Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

VC10 quickie

Old 1st Apr 2020, 15:54
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: A place in the sun
Age: 79
Posts: 940
RW 23 was also OK for a 707.
Bergerie1 is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2020, 16:08
  #62 (permalink)  
Gnome de PPRuNe
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 56
Posts: 7,197
I saw a BA 747 land on 23 once...
treadigraph is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2020, 16:18
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 18,223
Originally Posted by RetiredBA/BY View Post
6500 feet for a VC 10, no problem , even at MLW 107, 500 kg ( if IRCC) even with only two reversers.

......and NO Beagle, BOAC instructors did NOT close the HP cocks for engine failure simulation, at least not in my time.

We learned the folly of that after the Meteor bloodbath at Driffied back in 50 s .

RW 23 at LHR was just about 6,500 feet.( yes I know it was used when the xwind on 29 was strong !)
That sounds dodgy, it reminds me of another..

10/08/1947 American Airlines
DC-4 El Paso, Texas

As a prank, a captain riding in the jump seat engaged the gust lock in flight. The command pilot, not knowing the gust lock had been engaged, rolled the elevator trim tab with no response. When the jump seat captain disengaged the gust lock, the aircraft went into into a steep dive, executed part of an outside roll and become inverted. Neither the command nor jump seat captain had seat belts on and they accidentally feathered No. 1, 2 and 4 engines when they hit the controls with their heads. No one realized it at the time but the feathering reduced power and allowed the co-pilot, who was strapped in, to pull out of the dive 350 feet from the ground.
NutLoose is online now  
Old 1st Apr 2020, 17:28
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 1,048
Originally Posted by charliegolf View Post
Didn't they stick one on one side of a VC10 as a testbed? Or did I dream that?

CG

They did!
More on the VC-10 RB-211 Test Bed here: https://www.vc10.net/History/Individual/XR809.html
RAFEngO74to09 is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2020, 17:58
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 3,736
Well, I can well remember landing on 23 at Heathrow in 1984 when I was flying the DC-10-30 and if it had been "only 6,500 feet" that might have got my attention. As it was, it was a complete non-event.

Incidentally, when I was flying DC-10s for Fred, I met one of my old RAF co-pilots overhead Gander one night. I was en route from LAX to LGW and he was flying a VC-10 from IAD to BZZ. He had 139 passengers on board and I had 345 plus 10 tons of freight under the floor. He was burning just a little bit more fuel than I was (somewhere around 18,000 lbs per hour).

There is no doubt that the VC-10 was a wonderful bit of kit but it was very hard to make it a commercial success.
JW411 is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2020, 18:57
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 428
Originally Posted by JW411 View Post
Well, I can well remember landing on 23 at Heathrow in 1984 when I was flying the DC-10-30 and if it had been "only 6,500 feet" that might have got my attention. As it was, it was a complete non-event.
A quick measure of it on google maps indicates that it was about 7400 feet.
Vendee is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2020, 19:25
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: London
Age: 76
Posts: 420
Not just VC10s. Concorde could and did (Exeter, 6,800 feet, 2000m) land on that length of DRY runaway. Vref 160 k, no spoilers but wonderful carbon brakes !

Interesting point on the VC10 /Tristar. I was loaned from BA. to GulfAir when they were changing to the 1011.A dispatcher showed me a VC10 and Tristar fuel plans, almost identical. VC10, 130 ish pax, TriStar 300 plus !
RetiredBA/BY is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2020, 19:25
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 51
Cosford? 3600ft..... Ok it was a BA one, but still a VC-10!
Dave is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2020, 22:27
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Been around the block
Posts: 608
Wasn’t the whole point of the VC-10 to be able to go into hot, high and short fields? To connect the empire?
4runner is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2020, 22:33
  #70 (permalink)  

"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: England
Age: 73
Posts: 3,342
Cosford? 3600ft..... Ok it was a BA one, but still a VC-10!
Not quite. "21 June 2015 Delivery via M6 motorway and Shifnal of 93-ft long main fuselage section to RAFM Cosford – for positioning on airfield for initial reassembly."
Herod is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2020, 22:45
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: LEEK
Posts: 4
Got to say he's right, the BA one landed there I know i watched it land. Took the tops of the trees, very impressive. Early eighties I think.
bainsey is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2020, 22:51
  #72 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,076
Originally Posted by JW411 View Post
Well, I can well remember landing on 23 at Heathrow in 1984 when I was flying the DC-10-30 and if it had been "only 6,500 feet" that might have got my attention. As it was, it was a complete non-event.

Incidentally, when I was flying DC-10s for Fred, I met one of my old RAF co-pilots overhead Gander one night. I was en route from LAX to LGW and he was flying a VC-10 from IAD to BZZ. He had 139 passengers on board and I had 345 plus 10 tons of freight under the floor. He was burning just a little bit more fuel than I was (somewhere around 18,000 lbs per hour).

There is no doubt that the VC-10 was a wonderful bit of kit but it was very hard to make it a commercial success.
Comparing the VC10 with a TriStar is comparing different generations of aircraft. How about compared to a 707? Or a Conway 707? Or a Convair 990?
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2020, 23:21
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,429
Jackonicko,

OK,

707= 865 sold.

VC10 =54 sold.

