 and (particularly) the B737 with their JT-8D turbofans in the charter market. We often had to resort to water injection, which made a difference of only one or two pax out of a hot Spanish runway.

[tdracer]

COMAC ARJ21 ?
The Chinese were new at the game and didn't (yet) know why it's a bad idea - basically just doing a "Chinese Copy" of the DC-9/MD-80/MD-90/MD-95/717, a design that dates back to the 1960s...

[FlightlessParrot]

Difference being the two cars you mention were successful, whereas the VC-10 was a commercial failure.
The Mini was a remarkable piece of engineering, a fashion icon, and the object of massive nostalgia. Unfortunately, whether it was a commercial success is open to debate. And if you have to debate whether or not a product was profitable, it's a fair sign that it probably wasn't. So, quite like the VC-10. And I probably couldn't fit in a Mini now. What width were the seats in economy on a VC-10 typically, anyone know?

[ChrisVJ]

Rumour was that on a good day the factory profit on a mini was 4 BPS. Of course they made more in spares.

[andrasz]

COMAC ARJ21 ?

You call that a 'clean sheet' design ?!

[Momoe]

Noting Gipsy Queen's comments,

Shrewd observation regarding "Off the peg" designs, Trident was another that could (and should) have been more of a commercial success, if only BEA and HMG hadn't scaled down the original proposal.

Boeing knew a winner when they saw one and promptly brought out the 727 which was about the size of the original DH proposal.

[Jhieminga]

What would it take to dust off the old blue prints, modernise the avionics, engines and systems, get them through certification and build them?
I'll bite.

Dusting off the blueprints. That's the first hurdle as the manufacturing industry doesn't use a lot of drawings these days, non-digital ones that is. But the drawings are not the big problem here, it's the lack of any jigs, moulds, formers, special tools etcetera. Those milled items were produced by copying a 'master' mould for that particular item and those are not available anymore. It would have to be converted to a digital master and for that all the drawings would need to be digitised, all the parts converted to CNC ready digital formats and then you would run into the fact that the old drawings used tolerances based on 1960s production skills and techniques, these would all need to be converted and adjusted to 21st century standards and this would throw up a completely new set of challenges. Does everything still fit? (https://www.vc10.net/Memories/testing_earlydays.html#Interchangeability)
Modernise the avionics. That means a completely new design for everything electronic within the airframe. None of the old boxes are compatible with modern day avionics (which led to a very expensive refit for the RAF just to get things like a single FMS or TCAS into the airframe) so you would need to start from scratch here. Every sensor in the airframe, every bit of radio or navigation kit would have to be different, loads of new sensors would be needed just to have a 'normal' warning system, a databus architecture would need to be used to ensure some forward compatibility, I could go on. The flight deck would need to be completely changed as the Flight Engineer's station and the old Navigator's station are no longer needed. The whole avionics bay would need to be redesigned to allow for modern rack-mounted components. In flight entertainment would need to be added, along with onboard WiFi, all of which, combined, would lead to a much increased draw on the electrical system and the generators. Keep this in mind as we need those electrics for something else as well.
Change the engines. Yes, there have been thoughts in the past (https://www.vc10.net/Memories/everything_raf.html#reengine) about changing the engines on a VC10. Bolting an RB211 to one side was a one-off project that required a special engine beam with loads of steel (partially because it needed to mimic the Tristar's installation). Redesigning the stub wing and engine mounting beam for modern engines is a significant project. If you go for four new engines, it leads to all sorts of problems in how to deal with the inboard engines' fan ducting and their interference with the mounting for the outboard engines. If you go for two engines (that would be the logical thing, right?) you could have a simpler engine beam design but you would have halved your sources of secondary power. All the VC10's systems and their redundancies were designed for four sources of power (independent of each other). If you change that to two engines, the whole thought behind having four bus bars for electrical power is useless as a single engine failure will still halve your available bus bars. Bending the fuselage wouldn't be such an issue as long as you have similar powerplant installations on both sides of that fuselage. By the way, the VC10's benign stalling characteristics (it had a nose-down pitch tendency in all but a few cases) were partially caused by the engine installation, as the four engines on the stub wing acted as a low-set tailplane in high AoA situations. Changing that to a twin-engined installation may lead to very different stalling behaviour, with all the associated risks.
Modernise the systems. One thing you should think about in this respect is what to do with the PFCUs? The VC10 flight controls need electrical power to run, each PFCU being a miniature self-contained hydraulic system (with an electrically driven pump) that moved the associated surface. These PFCUs are not ideal as they run constantly, needing power and incurring wear. So what to do about them? Change them to a 'modern' electro hydraulic actuator? Can be done (see A380 and its flight controls for an example), but this choice is very much related to the safety issue. The VC10 flight controls have several layers of redundancy based on these individual PFCUs, the distribution of electrical power across different bus bars and the four independent generators on the four engines. If you modify the aircraft to use two engines, you significantly lower the level of safety within this architecture, something that you will need to correct for in another way. You also need to think about the increased need for electrical power within the rest of the aircraft (the new avionics, IFE, WiFi, etcetera) as this will be drawing on those same generators and you will then need to think about priorities in case of problems. Is it still a smart thing to have electrically powered flight controls in this situation? Perhaps changing them to hydraulically powered would be safer as that would separate them from the power needs in the cabin and avionics bay (the 787 also uses hydraulics for its flight controls). Anyway, that would drive the need for new hydraulic systems, perhaps a minimum of three? Where to put the extra piping, accumulators, reservoirs, etcetera? Also, we need to think about systems cooling with all those new avionics on board.
Not mentioned in your list, but what about the structure? The 'milled from solid' statement is always used to show how very sturdy the VC10 is, but what about its drawbacks? There are a number of locations around the airframe that show an increased risk of intergranular corrosion because of those milled planks being used. The joints between the planks on the lower wing surface are one, the window surrounds another (just look at the number of reinforced window surrounds on RAF VC10s). Also, the VC10 was designed with a fail-safe structure, which is one of the reasons that it was relatively heavy (along with the choice of rear-mounted engines, but the trick here is to be careful what you compare it to, as the 707 was also, at least partially, a fail-safe structure). To keep the economics somewhat reasonable in relation to modern designs, you would need to change this to a safe-life structure which means a complete redesign of the whole structure, taking out all the extra metal, doubled frames and such, so slimming down the structure weight. Just design it for a set number of cycles (75,000 for a 737) so that we can scrap it afterwards, which is what we are doing with modern airframes. That is a complete redesign in its own right along with the needed analysis and testing programme. While we're at it, the VC10s freight doors and bays are not sized for a standard pallet size or LD container AFAIK. Should we deal with that while we're redesigning anyway? ;)
Certifying the new design. The resulting aircraft would need to comply with current CS-25 regulations (and/or FAR-25) or the UK equivalent once Brexit is sorted out. A VC10 needed to comply with 1960s UK regulations for four-engined types. A new VC10-like twin would need to comply with modern regulations and this is a different ballgame. Certifying it as a derivative of the old design would be doubtful based on the points I typed up above (also, keep in mind that the 737-MAX didn't do very well, partially because it is a 1960s design modified to fit 21st century needs), so you would need to go through a clean-sheet certification programme.

The bottom line is that you would be designing a completely new airliner that would happen to look like a VC10. The startup capital to get something like that going is massive and just getting new jigs and moulds, along with the needed production and testing facilities is something that is beyond most companies' reach. So in my view, it is not the easy, quick fix that it may appear to be.

That's just my two cents of course.

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

My late-lamented uncle had business for a while with BAC and brought me a stack of marketing and engineering sales literature about the VC-10 and BAC 1-11, which as a 9 yr old I absorbed avidly. Both sets majored on the adoption of QUIET 'by-pass' jet engines, the Conway and Spey respectively! The bumpf really went to town on this aspect. Eee! Nimbys t'day don't know they're born!

[BACsuperVC10]

My Favourite aircraft, but I never flew on one, seen the one at Duxford in BOAC livery, beautiful

[Checklist Charlie]

A modern VC 10 would have to have a record/CD/wire loop player just to play the Conway clackerty-clack as the engines windmilled when parked.
Wouldn't be a VC 10 without that racket.

CC

[pax britanica]

Many lovely trips on tens and Supers among them LHr-Barbados-LHR LHR-Nicosia Khartoum Addis Seychelles , JFK-Antigua Barbados , SeychellesMauritus. A a lovely comfortable aeroplane -but that doesnt sell, witness the wonderful A 380 ,and re engining it would do nothing for the over heavy wings (no cantilevering balance from poddied engines, no huge tail for lack or moment arm and no Forth Bridge at the rear of the fuselage to hang the engines on.

As for the age demographics well to have been a pax on VC10 you have to be pretty old or flown on one as a small child, to have actually flown a civil one possibly older still.

Noise-unparalleled altho somehow a Caravelle with only two smaller engines sometimes seemed to rival them. The strange moaning noise as it taxied to the threshold and then the howl as it spooled up for full take off power remains a great memory from my childhood spotting days, pretty cool on approach too.

I lied the Trident as well, always seemed to zip along nicely much to the delight of the crews it seemed who more than once on trips I was on took great pleasure in pointing out a Scandi DC9 we were overtaking on the way to Stockholm and a VC10 we passed from Rome to LHR
Also very quiet inside but not outside , the 3 and a half engine version being the noisiest but I think the 1A version the fastest and trickiest.

Quiet planes , A 380 top of the league and biz class on an MD80 left you with the feeling there were no engines at all.

Interesting the relatively derided 1-11 which I didnt like much preferring the quieter and indeed better selling DC 9 - actually did sell pretty well and to airlines in all parts of the globe . But then thats us brits again always preferring the glamour to the practical

So there you go-the past is another country and they do things differently there.

(UK second biggest aersopace industry ? well USA of course but surely Airbus which has no British ownership anymore does it is huge and the French element probably bigger than ours . Whatever I do so hope RR sort out their problems and the Brexit calamity doesnt see the Airbus Industrie Uk elements which are critical gradually get moved to the rest of Europe . We dont do much in manufacturing hi tech engineering line and it would be a tragedy to lose even one of these enterprises . Not World Beaters to use that idiotic jingoistic phrase thats been the bane of so much of Britains recent history but genuinely highly regarded global enterprises of which we have very few that involve actually doing anything in terms of long term investment , employment and preservation of engineering and technology skills.

Hands up who would like to stand by the threshold of one of LHRs runways and see a ten depart again

[Pickuptruck]

Love how the English think every plane they made was the greatest. Even the utter piles of crap, were the best utter piles of crap. The yanks are happy to admit they made some good stufff and some bad stuff, but not the Brits. And heaven forbid if someone took a British design and made it better......

[Chris Scott]

I'll bite.

[...]

That's just my two cents of course.
Looking forward to your ten cents' worth, Jelle!

Great analysis, and an all-too-pertinent comment on the 737MAX...

For the non-cognoscenti who might nevertheless be interested, re the VC10's electrically-powered PFCUs: the ED (engine-driven) gennies are each 48kVA, compared with 30kVA on the B707 (and One-Eleven). A twin-engine version with Trents would need more than the 90kVA per ED generator that became standard on big turbofans with the advent of the wide-bodies. I take your point on IFE power requirements, but do modern, digital avionics make very high demands? Perhaps so, because the A320 family, for example, use two 90kVA gennies - despite its flight controls all being hydraulically powered.

