VC 10 Pilots, please.
Mechanically signalled electro-hydraulic power flying control units.
Some also had electrically signalled inputs from autopilot and/or yaw damper systems.
Electro-hydraulic artificial feel motors in the whiffle-tree (honest!) compartment provided constant stick force per g in roll and pitch by increasing feel levels with TAS; rudder feel gradient was steeper and was IAS related.
Some also had electrically signalled inputs from autopilot and/or yaw damper systems.
Electro-hydraulic artificial feel motors in the whiffle-tree (honest!) compartment provided constant stick force per g in roll and pitch by increasing feel levels with TAS; rudder feel gradient was steeper and was IAS related.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Hautes Pyrenees,France
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just logged in after a few days away and yes I posted a typo mistake. Mea culpa!
337 kts at sea level the rest was correct.
I am currently looking at the aircrafts original placard as 'salvaged' when I delivered a Standard VC 10 to its final resting place!
Apologies all.
337 kts at sea level the rest was correct.
I am currently looking at the aircrafts original placard as 'salvaged' when I delivered a Standard VC 10 to its final resting place!
Apologies all.
You're lucky, POHL, all I got were a few jagged pieces of fuselage skin and a captain's chart/coffee table (from G-ARTA). But then I was merely a chief stoker (the one most vulnerable to a clip round the ear by the F/E).
Was that IX or DJ?
Was that IX or DJ?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JD
Think BEagle's spelling is correct, JD. As you've picked up on this one, can I offer part of a piece I wrote a few days ago, but decided not to post in case it might be old-hat?
I'm deleting the VC10 bit, which you've just nicely covered. Here goes:
Imagine a wagon drawn by two horses, side-by-side. The idea is to ensure that they share the load equally. How do you make the lazier one do his share of the work? The solution is to attach their harnesses to either side of a transverse bar, which is pivoted vertically on the hitch of the wagon, and free to rotate. As the keener horse pulls ahead, the bar comes forward on his side, but pushes aft on the other side, increasing the load on the lazier horse.
This assembly is known as a whiffle-tree. If the angle of the bar reaches a set limit, as in the event of a failure of one feel-unit, a microswitch will activate a warning.
The BAC 1-11 also uses a whiffle-tree system for its rudder PCU (the only one on the A/C, if memory serves), supplied by 2 hydraulic systems. In the event of one hydraulic system failing, the other continues seamlessly to do the work, and a W/L illuminates. You are then invited to close a "kill lever" (can't remember what its proper name is) to isolate the rudder PCU from the failed (or failing) hydraulic system.
I'm deleting the VC10 bit, which you've just nicely covered. Here goes:
Imagine a wagon drawn by two horses, side-by-side. The idea is to ensure that they share the load equally. How do you make the lazier one do his share of the work? The solution is to attach their harnesses to either side of a transverse bar, which is pivoted vertically on the hitch of the wagon, and free to rotate. As the keener horse pulls ahead, the bar comes forward on his side, but pushes aft on the other side, increasing the load on the lazier horse.
This assembly is known as a whiffle-tree. If the angle of the bar reaches a set limit, as in the event of a failure of one feel-unit, a microswitch will activate a warning.
The BAC 1-11 also uses a whiffle-tree system for its rudder PCU (the only one on the A/C, if memory serves), supplied by 2 hydraulic systems. In the event of one hydraulic system failing, the other continues seamlessly to do the work, and a W/L illuminates. You are then invited to close a "kill lever" (can't remember what its proper name is) to isolate the rudder PCU from the failed (or failing) hydraulic system.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris, I'm sure, when I did the "chalk-and-talk" conversion course on to the "Queen of the Skies" back in 1971, or so, it was referred to as "Wiffle Tree". However, I see from the magic of search engines now that it can be found under both spellings, with and without the "h", so I bow to accepting "Whiffle" as well.
Either way, the WT is an ingenious device. With such an equine history, maybe the "Iron Duck" should really have been the "Iron Horse" ...
JD
Either way, the WT is an ingenious device. With such an equine history, maybe the "Iron Duck" should really have been the "Iron Horse" ...
JD
Touché, JD.
Shocked to hear that perjorative nickname again. Iron Duck, indeed!
Also had my chalk-and-talk course in 1971. At Gatwick. Presume yours was at Braincrank? We used to go there for the sim, invariably in the early hours of the morning, and try not to crash the camera...
