The VC 10
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it haddn't been for goverment pressure BOAC would have dumped all VC10s in favour of 707s
Whatever the attributes of the aircraft, the political aspect of the VC10 was yet another sorry episode in the history of British aircraft industry post-WW2. The manufacturer and the primary customer were both state-owned and consequently the government should have either cancelled the aircraft or compelled the airline to support it properly. Neither company were profitable but both were seen as important to national interests. It is crazy that the government were subsidizing one of it's companies to build the aircraft whilst allowing another to purchase a rival foreign product.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Nirvana South
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dysag,
There was another reason that I was told with some force by a BEA pilot - the 737 could carry another four tons of cargo over the 1-11 500 Series - which wasn't helped by the huge amount of Smiths Autopilot in the front of the Forward Freight Bay.
The good looking design heritage continues to fly to this day. The original Canadair Challenger was designed with a large contribution by ex-Vickers BAC 1-11 engineers (even down to the wire numbering system) and that's a direct forebear of the CRJ-1000 100-seater we're testing today.
Check out the distinctly Vickers look here:
http://www.pprune.org/flight-testing...en-flight.html
There was another reason that I was told with some force by a BEA pilot - the 737 could carry another four tons of cargo over the 1-11 500 Series - which wasn't helped by the huge amount of Smiths Autopilot in the front of the Forward Freight Bay.
The good looking design heritage continues to fly to this day. The original Canadair Challenger was designed with a large contribution by ex-Vickers BAC 1-11 engineers (even down to the wire numbering system) and that's a direct forebear of the CRJ-1000 100-seater we're testing today.
Check out the distinctly Vickers look here:
http://www.pprune.org/flight-testing...en-flight.html
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BP: that "school" is misguided. Yes, it was odd that while the State required BOAC to curb its losses, so appointed Sir Giles Guthrie to run it like a proper business, not a branch of the industrial civil service, it concurrently poured money into the aircraft industry to stimulate exports/$ import substitution. That included £10.2Mn. of VC10 £50Mn. R&D and capital for BOAC's May,57 order for 35. The case by BOAC for subsidy (£30Mn. by ’67) of its operating cost increment over 707-320B/C was scrutinised in Committees numerous; too many sceptics to buy off with brown envelopes. The design was driven for hot-and-high Empire ports; vendor items were to be £, not $-denominated, so step forward assorted Jenny and Piles...hopeless at Product Support and much more besides. On 1st. flight 29 June,62 Flight judged it would hold 707 sales (then 550) to just 200 more: “demand has been filled.” 1,010 were built to 1994, because of Cents per Available Seat Mile. Greek to Brits.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Surrey
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another of the fallacies driving British aircraft design: 'hot and high'. The old 'Empire' route was never going to earn much revenue compared with New York/London. It's reminiscent of the designs for hypersonics which crop up even today: 'London to Sydney in six hours', or whatever. Providing there's a market for Sydney-London ...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: southwest
Age: 78
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CNH
Two important lessons which the surviving European industry is now well aware of:
1) don't design for infrastructure constraints. Concrete costs less than planes and will get there first.
2) listen to your airline customer BUT NOT TOO MUCH. He can change his operation in 3 years but the manufacturer is stuck with the product.
1) don't design for infrastructure constraints. Concrete costs less than planes and will get there first.
2) listen to your airline customer BUT NOT TOO MUCH. He can change his operation in 3 years but the manufacturer is stuck with the product.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The New Forest, UK
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Conundrums...
... because of Cents per Available Seat Mile. Greek to Brits.
Did I hear banks? Well just read the papers ...should the UK turn back to engineering? Of course not engineering is for dirty developing countries whose workforces can be paid a pittance while City fat rats drink champain and get ever fatter. We need to invent a better rat trap and get back to basics.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: hertfordshire
Age: 49
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
b377, couldn't agree more
One aspect that this country is very good at is 'innovation'.
shame we have terrible management and sales (generally speaking).
One aspect that this country is very good at is 'innovation'.
shame we have terrible management and sales (generally speaking).
