VC 10 UNDERCARRIAGE SNAG
Thread Starter
VC 10 UNDERCARRIAGE SNAG
I saw a picture on Fighter Control of a VC 10 en route back from the States with one of it's main undercarriage partly retracted. Would this have much of an affect on fuel and I assume it would be a very anxious landing if he couldn't get it fully down.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,743
Received 2,727 Likes
on
1,160 Posts
They flew a Ten back from Kenya if i remember rightly with the nose gear down and it drank fuel , with a main down the doors will be causing a lot of drag, seem to remember that if you lost engine on takeoff you didn't put the gear up due to the added drag of the doors
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kpax
17SQ. returning Lajes to Coningsby • FighterControl • Military Aviation Forum
If it's this link, then it wasn't the 17 Sqn trail back via Lajes as stated in the photo with the following comment attached
as the trail tanker was a Tristar.... And went back via Montreal and Iceland (and NOT Lajes) due to Hurricane Alice.
17SQ. returning Lajes to Coningsby • FighterControl • Military Aviation Forum
If it's this link, then it wasn't the 17 Sqn trail back via Lajes as stated in the photo with the following comment attached
The consensus by the crew was lets get home ,rather than stay at Lajes and fix it.
Last edited by lj101; 20th Sep 2012 at 17:46.
If I recall when Terry Waite and John McCarthy were flown back from The Lebanon in a VC 10 one of the main gears was locked down for the flight. Certainly looked strange when the appeared overhead.
VC10 GEAR
Wrong nutloose-when the main gear is locked down the main door is closed. In an EFATO situation you definitely retract the gear cos the Perf A figures assume that.
Bingo-you are half right it was only John McCarthy on that flight.
KPax-the undercarraige would only ever be in the fully down position despite how the photo looks.
Bingo-you are half right it was only John McCarthy on that flight.
KPax-the undercarraige would only ever be in the fully down position despite how the photo looks.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,743
Received 2,727 Likes
on
1,160 Posts
Yep we didn't have a photo when I posted, so one was were unaware the gear was locked down. I always thought when losing a couple they didn't retract the gear in an emergency, as the drag of the doors opening initially outweighed the advantages of cleaning it up, instead they retracted lap, Was taught that on my ground course, if my memory serves me right, go figure.
Last edited by NutLoose; 20th Sep 2012 at 20:24.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Upper Deck
Age: 60
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Undercarriage doors.
The drag from gear doors used to be quite an issue on the early 747-100 with its underpowered & initially unreliable P&W JT9's. Selecting gear up cost you about 3kts as the gear doors came down to retract the gear. Of course a quick Flight Eng would want to start fuel dumping, but that cost another 3 kts in the vortex as the fuel flowed out of the pipe at the end of the wing. So 6kts in a heavy underpowered 747 on 3 eng was not too good! Engine failures were so common the boys got quite good at this. I am told early captains waited for V2+3, gear up. When gear lights out & V2+3 fuel dump. Remember this was a marginal situation & fuel dump was considered essential to survival then in the 1970s. Todays -400 bears no comparision, even on 3 it leaps ahead of V2. A skill & understanding may have been lost.
By way, the modified JT9D became very reliable, strong & robust. A superb engine!
By way, the modified JT9D became very reliable, strong & robust. A superb engine!
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember a few years back they had an undercarriage snag on a Nimrod in Halifax I think, they flew it with all gear pinned and locked across the pond, made a few stops if I remember rightly too.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chilling out on the water if it's warm enough
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember a few years back they had an undercarriage snag on a Nimrod in Halifax I think, they flew it with all gear pinned and locked across the pond, made a few stops if I remember rightly too.