Happy days,
Chris
Shocked to hear that perjorative nickname again. Iron Duck, indeed!
Also had my chalk-and-talk course in 1971. At Gatwick. Presume yours was at Braincrank? We used to go there for the sim, invariably in the early hours of the morning, and try not to crash the camera...
Happy days,
Chris
Unfortunately, ever since some Brize Norton station commander - who was a lousy pilot and an extremely arrogant and unpleasant so-and-so - decided that the well-proven VC10 ground school course was 'too long', much of the course was dumbed-down to Janet and John book level. So the delights of the whiffle tree were then lost to all susbequent students.....
As there were several whiffle trees, was that a whiffle thicket or a whiffle copse?
As there were several whiffle trees, was that a whiffle thicket or a whiffle copse?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread drift (2),
I remember flying from Heathrow to Philadelphia in August, 1970 in a BOAC Standard VC10. Was it usual for Standard VC10s to cross the Atlantic or were they pressed into service as a result of the 747 pilots' strike which prevented the airliner's introduction into service in May, 1970? I'd welcome information from anyone in the know. Thanks.
I remember flying from Heathrow to Philadelphia in August, 1970 in a BOAC Standard VC10. Was it usual for Standard VC10s to cross the Atlantic or were they pressed into service as a result of the 747 pilots' strike which prevented the airliner's introduction into service in May, 1970? I'd welcome information from anyone in the know. Thanks.
Just on the off chance does anyone have a copy of the wonderfully "Pythonesque" take off briefing attributed to a VC-10 skipper IIRC. It appeared on these fora some years ago, and search as I might I have been unable to find it.
Reference to the "Whiffle Tree" reminded me of it.
Apologies in advance for taking the thread off at a tangent!
Reference to the "Whiffle Tree" reminded me of it.
Apologies in advance for taking the thread off at a tangent!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A while ago, I posted the following "Unwin-esque", which I witnessed being delivered deadpan on a VC10 many moons ago ...
Was that it?
JD
"In the embly of a hapling on takeoff, I will bandload the takeover, spurn on the hornpecker, heavelip madly on the slideload levers and splatly most on the drake pedlars, with severe gripe on the bum loadings - most nauseacres!
Any questables?"
Any questables?"
Was that it?
JD
Jumbo driver I am forever in your debt.....
I am looking forward to reciting it to my next Far Eastern ("ICAO English proficiency level 4" (sic)) F/O. And then asking if there are any questions on the T/O briefing?
It will amuse me anyway........ Once again many thanks.
I am looking forward to reciting it to my next Far Eastern ("ICAO English proficiency level 4" (sic)) F/O. And then asking if there are any questions on the T/O briefing?
It will amuse me anyway........ Once again many thanks.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wiltshire uk
Age: 62
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Standard model VC10s were a regular moment across the Atlantic in the early days - then the Super mdoel took over. Of note BOAC kept a spruced up Standard in reserve at LHR in case the Super scheduled for a blue riband service to JFK, went tech.
Even the Super lacked the range for a non-stop- LHR to SFO. LAX, or YVR. That did not stop BOAC routing them Montreal- Vancouver or ORD -SFO/LAX and thence across the pacific on the round the world service though.
The lighter, less powerful 707-336 had more range andcould do the LHR- USA west coast hop in one go- which was one of the 707s few advantages of the VC10. Having said that of course, no 707 (nor 747!) could leave Nairobi at full load on a hot day and fly non stop to London or Frankfurt - the VC10 could of course.
And the EAA Supers use to thunder out of NBO at max AUW, on hot mornings for non stops to Europe, whilst the 707 operators had to reduce payload, reduce fuel and then drop into Cairo for refuel - an extra stop with less pax and freight out of NBO.
So, the so-called 'advantages' of the 707 -so often cited agains the VC10, were in fact, not so. And even the 747 100s and -200s were also limited out of NBO- whereas the 'old' SVC 10s were not.
According to published figures, teh oeprating costs of teh 707 adn teh Super VC10 across teh Atlantic were far clsoer than the statemetns adn legends portrayed at the time. Contrary to the BOAC 'Boeing' boardroom, the SVC10s were within about 6 cents (US) of the slightly cheaper to operate 707 - it certainyl was not the couple of dollars differnce per seat mile that was claimed - adn the VC10 did not rebuilding at 30,000 hours did it.
