The VC 10
Albert Driver,
I believe you are right. I know the fire warning continued after the initial failure but cannot remember how much power the engine was still giving. There was much debate after the event amongst 'the powers that were' over the wisdom of his decision, but there is no doubt he was correct.
I believe you are right. I know the fire warning continued after the initial failure but cannot remember how much power the engine was still giving. There was much debate after the event amongst 'the powers that were' over the wisdom of his decision, but there is no doubt he was correct.
Thanks Alan, hope the HEL wx is still tolerable.
Bergerie1,
At risk of being accused of attempted one-upmanship, I remember on my conversion at LGW (as late as 1971, having done several years on prop-driven craft in BUA-associated companies), we were doing a 2-eng go-around (or overshoot, as we said in those days) on 09. We were very light and the trainer, Bill Evans, decided it was going so well that he throttled back a third engine. As we approached the terminal building, struggling to climb, he soon realised that we were likely to get a bollocking from the tower!
Bergerie1,
At risk of being accused of attempted one-upmanship, I remember on my conversion at LGW (as late as 1971, having done several years on prop-driven craft in BUA-associated companies), we were doing a 2-eng go-around (or overshoot, as we said in those days) on 09. We were very light and the trainer, Bill Evans, decided it was going so well that he throttled back a third engine. As we approached the terminal building, struggling to climb, he soon realised that we were likely to get a bollocking from the tower!
Chris
No problem - I just think we were bl**dy daft at times in those days. Doing these things on simulators is so much more sensible!
No problem - I just think we were bl**dy daft at times in those days. Doing these things on simulators is so much more sensible!
Bergerie1,
Agreed, we were all barking. But you know full well that the sims nowadays are so much better than those produced in the late 1960s. Younger readers may not realise that the VC10 sim at "Branecrank" (Cranebank, near LHR) was not considered to be fully representative of the a/c. No zero-time conversions in those days.
(And that's setting aside the limitations of the analogue visual system, consisting of a monochrome camera which "flew" over a model of the environs of an airfield - I forget which, but someone's going to remind me. Yes, you could actually crash the camera.)
Agreed, we were all barking. But you know full well that the sims nowadays are so much better than those produced in the late 1960s. Younger readers may not realise that the VC10 sim at "Branecrank" (Cranebank, near LHR) was not considered to be fully representative of the a/c. No zero-time conversions in those days.
(And that's setting aside the limitations of the analogue visual system, consisting of a monochrome camera which "flew" over a model of the environs of an airfield - I forget which, but someone's going to remind me. Yes, you could actually crash the camera.)
And that's setting aside the limitations of the analogue visual system, consisting of a monochrome camera which "flew" over a model of the environs of an airfield
I also remember being told that the occasional spider in the field of view, which of course appeared to be gigantic at the scale of the model, could make sim sessions quite hairy.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Sim terrain model was certainly mounted vertically.
Also, I seem to recall that the camera itself was "pendulous". This meant that when you banked left, the camera swung initially out to the right (and vice versa) until you were wings level again, when it swung back. This made any turn using the visual virtually impossible !
Happy days ...
JD
Also, I seem to recall that the camera itself was "pendulous". This meant that when you banked left, the camera swung initially out to the right (and vice versa) until you were wings level again, when it swung back. This made any turn using the visual virtually impossible !
Happy days ...
JD
That rings true. Trouble was, BOAC always allocated us BUA/BCAL chappies the graveyard slots: something like 0200 - 0600. Definitely a challenge to land the camera on the runway after breaking off an indifferently-tracked NDB approach at that hour... As for visual circuits, forget it.
Some of our older line captains were quite paranoid about it, which was a bit of a shame really.
Some of our older line captains were quite paranoid about it, which was a bit of a shame really.
The Buccaner simulator had a similar vertical presentation. As it was used for low level training a probe would stick out in front of the camera to avoid damaging it by running into obstacles. Should you hit something then you would get lots of crashing sensations.
However it was not effected by the paper pylons that marched across the scenery. I was flying it in when first installed and as I wracked it over a hill there was this Clydebank constructed pylon in front of me.
AAAARRRRRGGGGGHHH and I pulled up.
I rolled round the scenery until I came back to where I had been and there was a line of pylons with a flat one in the middle. Then an enormous hand came down from the sky and pulled it upright.
Thank you God! and I carried on.
However it was not effected by the paper pylons that marched across the scenery. I was flying it in when first installed and as I wracked it over a hill there was this Clydebank constructed pylon in front of me.
AAAARRRRRGGGGGHHH and I pulled up.
