Is it possible? A modern VC 10

[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]

Originally Posted by FlightlessParrot

...,, 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]

Originally Posted by Self loading bear

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]

Originally Posted by FlightlessParrot

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]

Originally Posted by WB627

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

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]

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

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]

Originally Posted by FlightlessParrot

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.

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]

Originally Posted by India Four Two

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]

Originally Posted by FlightlessParrot

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]

Originally Posted by ruddman

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Genghis the Engineer

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by etudiant

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.