Don't know about the DC-8, but the primary flight controls of the B707 (and, presumably, the E-3 - still in military service) are assisted by so-called balance-panels in the case of the ailerons and elevators, the only powered control being the single. hydraulically-boosted rudder (with manual reversion). In addition to PFCUs for the ailerons and elevators, the VC10 has three rudders, each with a separate PFCU (and series yaw-damper). So the AC power requirement is much higher and absolutely essential on the VC10, which consequently has an emergency ELRAT (electric ram-air turbine).

[wondering]

The VC-10 was so successful, it outsold the American competition in huge numbers.........NOT. Same for the Trident. Complete non-starter. Get over the we-were-once-a-great-engineering-nation nostalgia. Sorry to spoil the party. Reality bites.

[NutLoose]

A modern VC 10 would have to have a record/CD/wire loop player just to play the Conway clackerty-clack as the engines windmilled when parked.
Wouldn't be a VC 10 without that racket.

CC

And you try stopping them so you could inspect them on a check..

I last Worked on them in 89 on leaving the RAF, indeed I did a ground run on my last day.. Last I saw fly was also the last to have air under its wheels as it landed at Brunty.... However, that might not be the last time they fly.

https://live.staticflickr.com/1859/44241233892_c704855887_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2aprTuG)VC10 (https://flic.kr/p/2aprTuG) by Tony Taylor (https://www.flickr.com/photos/142550108@N08/), on Flickr

[Chris Scott]

[..]
Interesting the relatively derided 1-11 which I didnt like much preferring the quieter and indeed better selling DC 9 - actually did sell pretty well and to airlines in all parts of the globe . But then thats us brits again always preferring the glamour to the practical
[...]
Hands up who would like to stand by the threshold of one of LHRs runways and see a ten depart again
What was glamourous about the One-Eleven? One of the reasons it sold fairly well worldwide was that it predated the DC-9

Yes, the soundtrack of the VC10 is unique and impressive, and it looks pretty good too!

And you try stopping them so you could inspect them on a check.
[...]

...partly because the front compressor disc of the Conway is a stator? You don't see many like that today...

Great photo, BTW.

[dixi188]

About 1971 there was a proposal to build some VC-10s for China. They were going to be twin engined with RB211s and built at Hurn. The 2 large hangars at weybridge, (Cathedral and Vatican), were to be moved to Hurn and assembled as one.
IIRC the deal was to be 50 VC-10s and 200 One-Elevens.
Then Nixon went and made friends with China and they bought a load of Boeings.
Jhieminga (https://www.pprune.org/members/48625-jhieminga),
Ref. your item 5.
I think you will find that most metal airliner structures are what is now known as "Damage Tolerant " structures. The term "Fail Safe" went out of use after the "Fail Safe" Boeing 707 horizontal stab. failed at Lusaka.
The term "Safe Life" went out of use after the Viscount era I think. We used to re-spar them after so many hours or cycles.
The Design life of airliners is a target not a limitation of hours and cycles. They can carry on indefinitly provided the maintenance, inspection and repair is carried out. There comes a time when it is no longer cost effective to do this.
I don't know about the composite 787 and A350 structures though.

Dixi.

[pilot9248]

Dixi, your comments regarding damage tolerance are not entirely accurate. Since the late 1980s it has been recognised that damage tolerance evaluations are, unfortunately, not “good forever”, they do have certain limitations. It may be possible to reevaluate a design to extend its life with a significant amount of additional analysis and testing, supplementary inspections and modifications, and even then the type certificate holder may sooner or later come a point where it is just no longer economical. There has been a lot of regulatory and industry activity to address continuing structural integrity issues, perhaps most prominently the problem of widespread fatigue damage, see regulations such as the FAA aging airplane and WFD rules and the recently amended EASA Part-26, which e.g. stipulate a limit of validity (LOV).
Apologies for the thread drift, but I felt this had to be clarified.

[oldchina]

Q: What was glamourous about the One-Eleven?

A: Philippine Airlines hosties.

[Herod]

Hands up who would like to stand by the threshold of one of LHRs runways and see a ten depart again

:ok::ok::ok:

[Jhieminga]

Looking forward to your ten cents' worth, Jelle!
Thanks Chris!

As a bit of context for power demands, the 777 has two 120kVA generators for a total generating capacity of 240kVA, the 787 uses four starter/generators of 250kVA each, for a total of 1000kVA. Compared to that, four times 48kVA is not a lot, but it was more than what the 707 needed...

I realised that fail safe/safe life are dated terms, but they were in vogue when the VC10 was designed. I don't know the specifics of all the modern airframes but on the 737 family, Boeing managed to increase the available life on a fuselage from 60,000 to 75,000 cycles when they went from the Classic Generation (-300,400,500) to the Next Generation (-600 and on) models. Long range airframes can take a longer time to reach such a cycle limit. A 747 was originally designed for 20,000 cycles, 60,000 hours or 20 years. On that airframe it is not an absolute limit (a 747-100 surpassed 100,000 hours in 1996) but it takes expensive repairs and modifications to make sure you can keep it in the air. There is an old FlightGlobal article here (https://www.flightglobal.com/ageing-aircraft/5034.article) that includes a list of several types including design life numbers. The 787 was designed for 44,000 cycles (don't know the hours) but a test airframe went through a simulated 160,000 cycles without any cracking. While that validates the use of composites to counter fatigue related structural issues, the big question is whether other influences are going to age the airframe in any way as it clocks up the hours. Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that you better have a good thought about a realistic design life for the airframe from the start as it may help in keeping the weight down as well as the testing costs.

Things have gone a bit quiet on the plans to get the Dunsfold VC10 back in the air again. While I would not recommend restarting production on the VC10, putting one in the air again to provide AAR for a while may well be a worthwhile effort. And if it does work out, we may well get to listen to the roar of four Conways again...

Great photo of ZD241 there Tony :ok:

[Gipsy Queen]

I think you'll find there are very good reasons why no clean sheet design in the last three decades has put the engines on the tail.

tdracer. This is an interesting point. Beyond considerations of compression and polar moments of inertia, I'm wondering what the principal disadvantages might be?

pax britanica. I have both arms raised!

[tdracer]

tdracer. This is an interesting point. Beyond considerations of compression and polar moments of inertia, I'm wondering what the principal disadvantages might be?


There are several big ones. First off, tail mounted engines are relatively high off the ground, making servicing and maintenance more difficult and time consuming. Not a big difference, but over a ~25 -30 year service life of an aircraft, it mounts up. Second, during the early design phases of a new aircraft, the engine weight is little more than an educated guess. Worse, the engines seldom get lighter - they are usually heavier, often a lot heavier. Now, if the engine is mounted on the wing - it's located near the aircraft CG, so a heavier engine is generally not a big concern to the overall design. Tail mounted engines - by definition - are way behind the aircraft CG. So when the engine gets heavier, the wing is suddenly in the wrong place. The only solution (short of starting over with a new wing position) is to add ballast to the nose - effectively doubling the weight penalty. According to people I worked with that worked on the MD-90, this hurt the MD-90 massively. After the basic design was frozen, the FAA required much better blade out and uncontained failure protection - resulting in a massive increase in the engine weight. Between that and the associated required nose ballast, the resultant aircraft was so heavy that it lost most of it's fuel burn advantage from the new engines (relative to the MD-80).
Structurally, putting the engines on the wing has significant advantages relative to the tail. I've been told there are some aerodynamic advantages as well although I admit it's not obvious to me what those might be.

[washoutt]

The story goes, that the DC-9 wing was a barely modified DC-8 wing. The DC-8 had excellent stall properties, so the DC-9 was expected to show the same good qualities, but it did not. Eventually, it was discovered, that the pylons of the DC-8 were part of the good characteriscs, so what they did was to build a mock mini pylon on the DC-9 wing, and presto, there were the good stall properties again. The little 5 days stubble under a DC-9 wing therefore, is just a deteriorated DC-8 pylon. Or so the story goes...

[Asturias56]

"I'm wondering what the principal disadvantages might be?"

No airline would buy it????

I seem to remember Bill Gunston discussed the advantages that Boeing discovered when they designed the B-47 - in addition to the points mentioned by tdracer they found less drag, much safer in case of an engine blowing up, much easier to upgrade to bigger engines later (also see the 737)

It's no coincidence that the Russians went for under wing engines after the Il-62.

jets at the back still have a place on business jets and small commuter aircraft but I can't see anyone designing a medium/large airliner with rear engines again

[Pugilistic Animus]

VC10 looks like a DC9 mated with a 707 :}

[Bergerie1]

Pugilistic Animus, NEVER! it looked far better.

[pr00ne]

Many lovely trips on tens and Supers among them LHr-Barbados-LHR LHR-Nicosia Khartoum Addis Seychelles , JFK-Antigua Barbados , SeychellesMauritus. A a lovely comfortable aeroplane -but that doesnt sell, witness the wonderful A 380 ,and re engining it would do nothing for the over heavy wings (no cantilevering balance from poddied engines, no huge tail for lack or moment arm and no Forth Bridge at the rear of the fuselage to hang the engines on.

As for the age demographics well to have been a pax on VC10 you have to be pretty old or flown on one as a small child, to have actually flown a civil one possibly older still.

Noise-unparalleled altho somehow a Caravelle with only two smaller engines sometimes seemed to rival them. The strange moaning noise as it taxied to the threshold and then the howl as it spooled up for full take off power remains a great memory from my childhood spotting days, pretty cool on approach too.

I lied the Trident as well, always seemed to zip along nicely much to the delight of the crews it seemed who more than once on trips I was on took great pleasure in pointing out a Scandi DC9 we were overtaking on the way to Stockholm and a VC10 we passed from Rome to LHR
Also very quiet inside but not outside , the 3 and a half engine version being the noisiest but I think the 1A version the fastest and trickiest.

Quiet planes , A 380 top of the league and biz class on an MD80 left you with the feeling there were no engines at all.

Interesting the relatively derided 1-11 which I didnt like much preferring the quieter and indeed better selling DC 9 - actually did sell pretty well and to airlines in all parts of the globe . But then thats us brits again always preferring the glamour to the practical

So there you go-the past is another country and they do things differently there.

(UK second biggest aersopace industry ? well USA of course but surely Airbus which has no British ownership anymore does it is huge and the French element probably bigger than ours . Whatever I do so hope RR sort out their problems and the Brexit calamity doesnt see the Airbus Industrie Uk elements which are critical gradually get moved to the rest of Europe . We dont do much in manufacturing hi tech engineering line and it would be a tragedy to lose even one of these enterprises . Not World Beaters to use that idiotic jingoistic phrase thats been the bane of so much of Britains recent history but genuinely highly regarded global enterprises of which we have very few that involve actually doing anything in terms of long term investment , employment and preservation of engineering and technology skills.