I rolled round the scenery until I came back to where I had been and there was a line of pylons with a flat one in the middle. Then an enormous hand came down from the sky and pulled it upright.
Thank you God! and I carried on.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going from a light twin to a VC10, must have been a huge jump especially given the limits of the simulator. That said, in those days I would have hoped that they would have invested time in training rather than a minimum number of circuits.
How much was the type rating and how much did Hamble cost?! A very different era, when full training and ability were essential.
How much was the type rating and how much did Hamble cost?! A very different era, when full training and ability were essential.
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I suffered a crash in the Cranebank VC10. I was a guest observer sitting on a bentwood chair behind the pilots. At a certain moment, the nose went down, the altimeter unwound and various warning horns sounded. Then there was a bump and I fell off my chair. The pilots said (along the lines of) 'well that's buggered, then, we may as well go home' and they did.
A few pages ago we were discussing wingtips on VC10s, as this subject has cropped up again on the XV109 thread in Military Aircrew I've copied some posts into this post so that we can continue this discussion here.
Originally Posted by Chris Scott
Re BA/BY's post, and as Jhieminga will confirm, the 3 standard VC10s originally purchased by BUA were 1103s, with Kucheman (droop-snoot)wingtips and an extended wing chord to enable FL430. They had the cargo door and strengthened main-deck floor. When BUA added the prototype to the fleet (G-ARTA), it was configured as an 1109 with the same wing as the 1103s, but no cargo door. I don't remember the difference in APS weight between the 1103 and the 1109, unfortunately, but doubt it was remarkable, as we were often stretching the payload-range to the limit and a big reduction in empty weight would have been noteworthy.
The Omani a/c at Brooklands is, of course, an ex-BUA/BCAL 1103 (G-ASIX) with cargo door.
The Omani a/c at Brooklands is, of course, an ex-BUA/BCAL 1103 (G-ASIX) with cargo door.
Originally Posted by vc10617
The BUA aircraft SIW, SIX and TDJ had the down turned wing tips. The RAF, BOAC, East African, Ghana A/W, did not. MEA might have. The prototype bought by Laker and immediately leased to MEA did I'm sure.
They had non drooping kuchemann tips on the C.MK. 1, Super (K3,K4)
They had non drooping kuchemann tips on the C.MK. 1, Super (K3,K4)
Originally Posted by Jhieminga
MEA used a leased Ghana type 1102 and the prototype leased from Laker, so no downturned wingtips on those aircraft. Although the question of whether G-ARTA had them after its conversion to type 1109 is still open as far as I'm concerned.
The photo below is of the wingtip of G-ARTA after conversion, is it downturned? It could be in my view.
The photo below is of the wingtip of G-ARTA after conversion, is it downturned? It could be in my view.
Originally Posted by Chris Scott
As you know well there are three factors here, all of which were definitely present on the 1103s, (e.g., the Brooklands a/c):
(1) chord extension inboard (so the L/E has a mid-span kink);
(2) Kuchemann tip (as you said, this seems to refer to the shape visible in the plan view, not the "droop-snoot";
(3) the "droop-snoot".
Having flown G-ARTA in 1109 config with BUA/BCAL, I'm absolutely sure it had (1) and (2), not least because she was FL430 capable and we used the same cruise-performance charts as the three 1103s, proving the buffet margins were the same. What I cannot confirm is that she had (3), because I simply can't remember (and the F/Es did the walkrounds). I wonder what effect(s) the droop-snoot had on performance. Pity that photo is in silhouette... I cannot disagree with anything vc10617 says.
(1) chord extension inboard (so the L/E has a mid-span kink);
(2) Kuchemann tip (as you said, this seems to refer to the shape visible in the plan view, not the "droop-snoot";
(3) the "droop-snoot".
Having flown G-ARTA in 1109 config with BUA/BCAL, I'm absolutely sure it had (1) and (2), not least because she was FL430 capable and we used the same cruise-performance charts as the three 1103s, proving the buffet margins were the same. What I cannot confirm is that she had (3), because I simply can't remember (and the F/Es did the walkrounds). I wonder what effect(s) the droop-snoot had on performance. Pity that photo is in silhouette... I cannot disagree with anything vc10617 says.
Originally Posted by vc10617
Ken Scott
The BUA originals, SIW, SIX and TDJ, all had the "droop snoot" tips and were modified with the inbd chord extensions. The prototype, GARTA/OD-AFA MEA was modified too, it was the the 1st to get both as part of the flight test programme. It ended up that only the BOAC/BA/RAF K.2 didn't have either Chord growth and (sure it didn't) K/tips. BTW The chord growth was in the L/E panels not the main wing box /tapered torque box the wing box didn't "step" just the panels and therefor the Slats. Wing tanks were the same internal volume throughout all models.
