Is it possible? A modern VC 10
In the 1960s, of the two independent airlines that later constituted BCAL, Freddie Laker's BUA embraced the VC10-combi, whereas Caledonian's Adam Thomson, a canny Scot, chose the B707-320C.
The performance requirement Dave omits above is the VC10's superior WAT performance at high-altitude airfields, as previously discussed. On an average day, BUA/BCAL's (Standard) Type 1103 could offer an RTOW of about 141T (tonnes) out of Nairobi's very long runway, using Flaps 14, whereas the 707-320B/C was limited to about 129T. The VC10's 12-tonne advantage was partially eroded by its higher APS weight (around 5 tonnes, if memory serves) and its higher fuel flows for a given all-up weight. But, whereas BUA/BCAL's VC10s were able to carry nearly a full, mixed-class pax load direct to London, its 707s could not carry a similar load until around 1976, when over-boosting the JT3Ds and an increased V2 were permitted to increase the RTOW to about 135T.
Fewer than sixty VC10s were built. Admittedly, lessons would have been learned from the Comet and the early 707s and DC-8s (not to mention the CV-880/990). But vast improvements were made to both those types - particularly the 707 - between the sixtieth hull and the models against which the VC10 had to compete when it entered service in 1964. And, in terms of systems architecture, the VC10 was a mature package from the start, with better warning/indication systems and redundancy to the 707 in most respects.
48 tonnes of freight on a DC-8-54F? The max on the contemporary B707-320C was about 39 tonnes (including the pallets). I thought the DC-8-50F was only a tonne or so more than that.
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.
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.
I saw the performance mentioned in Chris's note above in action one very hot mid-day in Nairobi. I was on the "waving base" at Embakasi waiting for an incoming visitor, when an Ethiopian Boeing 720 trundled off to tuck it's tail, so to speak, in to the hedge to use all of the runway. Amid much black smoke it rotated and looked as though it might have difficulty clearing Ol Donyo Sabuk, an extinct volcano some miles from the airport. By contrast an East African Super VC10 taxiied out just after it and promptly took off from the intersection which was about halfway down the runway, to the mighty roar of 4 Conways at full chat. I don't know whether it was an airtest or a scheduled flight but it was very impressive...
Dave Reid, I do take your point and agree with you that if one wanted a medium to long haul (60s versions) aircraft the VC10 was ideal . It should have been obvious even ti Vickers and UK government hat no one else did and hence its demise. As I said nothing against the aircraft at an individual level , very elegant-well the super was not so sure about the standards and a really comfortable plane even in Y . the point I was making was that sadly as a country we seem to have little or no idea about marketing complex machinery . Back when I was standing watching G-ARVA taxi out from behind the BOAC base for its first LHR departure the Uk built Ships Aircraft Cars Trucks Railway engines and multi units in large numbers and employed large numbers of skilled and for the time pretty well paid people. But unlike France Germany Italy and others we did not change with the times our government either didnt support or backed the wrong horse . So now we have virtually nothing in these segments except some some assembly work for foreign entities. Oddly aerospace seems to have survived better than the other industries where Airbus UK and RR make genuinely class leading products and one hopes they will continue to do so and that Uk will still be major part of Airbus Industrie
So to head back to the VC 10 , and to speculate a bit. Would it have faired better as a trijet with two wing engines and one trident/tristar style to minimise the excess rear structure and gain from wing bending relief or were sufficiently powerful engines no around back then. On the other hand , and perhaps this had to be at the Govt level , should someone have just said no to both the trident and the VC 10 since in the case of the latter the 707 was underwritten by the vast expense of the C135 program giving it a head start in scale and R&D write off . And realising if that was the case competition with the 727 was handicapped from the start. Perhaps its ironical that it was Concorde-an even more ridiculous vanity project -which provided the clear demonstration that the only way forward was Anglo French and then Euro cooperation could really work and spawned Airbus Industry which struggled at the start but became a true global leader and caught up with and has at time outpaced the USA . Sadly us Brits didnt learn much from that either did we
So to head back to the VC 10 , and to speculate a bit. Would it have faired better as a trijet with two wing engines and one trident/tristar style to minimise the excess rear structure and gain from wing bending relief or were sufficiently powerful engines no around back then. On the other hand , and perhaps this had to be at the Govt level , should someone have just said no to both the trident and the VC 10 since in the case of the latter the 707 was underwritten by the vast expense of the C135 program giving it a head start in scale and R&D write off . And realising if that was the case competition with the 727 was handicapped from the start. Perhaps its ironical that it was Concorde-an even more ridiculous vanity project -which provided the clear demonstration that the only way forward was Anglo French and then Euro cooperation could really work and spawned Airbus Industry which struggled at the start but became a true global leader and caught up with and has at time outpaced the USA . Sadly us Brits didnt learn much from that either did we
Gordon Corps
In February 1987, Gordon was on the A320 maiden flight with Pierre Baud, and more or less headed its successful flight-test programme to certification 12 months later. After that, he again supplemented Airbus training pilots in the flight training and line training of the early airline crews on the type, as did Nick Warner. This also enabled them to observe ordinary pilots like myself on routine operations, and get feedback. Sad that neither Gordon nor Nick Warner lived to enjoy retirement. R I P.