Hands up who would like to stand by the threshold of one of LHRs runways and see a ten depart again

pax britannica,

Yes, UK aerospace industry second largest in the world. Airbus is not French, despite the huge operation at Toulouse the company is actually registered in the Netherlands, and counts the UK as a 'home country.' Ownership of an industry is largely irrelevant in these globalised industry days. The Uk designs, manufactures and assembles each and every wing ever fitted to an Airbus airliner or military airlifter. In addition the UK designs the undercarriage, the fuel system and the hydraulic system, and manufactures a good percentage of these items too. Whilst the UK may only assemble complete aircraft in relatively small numbers in the shape of Typhoons, Hawks, Islanders, Merlins and microlights, it is present on almost every large scale platform such as A220 (wings), Martin Baker ejection seats, 15 to 20% of each and every F-35 built and so on and so on. Rolls-Royce of course is a huge international player and there are UK engines on platforms across the world, and a huge component industry.

Totally agree with you on the A380 by the way, simply the most comfortable and pleasant airliner I have ever flown on.

[Chris Scott]

Pugilistic Animus... That was shocking!

There are several big ones. First off, tail mounted engines are relatively high off the ground, making servicing and maintenance more difficult and time consuming. Not a big difference, but over a ~25 -30 year service life of an aircraft, it mounts up. Second, during the early design phases of a new aircraft, the engine weight is little more than an educated guess. Worse, the engines seldom get lighter - they are usually heavier, often a lot heavier. Now, if the engine is mounted on the wing - it's located near the aircraft CG, so a heavier engine is generally not a big concern to the overall design. Tail mounted engines - by definition - are way behind the aircraft CG. So when the engine gets heavier, the wing is suddenly in the wrong place. The only solution (short of starting over with a new wing position) is to add ballast to the nose - effectively doubling the weight penalty. According to people I worked with that worked on the MD-90, this hurt the MD-90 massively. After the basic design was frozen, the FAA required much better blade out and uncontained failure protection - resulting in a massive increase in the engine weight. Between that and the associated required nose ballast, the resultant aircraft was so heavy that it lost most of it's fuel burn advantage from the new engines (relative to the MD-80).
Structurally, putting the engines on the wing has significant advantages relative to the tail. I've been told there are some aerodynamic advantages as well although I admit it's not obvious to me what those might be.

Very interesting as always, tdracer. Your point on the aft CG is only too pertinent to the VC10, as it was to the One-Eleven. Empty ferries were always a problem. They usually happen after an unplanned diversion to an aerodrome where the airline has limited facilities, and typically involve a short flight to the original destination. Loading fuel into the VC10's centre tank as forward ballast could be a hostage to fortune, and ballast is not necessarily available. The usual expedient was to gather as much of the remaining catering and its canisters into the forward galley. A CG near aft limits played a part in the accident that caused the demise of the VC10 ex-prototype, G-ARTA, landing at Gatwick on a positioning flight from Heathrow..

In addition to the weight of the engines, sticking them on the rear fuselage pushes the tail-plane/horizontal-stabiliser (referred to on the VC10, oddly, as the TPI) upwards. On the Caravelle, it went about half way up the fin, but on most aeroplanes to the top. So, on the VC10 the "bullet" that housed the pivot point and the top of the screw jack was around 38 feet above the ground.

Am no expert on structures and aerodynamics, but there are further disadvantages for tail-mounted engines in both those areas. For the non-cognoscenti:
1) Aircraft have a maximum zero-fuel weight (MZFW) that is limited mainly by the strength of the wing root, and affects the maximum payload, So - in effect - every ton of equipment or structure added to the fuselage or empennage reduces the maximum payload weight. (That also applies to fuel in any belly-mounted tank, as in the VC10's centre tank.)

2) It follows from (1) that the engines being supported in flight via the wing root is less efficient than mounting them on the wing, because - everything else being equal - the wing root has to be thicker and creates more drag.

3) Less obvious to the lay person is the aspect of wing-bending relief, a subject on which, as a non-engineer, I'm going to have to tread carefully and stand to be corrected. Pilots of big jets know (and flight engineers take for granted) that even aircraft with wing-mounted engines like to keep the outboard wing tanks full of fuel as long as possible, particularly at high ZFWs. From a structural viewpoint, it's best to place weight as close as possible to where the necessary aerodynamic lift is being generated. Emptying the outboard tanks prematurely would result in the outer wing bending upwards. Although engines are of a fixed weight, distributing them at intervals across the wing enables a lighter wing structure, as well as a thinner wing root.

There's little doubt that, versus the B707, DC-8, CV-880 and CV990, the VC10 suffered cruise penalties from having rear-mounted engines. Crews will remember the so-called aileron-upset system. At high all-up weights, it was deployed after flap retraction. The ailerons were angled up slightly to move the wings' centres of lift slightly inboard - presumably to reduce the stress on the wing root and/or the bending up of the wing tips. Perhaps someone can remind me, however, why that was no longer necessary above 24,000 ft?

To stray off topic for a moment: based on the argument I've offered in (3), above, I'm also curious about the conflicting factors of two wing-mounted engines versus four on long haul.

[NutLoose]

I seem to remember Maggie went out to the States on a VC10 and landed in a Trident, departed back to the UK in a Trident and landed in a BAC1-11, after that they stopped us gagging dead engines with pax on board if my memory hasn't failed me.

[VictorGolf]

Not only short ferries Chris. I remember getting on a VC-10 in the Seychelles to fly to Colombo and much to my surprise was invited up to Business or whatever it was called in those days, along with about 10 other passengers. Once in the cruise I was invited to retake my seat in steerage. The hostie was most apologetic but said "it's something to do with the trim". Is that why the Russkies always used to prop up the tail of the IL-62 when it was not loaded?

[Chris Scott]

Not only short ferries Chris. I remember getting on a VC-10 in the Seychelles to fly to Colombo and much to my surprise was invited up to Business or whatever it was called in those days, along with about 10 other passengers. Once in the cruise I was invited to retake my seat in steerage. The hostie was most apologetic but said "it's something to do with the trim". Is that why the Russkies always used to prop up the tail of the IL-62 when it was not loaded?
Unless you were asked to return up front for the landing, VG, I can't explain that. Presumably it was a standard VC10 (Type 1101), as I remember from day stops in the Seychelles in the early 1970s. OTOH, if it was a Super, I suppose there might have been fuel stuck in the fin tank for the T/O that could have been burned later en-route. But that's a guess: I don't know the fuel system on the Super.

Although the Standards were tail-heavy for an empty ferry, they were on the nose-heavy side at the beginning of long sectors with a full pax load; partly because the centre tank would be full. As i wrote in a previous post, that was always noticeable after top of climb, when the TPI needed to provide a lot of nose-up trim; i.e., more negative lift than usual. (The more negative lift that is being produced by the tail-plane, of course, the more positive lift has to be generated by the wing, increasing total drag.) Once the centre tank was empty, the situation was a lot better.

Our Type 1103s were combis, and I think we also used a tail strut when loading main-deck cargo via the freight door, which was forward of the wing. If you think about it, the first few pallets always end up at the back of the cabin, so we probably used them when loading and unloading our B707-320Cs as well. I can't remember.

[oldchina]

"VC10 looks like a DC9 mated with a 707"

And it had a beautiful whale tail ..

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTCL6n2rEsBMq_JyDikHYkMkRCbIXo581imlw&usqp=CAU (https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi2-prod.dailyrecord.co.uk%2Fincoming%2Farticle18975278.ece%2FAL TERNATES%2Fs615%2F0_GD4401299.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailyrecord.co.uk%2Flifestyle%2F fashion-beauty%2Fremember-whale-tail-bizarre-90s-18975223&tbnid=trrjlca_s2ch9M&vet=12ahUKEwiu4trb87TtAhUv2uAKHaEpDlkQMygdegUIARCOAg..i&docid=aPmzokCPjEYWkM&w=615&h=409&q=whale%20tail&ved=2ahUKEwiu4trb87TtAhUv2uAKHaEpDlkQMygdegUIARCOAg)

[RetiredBA/BY]

Not only short ferries Chris. I remember getting on a VC-10 in the Seychelles to fly to Colombo and much to my surprise was invited up to Business or whatever it was called in those days, along with about 10 other passengers. Once in the cruise I was invited to retake my seat in steerage. The hostie was most apologetic but said "it's something to do with the trim". Is that why the Russkies always used to prop up the tail of the IL-62 when it was not loaded?
Its a long time since I flew the VC10, 40 years, but my understanding of the IL. 62 pogo stick relates to industrial espionage. The main landing gear of the VC 10 was just a little forward of the ideal position. When designing the 62, copying the 10, the Ruskies heard that the gear was in the wrong position
and decided to correct it. Sadly, for them, they corrected it in the wrong direction and moved THEIR MLG. Forward instead of aft, hence the need for a pogo stick. Or so I heard ! . Replacement for the VC 10 ? The Boeing 757 or 767 . Better payload/ range and lower cost per pax. Sad but true. and I have operated all three.

[Jhieminga]

The tail prop on the Ilyushin is more a design choice than a mistake, see here: The competition: Il-62 (http://www.vc10.net/History/Comp_il62.html)
It allows the use of a smaller tailplane and manually powered elevators.

[DaveReidUK]

The tail prop on the Ilyushin is more a design choice than a mistake, see here: The competition: Il-62 (http://www.vc10.net/History/Comp_il62.html)
It allows the use of a smaller tailplane and manually powered elevators.

That's presumably related to the fact that, as I seem to recall, the Il-62 had a huge amount of unused (and presumably unusable) space at the back end of the cabin.

I have fond memories of struggling up shaky steps on the ramp at LHR to fit the massive engine intake blanks on night-stopping Il-62s, and of the weird contraption that Aeroflot used when refuelling to allow them to add anti-freeze to the fuel from the bowser.

[megan]

I'm also curious about the conflicting factors of two wing-mounted engines versus four on long haulNot sure of the conflicting factors to which you refer Chris. Both offer wing bending relief but at the expense of increased fin/rudder size to handle asymmetric conditions. Having two rather than four is just economics.

[FlightlessParrot]

SNIP

I seem to remember Bill Gunston discussed the advantages that Boeing discovered when they designed the B-47 - in addition to the points mentioned by tdracer they found less drag, much safer in case of an engine blowing up, much easier to upgrade to bigger engines later (also see the 737)

I seem to remember long ago that there was also a rather subtle point about damping oscillations (or something in that kind of area of structural stability--I am manifestly out of my technical depth) that was the result of the engines being hung largely forward of the leading age.

Is this a false memory, or was there something like this that was a further, unexpected, benefit of podding?

[tdracer]

I seem to remember long ago that there was also a rather subtle point about damping oscillations (or something in that kind of area of structural stability--I am manifestly out of my technical depth) that was the result of the engines being hung largely forward of the leading age.

Is this a false memory, or was there something like this that was a further, unexpected, benefit of podding?
Properly done, pod mounted engines on the wing can reduce flutter - basically the engines become tuned mass dampers.

Of course, that's in addition to the advantage of supporting the mass of the engine on the structure that's doing the lifting - instead of cantilevering it well after of the lifting portion.
No idea if there was a connection, but during flight testing of the MD-80, they had an unintentionally hard landing - the entire tail assembly (pretty much everything aft of the aft pressure bulkhead) broke off. :eek:

[Genghis the Engineer]

ATSA1

".....The British aircraft industry is now all but dead.."


Yeah, such a same that it's only the SECOND LARGEST ON THE PLANET!!!!!!!!
4th, behind (in order) the USA, China, France. Which is not to say that the UK aerospace industry isn't still huge and capable - although the ability to build, test and certify large aircraft has eluded it for some years. There are increasing efforts to rebuild that capability, and they may get somewhere - but not quickly.


