Is it possible? A modern VC 10
 

So thinking out loud.

The Super VC10 was a superb airframe with decent range and great cruise speed.
Its basic specs were 4 x 22500lbs Conways giving just under 6000nm with a full fuel load of 156000lbs fuel

What would it take to dust off the old blue prints, modernise the avionics, engines and systems, get them through certification and build them?

Its a mid size aeroplane. It could do hub and spoke, hub to hub, top end corporate, VVIP biz jets, military and pretty much anything you could ask!.
Modern powerplants could easily match the power with a much lower fuel burn so range would not be an issue. Modern avionics would improve efficiency and save tons of weight.

Surely its a win win for the (British ?) aviation industry?

Just wondering!.. What do you all think?

I would have thought that what it would take would be roughly equal to the effort and resources required to design a new aeroplane, fitted to contemporary circumstances (when we find out what they are going to be). Could be a bit more, who knows?

That is not to dismiss the idea entirely. In an age when "Mini" and "Fiat 500" are used as car badges, retro and nostalgia obviously have an appeal, and there might be a point in incorporating a few styling cues from the old machine. One might get another percentage point or two of margin in the premium market by dressing the cabin crew in swinging '60s gear, and maybe even have the cockpit announcements made by someone channeling the old BOAC barons.

But with all those aeroplanes sitting in the sun, decaying as slowly as possible, just in case they'll ever be needed again, I don't think it would work commercially. Not to mention the fact that the UK counted in the industrial world when it was innovative.

Already done. It's called the A321XLR.

There was a "next generation" VC10 sized airliner...

It was called the Boeing 757

Although "already done" might be a bit premature...

...But seriously, a re-engined VC10 with CFM56/V2500 engines, a glass cockpit, and maybe even FBW, would not offer anything better than the aforementioned A321XLR/Boeing 757...
Sure, it would have great short field performance, but I doubt it would cruise at anything like the speed of the original VC10...

And lastly...A QUIET VC10? are you mad?

You youngsters wouldn't remember but way back in the '60s, an RB211 was fitted to a VC10 to replace the 2 Conways on one side as a testbed; it was so successful the Chinese offered to buy VC10s if they could be fitted with 2 x RB211s.
I'm not saying fit 2 x RB211s 'cos they're a bit long in the tooth nowadays, but there must be a more modern equivalent; now that WOULD be quiet.

Ah..but what happened to G-AXLR? the fuselage got twisted out of true, and the aircraft was scrapped after the trial.
When I was in the RAF, an engineer told me that the VC10 had the same fuel burn as the Tristar, but the Tristar could carry 3 times the payload over the same distance...
Those Conways were horribly thirsty!

The VC10 was a gorgeous airliner, the pinnacle of wholly British aviation technology...but that was in the 1960s...The British aircraft industry is now all but dead..we just make bits of aeroplanes now...and some very good engines!

VC10 was designed as an 'Empire' transport, when Britain had more colonial interests, overpowered to get in and out of hot and high airports with relatively short runways, runways have in the most part been lengthened and mounting engines high and out of the way of FOD was innovative and successful then but unnecessary now.

Fuel burn is going to be higher as the aircraft structure is heavier than the ideal, 2 engine pods mounted on the wing is the optimum solution as demonstrated by virtually every modern airliner in production.

Building an aircraft is not only designing new systems and engine mounting points, including a 1000 hr test/certification flight programme (maybe 2 or 3 billion euro's/pounds) but more the construction of manufacturing templates and factory stations, which is another so many billion. When they thought about resuming production of the Fokker F-100/70 after 15 years of closure, they came acros the same problem. That project never matrialised. But I agree, it would lighten up the skies.

Complete non starter.

Yes the VC10 was a superb machine in its day but heavy ( much metal milled from the solid, plastic is the game these days ) and arguably over engineered. Not sure where the earlier poster got 6000 miles range, we struggled to get LHR _NBO non stop with a TOW of 152 tonnes ( ok 151953 for the purists !).

Thirsty, certainly. When I was on loan to GulfAir the despatcher showed me the TriStar fuel plan, almost exactly the same as our VC 10 with its 125 or so pax but with 300 or so on the 1011.

