VC10 quickie

[Downwind.Maddl-Land]

Originally Posted by ShyTorque

The score cards got even more disrespectful later - the landing got either a "Magic" or "Crap".

Confirmed! There was also the addition of a 'flashing' version of each score. (And no, I wasn't responsible for the change! - it was de facto on my arrival).

[Hot 'n' High]

Blimey, Jackonicko, what a fascinating Thread this has become, particularly if you dive out into the likes of VC10.net! Any thoughts on changing the Thread title to "The amazing VC10 Thread" or similar?!!!!!!!!

I actually started my Aviation "Maintenance" career on a VC10. Erm, I wasn't exactly qualified to do so as I was still at school at the time. And the VC10 subjected to my "tinkering" was none other than XR809/G-AXLR which has already been mentioned above. Realising that maybe it was a tad unairworthy, a couple of small panels appeared in my bedroom as a result.

Now, in my defence, M'lud, it was on the Dump at RAF Kemble at the time looking very much like Image 26 at C/n 829 - XR809 when I made my valiant but unsuccessful effort to clear the outstanding defects in the 700 and get her back to the Line "S", and my covert ingress/egress route to the aircraft from the fence would have helped me in the SAS - had I followed that particular Military career.

It's a fair cop I guess so I best I fess up. Later on I became slightly more productive in helping to keep the FAA and RAF in the air for 3 decades. Well, that's my opinion - other's may differ with their thoughts on that.

Ah, 1976/77 - happy days! Cheers, H 'n' H

[MrBernoulli]

Originally Posted by frieghtdog2000

The Standards had reversers on the outboards only - Supers on all four but the the inboards were idled by 100 kts to prevent ingestion to the outboards.

Are you sure about that? I thought it was only the prototype, and maybe a couple of the very early production airframes, that had reversers on all four. Haven't got my various books to hand, but I think I am correct.

In any event, I flew all the VC10 variants in RAF service, and all of them were outboard engine reversers only - the K2 (originally BOAC/Gulf Air standard VC10s); K3 (originally East African Airways super VC10s); K4 (originally BOAC/BA super VC10s); and the C1/C1K (directly acquired by RAF from Vickers, a sort of 'hybrid' with standard fuselage, super wing, and some other super mods).

Originally Posted by RetiredBA/BY

Initially BOAC VC 10s had four reversers., the inboards were later removed, something to do with tailplane oscillation, IIRC.
Effect on landing distance was negligible..

Maybe because the effect of any of the VC10 reversers was negligible? 😂 I have a recollection it was fin vibration, so similar.

[Jetset 88]

ATSA1 - loved your line through "on holiday" in your post about when you were at Ascension. It tickled me pink.
Must have passed you in Concertina City sometime in 82. Rgds

[ATSA1]

70plus - I did indeed stay in Concertina city, but I didnt get my holiday tan until November 83...My VC10 flight down from BZN was cancelled due to a fleet grounding due to an aileron problem I think...anyone else recall? But 14 hours in a C130 was a poor substitute!

But my return to Blighty in May 84 was indeed courtesy of a VC10..XV106.. a cargo fit, but empty, apart from a couple of rows of seats at the back...I think there were about 6 of us as pax...

We did manage a game of football with a tennis ball on the way back, tripping over the track rollers!...until the ball hit the cabin door got hit hard by a flying volley, and one of the crew came out and told us "turn it in"

Can I claim the only football game played in an airborne VC10?

