Is it possible? A modern VC 10
"Ok, back to the drawing board. And the liquor store."
"I was wrong! Knowledge is not to be found in the bottom a bottle - it's to be found on Day Time TV" - Homer Simpson
"I was wrong! Knowledge is not to be found in the bottom a bottle - it's to be found on Day Time TV" - Homer Simpson
Originally Posted by etudiant
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.
London Control complained they didn't 'like' it because it cruised at similar levels to most airliners (between about 270 and 330) but at a filed TAS of 550kts so it kept overtaking other traffic at the same level!
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.
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.
Within Europe however, the CFMU gives the most efficient profile for capacity, so less freedom there for the foreseeable in the saturated sectors and airfields (when traffic returns to near normal).
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: derbyshire
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have really enjoyed this post about a plane I love. I don't know why because I've never flown on a VC10 and sadly never will. Well done everyone for your information about the plane.
However I'm looking forward to the NG VC10, NG Concorde and NG B757. Wonderful planes all with engines made by a firm near where I live.
However I'm looking forward to the NG VC10, NG Concorde and NG B757. Wonderful planes all with engines made by a firm near where I live.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Under the clouds now
Age: 85
Posts: 2,444
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Under the clouds now
Age: 85
Posts: 2,444
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
To be honest Bergerie it surprised me too! The fact that we were slowly overhauling him surprised me. I think he was flying from Akrotiri to Nairobi while we were flying from Cairo to Nairobi, heavy with 48 tonnes of cargo. Maybe we were cruising a little faster than .82, - more 83 - 84.
Retired BA/BY, When the fleet started the normal cruise speed was M.86, but sometime after the 1973 oil crisis (I can't remember exactly when) this was reduced to M.84. It could have been a little before or after the date of brakedwell's story.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Under the clouds now
Age: 85
Posts: 2,444
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
I carried out a C of A air test on a DC8 with a CAA test pilot in the RH seat. One of the tests was a high Mach number descent which I seem to remember reached slightly over .96. Scared me to death, but the CAA guy seemed to enjoy it, Unfortunately he later died while investigating an Airbus crash near Kathmandu after moving to Toulouse.
Originally Posted by brakedwell
To be honest Bergerie it surprised me too! The fact that we were slowly overhauling him surprised me. I think he was flying from Akrotiri to Nairobi while we were flying from Cairo to Nairobi, heavy with 48 tonnes of cargo. Maybe we were cruising a little faster than .82, - more 83 - 84.
But, returning to topic, the VC10 combis could only manage about half of that, which - in addition to the payload-range disparity - is another reason we (BCAL) let ours go in 1973/4.
A bit of a summing up from my point of view the American chap who posted early on about Brits being unable to recognise failure had it right. Unlike one of the early posts that said the VC 10was a superb aeroplane , no it wasn't, it was a heap of junk because it couldn't do the job of an airliner remotely efficiently. Never mind the handling, field performance and all that stuff if it could not deliver the right economics it was of no use. (did they have CASM back then).
I loved watching the VC 10 close up, I loved flying on it and from what i have read the pilots loved flying it but sadly that doesn't make it any good. I read an article , I think it was an extract from a book about a Boeing employee back in the sixties who reported back to Seattle after a trip to Uk to see the trident and VC10 developments. He said he was pretty confident the 727/707 were better than the Uk equivalents but what really convinced him was the state of the production facilities used in UK , ancient lacking in any degree of investment and in his eyes quite unable to meet even modest demands so that whatever the final performance and economy figures turned out to be Boeing would still come out ahead because our usual parsimonious approach and unwillingness to address risk investment (which building airliners certainly is) meant we would never be able to keep up.
Even more sadly the VC10 isnt alone in falling victim to that, perhaps particularly Britsh, nostalgia which had similar impacts in the car industry, trucks and motor bikes and here we are decades later with a PM promising a world beating track and trace app that yet again turns out to be useless junk and where people paid with their lives for our overconfident we are the best attitude.
I loved watching the VC 10 close up, I loved flying on it and from what i have read the pilots loved flying it but sadly that doesn't make it any good. I read an article , I think it was an extract from a book about a Boeing employee back in the sixties who reported back to Seattle after a trip to Uk to see the trident and VC10 developments. He said he was pretty confident the 727/707 were better than the Uk equivalents but what really convinced him was the state of the production facilities used in UK , ancient lacking in any degree of investment and in his eyes quite unable to meet even modest demands so that whatever the final performance and economy figures turned out to be Boeing would still come out ahead because our usual parsimonious approach and unwillingness to address risk investment (which building airliners certainly is) meant we would never be able to keep up.
Even more sadly the VC10 isnt alone in falling victim to that, perhaps particularly Britsh, nostalgia which had similar impacts in the car industry, trucks and motor bikes and here we are decades later with a PM promising a world beating track and trace app that yet again turns out to be useless junk and where people paid with their lives for our overconfident we are the best attitude.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dorset UK
Age: 69
Posts: 1,604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the handover ceremony of the first BAC One-Eleven to Mohawk Airlines, the Mohawk boss made a speech and he said something like, "I don't know how you can build such a good airplane in a load of old cow sheds".
My father was at the handover.
My father was at the handover.
Originally Posted by pax britanica
I think it was an extract from a book about a Boeing employee back in the sixties who reported back to Seattle after a trip to Uk to see the trident and VC10 developments. He said he was pretty confident the 727/707 were better than the Uk equivalents but what really convinced him was the state of the production facilities used in UK , ancient lacking in any degree of investment and in his eyes quite unable to meet even modest demands so that whatever the final performance and economy figures turned out to be Boeing would still come out ahead because our usual parsimonious approach and unwillingness to address risk investment (which building airliners certainly is) meant we would never be able to keep up.
Originally Posted by pax britanica
Unlike one of the early posts that said the VC 10 was a superb aeroplane, no it wasn't, it was a heap of junk because it couldn't do the job of an airliner remotely efficiently.
Sadly, it was a role that was virtually non-existent by the time it entered service.
