Why didn't the RAF give the VC-10 a name?
 

The VC-10 is the only aircraft in RAF squadron service from the post First World War era that didn't have an official name as far as I know, sticking with the manufacturers designation instead. I know the aircraft had a number of unofficial names, the Vickers Funbus being one of my favourites, but never an official one, does anyone know the reason for this?

The Queen of the skies didn't need some punchy name she just spoke for herself - very loudly :ok:

All the original C1's had names :\

RAF VC10s

anorak, door .....

I'm going to miss them blasting out and making the air crackle for twenty minutes after take off.

They did (or at least the engine guys did), it's just not printable, anywhere!

always known as the iron duck in my old airline

IIRC it was the only aircraft to be completely abbreviated.....

BAC VC10 C.Mk.1

Well, we in BAH had a name for it in c1970: Moonrocket.

As the old saying goes... Are you a real Squadron Leader or a VC10 captain?

The aeroplane once looked very resplendent in its white livery... today's green, hemp, grey, or whatever else it might be called looks bloody awful.

"Vee-Cee Ten" sounds cool enough to me.. What would be next after the Viscount and Vanguard? The Vickers Victualler? Or perhaps the "Emissary"? The "Apostle"?

Which reminds me of the old one:

What does the Swift and a choir boy have in common?

They were both screwed by Vickers.

Whatever the name my favourite flight ever was Brize - Sydney via Bahrein, Colombo and Perth in 1979 on a VC-10. Superb. :)

I think the old BOAC ad; "Try a little VC tenderness" is hard to beat.

I agree with that!

Probably because there is no quick way of saying:

"The most beautiful airliner in the world, second only to the refinement of Concorde, the Vickers VC-10 was one of the few machines that looked as good on the ground as she did in the air, actually that was one of the reasons you wanted to fly in her - because she looked so elegent, more than that, she looked right and there is the old engineering saying that if it LOOKS right - then it IS right - which certainly pertains here, although I have to say that not ALL the liveries showed her off best - for me it was the 'classic' BOAC with the Blue nose slipping back to the long blue cheat line on the windows and the clear BOAC lettering that made her look the best, not to mention the right angle to show off the tail and so there can be no doubt that she really is the Queen and that's even before the Conways wake up!"

or VC-10 for short. ;)

I thought it was called the "Brass Budgie"?

Naah; fantom's right, Moonrocket. Here he is, going for a post-flight beer ---

http://i1340.photobucket.com/albums/...psdda128f0.jpg

I suspect that's Photoshopped, but it's a nice picture just the same. Did we have any operational Hunters when Transport Command became Support Command?

Looks like a painting done by somebody who hasn't got the foggiest.

With the alignment of 'base hangar' there is nothing that side of it that could hold that many aircraft. And why the artist decided to put so many different types in the same spot beggars belief.

In short - load of bolleaux

HEROD/SISEMAN,
Give him a break!
Transport Command became Air Support Command in 1967. During 1968 we still had 8 and 208 Sqns flying Hunters at RAF Muharraq (Bahrain). The painting is somewhat generic, but looks very like the RAF pan at Muharraq in 1968 when all the large AT types were regular visitors and the Argosies (ARDET) were a permanent detachment from RAF Benson.

PS. Definitely remember it being called the Moonrocket by the guys in the Middle East at the time.