I best stop, thread creep and I can hear the criticism from here.
VC10- desinged, built and test flown by the men who did the same for Concorde.
Even the Super lacked the range for a non-stop- LHR to SFO. LAX, or YVR. That did not stop BOAC routing them Montreal- Vancouver or ORD -SFO/LAX and thence across the pacific on the round the world service though.
The lighter, less powerful 707-336 had more range andcould do the LHR- USA west coast hop in one go- which was one of the 707s few advantages of the VC10. Having said that of course, no 707 (nor 747!) could leave Nairobi at full load on a hot day and fly non stop to London or Frankfurt - the VC10 could of course.
And the EAA Supers use to thunder out of NBO at max AUW, on hot mornings for non stops to Europe, whilst the 707 operators had to reduce payload, reduce fuel and then drop into Cairo for refuel - an extra stop with less pax and freight out of NBO.
So, the so-called 'advantages' of the 707 -so often cited agains the VC10, were in fact, not so. And even the 747 100s and -200s were also limited out of NBO- whereas the 'old' SVC 10s were not.
According to published figures, teh oeprating costs of teh 707 adn teh Super VC10 across teh Atlantic were far clsoer than the statemetns adn legends portrayed at the time. Contrary to the BOAC 'Boeing' boardroom, the SVC10s were within about 6 cents (US) of the slightly cheaper to operate 707 - it certainyl was not the couple of dollars differnce per seat mile that was claimed - adn the VC10 did not rebuilding at 30,000 hours did it.
I best stop, thread creep and I can hear the criticism from here.
VC10- desinged, built and test flown by the men who did the same for Concorde.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Alloway
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perrin
Ah there was the most loved standard (Queen of the skys) and that was Victor Mike, remember working on it at Prestwick with the crew training. Was a great bit of kit and thats coming from a American who moved to the UK years ago.
Keep them up Boys
Keep them up Boys
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Finncapt",
I think you are right about the London-New York-Los Angeles-Honolulu-Fiji-Sydney VC10 routing. I have a BOAC timetable somewhere but can't locate it immediately to check!
I recall a most memorable landing as a passenger at LAX on a Super VC10 from JFK: it was in the evening of 4 July, 1972 (Independence Day) with one of those gorgeous southern Californian summer sunsets. What made it memorable is that I'd never before arrived at an airport with parallel runways where both were being used for landings. A Western Boeing 720 was at our side as we descended.
The return LAX-JFK leg was a night transcontinental crossing - barely 5 hours in the Super VC10 - with the aircraft then operating the morning JFK-LHR run. What I remember about the landing at JFK was how "firm" it was.
I think you are right about the London-New York-Los Angeles-Honolulu-Fiji-Sydney VC10 routing. I have a BOAC timetable somewhere but can't locate it immediately to check!
I recall a most memorable landing as a passenger at LAX on a Super VC10 from JFK: it was in the evening of 4 July, 1972 (Independence Day) with one of those gorgeous southern Californian summer sunsets. What made it memorable is that I'd never before arrived at an airport with parallel runways where both were being used for landings. A Western Boeing 720 was at our side as we descended.
The return LAX-JFK leg was a night transcontinental crossing - barely 5 hours in the Super VC10 - with the aircraft then operating the morning JFK-LHR run. What I remember about the landing at JFK was how "firm" it was.
There is no doubt that the VC-10 suffered from being an unwanted child, forced onto BOAC by a government trying to support the British aircraft industry. However, as BOAC were also state-owned and supported organization, the government should not have tolerated their campaign against the VC-10, which seems motivated by a burning desire to place orders with Boeing.
I believe that people who have flown both the 707 and the VC-10 are fairly unanimous that the Boeing product was a superior commercial machine, with a generally much healthier range/payload. However, in the state-controlled economy of the 1960's, once the government had given approval for Vickers to go ahead with building the VC-10, it seems incredible that their own airline were allowed to order a rival aircraft, even if it was superior in many respects.
Before this thread becomes more suited to history and nostalgia, back to technical issues. The flying controls are actuated by self-contained hydraulic units powered from the aircraft's electrical system. Redundancy is achieved by split surfaces, each powered by a different AC bus. The aircraft has 4 engine-driven generators (rather than 3 on the 707) - plus a ram-air turbine to keep some surfaces powered if all gens fail. Reversionary control is achieved by using differential hydraulic spoilers for roll and the horizontal stabilizer for pitch. The latter is the only surface that has a duplex source of power (both hydraulic).