[Chris Scott]

Entebbe/Gatwick direct off the old runway

Originally Posted by WHBM

Although I can't find a BUA timetable of the era (used to have them though, inevitably lost over decades in the school-uni-rented flats-first house progression), BOAC very kindly put the BUA VC-10 from Lusaka in their own timetable. Here's 1966. By this time Salisbury has had to be given up, though SAA have stepped into the breach.
http://www.timetableimages.com/ttima...66/ba66-24.jpg
BR212 - Fridays
Lusaka - 1035
Ndola - 1120/1205
Entebbe - 1515/1615
Gatwick - 2230

Yes, WHBM. As you know, BUA had to give up SAY soon after Rhodesia declared UDI on 11/11/65. But actually you didn't lose this BUA "winter" timetable for 1964/5, which you posted on a previous thread about BUA's unique, night-stopping, West African coastal service:
http://www.timetableimages.com/ttima...64/br64-06.jpg

Salisbury 08:00 (06:00Z) - 08:50 Lusaka-City 09:35 - 10;20 Ndola 11:05 (09:05Z) - 14:15 (11:15Z).Entebbe 15:15 (12:15Z) - 20:30Z Gatwick.
So scheduled flight time NLA/EBB about 1:50, and EBB/LGW about 8:00.

I never did Ndola, but remember flying the same a/c out of ENTEBBE on the next sector in that schedule - the direct leg to Gatwick - in the early 1970s before Rwy 17/35 was constructed. At that time, Rwy 12/30 was 9875 ft long at an aerodrome elevation of 3789 ft (later corrected to 3782 ft); Rwy 12 slope was 0.36% down. No stopways, but the clearways were maximal over Lake Victoria.

Unlike Nairobi's much longer runway, where we could use Flap 14.5 for the T/O, thereby improving the WAT (second-segment climb) performance, at Entebbe we had to use Flaps 20 if the RTOW was critical. Like Ndola, however, runway characteristics were more limiting than WAT. In calm conditions, Rwy 12 was preferable to Rwy 30, owing to its down-slope of 0.36%. However, due to that down-slope, the brake kinetic-energy limited the V1 slightly below optimum for the "R" value. That led to an RTOW of 138,500 kg (nearly 4 tonnes below structural). At that weight, the speeds would be as follows:
V1 = 132; VR = 152; V2 = 160; Minimum FRIS (flap-retraction initiation speed) = 190; Minimum clean speed (V2 [20] + 60) = 220.

After T/O with Flap 20, our SOP didn't permit an early retraction to Flaps 14.5. Once back to climb thrust at 1500 ft QFE, the climb with Flaps 20 to the flap-retraction altitude (either 2000ft or 3000ft, I forget which) was comparatively sluggish, sometimes exacerbated at night by an inversion of temperature. It was essential to level off for the flaps/slats retraction segment, which was initiated at Min FRIS (see above). The target then was to reach the minimum clean speed of, in this example, 220 kt, before the flap and slat retraction was completed, without exceeding the VFE of 229 kt. Acceleration in level flight was not brilliant and it was common for the first tier of the stall protection system - engine ignition - to be triggered briefly at some point, causing amber stall-ignition lights to flicker on the flight-engineer's panel. They didn't like that much...

So what kind of payload would be possible at a T.O.W. of 138.5T (138,500 kg), assuming a flight time to Gatwick of 8:00 hrs, using Manchester as the alternate? Initial cruise altitude on a Type 1103 would be FL350, with a step climb to FL390 around Kufra (south-east Libya), coasting out near Benghazi and step-climbing to FL430 near Elba. Trip fuel would be about 47.8T plus reserves of about 7.4T at take-off, giving a T/O fuel requirement of 55.2T (56.1T ramp fuel). Assuming a typical Dry Operating Weight of 70.0T, the maximum payload would be 13.3T (ZFW 83.3T). Allowing an average of 100 kg per adult passenger with baggage, that would have enabled a full cabin in BUA's scheduled all-economy config (132Y) pertaining in 1964/5.

[NutLoose]

I seem to remember one came back from Kenya with the gear down after nose gear problems.

[Chris Scott]

Originally Posted by NutLoose

I seem to remember one came back from Kenya with the gear down after nose gear problems.

That would have been interesting. Don't think I can lay my hands on any figures for empty U/C-down ferrying.