UK can do engines, wings, gear, and still has and trains some exceptional flight testers. The overall large aircraft airframe integration capability is sadly not here any more, and we'd be deluding ourselves to claim otherwise. We should also throw ourselves behind efforts to rebuild that.

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!).

IF the UK is to get back into part 25 manufacture again, and I would love to see that happening, we should be looking iteratively to first build a modern business jet or turboprop, and it should be just that - MODERN. If it happened to look like a Jetstream or HS125 that should be totally co-incidental. From there, the revitalised capability should then be looking to something that beats late model A320s and B737s on economy and environmental efficiency. That means technology several generations beyond a VC10: latest avionics, 3D printed components, lots of (recyclable) composites, ultra reliable engines and systems giving global ETOPS, massive payload fraction. And if we do, I really hope to be working on it.

G

[dixi188]

In the MD80 heavy landing the structural failure was aft of the engines.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COsT6DqkTDc

[Chris Scott]

Not sure of the conflicting factors to which you refer Chris. Both offer wing bending relief but at the expense of increased fin/rudder size to handle asymmetric conditions. Having two rather than four is just economics.
Hi megan,
Not the redundancy aspects, although they remain relevant for certification and performance: simply the issue of wing-bending relief, which would appear to be better with two engines spaced across each wing.

The classic example are the A340 and A330 wings, which are - I believe - basically identical. But the A330 wings don't enjoy as much bending relief outboard.

Where is Owain Glyndwr? He could answer that one...

[Chris Scott]

[...]

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..

[GroundScot]

And of course.... it had a tail stay that had to be put in position for loading/unloading, as without the passengers on board it had a tendancy to tip..... Wish I could find a photo, but alas not.

I remember a time in DAR when a SVC10 blew an engine just before landing.... The station engineer went out to the country and found a wood turner who made a stool type mahogany block - to stop the blades widmilling in flight, enabling the aircraft to 3 engine frerry back to London [via CAI, FCO] after flight planning it around Kilimanjaro.... oh the old days....

[longisland]

Now, if the engine is mounted on the wing - it's located near the aircraft CG, so a heavier engine is generally not a big concern to the overall design.
B737 MAX with wing mounted engines certainly turned out to be a problem.

[Brit312]

GROUND SCOT We would normally ram a piece of 4x2 down the front and tie it tight to the stator. Any thing would do just to stop that LP compressor windmilling
When you talk about the tail steady I suppose you are talking about the IL -62

[GroundScot]

Yes any wood would normally do - but this was choice mahogany he used ..... brought a smile

and no, the SVC10 did have a tail steady. just wish I had a picture. Was stored in hold 5 . I remember as I bashed my head getting it off one day, tricky little sod it was, spent many days in Africa with the wonderful lady of the skies [and the crews on 21 day trips!]

[pax britanica]

e
Thnaks for your info on how Airbus is treated nationally , on that basis it doesn't surprise me that we are second since as you say we make some very major elements (components isnt a BIg enough word when we are talkign about wings etc) and all those A320 series add up to lots and although SNECMA -is that right partner with the US on some aricraft I am surre RR is bigger overall.
Problem is can we keep it that way. As it stands dear Boris is willing to risk throwing it all away for 12,000 fisherfolk .

Will AB stay in Uk after 2021 of course they will for a while , which leads me to ask where A350 wings are made, but supply probs additional costs and bureaucracy (recreating a UK airworthiness authority seems to me one of the most pointless things ever done. The world sees aviation regulation as US EU and perhaps China , no place for us at all .

We dont have much in the way of technology in Uk , one can hardly compare Mr Ds Malaysian vacuum cleaners with the German car industry can we, so we badly need to hang on to what we have and if Brexit increases cost how much will it cost for Ab to dangle More money, the southern France life style and an Eu passport in front of a few hundred critical skill people in Bristol and Cheshire and UK aviation goes the way of UK cars -that would be tragic. Some on this thread made the point that who in their right mind was talking 'Empire Routes' re the VC10 in the late 50s early 60s. Well the answer is people like Boris, Rees-Mogg and Duncan-Smith and they are still thinking that way 70 years later.

To revert to nostalgia though the 50s/60s was a wonderful time to be an Aviation enthusiast with so many new designs and so many contrasting aircraft types whereas today experience , computer modelling and cost driven design means that all airliners look the same , some are just bigger than others.

.
A bit of a thread drift but noise ahs featured a lot in this thread and for modern aircraft the most unusual seems to be the A400 with tis distinctively different and more musical note than the veteran Ruskies and equally veteran but updated Hercs -I assume its all those odd shaped blades the props sport.

[Gipsy Queen]

B737 MAX with wing mounted engines certainly turned out to be a problem.

I was about to make the same observation.

Clearly, in this hi-tech age, it is preferable to have the resultants of imbalances controlled by expensive software instead of simple high density materials screwed into one end or the other. In either case, it is the disguise of a shortcoming rather than its elimination. Thanks tdracer.

[WB627]

:ok::ok::ok:

I spent a week in wooden hut next to the runway at Brize. Best week of sleepless nights I have ever had ........ well almost :O

[DaveReidUK]

B737 MAX with wing mounted engines certainly turned out to be a problem.

Albeit an essentially aerodynamic problem, not one directly related to weight/balance/CG.

[tdracer]

In the MD80 heavy landing the structural failure was aft of the engines.

Yes, the engines are forward of the aft pressure bulkhead on the DC-9/MD-80/MD-90/717 - which is where it failed.
As I said, I don't know if there was a connection, but the mass of the engines would still have added stresses to the tail structure that failed as the whole fuselage did it's dance after touchdown even though the actual failure occurred aft of the engines.

[Jhieminga]

And of course.... it had a tail stay that had to be put in position for loading/unloading, as without the passengers on board it had a tendancy to tip..... Wish I could find a photo, but alas not.
Sixth photo on this page: https://www.vc10.net/Airframes/cn_809__garvg.html

[Chris Scott]

e
Thnaks for your info on how Airbus is treated nationally , on that basis it doesn't surprise me that we are second since as you say we make some very major elements (components isnt a BIg enough word when we are talkign about wings etc) and all those A320 series add up to lots and although SNECMA -is that right partner with the US on some aricraft I am surre RR is bigger overall.
Problem is can we keep it that way. As it stands dear Boris is willing to risk throwing it all away for 12,000 fisherfolk .

Will AB stay in Uk after 2021 of course they will for a while , which leads me to ask where A350 wings are made, but supply probs additional costs and bureaucracy (recreating a UK airworthiness authority seems to me one of the most pointless things ever done. The world sees aviation regulation as US EU and perhaps China , no place for us at all .

[..]
You've covered a lot of ground, even in the two paragraphs I've quoted. I'll give it a try, in the order of your asking:

If you were asking about the conventionally-engined A320 family,as opposed to the neo variants, the CFM56 option is Franco-American (SNECMA/GE) and the IAE V2500 is American-British-Japanese-German (P&W/RR/JAEC/MTU). (FWIW, I preferred the CFM56.) The A320neo (new-engine option) also offers two engines: the CFM LEAP (very high-bypass turbofan) and a P&W geared turbofan.

Re Brexit, don't forget that Concorde, Jaguar and Airbus A300B all flew before the UK joined the EEC.

All Airbus wings are made in the UK, mainly at Broughton, Wales; the A400M wings at Filton, Bristol.

I don't know what plans the UK has for licensing and certification post-Brexit (maybe others will comment), but EASA is a relatively new organisation. The UK ARB, later merged into the CAA, was a world leader in the certification of airliners until 1987. Subsequently, it had an input to the JAA and currently the EASA. So we'll see.

[Rory57]

I think you'll find there are very good reasons why no clean sheet design in the last three decades has put the engines on the tail.

Boeing’s Sonic Cruiser project came close to being a “modern VC10” perhaps? Fast, beautiful, rear engines, not what the airlines wanted...

[megan]

G'day Chris, having four would enhance the bending relief as you say, but as I said it comes down to economics, fuel burn is better with just two so I'm told, plus you don't have the capital and maintenance costs of four. Only need to wonder why twins are all the go, a 777 doing what a 747 used to do, though I'd much prefer to have four personally, ETOPs makes me curl my toes thinking of being reduced to one when may be 370 minutes from a runway. Bean counters rule.

[FlightlessParrot]

Properly done, pod mounted engines on the wing can reduce flutter - basically the engines become tuned mass dampers.


Thank you, that sounds like my confused memory: and, IIRC (an increasingly unlikely condition) it came as a surprise, unlike the weight distribution.

[oldchina]

megan:

"ETOPs makes me curl my toes thinking of being reduced to one when may be 370 minutes from a runway. Bean counters rule"

I have no love for accountants, but sometimes they get a bad press.

1) ETOPS rules are argued over and approved by statisticians not bean counters.
2) If Mr B counter added up the cost of a remote diversion, including handling stranded passengers on site, flying in a plane to evacuate
them, fixing the engine or bringing in a replacement, dealing with the disruption to schedules, I'm not sure they'd be keen on ETOPS.

[Momoe]

MTBF of modern engines is also a significant factor, early 747 classics with the JTD9D-3A's had numerous failures before P&W and Boeing collaborated to get a fix

[FlightlessParrot]

I suppose another way of coming at the question of "A modern VC 10" would be to ask what could be designed now to have the same appeal to passengers as the VC 10 obviously had in comparison with its contemporaries.

Apart from the question of British manufacture, which would not be important in most markets, what I hear is especially passenger comfort, starting with quiet. That, unfortunately, sounds rather like the A380. But is there any difference that could be made that would be better than simply improving the seating on a truly modern aeroplane?

[Self loading bear]

...,, But is there any difference that could be made that would be better than simply improving the seating on a truly modern aeroplane?

There are a few things annoying me when traveling by plane:

Before departure the long time you must arrive early for check-in and luggage deposit.
After landing, everybody standing up and fighting for his overhead luggage. And pushing to get off.
Waiting at the belt for your luggage.

The solution should be in a change of luggage system.

Really large luggage can still be handled old school, with 2 hours check-in.

If one doesn’t have to wait for luggage that long, people can be persuaded to only take the handluggage they really need during the flight. (As was the intention) and not what they can bring without extra charge and extra waiting time.

I am always happy to drop my bag at the stairs. (Everything I need is in my laptop case)
”excuse me sir, we expect tight space in the overhead bins. If you drop your bag here it will be waiting for you when you leave the plane”

Why not make this standard policy with standard containers in which you drop your bag?

For the improvement in the aircraft: make the isle seats folding towards the window, creating a 2 person wide corridor. Fill up the plane from the aft, and empty from the front. The flight attendant folds and unfolds the seats.

Why can’t the waiting seats at the gate be numbered like in the plane?

[megan]

oldchina, I was taking a little liberty in my comment, have happily flown the world in twins without thought, even made a living flying single engine over water IMC, though I have wondered about being 370 from home and down to one, the reaction of fellow pax may be interesting, particularly if accompanied by severe vibes from an unbalanced rotor. Risk assessment is a funny thing, we parachute with two canopies as well, hard to get folk to accept that it's a safe sport though, as an ex jumper it seems to me far more parachutists these days die in aircraft accidents than skydiving.