To add to the information about speed limits; the aircraft had warning horns that sounded at the Mmo of IMn 0.886. The circuit breakers for these could be pulled and the aircraft flown up to IMn 0.925 (Mne) for "crew-training" purposes (although the autopilot was only cleared to Mmo). It's quite amazing how much "crew-training" took place on VIP tasks! In it's later years the speeds were all reduced for airworthiness reasons and with all the AAR kit hanging from the aircraft it could only be coaxed to reach the airtest limit in a gentle descent. The IMn is 0.02 higher than true, so for comparison the old Mmo was really .866 (nowadays even lower) - which puts paid to a lot of the "fastest airliner" claims. The 747-400 routinely cruises at .85 or .86 true and is still RVSM compliant at .90. The old VC10 is still faster than Airbus ships though!
I believe that people who have flown both the 707 and the VC-10 are fairly unanimous that the Boeing product was a superior commercial machine, with a generally much healthier range/payload. However, in the state-controlled economy of the 1960's, once the government had given approval for Vickers to go ahead with building the VC-10, it seems incredible that their own airline were allowed to order a rival aircraft, even if it was superior in many respects.
Before this thread becomes more suited to history and nostalgia, back to technical issues. The flying controls are actuated by self-contained hydraulic units powered from the aircraft's electrical system. Redundancy is achieved by split surfaces, each powered by a different AC bus. The aircraft has 4 engine-driven generators (rather than 3 on the 707) - plus a ram-air turbine to keep some surfaces powered if all gens fail. Reversionary control is achieved by using differential hydraulic spoilers for roll and the horizontal stabilizer for pitch. The latter is the only surface that has a duplex source of power (both hydraulic).
To add to the information about speed limits; the aircraft had warning horns that sounded at the Mmo of IMn 0.886. The circuit breakers for these could be pulled and the aircraft flown up to IMn 0.925 (Mne) for "crew-training" purposes (although the autopilot was only cleared to Mmo). It's quite amazing how much "crew-training" took place on VIP tasks! In it's later years the speeds were all reduced for airworthiness reasons and with all the AAR kit hanging from the aircraft it could only be coaxed to reach the airtest limit in a gentle descent. The IMn is 0.02 higher than true, so for comparison the old Mmo was really .866 (nowadays even lower) - which puts paid to a lot of the "fastest airliner" claims. The 747-400 routinely cruises at .85 or .86 true and is still RVSM compliant at .90. The old VC10 is still faster than Airbus ships though!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Finland
Age: 77
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B.P:
You've reminded me of the aileron/spoiler disconnect lever.
If you disconnect it and apply full opposite lateral control on each stick, the aicraft turns in the direction of the co-pilots control wheel - the spoilers are the more powerful.
You've reminded me of the aileron/spoiler disconnect lever.
If you disconnect it and apply full opposite lateral control on each stick, the aicraft turns in the direction of the co-pilots control wheel - the spoilers are the more powerful.
VC10s vs late-model B707s
Quote from Slats One:
The lighter, less powerful 707-336 had more range and could do the LHR- USA west coast hop in one go- which was one of the 707s few advantages of the VC10. Having said that of course, no 707 (nor 747!) could leave Nairobi at full load on a hot day and fly non stop to London or Frankfurt - the VC10 could of course.
[Unquote]
You’ve summarised it nicely, but I think it was the VC10 that had the “few advantages”. As one who was posted from RHS Standard VC10 to RHS B707-320C(advanced), when BCAL sold our last ‘Ten’ (G-ASIW) at the end of 1974, it was not long before I operated to both LAX and NBO in the Seven-oh.
On the 707, LGW-LAX (~10:30) was pushing it with a charter load, but easily done with 140-150 pax. I think the longest flight-time on a laden Standard VC10 was little over 9hrs, retaining reserves.
Out of Nairobi, our under-powered 707s − operated under the conventional take-off techniques of the day − were limited to about 129T (tonnes), about 22T below structural. Our Standard VC10s (with the droop-snoot wing tips to enable FL430), could manage about 142T (only ½T below structural). This didn’t handicap the 707 quite as much as it seems, because the Boeing was a lighter airframe and burned much less fuel at a given gross weight. But it certainly couldn’t carry a decent payload NBO-LON (which we ex-VC10 pilots were well advised not to point out, if we wanted a smooth conversion course in that cramped, uncomfortable cockpit…).