Was the VC 10 that fast in line ops. ? In BA we cruised at .84 imn .825 true, not that much faster than the B75/76 at .8 true. Burn per pax, vastly less on the Boeings.

Yes, she was a delight to fly and fly in but she’s had her day.

To be fair, the VC-10 (along with its contemporary, the Trident) was one of the most efficient ways invented of transforming jet fuel into noise ...

........and arguably THE most efficient, the Viper in the Jet Provost, Just 1750 pounds of thrust but made a noise like ripping calico. totally out of proportion to its grunt !

Loved it !

Our test pilots at Farnborough referred to the JP as a 'constant thrust/variable noise'aircraft.

Beat me to it. Fixed power variable noise....

Ha! Beat me to it again!!!

The RB211 testbed was still flying in 1975,(I watched it both on radar and visually from Farnborough) long after the RB211 had notched up many million miles in service; the VC10 at RAE Bedford (ex BUA?) also suffered a 'bent' fuselage (or are you getting the two confused?)
Last VC10 I saw 'for real' was out of Heathrow taking Tony Bliar to King Hussein's funeral; we thought it was a Concorde until it came into view (just NW of Woking)

Talking to my neighbour, who works for engine manufacturer, building said engines, and listening to the issues they're having I could easily question whether we do make "very good engines"; probably "some" I suppose.

Returned to Malawi on a Birmingham to Blantyre flight back in 1976/7 time. Don't forget the Mechanics had to trundle through the cabin to top up the hydraulics at the back of the rear toilet wall; no APU on ours just had the emergency start air bottles in the tail section, only tried them once before their hydrostatic test date, FE had to be be quick with his hands to catch the spool up. Still loved flying in her as did my babes swinging in the cots slung from the overhead.

I assume that BHX / Blantyre flight was one of the couple of times the Air Malawi VC10 diverted into BHX due fog. I had always thought that the aircraft positioned back to Blantyre direct from BHX, which was an extremely long leg off BHS's 7,400ft runway back then. Were you actually a paying passenger on the aircraft; and did the flight actually go nonstop from BHX?

Difference being the two cars you mention were successful, whereas the VC-10 was a commercial failure.

I don't want to be too serious on what is a lighthearted thread, but I'm amazed how often these "bring back the x" ideas pop up. Often
the 757.
Manufacturers fight for and argue over 1% fuel burn or 100kg empty weight. Proposing something that burns 5% more is like giving the
competition the keys to the safe. In fact the idea would be canned before the brochure is dry, and the marketing team sent to the gulag
for reeducation.
Certification? Well you could always try the FAA, they seem to be a soft touch.

No on this flight a freebee for a weekend home, and though I lived nearer BHX, I had to go to Gatwick to check-in, then get bused to BHX for the departure; and yes non stop, arrival there were issues at BHX with handling, customs and on departure catering, the girls managed some excellent meals between M&S and a local Chinese restaurant. The decision to non stop was a the last fuel etc calculation as I recall overhead Nairobi.

And whose fault was that?

I believe the VC10 was not a speculative initiative by Vickers; it was a response to a series of parameters drawn up by BOAC and others. BOAC/BA only more recently have found out that "off the peg" designs can be accommodated within its operations. If they had discovered this earlier, we might have been spared the horrid One Eleven.

Granted the VC10 was a noisy beast, but only on the outside; memory might be playing tricks but I think it must be the quietest aircraft I have experienced as a passenger. I flew in it quite often as pax and once when grounded in FRA (trouble with the eponymous engine on DH104) had breakfast with Flaps Rendall, a charming man and excellent company, so I'm rather attached to the old Vickers, but I think it is best left to remain a fond recollection in the memory of those who were privileged to have been associated with it.

Retired BA/BY. made a noise like ripping calico. totally out of proportion to its grunt ! Not sure about the calico but the noise/power disproportion could be applied to the Leonides in the piston Provost too. There seem to be a lot of old people contributing to this thread!

The RAE Bedford VC10 (XX914) was indeed ex BCAL, and served until July 83, when it was retired, and donated its tail to the first RAF VC10 tanker,ZA141, which suffered in flight damage during flight testing...
RB211 testbd G-AXLR did fly until September 1975, when it flew to Kemble to be scrapped, beyond economic repair...

Gypsy.

