Brooklands
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Surrey
Age: 67
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget their latest aviation acquistion - VC10 K.3 ZA150 Dunsfold. '150 was formerly Super VC10 5H-MOG of East African Airways and was the last aircraft to built and flown out of the Brooklands site.
The aim is to keep her in a taxiable condition for events such as Wings & Wheels.
The aim is to keep her in a taxiable condition for events such as Wings & Wheels.
Last edited by etsd0001; 18th May 2014 at 11:24. Reason: Additiuon of info
"The VC 10 looks like it needs re-painting!"
Yes, and I know which livery I'd go for - but not sure the museum and the previous owner would agree. Tricky decision, that. And then there's the funding...
All those a/c need to be hangared, of course, if our grandchildren are going to be able to show them to their kids. Hey-ho.
Yes, and I know which livery I'd go for - but not sure the museum and the previous owner would agree. Tricky decision, that. And then there's the funding...
All those a/c need to be hangared, of course, if our grandchildren are going to be able to show them to their kids. Hey-ho.
Thread Starter
Didn't one of the other ex BCAL VC10s got to RAE Bedford? When I asked a Bedford controller about it, he said it was no longer flyable as it it a 'bent' fuselage, but didn't know how it happened. It was clearly visible from Santa Pod (Podington airfield) in the 80s; wonder what happened to it when RAE Bedford closed.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other Operators
When British Caledonian sold its VC10s, one of the three aircraft found its way to the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Bedford as XX914. For the next ten years this aircraft was extensively used for equipment test and trials, mostly involving instrument testing and development. In 1983 she was withdrawn from use and broken up, but some of her parts were still of use. The fuselage was moved to Brize Norton and used for training by the Air Movements School as 8777M. The vertical tail was used as a replacement for ZA141, whose tail had been damaged during resonance testing at altitude.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was at RAF Cosford yesterday and was told that a number of approaches were flown and successful short landings made at another airfield [ with longer runway than Cosford] and a number of pilots would have flown the VC-10 [allocated to Cosford] - no problems but some RAF top brass said no. Had he ever looked at the Brooklands VC 10 landing and the actual runway length used?
Arriving by road in bits is so undignified for such an elegant aircraft!
Onwards and upwards......
Arriving by road in bits is so undignified for such an elegant aircraft!
Onwards and upwards......
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have searched on You Tube for film of the VC 10 landing at Brooklands but cannot find any. Do you know if there is one or are you possibly thinking of the Vickers Vanguard landing film?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In transit
Age: 70
Posts: 3,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the plans for Brooklands is some kind of 'dome' to cover the aircraft which are currently exposed to the elements. I am amazed that they have managed to keep the interiors clean and dry, the Viscount for example is in pristine condition.
Originally Posted by joy ride
I have searched on You Tube for film of the VC 10 landing at Brooklands but cannot find any. Do you know if there is one or are you possibly thinking of the Vickers Vanguard landing film?
The Vanguard landing is indeed on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmakSwlYLs0
Originally Posted by chevvron
Didn't one of the other ex BCAL VC10s got to RAE Bedford?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Google "VC-10 landing Brooklands" and pages of interesting stuff appears.
Brooklands had apparently 2550 feet available. A number of VC-10 landings were made over
time and some used 70+% of the runway. The residing Sultan's braking system was the older,
less efficient Maxaret? system so why Cosford with its 3,800ft+ runway was denied a final
VC-10 landing can only be red tape/Health and Safety/Top Brass lack of cojones IMHO.
Brooklands had apparently 2550 feet available. A number of VC-10 landings were made over
time and some used 70+% of the runway. The residing Sultan's braking system was the older,
less efficient Maxaret? system so why Cosford with its 3,800ft+ runway was denied a final
VC-10 landing can only be red tape/Health and Safety/Top Brass lack of cojones IMHO.
VC-10 landing can only be red tape/Health and Safety/Top Brass lack of cojones IMHO.
Who remembers the RAF VC10 loaned to RR for the RB211 trials ?. It ended up with a twisted airframe and sat at Kemble for a long time until finally broken up.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who remembers the RAF VC10 loaned to RR for the RB211 trials ?. It ended up with a twisted airframe and sat at Kemble for a long time until finally broken up.
I joined the mob in 1976 and became stationed at Lyneham (in the tower) from where we would often observe the Red Arrows practicing at Kemble and on one of many a pub crawl we might pass a fleet of SC5 Belfast's and one bent VC10 parked up at Kemble along with a Red Arrows display.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I recall seeing film of the RB 211 VC10 in the Flight Gallery at the Science Museum. Looking at VC10.net it says that the RB211 produced slightly less thrust than 2 Conways. Does anyone know why this plane got bent, like did the RB have different torque characteristics, or was it mishap?
Although I love the look and sound of the 4 Conways, it is a shame that they could not use the RB211s and extend the VC10's commercial life, as the airframes were probably good for years more service.
Although I love the look and sound of the 4 Conways, it is a shame that they could not use the RB211s and extend the VC10's commercial life, as the airframes were probably good for years more service.
Looking at VC10.net it says that the RB211 produced slightly less thrust than 2 Conways. Does anyone know why this plane got bent, like did the RB have different torque characteristics, or was it mishap?
It was the forward thrust of two Conways on one side combined with inadvertent deployment of the RB211 thrust reverser on the other side - that would probably have been enough to bend any airframe.
