Jet! When Britain ruled the Skies.

[spekesoftly]

How would I be seeing upper reverse thrust gills below an engine on take off?

Because the aircraft is just airborne, climbing quite steeply, and from the rear you can see the upper surface of the engine pods etc. There's two similar shots - one about 48 minutes into the programme, and another at 56 minutes. If you've still got the recording, perhaps you can tell us at what time your "six engined VC10" appears?

there was something there and it wasn't topsy turvy reversers at the wrong end of the flight .....

Your sarcasm is out of order when a) someone is only trying to help, and b) you're missing the point. The reverse grills (deflector vanes) on the VC10's outer Conway engines are visible at all times, not just when reverse thrust is selected.

[RedhillPhil]

No 1-11s, no Tridents, no Vanguards.

[JEM60]

SOLDEED. I remember Tony Blackman's roll off the top very well. I was there!. If I remember, it was done on take-off, holding low to build up speed, pulling up into the inverted, and then faffing off in the opposite direction. Wonderful!!!!!

[603DX]

Both prototypes subsequently crashed. The Victor at Cranfield when the tailplane came off while being tested for pressure correction at low level and the Vulcan at Syerston when it was oversped and broke up.

Dan Winterland, in Tony Blackman's book on testing the Vulcan, he casts doubt on this official report conclusion. He states that the crash Vulcan VX770 had been previously flown by Rolls Royce test pilots, who had carried out rolls, rolls off the top, and even a loop. After each aerobatic flight by Avro pilots, the insides of the wing leading edges were inspected for possible damage by a small-statured ground crew member, but Rolls Royce did not know of this, nor did Avro know of the R-R pilots' aerobatic activities at that time. Sometimes the nose ribs were found to be buckled and had to be repaired, but Rolls Royce were probably unaware of this and may not have been looking at the leading edges internally between flights.

He is of the opinion that the aircraft may have been severely damaged before take off for the Syerston display, and that that was probably the reason for the crash.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Nothing on the best selling British jet airliner of all time - the 146 and its derivatives (RJ etc). Not a very exciting aeroplane I'll grant, but it sold better than the rest!

I regret never having flown on a VC10. Second only to Concorde (which amazingly was only mentioned but not featured in the prog) that is far and away my favorite airliner. At least I got to fly on Conc!

[gpugh]

I remember ,as a young ATC cadet, in the 1960's having a trip in an RAF Comet 4? whilst we were on a summer camp at RAF Wyton with lots of Victors and Canberras based there. A few of the lucky ones got a trip in the Canberras I seem to remember

[brakedwell]

Nothing on the best selling British jet airliner of all time - the 146 and its derivatives (RJ etc)

Omitting the 111 was a mistake, but Britain no longer "ruled the skies" by the time the 146 appeared.

[Mike6567]

6 engine VC10 (see post 27)

Not a very good copy from the TV

[BEagle]

An optical illusion caused by the royal blue 'BOAC' paintwork on the outboard nacelles appearing to be the 'top' of a 'lower nacelle', with the thrust reverser cascade appearing to be a jet pipe!

[treadigraph]

Think this MoD pic illustrates BEagle's comment quite well. And any excuse to put a VC-10 pic up...!

[merlinxx]

also...

the "Whistling Tit"

[merlinxx]

Treaders..

got a story for ya after we planned & the 10s did the first non stop UK-OZ flight. AAR all the way

[Dan Winterland]

The VC10 originally had reversers on all 4, but the inboards used to deflect the efflux onto the lower surface of the tailplane causing stress, so were removed.

[Dan Winterland]

Quote : "Dan Winterland, in Tony Blackman's book on testing the Vulcan, he casts doubt on this official report conclusion. He states that the crash Vulcan VX770 had been previously flown by Rolls Royce test pilots, who had carried out rolls, rolls off the top, and even a loop. After each aerobatic flight by Avro pilots, the insides of the wing leading edges were inspected for possible damage by a small-statured ground crew member, but Rolls Royce did not know of this, nor did Avro know of the R-R pilots' aerobatic activities at that time. Sometimes the nose ribs were found to be buckled and had to be repaired, but Rolls Royce were probably unaware of this and may not have been looking at the leading edges internally between flights.

He is of the opinion that the aircraft may have been severely damaged before take off for the Syerston display, and that that was probably the reason for the crash".

Fair enough. My intention wasn't to cast aspertions on the crew or apportion blame - my aim was to point out that both prototypes had suffered during the evaluation phase and the fact both crashed as a result of structural failure is more than a co-incidence.

However, from the limitations section of the Vulcan B1A pilot's notes, the max speed from sea level to 20,000ft is listed as being 250 knots and 300 knots above this. VX770 was originally estimated to be doing 400 knots when it broke up, later revised to 350.

Like many accidents, there was a combination of factors - an already stressed airframe being one.

I used to do a lot of gliding at Syerston. One day, the winches were parked at the spot the wreckage of VX770 ended up. I found a support bracket embedded in the ground which had what I later found to be an Avro reference stamped on it.

Avro Vulcan Crash 20th September 1958 - Keith Sturt - YouTube

[praesta2]

I too found some pieces at Syerston with part numbers stamped. Interestingly my brother-in-law got the haulage contract to transport the myriad of 'spares' from Waddington to Bruntingthorpe when 558 was sent there. Amongst the smaller pieces was a burlap sack containing a several rather badly disrupted aircraft parts. Each one had a F731 attached, red side outermost, identifying them as part of VX770 and categorised as CAT5(S)!

[skylon]

I watched these series in You Tube but I have to say, extremely biased and full of inaccuracies and exaggerations..Similar to these annoying American documentaries specifically designed to entertain home audience ,sorry no offence . As we all know Britain didn't singlehandedly invent the jet engine, some other guys have built and flew two years before and there is not even a single word about these.

[chevvron]

Originally Posted by skylon

I watched these series in You Tube but I have to say, extremely biased and full of inaccuracies and exaggerations..Similar to these annoying American documentaries specifically designed to entertain home audience ,sorry no offence . As we all know Britain didn't singlehandedly invent the jet engine, some other guys have built and flew two years before and there is not even a single word about these.

Only 2 years? I thought August Coanda was many years before.

[Allan Lupton]

Originally Posted by chevvron

Only 2 years? I thought August Coanda was many years before.

I take it that you are thinking of Henri Coandă and his ducted fan. Insofar as it had no propellor, it could be described as a "jet" but I think Skylon was referring to the work of Whittle and Ohain where the first flights of their gas turbines were c 2 years apart.
That's the trouble with the use of "jet engine" where gas turbine would be clearer

[chevvron]

Originally Posted by Allan Lupton

I take it that you are thinking of Henri Coandă and his ducted fan. Insofar as it had no propellor, it could be described as a "jet" but I think Skylon was referring to the work of Whittle and Ohain where the first flights of their gas turbines were c 2 years apart.
That's the trouble with the use of "jet engine" where gas turbine would be clearer

Sorry yes; Henri Coanda.

[roving]

For those who missed it when first or subsequently shown on the BBC, the two part documentary totalling 118 minutes of bliss, is now found on youtube.

Part I



Part II