Last edited by diddy1234; 2nd Mar 2009 at 13:14.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Off topic, admittedly, but I was appalled when BAE Systems sold its stake in Airbus. What long-term chance is there that Airbus wings will continue to be made in the UK? The weakness of the pound against the euro - if it becomes chronic - might help retain this work but I suspect that this decision will, in hindsight, be seen as contributing further to the decline of the UK civil aerospace industry.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dysag,
My apologies. I knew that Vickers was not state-owned but I thought that BAC had an element of state-ownership. A little research show that I am wrong. However, the British aircraft industry of the post-war era may as well have been state owned as it fortunes were inextricably linked with the diktats of the Ministry of Supply. As to my original point, it somehow seems even worse that the state-owned airline was allowed to buy the rival product whilst the government was heavily funding a private company to build the VC10.
I think that some of these decisions are very difficult to judge with hindsight, as it is difficult to appreciate quite how much emphasis that generation placed on national prestige; something that modern (British) governments and companies are not interested in.
My apologies. I knew that Vickers was not state-owned but I thought that BAC had an element of state-ownership. A little research show that I am wrong. However, the British aircraft industry of the post-war era may as well have been state owned as it fortunes were inextricably linked with the diktats of the Ministry of Supply. As to my original point, it somehow seems even worse that the state-owned airline was allowed to buy the rival product whilst the government was heavily funding a private company to build the VC10.
I think that some of these decisions are very difficult to judge with hindsight, as it is difficult to appreciate quite how much emphasis that generation placed on national prestige; something that modern (British) governments and companies are not interested in.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Off topic, admittedly, but I was appalled when BAE Systems sold its stake in Airbus. What long-term chance is there that Airbus wings will continue to be made in the UK?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: southwest
Age: 78
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Long term, the Europeans and Americans will certainly have a lower relative standard of living than before, compared with the Chinese etc.
What can we do to slow the decline? Invest massively in research, I think, and strive to stay ahead in all aspects of design. Up to now lots of countries can build wings. Not so many can design advanced ones.
I'm afraid the UK industry gave away half its right to build Airbus wings by screwing up the A340-600 wing, trying to do it on the cheap by keeping a lot of the 1990 design inside. It was far too heavy, and hastened the demise of the A340.
Post-A380, there will be no more automatic awarding of Airbus wings to the UK.
What can we do to slow the decline? Invest massively in research, I think, and strive to stay ahead in all aspects of design. Up to now lots of countries can build wings. Not so many can design advanced ones.
I'm afraid the UK industry gave away half its right to build Airbus wings by screwing up the A340-600 wing, trying to do it on the cheap by keeping a lot of the 1990 design inside. It was far too heavy, and hastened the demise of the A340.
Post-A380, there will be no more automatic awarding of Airbus wings to the UK.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian Potter said:
"I knew that Vickers was not state-owned but I thought that BAC had an element of state-ownership."
You were obviously confusing state ownership,with massive state interference.
"I knew that Vickers was not state-owned but I thought that BAC had an element of state-ownership."
You were obviously confusing state ownership,with massive state interference.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 79
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The VC 10
I would like to thank everybody for their replies and photographs, I truly appreciate them.
However, I got very litle response on my question " how it was to fly those planes " after all, the design was relatively new, heavy rear mounted engines, T tail, ect.
Was there much of a learning curve ?
Rainboe, you have the VC on your CV
, care to give it a shot ?
Thanks
However, I got very litle response on my question " how it was to fly those planes " after all, the design was relatively new, heavy rear mounted engines, T tail, ect.
Was there much of a learning curve ?
Rainboe, you have the VC on your CV
, care to give it a shot ?Thanks
From various sources I've picked up that the VC10 was deemed easier to fly than the 707. Students who had problems transferring to a large four-engined airliner were often assigned to the VC10 as that would prove a gentler introduction to large aircraft flight dynamics.
There is an account of an 'interesting' flight on my website here: Fun and Games with Harold that gives an idea of some of its characteristics (not that much but it's interesting reading anyway).
I too would like to hear more views on this.
There is an account of an 'interesting' flight on my website here: Fun and Games with Harold that gives an idea of some of its characteristics (not that much but it's interesting reading anyway).