How about that?
pr00ne is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2020, 23:52
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swindonshire
Posts: 1,955
Originally Posted by Herod View Post
Not quite. "21 June 2015 Delivery via M6 motorway and Shifnal of 93-ft long main fuselage section to RAFM Cosford – for positioning on airfield for initial reassembly."
Cosford has had two VC10s as part of the museum. When it was still the Aerospace Museum, it was home to the BA collection which included VC10 'Victor Mike', which was flown in at some point in 1979/1980 as the collection was assembled. BA provided funding for the upkeep of the aircraft, but withdrew this support in the early 2000s. By that point, the 'mission' of Cosford had changed, after the 'Aerospace Museum' moniker was dropped, and the Trustees of the RAFM, AIUI, were unwilling to spend money on BA airframes when their duty was to RAF and Cold War types rather than civilian airframes (I have a very dim recollection that this is why the Britannia was repainted in RAF colours) Most of the BA aircraft were broken up with some (all?) of the fuselages/nose sections preserved and dispersed to other collections (the Viscount survived intact and went to East Fortune, I think it was), and 'Victor Mike's' fuselage now resides at Brooklands.
Edit - Wrong; the 1-11 is still intact and outside at East Fortune; the 707 was meant to go there in one piece as well, but only the forward fuselage survives.

Cosford was thus lacking a VC10 for a period until 'Bob' arrived - via the M6 as you say.
Archimedes is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2020, 00:19
  #75 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,076
Originally Posted by pr00ne View Post
Jackonicko,

OK,

707= 865 sold.

VC10 =54 sold.

How about that?
I meant with regard to fuel burn. But you knew that, didn't you?
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2020, 00:20
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,429
Jackonicko,


Arf!

pr00ne is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2020, 00:36
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blighty (Nth. Downs)
Age: 74
Posts: 2,095
Originally Posted by ATSA1 View Post
I often wonder about a "Super Super VC10" with 2 RB211s..especially when they were reborn as tankers...
It would have been far more fuel efficient, maybe not as fast, but a quiet VC10? Nah...the lovely noise of those 4 RR Conways were part of the attraction!
When I was on holidayat Ascension, an engineer told me that a VC10 had a similar fuel burn to the Tristars just coming into service, but the Tristar could carry a lot more payload!
I can still remember waking up in the middle of the night in Crawley, hearing the ghostly howl of the British Caledonian VC10s winding down... Luvverly!
Yes, the unique sound of four Conways idling after landing and then spooling down at some tropical aerodrome - so often at night - was the cue to alight from the crew transport and go to work!

Returning to the TS's original question: after the fuel crisis of 1973, the high fuel flows on the VC10 did become a commercial disadvantage. The mature B707-320Cs of BCAL (British Caledonian) with their JT3D turbofans had far superior payload-range capability out of major sea-level airfields, of course, and the days of our handful of early-production VC10s were numbered. But, unlike the Seven-ohs in the days before we introduced engine over-boost and increased V-speeds, they were able to do Nairobi/Gatwick direct. Their superior short-hot-high performance provided our commercial department with occasional charter opportunities, including some Greek islands.

In January 1974 I was P2 on a charter flight with 150 pax from Hurn to Tenerife-North. (Our a/c were "Standard" Type 1103s, which had the "super" wing-chord extension and the "combi" freight door.) IIRC, at that time the Bournemouth runway was only 6000 ft, and TCI (as it was then) was nearly 4 hours. Understandably, the skipper elected to do both legs but allowed me to handle the subsequent empty-ferry BOH/LGW. Because it was not one of our regular aerodromes, "Graduated" T/O thrust (using the assumed-temperature method) was not permissible. So rated thrust was used and, as I throttled back (the Conway is an "N2 engine" for in-flight power settings) to climb thrust passing 2000 ft and called for flaps and slats retraction, the VSI was top of scale so I had to start the push-over immediately to avoid busting the initial cleared altitude of 6000 ft and continue reducing thrust to avoid exceeding the flap-limiting speed..

Another slight advantage of the VC10, with its high, tail-mounted engines close together, was that it could operate on runways narrower than the standard 150 ft. So we introduced a schedule to Blantyre-Chileka (via Nairobi) on behalf of Air Malawi, who bought our last remaining VC10 at the end of 1974. IIRC, Chileka width was/is 90 ft. That advantage over the B707 and DC-8, not to mention the wide-bodies, became less important when Malawi switched its main airport to a new capital city; Lilongwe.
Chris Scott is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2020, 01:12
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 18,223
Spoiler
 

And walking around that it doesn’t bode well for its future, panels off underneath, taxi lights on front fuselage full of water for want of resealing or at least a hole drilled in the bottom of the Perspex cover to let it out.. taking parts off the ones in store at Abingdon showed me how rapidly they could deteriorate in a short space of time stored outside. At the very minimum if the panels are off to prevent condensation then stuff nylon mesh up inside to stop bird ingress.
NutLoose is online now  
Old 2nd Apr 2020, 09:12
  #79 (permalink)  

"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: England
Age: 73
Posts: 3,342
Archimedes. Thanks for that. I stand corrected. Apologies to Dave. I knew there were BA aircraft there "back in the day", but I wasn't aware of the type. I guess at that point I was flying a 737 out of either Stansted or Gatwick, so wasn't involved with the museum.
Herod is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2020, 10:12
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 18,223
BA apprentices I believe used to carry out maintenance on them at Cosford, after they withdrew support, that was when they were broken up, the 707 was a particularly rare example being the sole surviving Conway powered 707 If memory serves me correctly.

more

BA Collection at RAF Cosford under threat (Merged)
NutLoose is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.