The inbd Wing fences on the other hand are a nightmare of detail. The BOAC standards were further inbd and were fitted across the forward 1 and 2 tank access panel.There is a removable piece of fence for access to the tank panel.It also had the full chord fence outbd of rib 22. The Ghana A/W "fence" continued around the leading edge ending underneath the L/E panel. Some were slightly bent inbd at front . Never mind the Beaver tail styles over the production run!
Link for pics of..
VC10 G-ARTA
Go down till the BUA picture ,you can see the downward tip.
The BUA originals, SIW, SIX and TDJ, all had the "droop snoot" tips and were modified with the inbd chord extensions. The prototype, GARTA/OD-AFA MEA was modified too, it was the the 1st to get both as part of the flight test programme. It ended up that only the BOAC/BA/RAF K.2 didn't have either Chord growth and (sure it didn't) K/tips. BTW The chord growth was in the L/E panels not the main wing box /tapered torque box the wing box didn't "step" just the panels and therefor the Slats. Wing tanks were the same internal volume throughout all models.
The inbd Wing fences on the other hand are a nightmare of detail. The BOAC standards were further inbd and were fitted across the forward 1 and 2 tank access panel.There is a removable piece of fence for access to the tank panel.It also had the full chord fence outbd of rib 22. The Ghana A/W "fence" continued around the leading edge ending underneath the L/E panel. Some were slightly bent inbd at front . Never mind the Beaver tail styles over the production run!
Link for pics of..
VC10 G-ARTA
Go down till the BUA picture ,you can see the downward tip.
Originally Posted by Chris Scott
Thanks vc10617,
Looks like we're all in agreement on that aspect of VC10 wing evolution, and thanks for the extra gen on fences. Yes, the pic of G-ARTA being pushed back in latter-BUA livery (still marginally my favourite) - via your link to the BCAL website - does seem to confirm the droop-snoot, because the slats are usefully still retracted.
Presumably the RAF C1s had the same wing as the Super VC10, which did not employ the "droop-snoot", but was otherwise identical to the 1103/1109.
The only thing I'm still in doubt about is the precise terminology: i.e., does "Kuchemann tip" refer to both the plan-view shape AND the droop-snoot, or just the former? If just the former, did the 1101s also have Kuchemann tips?
Looks like we're all in agreement on that aspect of VC10 wing evolution, and thanks for the extra gen on fences. Yes, the pic of G-ARTA being pushed back in latter-BUA livery (still marginally my favourite) - via your link to the BCAL website - does seem to confirm the droop-snoot, because the slats are usefully still retracted.
Presumably the RAF C1s had the same wing as the Super VC10, which did not employ the "droop-snoot", but was otherwise identical to the 1103/1109.
The only thing I'm still in doubt about is the precise terminology: i.e., does "Kuchemann tip" refer to both the plan-view shape AND the droop-snoot, or just the former? If just the former, did the 1101s also have Kuchemann tips?
Originally Posted by Jhieminga
I cannot recall the source but it refers to the shape in plan-view. The 1101s also had Kuchemann tips but without the extra camber.
Originally Posted by vc10617
Chris Scott
I always thought it was the plan view, a large sweeping curve meeting the line of the trailing edge. Might not be though. Kuchmann also introduced/developed/invented winglets, that are on just about anything now. Is this droop on the BUA kites a sort of variation on that theme? I've read a paper by Kuchmann (NASA engineer)on winglet development. There are designs with something like a wing tip tank with vortex (like) generators ay varying angles when viewed from the front, down, level and up. As far as I know not fitted to any production aircraft.
The TSR.2 took it to the extreme, with a down ward tip. Partially developed and built (Fwd section) at Weybridge, Home of the 'Ten.
BTW.You are right about C.Mk.1s and Super wing tips. Not being cambered.
I always thought it was the plan view, a large sweeping curve meeting the line of the trailing edge. Might not be though. Kuchmann also introduced/developed/invented winglets, that are on just about anything now. Is this droop on the BUA kites a sort of variation on that theme? I've read a paper by Kuchmann (NASA engineer)on winglet development. There are designs with something like a wing tip tank with vortex (like) generators ay varying angles when viewed from the front, down, level and up. As far as I know not fitted to any production aircraft.
The TSR.2 took it to the extreme, with a down ward tip. Partially developed and built (Fwd section) at Weybridge, Home of the 'Ten.