I too would like to hear more views on this.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I spent 6 1/2 years on BOAC VC10s at the start of my career from 1971. My very first impression after graduating from flying college and the Beechcraft Baron was that the step from Cherokees to Barons was more than the step from the Baron to the VC10. It was utterly viceless. Engine out was easy. The one time is was fairly critical was flap retraction at very high gross weight when you had about a 6 knot spread between minimum and maximum speeds as the flaps retracted. The undercarriage was delightfully soft, the noise levels were minimal, the flight deck fairly roomy. The F/E panel ws very complicated- the aircon/pressurisation panel seemed frightening. Beautiful plane- we were very proud of it. I did get a tad concerned at the mysterious vibration/shaking that used to set in during climb and descent, and eventually carried on during lower cruise, but I gather it was due to something making the 'beavers tale' vibrate. The Conways were prone to surging at altitude limits, they quite regularly used to 'let one go', which was tremendoulsy startling for those in the rear galley. You could count to 10 and they would burst onto the flight deck very alarmed! It would sound like a canon going off 6 feet away! The girls would lose their knicker elastic! The After Start checklist had a full check of the tailplane trim. Some Captains used to do it too early before full hydraulic pressure was established and the vibration from the screwjack could be felt all over the plane. I used to cringe because I thought the most likely failure would be the tailplane screwjack trim system. But it's done OK for 32 years since!
I still find it hard to believe in this day and age we used to set off across the Atlantic with Doppler and Loran and Astro, though we got INS from about 1974 onwards. I recall the pilot-nav once leaning forward and winding 50miles left of track onto the Doppler and saying 'fly that off please'. During the rest of the flight, he would start changing it progressively 10R, 8R, 15R.... Quite what our actual tracks were across the Atlantic were best not known! All very mysterious- navigation was a 'black' art at the time.
A wonderful time. BOAC had a wonderful young attractive cabin crew. We were showing the flag around the world. We even used to do transpacific flights via Honolulu and Fiji. It was the golden age, even if the airline corporations were losing a stack of money! We felt it our duty to show the flag around the world and provide a 'British' means of getting our people to and from the rest of the world to mix with Johnny Foreigner! I thought I'd gone to heaven! Pay wasn't much though! But the sight of a VC10 coming into an airport early in the morning for turnaround was stirring. Did ever an aeroplane look so good as BOAC's blue with the big gold speedbird on that gorgeous tail? How could they get rid of that for the garrish various BA red white and blue?
I would say the aeroplane always felt it was carved out of solid steel. The major checks seemed to be problem free whereas our 707s apparently needed more extensive and expensive work. It never had problems with door failures or other defects. There was a spell of flaps coming off, but it was easily handled (the flaps are 5 enormous sections on each side). The flaps were actually very unsophisticated. They were one piece and simply moved backwards and down, no split sections. Leading edge devices were excellent- all slats. All flying controls had independent hydraulic actuation. In bad turbulence, it was not unusual to see all low pressure lights on together- a bit disconcerting until you were used to it! The F/E had his own throttles. When kids came up, it was fun to get them to talk to the throttles and tell them to go forward or back one by one. The look on their face when they did it was lovely- the F/E stiffling a grin as he moved his. We had a tubby boy standing there with a headset on his head listening to the radio (when we got fed up with making conversation). There was a gauge on the F/E panel to align engine speed, showing Nos 2,3,4 in relation to No1. He leaned over and tapped the F/E on the shoulder and said cooly 'No3 is a bit slow!'. I saw the F/E 'bristle'- the little tyke didn't even know what it was for!
Funny stories abounded. The periscope sextant mount was a vacuum cleaner size hole you could open with a pull cord in the roof of the flight deck. Legend had it one genius decided to bring a vacuum hose and attach it, and open the valve and do some cleaning on the flight deck! It allegedly went berserk violently flying around the cockpit with everybody ducking. There was a periscope hole at the back in the roof for studying the engines and tail (with little folding steps), and another in the electronic bay underneath the fuselage to study the landing gear. There was a viewer in the electronics bay to see the nose landing gear which had a specially polished rivet- the fabled 'golden rivet' that some naughty F/Es used to make something of!