[FlightlessParrot]

Why can’t the waiting seats at the gate be numbered like in the plane?

The answer to that is passengers. Airlines try various ways to board aircraft in a less horrible fashion, including the interesting variation of boarding all window seats first, but as soon as a few people get up, almost everyone joins the queue. It gets to the point that we join in, too, just to try to get some space in the overhead locker.

Mostly I was completely agreeing with your points, SLB. And it is interesting that pretty much all the improvements we can think of happen on the ground, before and after the actual flight. Saving an hour at departure and half an hour at arrival would be a significant improvement even on an eight hour flight. Is it really impossible to board aircraft from multiple points, these days? I nostalgically remember DC-9s, when you could board front or rear depending on where you were seated. Sure, you had to go outside, but that is more of a treat than a hardship in most weather conditions.

[DaveReidUK]

Is it really impossible to board aircraft from multiple points, these days? I nostalgically remember DC-9s, when you could board front or rear depending on where you were seated. Sure, you had to go outside, but that is more of a treat than a hardship in most weather conditions.

I'm guessing that, given your location, you haven't flown EasyJet or Ryanair much, if at all. What you have described is SOP for those carriers.

[NutLoose]

I spent a week in wooden hut next to the runway at Brize. Best week of sleepless nights I have ever had ........ well almost :O

I spent 6 yrs living in the end room of a block at Brize roughly at the rotation point, no double glazing and everything rattled... oddly enough I can sleep through anything these days.

[FlightlessParrot]

I'm guessing that, given your location, you haven't flown EasyJet or Ryanair much, if at all. What you have described is SOP for those carriers.
You guess correctly, even though I have been within their sphere of influence: BA and Virgin strike me as bad enough. As a matter of interest, with the lowest cost of lo-cos, does it make the boarding experience better? Of course, there's the difference between Manchester in January and Canberra in, say, January.

[DaveReidUK]

You guess correctly, even though I have been within their sphere of influence: BA and Virgin strike me as bad enough. As a matter of interest, with the lowest cost of lo-cos, does it make the boarding experience better?

Yes, boarding is quicker and less hassle, even with the occasional passenger who is in the back row and insists on boarding by the forward stairs. :O

And of course, particularly for the LCCs, time is money - so anything that can help them to schedule shorter turnrounds is welcome.

[India Four Two]

Is it really impossible to board aircraft from multiple points, these days?

Pretty much standard practice at SE Asian airports that I am familiar with, when parked a a remote stand and using buses to the terminal.

[FlightlessParrot]

Pretty much standard practice at SE Asian airports that I am familiar with, when parked a a remote stand and using buses to the terminal.
Yes, I've met that occasionally, but it seems to be not the standard way of doing things, unfortunately. What are the advantages of the extendable-tube pax ovipositors for the operators?

[WHBM]

As a matter of interest, with the lowest cost of lo-cos, does it make the boarding experience better?
It's not just low cost carriers. At London City, where I understand BA has the highest percentage of their gold card holders of anywhere on their network, dual boarding from ground level, rows 1-12 at the front, 13-25 at the back, is universal.

[ruddman]

Rather then converting older airframes into something modern, why not design something that flies faster? At the end of the day, that’s what we we all want.

How did engineers go from designing aircraft with higher speeds like a 727 M80-84 to the current dawdling along .76-77 on CI of nearly nought 737/A320’s?

Surely the technology can design something to fly 0.86-0.88 with ease. Costs a little more but it evens out.
Example, say. 800nm average trip. One at 440kt, burn around 2000kg/hr

Next a new design, some quick calculations on my receipt of booze from the bottle shop, few more degrees swept wing, throw a stability thingy here for...er...stability, a small adjustment in rudder design etc, few more horses in engine power and we have a high cruise Mach. Say 480kt now tas,
Save some minutes in flying, but burns more. My calculations after a red wine or two, it will burn only 40kg more since it’s shorter time in the air.
Divide by 150 pax, based on a couple bucks a kg fuel, and you only need to put the ticket price up 50 cents each. A smart operated though adds another $1, 50 cents to off set the higher price he bought aircraft at, and the other 50 cents I’d all profit. He makes 75 bucks again on one flight. That’s pretty good. Couple bottles of red right there.


i can see the day coming hopefully when we get a choice in the back as to the cost index flown.

“good morning ladies and gentleman, this is your captain speaking. Welcome aboard flight 246 to sunny Mallorca. Today’s route takes us down through......and as you are aware we have a new feature. You the passengers choose the arrival and fuel burn. Choices today are :

1. Cost index 0. Lowest fuel burn great for carbon emissions. Arrival into Mallorca, 15:15
2. Cost index 150. High fuel burn, more emissions, but we arrive 15 mins earlier, so for those wanting to check into their hotels and get to the beautiful Majorca beaches earlier, please select option 2.”

I mean, seriously, who’s selecting option 1?

[Jhieminga]

The ones who didn't want to pay the surcharge for option 2 ;)

[DaveReidUK]

I mean, seriously, who’s selecting option 1?

If it was expressed as "1. Cost index 0. Lowest fuel burn to shave a couple of quid off your fare", then probably quite a few.

[tdracer]

Rather then converting older airframes into something modern, why not design something that flies faster? At the end of the day, that’s what we we all want.

How did engineers go from designing aircraft with higher speeds like a 727 M80-84 to the current dawdling along .76-77 on CI of nearly nought 737/A320’s?

Surely the technology can design something to fly 0.86-0.88 with ease. Costs a little more but it evens out.

Actually, pretty much all the aircraft designed to be medium to long range have cruise Mach numbers over 0.80. 767/777/787 are in the 0.80 to 0.84 ranger - the 747-400 and -8 are in the 0.82-0.86 range (I believe the A380 is similar to the 747).
The 737/A320 series were designed for short haul - so another 0.02 Mach wasn't much of a time difference. But with the newer, more powerful and more fuel efficient engines the 737/A320 are being increasingly used for medium range flights - where the speed difference is becoming meaningful.
The other things that's changed is the new generation of very high bypass engines. With a JT8D, slowing down didn't save much fuel - no longer true with the very high bypass engines. Going slower does make a meaningful difference in fuel burn, so there is more of a carrot for going slower.
As another poster noted, the Boeing Sonic Cruiser was going to be fast - Mach 0.94 - 0.97 range, with operating costs (per seat mile) similar to a 767. Initially the airlines liked the idea, but after 9/11, they became increasingly concerned about costs, so instead of going 15% faster with the same fuel burn, they got the 787 with ~20% better fuel burn at the same speed.
Oh, and while the Sonic Cruiser's engines were going to mounted far aft - they were still going to be mounted under the wings...

[pr00ne]

4th, behind (in order) the USA, China, France. Which is not to say that the UK aerospace industry isn't still huge and capable - although the ability to build, test and certify large aircraft has eluded it for some years. There are increasing efforts to rebuild that capability, and they may get somewhere - but not quickly.


UK can do engines, wings, gear, and still has and trains some exceptional flight testers. The overall large aircraft airframe integration capability is sadly not here any more, and we'd be deluding ourselves to claim otherwise. We should also throw ourselves behind efforts to rebuild that.

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!).

IF the UK is to get back into part 25 manufacture again, and I would love to see that happening, we should be looking iteratively to first build a modern business jet or turboprop, and it should be just that - MODERN. If it happened to look like a Jetstream or HS125 that should be totally co-incidental. From there, the revitalised capability should then be looking to something that beats late model A320s and B737s on economy and environmental efficiency. That means technology several generations beyond a VC10: latest avionics, 3D printed components, lots of (recyclable) composites, ultra reliable engines and systems giving global ETOPS, massive payload fraction. And if we do, I really hope to be working on it.

G

Genghis,

You may well be right. Even though the ADS, or SBAC as it used to be, is still trumpeting the UK as the 2nd, being behind China does sound sensible, so I will settle on an equal 3rd bumping along with France!
The case for large aircraft integration is less sound though, I happen to know personally a few of the Airbus types doing this in Toulouse and Hamburg, and they are Brits, as are a fair few of their colleagues.

Don't forget that Bombardier, or Spirit Aero as it is about to become, still does a large amount of part and whole fuselage work, and the fact that there is not a lot of high tech involved in airliner assembly. British Aerospace, as was, were offered final assembly for, at differing times, the Boeing 757 and the Airbus A320, and on both occasions turned it down as there was no real value add and not a whole lot of jobs. The real work is done out at the component factories where sections are as near as possible complete before being sent to Toulouse or Hamburg. Not many places DO do large aircraft assembly now though do they? Not sure that regaining it would add that very much. And who would do it? Certainly not BAE systems. I am aware of a few high tech start ups, and wish them success, but breaking that Airbus/Boeing strangle hold is going to be really difficult, as the Chinese, Russians and Japanese have found out.

[etudiant]

Rather then converting older airframes into something modern, why not design something that flies faster? At the end of the day, that’s what we we all want.

How did engineers go from designing aircraft with higher speeds like a 727 M80-84 to the current dawdling along .76-77 on CI of nearly nought 737/A320’s?

Surely the technology can design something to fly 0.86-0.88 with ease. Costs a little more but it evens out.
Example, say. 800nm average trip. One at 440kt, burn around 2000kg/hr

Next a new design, some quick calculations on my receipt of booze from the bottle shop, few more degrees swept wing, throw a stability thingy here for...er...stability, a small adjustment in rudder design etc, few more horses in engine power and we have a high cruise Mach. Say 480kt now tas,
Save some minutes in flying, but burns more. My calculations after a red wine or two, it will burn only 40kg more since it’s shorter time in the air.
Divide by 150 pax, based on a couple bucks a kg fuel, and you only need to put the ticket price up 50 cents each. A smart operated though adds another $1, 50 cents to off set the higher price he bought aircraft at, and the other 50 cents I’d all profit. He makes 75 bucks again on one flight. That’s pretty good. Couple bottles of red right there.


i can see the day coming hopefully when we get a choice in the back as to the cost index flown.

“good morning ladies and gentleman, this is your captain speaking. Welcome aboard flight 246 to sunny Mallorca. Today’s route takes us down through......and as you are aware we have a new feature. You the passengers choose the arrival and fuel burn. Choices today are :

1. Cost index 0. Lowest fuel burn great for carbon emissions. Arrival into Mallorca, 15:15
2. Cost index 150. High fuel burn, more emissions, but we arrive 15 mins earlier, so for those wanting to check into their hotels and get to the beautiful Majorca beaches earlier, please select option 2.”

I mean, seriously, who’s selecting option 1?

Afaik, speeds are set by the ATC blocks, at least on heavily traveled routes such as the North Atlantic.
Unless the postulated newer higher speed designs can operate at a different altitude, say 45,000-50,000ft, I'd think they would be quite disruptive to the regular traffic flow.

[ruddman]

Ok, back to the drawing board. And the liquor store.

[Alan Baker]

Afaik, speeds are set by the ATC blocks, at least on heavily traveled routes such as the North Atlantic.
Unless the postulated newer higher speed designs can operate at a different altitude, say 45,000-50,000ft, I'd think they would be quite disruptive to the regular traffic flow.
Indeed. This is precisely what scuppered the Convair 990, which was supposed to be faster than the 707/DC-8, but increasing traffic levels dictated uniformity of speed.

