Is it possible? A modern VC 10

[possel]

Originally Posted by Jhieminga

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.

The RR Medway was the engine planned for the original sized Trident, before BEA said that it was "too big" for them". So it was downsized (with a narrower fuselage) to use Speys, and the Medway was cancelled. Then of course very soon BEA found they needed a larger aircraft and wanted to order 727s, but the govt made them have the Trident 3. How to foul up your industry - allow a major customer to have the manufacturer over a barrel in the design stage.

[megan]

I've never understood the mentality of the folk who stand-up as soon the plane stops

They wait for it to stop? Not in the US of A if my experience is anything to go by, I've seen it as soon as off the runway with a long taxi to the gate (O'Hare), protestations by the CC to no avail.

[Owain Glyndwr]

Chris Scott:

"The classic example are the A340 and A330 wings, which are - I believe - basically identical. But the A330 wings don't enjoy as much bending relief outboard."

Yes, that is true for the EIS versions. Apart from the local structure at the engine mounts the structure is identical. Basically the additional bending moment relief coming from the outer engines allowed the increased TOW required for the A340 range requirements.

[dixi188]

It is also why the A330 made a good choice for the MRTT. The HDUs go where the outboard engines would be on an A340.

[esscee]

Only the A340-200/300 wings with CFM engines are the same as the A330. The A340-500/600 wings are different, more area etc.

[brakedwell]

I thought we were talking about a new VC10?

[Chris Scott]

Originally Posted by brakedwell

I thought we were talking about a new VC10?

My fault, in raising the wing-bending relief and consequent economy provided by wing-mounted engines - particularly two per side, as on your DC-8 - that would penalise any neo-VC10 design.

[dixi188]

Well the A330 MRTT did replace the VC-10 as the RAFs tanker, so it is a sort of new VC-10.
Too much thread drift perhaps.

[dixi188]

Another thought.
Why were the VC-10 variants 11xx numbers and not 10xx?
The Viscount was effectively the VC-6, -7 & -8, with 6xx, 7xx & 8xx variants, and the Vanguard the VC-9 with 9xx variants.

[Chris Scott]

Originally Posted by dixi188

Another thought.
Why were the VC-10 variants 11xx numbers and not 10xx?
The Viscount was effectively the VC-6, -7 & -8, with 6xx, 7xx & 8xx variants, and the Vanguard the VC-9 with 9xx variants.

Probably because it replaced this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_V-1000

[dixi188]

Ah. I forgot about the Vickers 1000.

[Alan Baker]

Originally Posted by dixi188

Ah. I forgot about the Vickers 1000.

However, the V.1000 would have been the civil VC 7.

[possel]

Originally Posted by dixi188

Another thought.
Why were the VC-10 variants 11xx numbers and not 10xx?
The Viscount was effectively the VC-6, -7 & -8, with 6xx, 7xx & 8xx variants, and the Vanguard the VC-9 with 9xx variants.

Not so. According to Andrews & Morgan's Putnam book on Vickers Aircraft (pp571-577), the VC1 was the Viking; the VC2 Viscount; VC3 a proposed civil Varsity; VC4 a variety of jet transport schemes; VC5 a long range civil derivative of the Valiant for BOAC; VC6 (Vanjet) a short range version of the VC5 for BEA; VC7 was used twice - once for the Vickers 1000 and also for another Valiant derivative which superseded the VC6; nothing known of the VC8 and VC9; VC11 was a smaller VC10; VC12 was the Hunting H107 which became the BAC 1-11.

There appears to be no consistent correlation between the VC numbers (used for projects) and the first digit of the Vickers Type numbers (used for actual aircraft designs).

[Una Due Tfc]

I always preferred the look of the IL-62 to be honest. Looked like something from Thunderbirds / Captain Scarlet etc. Could be all just in my head but it seemed longer and sleeker. I probably have a soft spot for it due growing up near Shannon.

[Chris Scott]

Originally Posted by possel

Not so. According to Andrews & Morgan's Putnam book on Vickers Aircraft (pp571-577), the VC1 was the Viking; the VC2 Viscount; VC3 a proposed civil Varsity; VC4 a variety of jet transport schemes; VC5 a long range civil derivative of the Valiant for BOAC; VC6 (Vanjet) a short range version of the VC5 for BEA; VC7 was used twice - once for the Vickers 1000 and also for another Valiant derivative which superseded the VC6; nothing known of the VC8 and VC9; VC11 was a smaller VC10; VC12 was the Hunting H107 which became the BAC 1-11.

There appears to be no consistent correlation between the VC numbers (used for projects) and the first digit of the Vickers Type numbers (used for actual aircraft designs).

Thanks for that. Many of us would never have realised we'd flown a VC12!

An AAIB accident report refers to a V806 Viscount as a VC8, so maybe the VC2 moniker applied to the 700-series and the 630 prototype.

A Flight Global report re the Vanguard/Merchantman now residing at Brooklands Museum refers to it as a VC9.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Chris Scott

An AAIB accident report refers to a V806 Viscount as a VC8

That probably comes from the fact that VC8 was at one time the ICAO type designator for the Viscount 800 series.

[Jhieminga]

The ICAO type designators muddle the issue a bit, that is a completely separate list that was used in flightplans. From an old version: the VC7 code was used for the Viscount 700 series and the VC8 code for the Viscount 800 series but in a later update, both of these were merged into the VISC code. In a similar way, there used to be a separate code for the Standard and Super VC10s (VC10 and VC15 I think) but these were also merged into one VC10 code. I found the VANG code in an old ICAO doc, but internal Vickers documents did refer to the Vanguard as the VC9 AFAIK. I have a list of the Vickers Commercial numbers on my site too, it mostly follows the one in Andrews & Morgan's book: https://www.vc10.net/History/vc10_origins.html

[Herod]

I was under the impression that the BAC 1-11 was so-called because it was the BAC Type 1 and the Vickers Type 11?

[dixi188]

Originally Posted by Herod

I was under the impression that the BAC 1-11 was so-called because it was the BAC Type 1 and the Vickers Type 11?

That is my understanding, although it should be , "BAC One-Eleven"..

[Haraka]

The One Eleven was evolved from the 1956 originated Percival P 107 ,then Hunting H.107 and was enlarged when Hunting was absorbed into BAC via Airco , as initially the BAC.111, the "111" designation being purely arbitrary .