Had a similar problem with the Rod but refused to have the gear pinned, over water flight so needed to have the ability to raise the gear in case of ditching. The problem was in the up line so would only have needed enough fluid to raise the gear. Ditching characteristics are difficult enough without having to try with the gear down. Yes did have a bit of flak for refusing the pins but in the end they agreed with my decision.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Norway
Age: 64
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slow Flying VC10
Indirectly related ditt on slow flying VC10s. Many many moons ago, A VC10 was sitting on the pan at a well known base in the Mediterranean during a routine turnaround. It was one of those temporary and normally very short lulls in the turnaround process and there only two personnel in the immediate vicinity of the aircraft. The first was a mover driving a fork lift truck towards the aircraft. The second was a Queens Courier (for those that may not know these individuals were, generally speaking, former WO/SNCOs drawn from all Three Services that worked in conjunction with the British Army's Postal and Courier Services) who was 'guarding' the diplomatic mail that had already been loaded in the forward hold. As the mover approached the aircraft he spotted a piece of FOD on the pan and mindful of the hazard he brought the fork lift truck to a halt and jumped off to remove the offending item. Regrettably, in his enthusiasm he forgot to properly engage the hand brake and, temporarily distracted by the need to collect the FOD, did not notice the vehicles slow but steady progress towards the VC10. By good fortune (very temporary) the QC spotted the impending collision and gallantly intercepted and mounted the fork lift truck in an attempt to halt its progress. Unfortunately the QC somehow confused the brake pedal with the accelerator and almost simultaneously managed to raise the forks which, shortly afterwards, punched two neat holes in the lower surfaces of the fuselage. 
There followed a long, slow and low transit flight back to the UK.
There followed a long, slow and low transit flight back to the UK.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,743
Received 2,727 Likes
on
1,160 Posts
There was a Ten went to Newcastle I believe and The handler/ mover/ bog man reversed into it puncturing the skin, none pressurised flight low level back to Brize...... following week, same man, same truck, same place, different Ten, same hole... Don't think he worked there after that...
Last edited by NutLoose; 21st Sep 2012 at 09:47.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Then of course there have been innumerable occasions when the undercarriage locks have remained in play.
Rarely have I read so much nonsense (apart from the clear, accurate factual account from lj101).....
The 'landing gear down ferry' is a long-established procedure for the VC10, as are other limited serviceability procedures. There is no way that this would be a 'crew decision', the procedure includes agreed approval and specific engineering requirements. In addition, the landing gear down ferry performance criteria must be met.
I'm astonished that some Nimrod air engineer could decide whether or not to abide by promulgated procedures. Or perhaps there weren't any and it was an ad hoc decision? Was the aircraft captain some wireless operator, or what? Did the Nimrod ODM include landing gear down ferry performance data? Were there any specified procedures for preparing the aircraft for such an event? The idea of perhaps risking landing gear collapse on landing due to the vague possibility of needing to ditch is laughable, to say the least.
Regarding VC10 double engine failures, the guidance was that if the failure occured with the landing gear extended, it was better to leave it in that condition rather than attempt to raise it. When the landing gear sequences, the doors move in such a manner as to induce an angle of attack against the relative airflow and hence to generate drag whilst the landing gear extends and retracts...
Doesn't anybody understand such things these days?
The 'landing gear down ferry' is a long-established procedure for the VC10, as are other limited serviceability procedures. There is no way that this would be a 'crew decision', the procedure includes agreed approval and specific engineering requirements. In addition, the landing gear down ferry performance criteria must be met.
I'm astonished that some Nimrod air engineer could decide whether or not to abide by promulgated procedures. Or perhaps there weren't any and it was an ad hoc decision? Was the aircraft captain some wireless operator, or what? Did the Nimrod ODM include landing gear down ferry performance data? Were there any specified procedures for preparing the aircraft for such an event? The idea of perhaps risking landing gear collapse on landing due to the vague possibility of needing to ditch is laughable, to say the least.
Regarding VC10 double engine failures, the guidance was that if the failure occured with the landing gear extended, it was better to leave it in that condition rather than attempt to raise it. When the landing gear sequences, the doors move in such a manner as to induce an angle of attack against the relative airflow and hence to generate drag whilst the landing gear extends and retracts...
Doesn't anybody understand such things these days?
Last edited by BEagle; 21st Sep 2012 at 19:09.