[Asturias56]

"Ok, back to the drawing board. And the liquor store."

"I was wrong! Knowledge is not to be found in the bottom a bottle - it's to be found on Day Time TV" - Homer Simpson

[Bergerie1]

How many nautical miles are we off piste now?

[chevvron]

Unless the postulated newer higher speed designs can operate at a different altitude, say 45,000-50,000ft, I'd think they would be quite disruptive to the regular traffic flow.
When RAE Farnborough got its first Buccaneer S2 in 1975, it did a lot of airways flights presumably for the pilots to familiarise themselves with VOR flying.
London Control complained they didn't 'like' it because it cruised at similar levels to most airliners (between about 270 and 330) but at a filed TAS of 550kts so it kept overtaking other traffic at the same level!

[Self loading bear]

How many nautical miles are we off piste now?

No worries
I think we are already at 3/4 of the Scharnow turn.

[Una Due Tfc]

Afaik, speeds are set by the ATC blocks, at least on heavily traveled routes such as the North Atlantic.
Unless the postulated newer higher speed designs can operate at a different altitude, say 45,000-50,000ft, I'd think they would be quite disruptive to the regular traffic flow.

Majority of FANS and ADSB equipped flights are offered no ATC speed restriction on the NAT now once on it via CPDLC uplink: "RESUME NORMAL SPEED", although this was envisaged to allow crews fly ECON speed. Any change greater than .019 of cleared Mach must be approved IIRC. The tracks will be gone within ten years, as will the Oceanic Clearance for anyone getting requested route, level and speed.

Within Europe however, the CFMU gives the most efficient profile for capacity, so less freedom there for the foreseeable in the saturated sectors and airfields (when traffic returns to near normal).

[VC10man]

I have really enjoyed this post about a plane I love. I don't know why because I've never flown on a VC10 and sadly never will. Well done everyone for your information about the plane.

However I'm looking forward to the NG VC10, NG Concorde and NG B757. Wonderful planes all with engines made by a firm near where I live.

[brakedwell]

Afaik, speeds are set by the ATC blocks, at least on heavily traveled routes such as the North Atlantic.
Unless the postulated newer higher speed designs can operate at a different altitude, say 45,000-50,000ft, I'd think they would be quite disruptive to the regular traffic flow.

I flew as a passenger in RAF VC10’s many times when I was an RAF Britannia captain. (We used to call them deserts in the sky due to the poor cabin service) About three years after leaving the RAF in 1973 I was flying a DC 8 54 F from Cairo to Nairobi when I heard an RAF VC10, flying on the same route to our same destination Nairobi, 2000 feet below us. We picked out the VC10 and gradually overtook it. Our cruising speed was a standard .82 mach so perhaps we had a stronger tailwind, and we did manage to land at Nairobi before the shiny!

[Bergerie1]

brakedwell, I don't know how you managed that. We used to cruise at M.86 and there aren't suitable jet streams on that route down to Nairobi.

[brakedwell]

To be honest Bergerie it surprised me too! The fact that we were slowly overhauling him surprised me. I think he was flying from Akrotiri to Nairobi while we were flying from Cairo to Nairobi, heavy with 48 tonnes of cargo. Maybe we were cruising a little faster than .82, - more 83 - 84.

[RetiredBA/BY]

In my time flying the BA VC 10 we cruised at .84 indicated., .825 true.

[Bergerie1]

Retired BA/BY, When the fleet started the normal cruise speed was M.86, but sometime after the 1973 oil crisis (I can't remember exactly when) this was reduced to M.84. It could have been a little before or after the date of brakedwell's story.

[RetiredBA/BY]

Understood. I did not join BOAC till just after the oil crisis of 1973.

[brakedwell]

I carried out a C of A air test on a DC8 with a CAA test pilot in the RH seat. One of the tests was a high Mach number descent which I seem to remember reached slightly over .96. Scared me to death, but the CAA guy seemed to enjoy it, Unfortunately he later died while investigating an Airbus crash near Kathmandu after moving to Toulouse.

[Bergerie1]

brakedwell, That would have been Gordon Corps. He was a good operator. I flew with him several times on CofA flights.

[Chris Scott]

To be honest Bergerie it surprised me too! The fact that we were slowly overhauling him surprised me. I think he was flying from Akrotiri to Nairobi while we were flying from Cairo to Nairobi, heavy with 48 tonnes of cargo. Maybe we were cruising a little faster than .82, - more 83 - 84.
48 tonnes of freight on a DC-8-54F? The max on the contemporary B707-320C was about 39 tonnes (including the pallets). I thought the DC-8-50F was only a tonne or so more than that.

But, returning to topic, the VC10 combis could only manage about half of that, which - in addition to the payload-range disparity - is another reason we (BCAL) let ours go in 1973/4.

[pax britanica]

A bit of a summing up from my point of view the American chap who posted early on about Brits being unable to recognise failure had it right. Unlike one of the early posts that said the VC 10was a superb aeroplane , no it wasn't, it was a heap of junk because it couldn't do the job of an airliner remotely efficiently. Never mind the handling, field performance and all that stuff if it could not deliver the right economics it was of no use. (did they have CASM back then).

I loved watching the VC 10 close up, I loved flying on it and from what i have read the pilots loved flying it but sadly that doesn't make it any good. I read an article , I think it was an extract from a book about a Boeing employee back in the sixties who reported back to Seattle after a trip to Uk to see the trident and VC10 developments. He said he was pretty confident the 727/707 were better than the Uk equivalents but what really convinced him was the state of the production facilities used in UK , ancient lacking in any degree of investment and in his eyes quite unable to meet even modest demands so that whatever the final performance and economy figures turned out to be Boeing would still come out ahead because our usual parsimonious approach and unwillingness to address risk investment (which building airliners certainly is) meant we would never be able to keep up.

Even more sadly the VC10 isnt alone in falling victim to that, perhaps particularly Britsh, nostalgia which had similar impacts in the car industry, trucks and motor bikes and here we are decades later with a PM promising a world beating track and trace app that yet again turns out to be useless junk and where people paid with their lives for our overconfident we are the best attitude.

[VictorGolf]

At least the engines didn't fall off like the early 707s and as mentioned in an earlier post it did eventually make money on the North Atlantic apparently.

[dixi188]

At the handover ceremony of the first BAC One-Eleven to Mohawk Airlines, the Mohawk boss made a speech and he said something like, "I don't know how you can build such a good airplane in a load of old cow sheds".
My father was at the handover.

[tdracer]

I think it was an extract from a book about a Boeing employee back in the sixties who reported back to Seattle after a trip to Uk to see the trident and VC10 developments. He said he was pretty confident the 727/707 were better than the Uk equivalents but what really convinced him was the state of the production facilities used in UK , ancient lacking in any degree of investment and in his eyes quite unable to meet even modest demands so that whatever the final performance and economy figures turned out to be Boeing would still come out ahead because our usual parsimonious approach and unwillingness to address risk investment (which building airliners certainly is) meant we would never be able to keep up.

Back when the 757 was being launched, the British government wanted Boeing have the wing built in the UK in return for BA being the launch customer. Boeing sharpened their pencils and determined it would increase the per-aircraft cost by $1 million USD compared to doing the wing in-house (this at a time when Boeing was selling 757s for ~$20 million USD). Boeing said thanks, but no thanks...

[DaveReidUK]

Unlike one of the early posts that said the VC 10 was a superb aeroplane, no it wasn't, it was a heap of junk because it couldn't do the job of an airliner remotely efficiently.

You could equally argue that it performed its intended mission (medium/long-haul from short runways) admirably.

Sadly, it was a role that was virtually non-existent by the time it entered service.

[Chris Scott]

You could equally argue that it performed its intended mission (medium/long-haul from short runways) admirably.

Sadly, it was a role that was virtually non-existent by the time it entered service.

Yes, it's hard to justify a specification that was forced on to Vickers primarily by, I think it's not unfair to say, a state airline that did not need to make money (and, AFAIK, never did). But what emerged was one of the most elegant aircraft ever built - all be it a less profitable one.

In the 1960s, of the two independent airlines that later constituted BCAL, Freddie Laker's BUA embraced the VC10-combi, whereas Caledonian's Adam Thomson, a canny Scot, chose the B707-320C.

The performance requirement Dave omits above is the VC10's superior WAT performance at high-altitude airfields, as previously discussed. On an average day, BUA/BCAL's (Standard) Type 1103 could offer an RTOW of about 141T (tonnes) out of Nairobi's very long runway, using Flaps 14, whereas the 707-320B/C was limited to about 129T. The VC10's 12-tonne advantage was partially eroded by its higher APS weight (around 5 tonnes, if memory serves) and its higher fuel flows for a given all-up weight. But, whereas BUA/BCAL's VC10s were able to carry nearly a full, mixed-class pax load direct to London, its 707s could not carry a similar load until around 1976, when over-boosting the JT3Ds and an increased V2 were permitted to increase the RTOW to about 135T.

At least the engines didn't fall off like the early 707s and as mentioned in an earlier post it did eventually make money on the North Atlantic apparently.

Fewer than sixty VC10s were built. Admittedly, lessons would have been learned from the Comet and the early 707s and DC-8s (not to mention the CV-880/990). But vast improvements were made to both those types - particularly the 707 - between the sixtieth hull and the models against which the VC10 had to compete when it entered service in 1964. And, in terms of systems architecture, the VC10 was a mature package from the start, with better warning/indication systems and redundancy to the 707 in most respects.

[brakedwell]

48 tonnes of freight on a DC-8-54F? The max on the contemporary B707-320C was about 39 tonnes (including the pallets). I thought the DC-8-50F was only a tonne or so more than that.

But, returning to topic, the VC10 combis could only manage about half of that, which - in addition to the payload-range disparity - is another reason we (BCAL) let ours go in 1973/4.

You are right Chris, the four DC8 54's and 55's we had averaged around 41.5 tonnes. It was a long time ago!

[VictorGolf]

I saw the performance mentioned in Chris's note above in action one very hot mid-day in Nairobi. I was on the "waving base" at Embakasi waiting for an incoming visitor, when an Ethiopian Boeing 720 trundled off to tuck it's tail, so to speak, in to the hedge to use all of the runway. Amid much black smoke it rotated and looked as though it might have difficulty clearing Ol Donyo Sabuk, an extinct volcano some miles from the airport. By contrast an East African Super VC10 taxiied out just after it and promptly took off from the intersection which was about halfway down the runway, to the mighty roar of 4 Conways at full chat. I don't know whether it was an airtest or a scheduled flight but it was very impressive...