* For beginners: D P Davies was the ARB (British) certification test pilot responsible for Boeing having to add a ventral fin to its early B707s to improve their directional stability. (Later models employed a taller fin and, eventually, a series yaw-damper like the three on the VC10.) He also wrote a definitive book for airline pilots: Handling the Big Jets.
DR
Indeed I was as well , I was prompted with the three engine look by memories of some Boeing ideas for the 75 before they actually built it . I think as someone said the 757 was close to being a replacement, certainly wonderful field performance but lacking in range . So realistically one would be looking ata VC10 with CFM 56s but they didnt come along for many years to help Douglas upgrade the venerable DC8.. The Trident on the other hand probably could have been built with bigger semi /low bp fan engines as originally intended and would have been much closer to the 727.
But it seems in the airline industry there is no point in building something thats not quite right , better to husband resources and try and skip a generation
Indeed I was as well , I was prompted with the three engine look by memories of some Boeing ideas for the 75 before they actually built it . I think as someone said the 757 was close to being a replacement, certainly wonderful field performance but lacking in range . So realistically one would be looking ata VC10 with CFM 56s but they didnt come along for many years to help Douglas upgrade the venerable DC8.. The Trident on the other hand probably could have been built with bigger semi /low bp fan engines as originally intended and would have been much closer to the 727.
But it seems in the airline industry there is no point in building something thats not quite right , better to husband resources and try and skip a generation
The trend at the time was for tail-mounted engines on trijets. Many of the development drawings that preceded the final VC10 design show trijets with a Trident style engine installation (a lot of these were Vanguard-based and named 'VanJet'). So I don't think anyone would have come up with a trijet with two wing-mounted engines. It would have meant a taller undercarriage as well with all the weight penalties that this incurs. And also, the engine to do that for a VC10-sized airliner was not around (as far as I know). Rolls-Royce was planning a RR Medway that might have been developed to higher thrust levels but the tested variants were in the 16,000 to 17,300 lbf thrust range, while the Conway reached 22,500 lbf on the Super VC10.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: australia
Age: 48
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually the answer to the original question was answered inside a few posts on page 1. Somehow it’s been turned into a ‘nostalgia’ thread.
But seriously, what’s happened to aviation in 30-40 years? Flying slower and less legroom. Wow. Innovation.
Somebody said that’s the price you pay to get cheap tickets. But that’s the real answer to the OP’s question isn’t it?
How much more are you willing to spend to get their quicker? Domestic, yeah little difference.
Would anyone be willing to pay 50% more each way to cross the Pacific and Atlantic 3-4 hours quicker?
But seriously, what’s happened to aviation in 30-40 years? Flying slower and less legroom. Wow. Innovation.
Somebody said that’s the price you pay to get cheap tickets. But that’s the real answer to the OP’s question isn’t it?
How much more are you willing to spend to get their quicker? Domestic, yeah little difference.
Would anyone be willing to pay 50% more each way to cross the Pacific and Atlantic 3-4 hours quicker?
Possibly, the last time any serious look at enhancing the VC-10 was when BAC were offering BUA a stretched 191 seat (34'' seat pitch) Super VC-10, but by this time the merger talks with Caledonian were at an advanced stage.
Here it was mutually decided to keep with the 707-320C as the long haul aircraft initially required for BCAL.
British Eagle were apparently also offered a version of a Super VC-10 with a Combi role (I assume this was possibly different to the East African Airways Super 1153 fleet>?)
This was when the Board of Trade refused to waive the 14% Import Duty on the new 707C order that British Eagle had in place with Boeing for 1967 deliveries.
Eagle, although knowing that the Super VC-10 had much greater passenger appeal than the 707, they ultimately felt that the extra payload and range of the 707C was more suitable for their long haul charter requirements to the USA, and the Far East, and therefore worth paying the Duty with the hope they were granted the New York and Caribbean licences. (Which they sadly never got, or were reneged on)
Here it was mutually decided to keep with the 707-320C as the long haul aircraft initially required for BCAL.