I feel a bit out of order posting data for BUA's Type 1103, as none of them was ever acquired by the RAF, although we (BCAL) eventually sold one (G-ATDJ) to HMG. I think the RAF C1 (can't remember which Type number that was, but perhaps Jhieminga will remind us) mentioned above by MrBernoulli shared similarities with the Type 1103: "Standard" fuselage with main-deck cargo door and "Super" wing-chord extension. However, its performance would have been different because it had more powerful Conways than ours. It also had an APU (what we would have done for that!) and, IIRC, a fin tank like the Super VC10s. The fin tank may have improved the cruise performance by providing a more aft CG when the centre tank was full, enabling less nose-up trim on the TPI.

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by Chris Scott

So what kind of payload would be possible at a T.O.W. of 138.5T (138,500 kg), assuming a flight time to Gatwick of 8:00 hrs, using Manchester as the alternate? ... Allowing an average of 100 kg per adult passenger with baggage, that would have enabled a full cabin in BUA's scheduled all-economy config (132Y) pertaining in 1964/5.

As those who handled these routes at the time may recall, there is a longstanding airfreight demand from Europe southward to Africa, comprising all sorts from medical supplies, car parts, electronics, in fact just about anything that you don't want to turn up 3 months later via seafreight and onward overland transport with more than half smashed or pilfered. Return loads not much. This suited the MTOWs of sea level takeoffs in Europe compared to the hot & high ones in Africa.

Nowadays with more capable and capacious aircraft, the northbound cargo space available is what has driven the fresh foodstuffs and flowers export development from East Africa to Europe. Sometimes argued against by the Greta team for airfreighting, but in fact it's just taking advantage of marginal capacity which otherwise always returned empty.

I did hear that the main time the pax cabin was full northbound was when all the expat kids were returning to boarding school, apparently flights that were an interesting challenge for the cabin crew. I wonder if you could make any reduction in allowable weight per pax then.

[NutLoose]

Originally Posted by Chris Scott

That would have been interesting. Don't think I can lay my hands on any figures for empty U/C-down ferrying.

I seem to remember they were on the way into Nairobi and couldn't get the nose gear down, after several attempts it locked, but they warned the tower to scramble the fire service in case, rolling down the runway the Loadie expressed his disgust at passing what was no more that an couple of guys in a ropy looking vehicle.. It was decided to fly it back the UK gear down and erm burnt a weee bit of fuel.

[Ascend Charlie]

The world went through a rear-engine phase with the VC-10 "Hushhh Power", the DC-9, and the B 727 "Nothin' hush here, buddy!"

Why are there no more rear engines, apart from the Bizjets which are too low to the ground to have them underslung? The good points at the time were that the engine noise was behind most of the pax, the wing was clean and more efficient, and asymmetrics were easier to handle.

But why no big rear-jets any more?

[Runaway Gun]

The engines slung under the wings help prevent fatigue issues with excessing wing bending with lift - the engine weight helps oppose it.

[Ironpot]

Runaway Gun - brilliant moniker!

[Jhieminga]

Correct on all counts Chris The original RAF variant has type number 1106, but was relabeled to a type 1180 when converted for inflight refuelling. Starting with the Ghana Airways type 1102s, the wing basically stayed the same for both the newer Standards and the Supers, apart from a different configuration of outboard fences and some small changes to the leading edge next to the fuselage.

[ScouseFlyer]

Nut Loose
Same thing happened to me mid October 1976-return flight from Nairobi on EAA, scheduled stop in Rome following an earlier stop in Cairo, only to be told we were being turfed off as, if my fading memory is correct, the aircraft had developed an hydraulic fault and would have to return to Heathrow with gear down.
SF

[Cornish Jack]

A little diversion for the aficionados, of which, obviously, there are many!
The piccie below is from my 'workshop' and shows 3 VC10 related items - one obvious, one less so and for VERY early 'users' and the third totally obscure!! Any takers?