BTW.You are right about C.Mk.1s and Super wing tips. Not being cambered.
Originally Posted by Chris Scott
Presumably the RAF C1s had the same wing as the Super VC10
Wing evolution, including Kuchemann tips
Originally Posted by vc10617:
Chris Scott
I always thought it was the plan view, a large sweeping curve meeting the line of the trailing edge. Might not be though. Kuchmann also introduced/developed/invented winglets, that are on just about anything now. Is this droop on the BUA kites a sort of variation on that theme?
I originally thought the Kuchemann tip was the droop-snoot (see a discussion that started here), but a quick search on the 'net yesterday suggested that you are right.
Jhiemingha,
The wing-root tidy-up on the Super VC10 makes absolute sense: thanks.
Thanks also for bringing all those posts over from the XV109 thread on the Military forum.
In view of the very specialist title of that thread, I was getting nervous that we might not be able to remember where to find that discussion in months or years to come! (Unfortunately, that equally aplies to some other fascinating type-wide discussions about the alleged uselessness of the flight-test escape system.) Also, it's one thing for the military guys to creep off topic on their own forum, but as a guest I felt I was pushing my luck a bit.
Since commercial ops ceased so long ago, we civvies now need the RAF guys' contributions more than they need ours, and the tanker stuff is fascinating. But an aeroplane is an aeroplane (sorreee!)...
For those who may be new to the VC10 threads on PPRuNe, the other one I'm aware of (no doubt there are others...) is also on the Military forum, entitled RAF VC10 - Great Memories, and starts here:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7907611
It contains not only excellent contributions, but some unmissable images and great videos.
Chris Scott
I always thought it was the plan view, a large sweeping curve meeting the line of the trailing edge. Might not be though. Kuchmann also introduced/developed/invented winglets, that are on just about anything now. Is this droop on the BUA kites a sort of variation on that theme?
I originally thought the Kuchemann tip was the droop-snoot (see a discussion that started here), but a quick search on the 'net yesterday suggested that you are right.
Jhiemingha,
The wing-root tidy-up on the Super VC10 makes absolute sense: thanks.
Thanks also for bringing all those posts over from the XV109 thread on the Military forum.
In view of the very specialist title of that thread, I was getting nervous that we might not be able to remember where to find that discussion in months or years to come! (Unfortunately, that equally aplies to some other fascinating type-wide discussions about the alleged uselessness of the flight-test escape system.) Also, it's one thing for the military guys to creep off topic on their own forum, but as a guest I felt I was pushing my luck a bit.
Since commercial ops ceased so long ago, we civvies now need the RAF guys' contributions more than they need ours, and the tanker stuff is fascinating. But an aeroplane is an aeroplane (sorreee!)...
For those who may be new to the VC10 threads on PPRuNe, the other one I'm aware of (no doubt there are others...) is also on the Military forum, entitled RAF VC10 - Great Memories, and starts here:
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircr...ml#post7907611
It contains not only excellent contributions, but some unmissable images and great videos.
Last edited by Chris Scott; 11th Oct 2013 at 16:05.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: lowestoft
Age: 69
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to Cranebank..
My dad was a Flt. Eng. instructor there 58- 92. He took most of the first batches of various VC10 operators and the 1st RAF crews before Brize got theirs. He knew most of them (F/Engs) from his time in the RAF. He also took BUA,MEA, Ghana and Nigerian, although they were BOAC crews posted to Lagos! BOAC had two VC10 simulators. The sim maps were vertical for a reason, it took less space.
In the early days 63/64/65 he had to go to Shannon for actual flight training away for 1-2 weeks each time.
Other places for circuits Wisley, Bedford, Heathrow (!) Prestwick and Manchester. I know he went to Hurn with the Britannia, not sure if they did circuits there with the 'Tens
I remember my dad taking me there seeing the latest additions to the simulator fleet from the static Comet and Brit, to 707,VC10 and eventually to the 747 that, when "flying" you couldn't get off. Just like the real thing! He also took BOAC/BA engineering appos for some part of their training, cant remember what it was tho'.
My dad was a Flt. Eng. instructor there 58- 92. He took most of the first batches of various VC10 operators and the 1st RAF crews before Brize got theirs. He knew most of them (F/Engs) from his time in the RAF. He also took BUA,MEA, Ghana and Nigerian, although they were BOAC crews posted to Lagos! BOAC had two VC10 simulators. The sim maps were vertical for a reason, it took less space.
In the early days 63/64/65 he had to go to Shannon for actual flight training away for 1-2 weeks each time.