British Eagle were apparently also offered a version of a Super VC-10 with a Combi role (I assume this was possibly different to the East African Airways Super 1153 fleet>?)
This was when the Board of Trade refused to waive the 14% Import Duty on the new 707C order that British Eagle had in place with Boeing for 1967 deliveries.
Eagle, although knowing that the Super VC-10 had much greater passenger appeal than the 707, they ultimately felt that the extra payload and range of the 707C was more suitable for their long haul charter requirements to the USA, and the Far East, and therefore worth paying the Duty with the hope they were granted the New York and Caribbean licences. (Which they sadly never got, or were reneged on)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, 50% to save 3-4 hours on a 12-hour flight is something I would consider. But remembering this is a VC10 nostalgia thread, I think the differences are more like M.86 vs M.82, which would be more like saving half an hour, and it would probably be better for the planet, and the pax blood pressure, to save that on quicker and more civilized arrangements on the ground (or, spend the 50% on an upgrade).
Only half a speed-brake
Mind the gap. 😉
Saving 3-4 off 12 hrs flying time is well in the supersonic range. The speed advantage only applies in the cruise phase.
Upgrade to business is triple the original price (+200 %), based on 2019 EU to Asia rates.
Saving 3-4 off 12 hrs flying time is well in the supersonic range. The speed advantage only applies in the cruise phase.
Upgrade to business is triple the original price (+200 %), based on 2019 EU to Asia rates.
Last edited by FlightDetent; 15th Dec 2020 at 07:36.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
) but they didn't have the wonderful lie-flat seats or the inflight entertainment systems back then.Further, the range of today's aircraft mean that many flights are non-stop rather than making a fuel stop somewhere so you still get there quicker even though the cruise Mach is a couple hundredths slower.
People tend to look at jet travel 50 years ago through rose colored glasses - but if we returned to that I doubt many people would be happy about it.
IFIRC, when I started airline flying in 1962 with BOAC, the cheapest transatlantic one-way ticket on a Bristol Britannia was £109, and that was coach class (or something like that). £109 then is something around £2000 today. It is always difficult to compare values over time, but that rather eye-watering figure tends to back up tdracer's comment
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And as everything gets unbundled, one might soon be able to buy an accelerated boarding/disembarcation pathway.
Accelerated Disembarkation.
Stand around in Baggage Claim until your stuff arrives on the carousel as against sitting in the cabin until the rush has gone and then still waiting for you baggage on the carousel.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Accelerated Boarding. Sit in your seat in the cabin whilst the rest bounce themselves and their cabin baggage into you instead of a comfortable seat in departures until nearly all the rest have gone.
Accelerated Disembarkation.
Stand around in Baggage Claim until your stuff arrives on the carousel as against sitting in the cabin until the rush has gone and then still waiting for you baggage on the carousel.
Accelerated Disembarkation.
Stand around in Baggage Claim until your stuff arrives on the carousel as against sitting in the cabin until the rush has gone and then still waiting for you baggage on the carousel.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England
Age: 65
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used to be regular SLF on a loco, usually with hold baggage (spares). Turn up, relax and make damn sure I was one of the last to check-in. Also made sure I was one of the last to board.
Generally, got a seat within the first 3/4 rows but wasn't particularly concerned as I've yet to see a baggage carousel beat me to it.
Last to check-in, last to load, first out, generally speaking. Put it this way, you've leveraged the odds in your favour.
I've never understood the mentality of the folk who stand-up as soon the plane stops, it ain't musical chairs, ain't nothing gonna disappear if you're not off the plane in 3 minutes!
Generally, got a seat within the first 3/4 rows but wasn't particularly concerned as I've yet to see a baggage carousel beat me to it.
Last to check-in, last to load, first out, generally speaking. Put it this way, you've leveraged the odds in your favour.
I've never understood the mentality of the folk who stand-up as soon the plane stops, it ain't musical chairs, ain't nothing gonna disappear if you're not off the plane in 3 minutes!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England
Age: 65
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As regards the VC10, I think we can all agree a modern VC10 is a non-starter, a sanitized, 2020 compliant version would not evoke the pangs of nostalgia that the original might.
Would I like to see an original VC10 flying, noise abatement nimby's and environmentalists notwithstanding? Every day, of every week. Could even earn a revenue by selling viewing slots, nearest the runway commands the premium prices (plus optional (unused) ear defenders).
Would I like to see an original VC10 flying, noise abatement nimby's and environmentalists notwithstanding? Every day, of every week. Could even earn a revenue by selling viewing slots, nearest the runway commands the premium prices (plus optional (unused) ear defenders).
Last edited by Momoe; 16th Dec 2020 at 14:15. Reason: grammar