I have family in Canada. In the late 1970s/early 1980s, whenever they went back home to Montreal/Toronto, their flight from Manchester was always on a Brutish Airways VC10. Never a 707 or TriStar. Not even a 747. I believe BOAC once operated these flights with the Bristol Britannia, but that's way before my time.
|
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 10939122)
I think you'll find there are very good reasons why no clean sheet design in the last three decades has put the engines on the tail.
|
Some random jottings, guys...
A twin-engine, stretched Super VC10 might employ the Trent 500s developed belatedly for the A340-600/500, which may not be too different in size and weight from that asymmetric RB211 installation on G-AXLR? I guess the thick wing-root and reduced wing-bending relief of rear-engine jets is less of a penalty on short-haul, Dave?. On our (BUA/BCAL) VC10 Type 1103s (Standard, combi, with super wing), which lacked the Super's 4 tonnes of fuel in the fin, the forward CG when the centre tank was full resulted in an inefficient TPI (THS) setting. Iinitially, it was nearly 2 deg nose-up trim, if memory serves. That exacerbated the high fuel flows of the thirsty Conways, mitigated only slightly by the Type 1103's ability to climb to at least FL330 after take-off at max weight. Re speed, MMO was M0.886 indicated (M0.86 true), and that's how they flew them in the early days when fuel was cheap. After the fuel crisis of 1972/3, we reduced our normal speed from M0.86 indicated to M0.84 or less. The Air Malawi VC10 had been the first of our 1103s (G-ASIW). It was also the last of them to go (1974). Air Malawi presumably chose it because, unlike the otherwise excellent B707-320 with underslung outboard engines, it could operate into Blantyre-Chileka's narrow (90 ft) runway, which was also fairly short. And its WAT performance out of aerodromes with long runways at high altitude in the region, like Lusaka and Nairobi, was superior to the relatively underpowered "Seven-oh". BHX/BLZ would certainly have been pushing it. What sort of load was it carrying, aeromech3? The Type 1103 had a ceiling of FL430, but I guess in those days on that route FL410 would have been the final available cruise altitude. We never had to top up the hydraulics in flight... As chevvron says, the VC10 at RAE Bedford would have been another of our Type 1103s: G-ATDJ. (G-ASIX went to the Sultan of Oman, who kindly donated it to Brooklands Museum in the end, where it still resides and is well worth a cockpit visit.) The One-Eleven-200 was a jet trailblazer on short-haul in 1965, Gipsy Queen. Preceded the DC-9 and B737 into service by several years. Handled like a fighter in roll and - as others have pointed out - had nothing whatsoever to do with BEA! Had BUA (the launch customer) been allowed to operate out of LHR as well as LGW, it would have emptied BEA's ponderous, shuddering Vanguards in 1966 on the Glasgow and Edinburgh routes. Later, however, the Spey engines could not be uprated much for the stretched 500 series, which was underpowered and struggled against the DC-9 and (particularly) the B737 with their JT-8D turbofans in the charter market. We often had to resort to water injection, which made a difference of only one or two pax out of a hot Spanish runway. |
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 10939151)
COMAC ARJ21 ?
|
Originally Posted by Una Due Tfc
(Post 10938878)
Difference being the two cars you mention were successful, whereas the VC-10 was a commercial failure.
|
Rumour was that on a good day the factory profit on a mini was 4 BPS. Of course they made more in spares.
|
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 10939151)
COMAC ARJ21 ?
|
Noting Gipsy Queen's comments,
Shrewd observation regarding "Off the peg" designs, Trident was another that could (and should) have been more of a commercial success, if only BEA and HMG hadn't scaled down the original proposal. Boeing knew a winner when they saw one and promptly brought out the 727 which was about the size of the original DH proposal. |
Originally Posted by smallfry
(Post 10938548)
What would it take to dust off the old blue prints, modernise the avionics, engines and systems, get them through certification and build them?
That's just my two cents of course. |
My late-lamented uncle had business for a while with BAC and brought me a stack of marketing and engineering sales literature about the VC-10 and BAC 1-11, which as a 9 yr old I absorbed avidly. Both sets majored on the adoption of QUIET 'by-pass' jet engines, the Conway and Spey respectively! The bumpf really went to town on this aspect. Eee! Nimbys t'day don't know they're born!
|
My Favourite aircraft, but I never flew on one, seen the one at Duxford in BOAC livery, beautiful
|
A modern VC 10 would have to have a record/CD/wire loop player just to play the Conway clackerty-clack as the engines windmilled when parked.
Wouldn't be a VC 10 without that racket. CC |
Many lovely trips on tens and Supers among them LHr-Barbados-LHR LHR-Nicosia Khartoum Addis Seychelles , JFK-Antigua Barbados , SeychellesMauritus. A a lovely comfortable aeroplane -but that doesnt sell, witness the wonderful A 380 ,and re engining it would do nothing for the over heavy wings (no cantilevering balance from poddied engines, no huge tail for lack or moment arm and no Forth Bridge at the rear of the fuselage to hang the engines on.