[pax britanica]

Dave Reid, I do take your point and agree with you that if one wanted a medium to long haul (60s versions) aircraft the VC10 was ideal . It should have been obvious even ti Vickers and UK government hat no one else did and hence its demise. As I said nothing against the aircraft at an individual level , very elegant-well the super was not so sure about the standards and a really comfortable plane even in Y . the point I was making was that sadly as a country we seem to have little or no idea about marketing complex machinery . Back when I was standing watching G-ARVA taxi out from behind the BOAC base for its first LHR departure the Uk built Ships Aircraft Cars Trucks Railway engines and multi units in large numbers and employed large numbers of skilled and for the time pretty well paid people. But unlike France Germany Italy and others we did not change with the times our government either didnt support or backed the wrong horse . So now we have virtually nothing in these segments except some some assembly work for foreign entities. Oddly aerospace seems to have survived better than the other industries where Airbus UK and RR make genuinely class leading products and one hopes they will continue to do so and that Uk will still be major part of Airbus Industrie

So to head back to the VC 10 , and to speculate a bit. Would it have faired better as a trijet with two wing engines and one trident/tristar style to minimise the excess rear structure and gain from wing bending relief or were sufficiently powerful engines no around back then. On the other hand , and perhaps this had to be at the Govt level , should someone have just said no to both the trident and the VC 10 since in the case of the latter the 707 was underwritten by the vast expense of the C135 program giving it a head start in scale and R&D write off . And realising if that was the case competition with the 727 was handicapped from the start. Perhaps its ironical that it was Concorde-an even more ridiculous vanity project -which provided the clear demonstration that the only way forward was Anglo French and then Euro cooperation could really work and spawned Airbus Industry which struggled at the start but became a true global leader and caught up with and has at time outpaced the USA . Sadly us Brits didnt learn much from that either did we

[Chris Scott]

brakedwell, That would have been Gordon Corps. He was a good operator. I flew with him several times on CofA flights.
Yes indeed. In the ARB/CAA, I see he eventually succeeded D P Davies* as Chief Test Pilot, before moving to Airbus at Toulouse as an engineering test-pilot around 1982, in time to work on the A310 and A300-600. At Blagnac, he also assisted with the flight training of airline pilots on those types, which is how I first encountered him. (On the A310, he flew with our Captain Dave Deadman at least once, which would have looked good on the crew list.)

In February 1987, Gordon was on the A320 maiden flight with Pierre Baud, and more or less headed its successful flight-test programme to certification 12 months later. After that, he again supplemented Airbus training pilots in the flight training and line training of the early airline crews on the type, as did Nick Warner. This also enabled them to observe ordinary pilots like myself on routine operations, and get feedback. Sad that neither Gordon nor Nick Warner lived to enjoy retirement. R I P.

* For beginners: D P Davies was the ARB (British) certification test pilot responsible for Boeing having to add a ventral fin to its early B707s to improve their directional stability. (Later models employed a taller fin and, eventually, a series yaw-damper like the three on the VC10.) He also wrote a definitive book for airline pilots: Handling the Big Jets.

[DaveReidUK]

Would it have faired better as a trijet with two wing engines and one trident/tristar style to minimise the excess rear structure and gain from wing bending relief or were sufficiently powerful engines no around back then.

I'm struggling to think of any engine around at that time that would have been able to power a long-range trijet, even a narrow-bodied one.

[pax britanica]

DR
Indeed I was as well , I was prompted with the three engine look by memories of some Boeing ideas for the 75 before they actually built it . I think as someone said the 757 was close to being a replacement, certainly wonderful field performance but lacking in range . So realistically one would be looking ata VC10 with CFM 56s but they didnt come along for many years to help Douglas upgrade the venerable DC8.. The Trident on the other hand probably could have been built with bigger semi /low bp fan engines as originally intended and would have been much closer to the 727.
But it seems in the airline industry there is no point in building something thats not quite right , better to husband resources and try and skip a generation

[Jhieminga]

The trend at the time was for tail-mounted engines on trijets. Many of the development drawings that preceded the final VC10 design show trijets with a Trident style engine installation (a lot of these were Vanguard-based and named 'VanJet'). So I don't think anyone would have come up with a trijet with two wing-mounted engines. It would have meant a taller undercarriage as well with all the weight penalties that this incurs. And also, the engine to do that for a VC10-sized airliner was not around (as far as I know). Rolls-Royce was planning a RR Medway that might have been developed to higher thrust levels but the tested variants were in the 16,000 to 17,300 lbf thrust range, while the Conway reached 22,500 lbf on the Super VC10.

[ruddman]

How many nautical miles are we off piste now?

Actually the answer to the original question was answered inside a few posts on page 1. Somehow it’s been turned into a ‘nostalgia’ thread.


But seriously, what’s happened to aviation in 30-40 years? Flying slower and less legroom. Wow. Innovation.
Somebody said that’s the price you pay to get cheap tickets. But that’s the real answer to the OP’s question isn’t it?

How much more are you willing to spend to get their quicker? Domestic, yeah little difference.

Would anyone be willing to pay 50% more each way to cross the Pacific and Atlantic 3-4 hours quicker?

[rog747]

Possibly, the last time any serious look at enhancing the VC-10 was when BAC were offering BUA a stretched 191 seat (34'' seat pitch) Super VC-10, but by this time the merger talks with Caledonian were at an advanced stage.
Here it was mutually decided to keep with the 707-320C as the long haul aircraft initially required for BCAL.

British Eagle were apparently also offered a version of a Super VC-10 with a Combi role (I assume this was possibly different to the East African Airways Super 1153 fleet>?)
This was when the Board of Trade refused to waive the 14% Import Duty on the new 707C order that British Eagle had in place with Boeing for 1967 deliveries.
Eagle, although knowing that the Super VC-10 had much greater passenger appeal than the 707, they ultimately felt that the extra payload and range of the 707C was more suitable for their long haul charter requirements to the USA, and the Far East, and therefore worth paying the Duty with the hope they were granted the New York and Caribbean licences. (Which they sadly never got, or were reneged on)

[FlightlessParrot]

Would anyone be willing to pay 50% more each way to cross the Pacific and Atlantic 3-4 hours quicker?

Well, 50% to save 3-4 hours on a 12-hour flight is something I would consider. But remembering this is a VC10 nostalgia thread, I think the differences are more like M.86 vs M.82, which would be more like saving half an hour, and it would probably be better for the planet, and the pax blood pressure, to save that on quicker and more civilized arrangements on the ground (or, spend the 50% on an upgrade).

[FlightDetent]

Mind the gap. 😉

Saving 3-4 off 12 hrs flying time is well in the supersonic range. The speed advantage only applies in the cruise phase.

Upgrade to business is triple the original price (+200 %), based on 2019 EU to Asia rates.

[FlightlessParrot]

Saving 3-4 off 12 hrs flying time is well in the supersonic range.

Quite: even the Sonic Cruiser could only save 2 hours on a 12-hour flight, if I've done the sums right.

[tdracer]

Upgrade to business is triple the original price (+200 %), based on 2019 EU to Asia rates.

True today, but if you look at the fares from the 1960's and 70's (and correct for inflation), Business/First is similar in price (or even cheaper) than a coach ticket back then. The cabin service in First isn't quite what it was back in the day (I got bumped to First on a Pan Am flight Seattle - London back in the 80's - the meal service was a full blown seven course dinner :ok:) but they didn't have the wonderful lie-flat seats or the inflight entertainment systems back then.
Further, the range of today's aircraft mean that many flights are non-stop rather than making a fuel stop somewhere so you still get there quicker even though the cruise Mach is a couple hundredths slower.

People tend to look at jet travel 50 years ago through rose colored glasses - but if we returned to that I doubt many people would be happy about it.

[Bergerie1]

IFIRC, when I started airline flying in 1962 with BOAC, the cheapest transatlantic one-way ticket on a Bristol Britannia was £109, and that was coach class (or something like that). £109 then is something around £2000 today. It is always difficult to compare values over time, but that rather eye-watering figure tends to back up tdracer's comment

[FlightlessParrot]

Mind the gap. 😉

Upgrade to business is triple the original price (+200 %), based on 2019 EU to Asia rates.

But some airlines have premium economy fares, which produce some increase in comfort and a modest improvement in boarding, without the extreme price increase (Air NZ, for example). And as everything gets unbundled, one might soon be able to buy an accelerated boarding/disembarcation pathway. Would be an interesting upsell to try.

[Fareastdriver]

And as everything gets unbundled, one might soon be able to buy an accelerated boarding/disembarcation pathway.

Accelerated Boarding. Sit in your seat in the cabin whilst the rest bounce themselves and their cabin baggage into you instead of a comfortable seat in departures until nearly all the rest have gone.

Accelerated Disembarkation.

Stand around in Baggage Claim until your stuff arrives on the carousel as against sitting in the cabin until the rush has gone and then still waiting for you baggage on the carousel.

[FlightlessParrot]

Accelerated Boarding. Sit in your seat in the cabin whilst the rest bounce themselves and their cabin baggage into you instead of a comfortable seat in departures until nearly all the rest have gone.

Accelerated Disembarkation.

Stand around in Baggage Claim until your stuff arrives on the carousel as against sitting in the cabin until the rush has gone and then still waiting for you baggage on the carousel.

I was thinking rather of rock up after everybody else has got in, with the nice cabin crew keeping an overhead locker for you, and your hold baggage offloaded first at arrival. For a price.

[Momoe]

I used to be regular SLF on a loco, usually with hold baggage (spares). Turn up, relax and make damn sure I was one of the last to check-in. Also made sure I was one of the last to board.
Generally, got a seat within the first 3/4 rows but wasn't particularly concerned as I've yet to see a baggage carousel beat me to it.

Last to check-in, last to load, first out, generally speaking. Put it this way, you've leveraged the odds in your favour.

I've never understood the mentality of the folk who stand-up as soon the plane stops, it ain't musical chairs, ain't nothing gonna disappear if you're not off the plane in 3 minutes!

[Momoe]

As regards the VC10, I think we can all agree a modern VC10 is a non-starter, a sanitized, 2020 compliant version would not evoke the pangs of nostalgia that the original might.

Would I like to see an original VC10 flying, noise abatement nimby's and environmentalists notwithstanding? Every day, of every week. Could even earn a revenue by selling viewing slots, nearest the runway commands the premium prices (plus optional (unused) ear defenders).

[possel]

The trend at the time was for tail-mounted engines on trijets. Many of the development drawings that preceded the final VC10 design show trijets with a Trident style engine installation (a lot of these were Vanguard-based and named 'VanJet'). So I don't think anyone would have come up with a trijet with two wing-mounted engines. It would have meant a taller undercarriage as well with all the weight penalties that this incurs. And also, the engine to do that for a VC10-sized airliner was not around (as far as I know). Rolls-Royce was planning a RR Medway that might have been developed to higher thrust levels but the tested variants were in the 16,000 to 17,300 lbf thrust range, while the Conway reached 22,500 lbf on the Super VC10.
The RR Medway was the engine planned for the original sized Trident, before BEA said that it was "too big" for them". So it was downsized (with a narrower fuselage) to use Speys, and the Medway was cancelled. Then of course very soon BEA found they needed a larger aircraft and wanted to order 727s, but the govt made them have the Trident 3. How to foul up your industry - allow a major customer to have the manufacturer over a barrel in the design stage.

[megan]

I've never understood the mentality of the folk who stand-up as soon the plane stopsThey wait for it to stop? Not in the US of A if my experience is anything to go by, I've seen it as soon as off the runway with a long taxi to the gate (O'Hare), protestations by the CC to no avail.

[Owain Glyndwr]

Chris Scott:

"The classic example are the A340 and A330 wings, which are - I believe - basically identical. But the A330 wings don't enjoy as much bending relief outboard."

Yes, that is true for the EIS versions. Apart from the local structure at the engine mounts the structure is identical. Basically the additional bending moment relief coming from the outer engines allowed the increased TOW required for the A340 range requirements.