Other places for circuits Wisley, Bedford, Heathrow (!) Prestwick and Manchester. I know he went to Hurn with the Britannia, not sure if they did circuits there with the 'Tens
I remember my dad taking me there seeing the latest additions to the simulator fleet from the static Comet and Brit, to 707,VC10 and eventually to the 747 that, when "flying" you couldn't get off. Just like the real thing! He also took BOAC/BA engineering appos for some part of their training, cant remember what it was tho'.
Last edited by vc10617; 11th Oct 2013 at 18:06.
Inboard leading edge on a C1K. You can see that it is not completely straight. I don't think I've got a comparable photo of a Super wing but I'll see what I can find.
Edit: and here's the wing of a K3, it's not all that clear but there is a bit of a difference.
Edit: and here's the wing of a K3, it's not all that clear but there is a bit of a difference.
Last edited by Jhieminga; 11th Oct 2013 at 19:07.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: lowestoft
Age: 69
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jelle
I know why've said it but that's a kink in the L/ edge of the slat. So it cuts into the Fridge pack D nose.It sits over the l/edge D nose. There isn't a recess. The D nose is straight and (Csk) bolted to the angle on the front of the wing box. If you look at that row of "screw heads", .75" (if that) behind those is the start of the actual wing. They're a straight line and it is on top surface. I always used to wonder why they put a triangular fillet in the L/edge between the 1st two D nose panels. I only just realised it was to make up the change in the chord with deeper D nose panels outbd of the fridge pack, You need a picture with the D nose removed inbd of No1 slat jack. The slat jack is above the nearest and smaller round grill, the inbd one is the fridge pack exhaust.
Just remembered. Have a look at those Tech pics from the East African Super manual on you website for detailed picture of the arrangement. They call slat jacks, Rails. The other one to look at is the wing top surface view from the EAA Super. I've been looking for a similar shot of a Super's inbd wing/No1 slat to see if the slat kink is evident, no luck so far!
I know why've said it but that's a kink in the L/ edge of the slat. So it cuts into the Fridge pack D nose.It sits over the l/edge D nose. There isn't a recess. The D nose is straight and (Csk) bolted to the angle on the front of the wing box. If you look at that row of "screw heads", .75" (if that) behind those is the start of the actual wing. They're a straight line and it is on top surface. I always used to wonder why they put a triangular fillet in the L/edge between the 1st two D nose panels. I only just realised it was to make up the change in the chord with deeper D nose panels outbd of the fridge pack, You need a picture with the D nose removed inbd of No1 slat jack. The slat jack is above the nearest and smaller round grill, the inbd one is the fridge pack exhaust.
Just remembered. Have a look at those Tech pics from the East African Super manual on you website for detailed picture of the arrangement. They call slat jacks, Rails. The other one to look at is the wing top surface view from the EAA Super. I've been looking for a similar shot of a Super's inbd wing/No1 slat to see if the slat kink is evident, no luck so far!
Last edited by vc10617; 11th Oct 2013 at 19:56.
It's not all that clear on the photos, but there is a kink in the leading edge of the slat on the Standard wing. I've looked at XR808, A4O-AB and two K3s and from my viewpoint there is a difference. I'll see if I can find out more about it or find clearer photos.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: lowestoft
Age: 69
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The BUA standards inc. GARTA got the same treatment, Chord increase. BOAC/BA/Gulf/RAF K.2 did not.
I just found a picture of Duxford's BOAC Super 'SGC on the Brit modeller walk 'round pages for the 'Ten I zoomed it 400% and it shows the same slat kink. Its not a great picture but from the highlight running the L/edge. Also slat T/edge you see the change in angle.
Jelle check your inbox!
Vickers VC-10 - Jet & Rocket engined Aircraft - Britmodeller.com
I just found a picture of Duxford's BOAC Super 'SGC on the Brit modeller walk 'round pages for the 'Ten I zoomed it 400% and it shows the same slat kink. Its not a great picture but from the highlight running the L/edge. Also slat T/edge you see the change in angle.
Jelle check your inbox!
Vickers VC-10 - Jet & Rocket engined Aircraft - Britmodeller.com
Last edited by vc10617; 11th Oct 2013 at 20:16.
Christmas present anyone?
Vickers VC.10 - Queen of the Sky by Peter R Foster: Arts & Photography | Blurb Books UK
The preview will show you the whole book, so you'll know what you're getting. Mine's on order!
Vickers VC.10 - Queen of the Sky by Peter R Foster: Arts & Photography | Blurb Books UK
The preview will show you the whole book, so you'll know what you're getting. Mine's on order!