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by Cornish Jack

The piccie below is from my 'workshop'

I must show this to Mrs WHBM , who makes comments occasionally about my couple of shelves of old timetables, to demonstrate what the house MIGHT have been like ...

[Fareastdriver]

The engines slung under the wings help prevent fatigue issues with excessing wing bending with lift - the engine weight helps oppose it.

When I did my tanker ground school in 1962 it was at that time believed that the VC10 tanker was just around the corner. They even had built up instruction boards showing the fuel system etc.

The Valiant always flew with two 12,500 lb capacity underwing tanks, normally full at takeoff and transferred when the fuselage and wing fuel could accept it. Even then one would balance the fuel 66/33 % fuselage/wings. They Valiant was withdrawn in from service in 1965 owing to fatigue corrosion in the wing roots. Would the Valiant have operated without these tanks then the spars would have failed much earlier.

The VC10 tanker could well have been in service by 1965.

[Cornish Jack]

WHBM - just as well I posed my piccie in the tidy working area!

[Chris Scott]

Originally Posted by WHBM

As those who handled these routes at the time may recall, there is a longstanding airfreight demand from Europe southward to Africa, comprising all sorts from medical supplies, car parts, electronics, in fact just about anything that you don't want to turn up 3 months later via seafreight and onward overland transport with more than half smashed or pilfered. Return loads not much. This suited the MTOWs of sea level takeoffs in Europe compared to the hot & high ones in Africa.

Yes, as a boyhood example I well remember in the early 1960s the long and frustrating wait to complete my collection of War Planes of the Second World War by William Green...
In the 1970s on our passenger schedules, of course, we crews used to stash all sorts of stuff away in the bulk holds of VC10s and B707s when departing from East and West African airfields, the most popular items being fruit - often packed in tall, wicker baskets with lids, one of which we still use in my household for dirty laundry. During the sugar shortages of 1973(?) in Blighty, when I was on the VC10, the Nairobi street market supplied two-kilo, brown-paper bags of golden granulated that kept us going through the crisis. Then, during the Heath power cuts, I remember bringing back an excellent Tilly lamp - later much surprised to find it was Chinese-made...

Originally Posted by WHBM

Nowadays with more capable and capacious aircraft, the northbound cargo space available is what has driven the fresh foodstuffs and flowers export development from East Africa to Europe. Sometimes argued against by the Greta team for airfreighting, but in fact it's just taking advantage of marginal capacity which otherwise always returned empty.

Quite. In the early 1960s BUA operated an ex-Hunting Clan freighter service with a DC-6A via SAY to JNB (which, IIRC, also carried a few pax). There was also TMA with DC-4s and DC-6A. But, from the late '60s into the 1970s there were Transglobe/Tradewinds with CL-44s and then B707-320Cs; IAS (DC-8-50F?); Trek Airways (B707-320C with uprated JT3Ds); Jack Malloch's Affretair, based in Salisbury, for which the runway was greatly extended for sanctions-busting; and several others whose names elude me.

Originally Posted by WHBM

I did hear that the main time the pax cabin was full northbound was when all the expat kids were returning to boarding school, apparently flights that were an interesting challenge for the cabin crew. I wonder if you could make any reduction in allowable weight per pax then.

That figure I floated of 100 kg per adult with baggage is just a rule of thumb that many of us have long used as one of the gross-error checks of a loadsheet that typically arrives on your lap a few minutes before departure. In my experience, baggage was weighed but standard figures used for pax weights. They are higher now but, in the 1960s/70s, these were (kgs): M = 75; F = 65; Child (below 12 yrs?) = 39; Infant (below 2 yrs) = 8. But, if he wanted to make himself really unpopular with the station staff, the skipper could demand that each or some of the pax be individually weighed. I think this was done sometimes for the school children you mention!. Human nature suggests that, in view of the delay involved, it would only be done if the skipper was persuaded it might avert having to off-load firmly-booked passengers...