[dixi188]

It is also why the A330 made a good choice for the MRTT. The HDUs go where the outboard engines would be on an A340.

[esscee]

Only the A340-200/300 wings with CFM engines are the same as the A330. The A340-500/600 wings are different, more area etc.

[brakedwell]

I thought we were talking about a new VC10?

[Chris Scott]

I thought we were talking about a new VC10?
My fault, in raising the wing-bending relief and consequent economy provided by wing-mounted engines - particularly two per side, as on your DC-8 - that would penalise any neo-VC10 design.

[dixi188]

Well the A330 MRTT did replace the VC-10 as the RAFs tanker, so it is a sort of new VC-10.
Too much thread drift perhaps.

[dixi188]

Another thought.
Why were the VC-10 variants 11xx numbers and not 10xx?
The Viscount was effectively the VC-6, -7 & -8, with 6xx, 7xx & 8xx variants, and the Vanguard the VC-9 with 9xx variants.

[Chris Scott]

Another thought.
Why were the VC-10 variants 11xx numbers and not 10xx?
The Viscount was effectively the VC-6, -7 & -8, with 6xx, 7xx & 8xx variants, and the Vanguard the VC-9 with 9xx variants.
Probably because it replaced this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_V-1000

[dixi188]

Ah. I forgot about the Vickers 1000.

[Alan Baker]

Ah. I forgot about the Vickers 1000.
However, the V.1000 would have been the civil VC 7.

[possel]

Another thought.
Why were the VC-10 variants 11xx numbers and not 10xx?
The Viscount was effectively the VC-6, -7 & -8, with 6xx, 7xx & 8xx variants, and the Vanguard the VC-9 with 9xx variants.
Not so. According to Andrews & Morgan's Putnam book on Vickers Aircraft (pp571-577), the VC1 was the Viking; the VC2 Viscount; VC3 a proposed civil Varsity; VC4 a variety of jet transport schemes; VC5 a long range civil derivative of the Valiant for BOAC; VC6 (Vanjet) a short range version of the VC5 for BEA; VC7 was used twice - once for the Vickers 1000 and also for another Valiant derivative which superseded the VC6; nothing known of the VC8 and VC9; VC11 was a smaller VC10; VC12 was the Hunting H107 which became the BAC 1-11.

There appears to be no consistent correlation between the VC numbers (used for projects) and the first digit of the Vickers Type numbers (used for actual aircraft designs).

[Una Due Tfc]

I always preferred the look of the IL-62 to be honest. Looked like something from Thunderbirds / Captain Scarlet etc. Could be all just in my head but it seemed longer and sleeker. I probably have a soft spot for it due growing up near Shannon.

[Chris Scott]

Not so. According to Andrews & Morgan's Putnam book on Vickers Aircraft (pp571-577), the VC1 was the Viking; the VC2 Viscount; VC3 a proposed civil Varsity; VC4 a variety of jet transport schemes; VC5 a long range civil derivative of the Valiant for BOAC; VC6 (Vanjet) a short range version of the VC5 for BEA; VC7 was used twice - once for the Vickers 1000 and also for another Valiant derivative which superseded the VC6; nothing known of the VC8 and VC9; VC11 was a smaller VC10; VC12 was the Hunting H107 which became the BAC 1-11.

There appears to be no consistent correlation between the VC numbers (used for projects) and the first digit of the Vickers Type numbers (used for actual aircraft designs).
Thanks for that. Many of us would never have realised we'd flown a VC12!

An AAIB accident report (https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/vickers-vc8-viscount-g-aoyi-25-may-1986) refers to a V806 Viscount as a VC8, so maybe the VC2 moniker applied to the 700-series and the 630 prototype.

A Flight Global report (https://www.flightglobal.com/hunting-new-pastures/4568.article) re the Vanguard/Merchantman now residing at Brooklands Museum refers to it as a VC9.

[DaveReidUK]

An AAIB accident report (https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/vickers-vc8-viscount-g-aoyi-25-may-1986) refers to a V806 Viscount as a VC8

That probably comes from the fact that VC8 was at one time the ICAO type designator for the Viscount 800 series.

[Jhieminga]

The ICAO type designators muddle the issue a bit, that is a completely separate list that was used in flightplans. From an old version: the VC7 code was used for the Viscount 700 series and the VC8 code for the Viscount 800 series but in a later update, both of these were merged into the VISC code. In a similar way, there used to be a separate code for the Standard and Super VC10s (VC10 and VC15 I think) but these were also merged into one VC10 code. I found the VANG code in an old ICAO doc, but internal Vickers documents did refer to the Vanguard as the VC9 AFAIK. I have a list of the Vickers Commercial numbers on my site too, it mostly follows the one in Andrews & Morgan's book: https://www.vc10.net/History/vc10_origins.html

[Herod]

I was under the impression that the BAC 1-11 was so-called because it was the BAC Type 1 and the Vickers Type 11?

[dixi188]

I was under the impression that the BAC 1-11 was so-called because it was the BAC Type 1 and the Vickers Type 11?
That is my understanding, although it should be , "BAC One-Eleven"..

[Haraka]

The One Eleven was evolved from the 1956 originated Percival P 107 ,then Hunting H.107 and was enlarged when Hunting was absorbed into BAC via Airco , as initially the BAC.111, the "111" designation being purely arbitrary .

[Allan Lupton]

The One Eleven was evolved from the 1956 originated Percival P 107 ,then Hunting H.107 and was enlarged when Hunting was absorbed into BAC via Airco , as initially the BAC.111, the "111" designation being purely arbitrary .
We've been through this before. When Hunting was being absorbed into BAC it was decided to rework the 107 around the RR Spey engine and my understanding of what I remember being told by Heinz Vogel was that 111 was the next available Hunting type number.
Before all that was Airco which consisted of de Havilland, Hunting and Fairey and the original Trident was an Airco project, albeit with a DH type number.

[DaveReidUK]

That is my understanding, although it should be , "BAC One-Eleven"..

Certificated by UK and subsequently EASA as "BAC One Eleven" and by FAA as "BAC 1-11".

Take your pick.

[possel]

The ICAO type designators muddle the issue a bit, that is a completely separate list that was used in flightplans. From an old version: the VC7 code was used for the Viscount 700 series and the VC8 code for the Viscount 800 series but in a later update, both of these were merged into the VISC code. In a similar way, there used to be a separate code for the Standard and Super VC10s (VC10 and VC15 I think) but these were also merged into one VC10 code. I found the VANG code in an old ICAO doc, but internal Vickers documents did refer to the Vanguard as the VC9 AFAIK. I have a list of the Vickers Commercial numbers on my site too, it mostly follows the one in Andrews & Morgan's book: https://www.vc10.net/History/vc10_origins.html
That link would have saved me some typing! Your list does not mention the Putnam book, but I guess it's your source too?

[Liffy 1M]

The ICAO type designators muddle the issue a bit, that is a completely separate list that was used in flightplans. From an old version: the VC7 code was used for the Viscount 700 series and the VC8 code for the Viscount 800 series but in a later update, both of these were merged into the VISC code. In a similar way, there used to be a separate code for the Standard and Super VC10s (VC10 and VC15 I think) but these were also merged into one VC10 code. I found the VANG code in an old ICAO doc, but internal Vickers documents did refer to the Vanguard as the VC9 AFAIK. I have a list of the Vickers Commercial numbers on my site too, it mostly follows the one in Andrews & Morgan's book: https://www.vc10.net/History/vc10_origins.html

I concur with "VC15" for the Super VC10 as this is how the BA ones announced their aircraft type to LHR Approach.

[Jhieminga]

That link would have saved me some typing! Your list does not mention the Putnam book, but I guess it's your source too?
I used the Putnam and a few other books and magazines. I haven't kept track of the precise sources unfortunately, so if there are differences, I would need to dig through a couple of publications to find the why.
Edit: 'Stuck on the Drawing Board (https://amzn.to/3nDiNAZ)' has some notes about some of Vickers' unfinished projects as well. The only major difference between the list on my site and the one in Andrews & Morgan's Putnam book is the VC9. I have seen a few references to the Vanguard that called it a VC9 (which may be based on its ICAO type designator, but I can't confirm that) and it fits in the timeline... That's my reasoning. ;)

[boaccomet4]

Would love to have flown in one as a passenger and it would be great to see them still flying but I don't think the economics cut the mustard.
Still have a BOAC Junior Jet Club logbook which I was given whilst travelling as a boy on a BOAC Comet 4 (1964 and in First Class) in which there was a promotional leaflet on the upcoming introduction of the VC10.

Yes it would be great for people to experience what it was like to fly in those aircraft but getting parts etc. would be an economic nightmare.
Have to give it to the British aircraft industry credit for what they achieved in the 1950's and 1960's. One example being the introduction of Autoland capabilities in the Tridents.
I certainly dig log many miles as a passenger in the Viscounts as a boy.
Just feel grateful to have flown in Tridents, BAC1-11, Sunderland/Sandringham flying boats,BAE146 and Concorde.
Also the Caravelle10R although manufactured in France had a Dehavilland Comet cockpit.

Must admit that I miss the sound of those aircraft when they took off.
..

[Dan Winterland]

IIRC, on 101 Sqn we used VC10 on hand written flight plans for the Mk2s (Standards) and VC15 for the Mk3s and 4s (Supers).

[Pugilistic Animus]

"VC10 looks like a DC9 mated with a 707"

And it had a beautiful whale tail ..

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTCL6n2rEsBMq_JyDikHYkMkRCbIXo581imlw&usqp=CAU (https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fi2-prod.dailyrecord.co.uk%2Fincoming%2Farticle18975278.ece%2FAL TERNATES%2Fs615%2F0_GD4401299.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailyrecord.co.uk%2Flifestyle%2F fashion-beauty%2Fremember-whale-tail-bizarre-90s-18975223&tbnid=trrjlca_s2ch9M&vet=12ahUKEwiu4trb87TtAhUv2uAKHaEpDlkQMygdegUIARCOAg..i&docid=aPmzokCPjEYWkM&w=615&h=409&q=whale%20tail&ved=2ahUKEwiu4trb87TtAhUv2uAKHaEpDlkQMygdegUIARCOAg)

Nice empennage, Lol...I don't believe it but the match is quite uncanny!

[Blackfriar]

The ICAO type designators muddle the issue a bit, that is a completely separate list that was used in flightplans. From an old version: the VC7 code was used for the Viscount 700 series and the VC8 code for the Viscount 800 series but in a later update, both of these were merged into the VISC code. In a similar way, there used to be a separate code for the Standard and Super VC10s (VC10 and VC15 I think) but these were also merged into one VC10 code. I found the VANG code in an old ICAO doc, but internal Vickers documents did refer to the Vanguard as the VC9 AFAIK. I have a list of the Vickers Commercial numbers on my site too, it mostly follows the one in Andrews & Morgan's book: https://www.vc10.net/History/vc10_origins.html
I spent a couple of years ground handling Merchantmen and we always used VC9 as the type code on our records.

[Pugilistic Animus]

Must admit that I miss the sound of those aircraft when they took off.
..
Part of the reason I wanted to fly was hearing just how loud a jet can be. I could hear the undiluted roar from those engines because I lived about 1/2 a mile away from KLGA. Naturally, I wanted to control all of that power.