As for the age demographics well to have been a pax on VC10 you have to be pretty old or flown on one as a small child, to have actually flown a civil one possibly older still. Noise-unparalleled altho somehow a Caravelle with only two smaller engines sometimes seemed to rival them. The strange moaning noise as it taxied to the threshold and then the howl as it spooled up for full take off power remains a great memory from my childhood spotting days, pretty cool on approach too. I lied the Trident as well, always seemed to zip along nicely much to the delight of the crews it seemed who more than once on trips I was on took great pleasure in pointing out a Scandi DC9 we were overtaking on the way to Stockholm and a VC10 we passed from Rome to LHR Also very quiet inside but not outside , the 3 and a half engine version being the noisiest but I think the 1A version the fastest and trickiest. Quiet planes , A 380 top of the league and biz class on an MD80 left you with the feeling there were no engines at all. Interesting the relatively derided 1-11 which I didnt like much preferring the quieter and indeed better selling DC 9 - actually did sell pretty well and to airlines in all parts of the globe . But then thats us brits again always preferring the glamour to the practical So there you go-the past is another country and they do things differently there. (UK second biggest aersopace industry ? well USA of course but surely Airbus which has no British ownership anymore does it is huge and the French element probably bigger than ours . Whatever I do so hope RR sort out their problems and the Brexit calamity doesnt see the Airbus Industrie Uk elements which are critical gradually get moved to the rest of Europe . We dont do much in manufacturing hi tech engineering line and it would be a tragedy to lose even one of these enterprises . Not World Beaters to use that idiotic jingoistic phrase thats been the bane of so much of Britains recent history but genuinely highly regarded global enterprises of which we have very few that involve actually doing anything in terms of long term investment , employment and preservation of engineering and technology skills. Hands up who would like to stand by the threshold of one of LHRs runways and see a ten depart again |
Love how the English think every plane they made was the greatest. Even the utter piles of crap, were the best utter piles of crap. The yanks are happy to admit they made some good stufff and some bad stuff, but not the Brits. And heaven forbid if someone took a British design and made it better......
|
Originally Posted by Jhieminga
(Post 10939415)
I'll bite.
[...] That's just my two cents of course. Great analysis, and an all-too-pertinent comment on the 737MAX... For the non-cognoscenti who might nevertheless be interested, re the VC10's electrically-powered PFCUs: the ED (engine-driven) gennies are each 48kVA, compared with 30kVA on the B707 (and One-Eleven). A twin-engine version with Trents would need more than the 90kVA per ED generator that became standard on big turbofans with the advent of the wide-bodies. I take your point on IFE power requirements, but do modern, digital avionics make very high demands? Perhaps so, because the A320 family, for example, use two 90kVA gennies - despite its flight controls all being hydraulically powered. Don't know about the DC-8, but the primary flight controls of the B707 (and, presumably, the E-3 - still in military service) are assisted by so-called balance-panels in the case of the ailerons and elevators, the only powered control being the single. hydraulically-boosted rudder (with manual reversion). In addition to PFCUs for the ailerons and elevators, the VC10 has three rudders, each with a separate PFCU (and series yaw-damper). So the AC power requirement is much higher and absolutely essential on the VC10, which consequently has an emergency ELRAT (electric ram-air turbine). |
The VC-10 was so successful, it outsold the American competition in huge numbers.........NOT. Same for the Trident. Complete non-starter. Get over the we-were-once-a-great-engineering-nation nostalgia. Sorry to spoil the party. Reality bites.
|
Originally Posted by Checklist Charlie
(Post 10939461)
A modern VC 10 would have to have a record/CD/wire loop player just to play the Conway clackerty-clack as the engines windmilled when parked.
Wouldn't be a VC 10 without that racket. CC I last Worked on them in 89 on leaving the RAF, indeed I did a ground run on my last day.. Last I saw fly was also the last to have air under its wheels as it landed at Brunty.... However, that might not be the last time they fly. https://live.staticflickr.com/1859/4...04855887_c.jpgVC10 by Tony Taylor, on Flickr |
Originally Posted by pax britanica
(Post 10939499)
[..]
Interesting the relatively derided 1-11 which I didnt like much preferring the quieter and indeed better selling DC 9 - actually did sell pretty well and to airlines in all parts of the globe . But then thats us brits again always preferring the glamour to the practical [...] Hands up who would like to stand by the threshold of one of LHRs runways and see a ten depart again Yes, the soundtrack of the VC10 is unique and impressive, and it looks pretty good too!
Originally Posted by NutLoose
(Post 10939552)
And you try stopping them so you could inspect them on a check.
[...] Great photo, BTW. |
About 1971 there was a proposal to build some VC-10s for China. They were going to be twin engined with RB211s and built at Hurn. The 2 large hangars at weybridge, (Cathedral and Vatican), were to be moved to Hurn and assembled as one.
IIRC the deal was to be 50 VC-10s and 200 One-Elevens. Then Nixon went and made friends with China and they bought a load of Boeings. Jhieminga, Ref. your item 5. I think you will find that most metal airliner structures are what is now known as "Damage Tolerant " structures. The term "Fail Safe" went out of use after the "Fail Safe" Boeing 707 horizontal stab. failed at Lusaka. The term "Safe Life" went out of use after the Viscount era I think. We used to re-spar them after so many hours or cycles. The Design life of airliners is a target not a limitation of hours and cycles. They can carry on indefinitly provided the maintenance, inspection and repair is carried out. There comes a time when it is no longer cost effective to do this. I don't know about the composite 787 and A350 structures though. Dixi. |
Dixi, your comments regarding damage tolerance are not entirely accurate. Since the late 1980s it has been recognised that damage tolerance evaluations are, unfortunately, not “good forever”, they do have certain limitations. It may be possible to reevaluate a design to extend its life with a significant amount of additional analysis and testing, supplementary inspections and modifications, and even then the type certificate holder may sooner or later come a point where it is just no longer economical. There has been a lot of regulatory and industry activity to address continuing structural integrity issues, perhaps most prominently the problem of widespread fatigue damage, see regulations such as the FAA aging airplane and WFD rules and the recently amended EASA Part-26, which e.g. stipulate a limit of validity (LOV).
Apologies for the thread drift, but I felt this had to be clarified. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 00:31. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.