What's horrid about the One-Eleven? It had nothing to do with BA/BEA.

There are a lot of us oldies who have fond memories of the VC10
https://www.vc10.net/Memories/Operat...African_routes

The VC10 was a beautiful looking thing but was a commercial disaster, and BOAC had to be financially compensated by the Govt even to order the second batch, they wanted Boeing 707's with which they could make a profit. As to bringing the VC10 back, not going to happen I'm afraid as the modern equivalents such as the A321XLR would eat it for breakfast financially and commercially. There is a reason why Airbus have to date made and sold 5, 243 A321 whereas Vickers/BAC only made 54 VC10's.

What on earth Vickers and BOAC thought they were doing when they specified an airliner for "Empire routes" and ignored the Atlantic is beyond me. I know it was a long time ago but even then the sun had set on the vast majority of the British Empire and this should have been so obvious to BOAC and, more importantly, Vickers.

There is one thing I remember from 30 years in the business: manufacturers should listen to the airlines, but not too much.
If a plane turns out to be a dog the operator can get out after five years or so.
The builder is stuck with its enormous investment and support commitments: a drag on the company for twenty years.
No one airline has the knowledge and experience of the manufacturer

During our BFTS course at Linton, over the winter of 1977/8 we were grounded for about a fortnight due to freezing fog over snow and nothing moved on the airfield. Then one morning we heard what seemed to be the sound of a “mighty” Viper starting up. We all rushed to see who was brave enough, only to quickly realise it was the sound of the automatic water boiler on the crew room wall kicking in.....

And outsold the VC by 4 to 1, making it relatively successful.

Again it was a loud one though!

A lot of people operated the BAC1,11 and I don't dispute that it was a model more commercially successful than the VC10 but I believe BA had a substantial input in its design/production. I used to commute to Germany nearly every week and in the turbulent financial times of the '70s, we were encouraged to fly/buy British which, most conveniently meant BA and their One Elevens. I hated them. Mind you, I have to admit that my recollections may be a little jaundiced by the cabin service. At the time, Trust House Forte had the catering contract and included in this was Arc de Triomphe wine, a glass of which was handed back to the hostess by my companion with the comment "This horse is pregnant". I rebelled and transferred to LH and their Boeings; so much nicer.

A few years later when in Nigeria, I was obliged to be a pax with Okada and a 1,11. Hairy isn't the word.

Odd that pruners can tell us our aircraft industry “is all but dead”, harking back to supposed glory days when we built 50 odd VC10’s -but ignoring the significant parts of many thousands of airliners we do build.

The only 1-11s I flew on were Dan-Air's and I enjoyed those flights very much...

BEA had no input into the original 1-11 design, but their interfering influence undersized the Trident 1.

Gypsey queen
the 1-11 was launched in 1961. Lainch customer was British United airways. It was sold to four US operators.
The series 500 first flew in 1967. It was sold to BEA who would have preferred the 737 but the government forced them to by British
.

I thought the Supers made money on the North Atlantic as it was preferred to the 707 for quietness and service but what do I know.?

Victor Golf you're dead right

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.

I was on the last VC10 flight from Heathrow on 30th March 1981. It was a LHR - LHR charter and cost me £32, as I recall. We assembled in Tech Block 'A' and were seen off by a liveried silver band. We got on board in the maintenance area and taxi'd live across the Eastchurch Crossing. I don't think many people can say they've done that! We then routed up to Manchester for a low approach and go-around, then up to Prestwick for the same, followed by a steep turn around Ailsa Craig (looked like a jewel set on a cushion) then a (very!) low pass at about 250kt back along the Prestwick runway. We then climbed to height over the Irish Sea for lunch before another low pass at Bristol - (Filton, not the one up the hill), where Brian Trubshaw was apparently in the Tower. He had been the test pilot on the prototype. Then back East, for a low pass at Weybridge, the aircraft's birthplace, but the crew demurred to do that one, the vis wasn't great and they didn't fancy 'plunging about the North Surrey countryside at 200kt, looking for the place'. Can't say I blame them. Then back to London Airport (beware imitations). Definitely the most comfortable transport aircraft I've ever flown in, though hopelessly un-economic, sadly.
You're right, there's a lot of old people on this thread!

TOO