Brooklands
... And you're also looking at more drag from the RB211 installation and perhaps more weight on that side as well. Those influences were present on all the flights and then there was the thrust reverser incident indeed which certainly won't have improved the rigging.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,185
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
After a couple of visits to Brooklands spaced over a few years it was noticeable that the Aircraft stored outdoors had all deteriorated to quite a degree; especially the Vanguard and the VC-10. Even the Concorde showed signs of peeling paint in places.
Only the Viscount seems to be fairing better in these conditions, perhaps being smaller it is easier to keep clean and polished.
I was disappointed, that more care seems to be taken with the Bus Museum in a nice new soft topped hangar like construction; that was new to me on my last visit.
Are there any plans to house the aircraft in a similar manner for the future before they rot away?
It would be nice if they can all be undercover and restored to a good condition and perhaps be rolled outside in good weather.
Only the Viscount seems to be fairing better in these conditions, perhaps being smaller it is easier to keep clean and polished.
I was disappointed, that more care seems to be taken with the Bus Museum in a nice new soft topped hangar like construction; that was new to me on my last visit.
Are there any plans to house the aircraft in a similar manner for the future before they rot away?
It would be nice if they can all be undercover and restored to a good condition and perhaps be rolled outside in good weather.
Type 1103 Landing Performance
Re the challenge involved in getting A40-AB into Brooklands on 6/7/87, that was an interesting discussion I missed on PPRuNe in 2012, as Dave Reid UK points out:
Sultan of Oman VC10 at Weybridge/Brooklands [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums
I gather that the full length of the runway was still available, unlike the later situation for the Vanguard. R for Robert's LDA figures for the northerly Rwy direction (3750 ft, plus a 400-foot overrun) seem to be unchallenged, but we don't have a slope figure.
A40-AB (formerly BUA/BCAL's G-ASIX, as Jhieminga notes) is a Type 1103 with "Dunlop Maxaret Anti-skid" brakes. In airline service, the dry operating weight (with, say, 120 seats fitted) was about 70 tonnes, so I think Jhieminga's estimate of about 70T for the landing is good. IAW standard practice, the Landing Distance graph makes no allowance for reverse thrust on a dry runway, and with only the outers available it isn't brilliant anyway. Landing distances (LD) are from a height of 50 ft over the threshold, of course, assuming main wheel touchdown at the 1000-foot point.
Sea-level/still-air/zero-slope LD at 70T is given as 5050 ft for a destination airfield, but the alternate figure (no, I never understood the difference) is 4750 ft, so let's use the latter. (Subtract 350 ft per 10-kt of headwind.) There may be some "fat" in the figure, but that implies a landing roll of about 3750 ft.
The main wheels are well behind and below the pilot's eye, and planting them on the deck within a couple of hundred feet of the threshold (the proverbial piano keys), rather than the normally-recommended 1000 ft, would be tricky, particularly if you're not in the habit. Airline pilots shouldn't be. I gather some kind of indicator may have been provided by the runway to assist? In any case, Saint-Ex and his fellow Vickers/BAC pilots had done it often enough!
G-ASIX may have been back to Brooklands before, for the repairs needed after the Andes incident in 1971? I can't remember.
Sultan of Oman VC10 at Weybridge/Brooklands [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums
I gather that the full length of the runway was still available, unlike the later situation for the Vanguard. R for Robert's LDA figures for the northerly Rwy direction (3750 ft, plus a 400-foot overrun) seem to be unchallenged, but we don't have a slope figure.
A40-AB (formerly BUA/BCAL's G-ASIX, as Jhieminga notes) is a Type 1103 with "Dunlop Maxaret Anti-skid" brakes. In airline service, the dry operating weight (with, say, 120 seats fitted) was about 70 tonnes, so I think Jhieminga's estimate of about 70T for the landing is good. IAW standard practice, the Landing Distance graph makes no allowance for reverse thrust on a dry runway, and with only the outers available it isn't brilliant anyway. Landing distances (LD) are from a height of 50 ft over the threshold, of course, assuming main wheel touchdown at the 1000-foot point.
Sea-level/still-air/zero-slope LD at 70T is given as 5050 ft for a destination airfield, but the alternate figure (no, I never understood the difference) is 4750 ft, so let's use the latter. (Subtract 350 ft per 10-kt of headwind.) There may be some "fat" in the figure, but that implies a landing roll of about 3750 ft.
The main wheels are well behind and below the pilot's eye, and planting them on the deck within a couple of hundred feet of the threshold (the proverbial piano keys), rather than the normally-recommended 1000 ft, would be tricky, particularly if you're not in the habit. Airline pilots shouldn't be. I gather some kind of indicator may have been provided by the runway to assist? In any case, Saint-Ex and his fellow Vickers/BAC pilots had done it often enough!
G-ASIX may have been back to Brooklands before, for the repairs needed after the Andes incident in 1971? I can't remember.
Originally Posted by Chris Scott
I gather some kind of indicator may have been provided by the runway to assist?
The story from the Captain's point of view is here: The 1st and last VC10 flight
Originally Posted by Chris Scott
The main wheels are well behind and below the pilot's eye, and planting them on the deck within a couple of hundred feet of the threshold (the proverbial piano keys), rather than the normally-recommended 1000 ft, would be tricky, particularly if you're not in the habit. Airline pilots shouldn't be.
I don't have proof that G-ASIX visited Brooklands after the Andes incident but I'd love to know if anyone can verify this statement. At this point we're certain that G-ARTA, G-ARVK, G-ASGB, G-ASGD and G-ASIX (in September 1965) have been flown back to Brooklands. Trubshaw of course mentioned in his autobiography: "The return of both VC10s and BAC 1-11s into Brooklands became a regular event". Proof of any other VC10s visiting Brooklands after their first flight is very welcome!