It paid for its superb build quality with a much higher empty weight than the 707. This limited its range in comparison making Pacific flights rather 'long' for it. Strangely enough when I transferred to the 747-100 next, there were design aspects I thought came off the VC10- I think some of the designers ended up at Boeing as British development wound down in the 60s.
I shall wheel myself back into the cupboard now! Nice trip on memory lane with the most beautiful aeroplane ever to fly!
I still find it hard to believe in this day and age we used to set off across the Atlantic with Doppler and Loran and Astro, though we got INS from about 1974 onwards. I recall the pilot-nav once leaning forward and winding 50miles left of track onto the Doppler and saying 'fly that off please'. During the rest of the flight, he would start changing it progressively 10R, 8R, 15R.... Quite what our actual tracks were across the Atlantic were best not known! All very mysterious- navigation was a 'black' art at the time.
A wonderful time. BOAC had a wonderful young attractive cabin crew. We were showing the flag around the world. We even used to do transpacific flights via Honolulu and Fiji. It was the golden age, even if the airline corporations were losing a stack of money! We felt it our duty to show the flag around the world and provide a 'British' means of getting our people to and from the rest of the world to mix with Johnny Foreigner! I thought I'd gone to heaven! Pay wasn't much though! But the sight of a VC10 coming into an airport early in the morning for turnaround was stirring. Did ever an aeroplane look so good as BOAC's blue with the big gold speedbird on that gorgeous tail? How could they get rid of that for the garrish various BA red white and blue?
I would say the aeroplane always felt it was carved out of solid steel. The major checks seemed to be problem free whereas our 707s apparently needed more extensive and expensive work. It never had problems with door failures or other defects. There was a spell of flaps coming off, but it was easily handled (the flaps are 5 enormous sections on each side). The flaps were actually very unsophisticated. They were one piece and simply moved backwards and down, no split sections. Leading edge devices were excellent- all slats. All flying controls had independent hydraulic actuation. In bad turbulence, it was not unusual to see all low pressure lights on together- a bit disconcerting until you were used to it! The F/E had his own throttles. When kids came up, it was fun to get them to talk to the throttles and tell them to go forward or back one by one. The look on their face when they did it was lovely- the F/E stiffling a grin as he moved his. We had a tubby boy standing there with a headset on his head listening to the radio (when we got fed up with making conversation). There was a gauge on the F/E panel to align engine speed, showing Nos 2,3,4 in relation to No1. He leaned over and tapped the F/E on the shoulder and said cooly 'No3 is a bit slow!'. I saw the F/E 'bristle'- the little tyke didn't even know what it was for!
Funny stories abounded. The periscope sextant mount was a vacuum cleaner size hole you could open with a pull cord in the roof of the flight deck. Legend had it one genius decided to bring a vacuum hose and attach it, and open the valve and do some cleaning on the flight deck! It allegedly went berserk violently flying around the cockpit with everybody ducking. There was a periscope hole at the back in the roof for studying the engines and tail (with little folding steps), and another in the electronic bay underneath the fuselage to study the landing gear. There was a viewer in the electronics bay to see the nose landing gear which had a specially polished rivet- the fabled 'golden rivet' that some naughty F/Es used to make something of!
It paid for its superb build quality with a much higher empty weight than the 707. This limited its range in comparison making Pacific flights rather 'long' for it. Strangely enough when I transferred to the 747-100 next, there were design aspects I thought came off the VC10- I think some of the designers ended up at Boeing as British development wound down in the 60s.
I shall wheel myself back into the cupboard now! Nice trip on memory lane with the most beautiful aeroplane ever to fly!
Last edited by Rainboe; 4th Mar 2009 at 09:36.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 79
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice one Rainboe; thanks
You took quite an efford; goes to show that you love your job.
Sincerely hope that it got your blood pressure a bit down after all that gargage on the Turkish crash.
Should you ever get lost into Singapore, pm me and lets have a beer.
Cheers
You took quite an efford; goes to show that you love your job.
Sincerely hope that it got your blood pressure a bit down after all that gargage on the Turkish crash.
Should you ever get lost into Singapore, pm me and lets have a beer.
Cheers