This embarrassing situation was ameliorated in 1975/6, when we managed to increase the Nairobi RTOW to about 136T: partly by a dispensation to over-boost the engines; but mainly by introducing the increased-V2 technique − now the norm − to improve second-segment climb gradient, taking advantage of the 13000-foot runway. By that time, however, our slots on the route had been given to BOAC in exchange for somewhere else, so it was only the occasional freighter that benefited.
Yet again, the ubiquitous 707 had been “tweaked” to improve its performance and profitability. The VC10s that we flew were among the first 20 off the production line; the 707s nearer the thousandth. The “Ten” design never had a chance to mature.
Once the 707 is above the safety altitude, its configuration makes it inevitably more efficient than the VC10. The “Ten” is also heavily over-engineered. By the 1970s the Conway by-pass engine, far superior to the JT3C turbojet on early Seven-ohs, had been bettered in efficiency − though notably not in power − by the JT3D turbofan of later 707s. Presumably, no suitable replacement engine was available. If the VC10 had been re-engined with two big turbofans like the RB211, CF6 or JT9D − all available by the mid-1970s − it might have been a (stretchable?) improvement, but long-haul twins were non-existent in those pre-ETOPS days. And I can’t imagine any VC10 derivative being able to carry 39T of tomatoes from Las Palmas to Schiphol.
It was all BOAC’s fault, apparently, in insisting on short-hot-high runway performance…
But what a beautiful thing she is.
The lighter, less powerful 707-336 had more range and could do the LHR- USA west coast hop in one go- which was one of the 707s few advantages of the VC10. Having said that of course, no 707 (nor 747!) could leave Nairobi at full load on a hot day and fly non stop to London or Frankfurt - the VC10 could of course.
[Unquote]
You’ve summarised it nicely, but I think it was the VC10 that had the “few advantages”. As one who was posted from RHS Standard VC10 to RHS B707-320C(advanced), when BCAL sold our last ‘Ten’ (G-ASIW) at the end of 1974, it was not long before I operated to both LAX and NBO in the Seven-oh.
On the 707, LGW-LAX (~10:30) was pushing it with a charter load, but easily done with 140-150 pax. I think the longest flight-time on a laden Standard VC10 was little over 9hrs, retaining reserves.
Out of Nairobi, our under-powered 707s − operated under the conventional take-off techniques of the day − were limited to about 129T (tonnes), about 22T below structural. Our Standard VC10s (with the droop-snoot wing tips to enable FL430), could manage about 142T (only ½T below structural). This didn’t handicap the 707 quite as much as it seems, because the Boeing was a lighter airframe and burned much less fuel at a given gross weight. But it certainly couldn’t carry a decent payload NBO-LON (which we ex-VC10 pilots were well advised not to point out, if we wanted a smooth conversion course in that cramped, uncomfortable cockpit…).
This embarrassing situation was ameliorated in 1975/6, when we managed to increase the Nairobi RTOW to about 136T: partly by a dispensation to over-boost the engines; but mainly by introducing the increased-V2 technique − now the norm − to improve second-segment climb gradient, taking advantage of the 13000-foot runway. By that time, however, our slots on the route had been given to BOAC in exchange for somewhere else, so it was only the occasional freighter that benefited.
Yet again, the ubiquitous 707 had been “tweaked” to improve its performance and profitability. The VC10s that we flew were among the first 20 off the production line; the 707s nearer the thousandth. The “Ten” design never had a chance to mature.
Once the 707 is above the safety altitude, its configuration makes it inevitably more efficient than the VC10. The “Ten” is also heavily over-engineered. By the 1970s the Conway by-pass engine, far superior to the JT3C turbojet on early Seven-ohs, had been bettered in efficiency − though notably not in power − by the JT3D turbofan of later 707s. Presumably, no suitable replacement engine was available. If the VC10 had been re-engined with two big turbofans like the RB211, CF6 or JT9D − all available by the mid-1970s − it might have been a (stretchable?) improvement, but long-haul twins were non-existent in those pre-ETOPS days. And I can’t imagine any VC10 derivative being able to carry 39T of tomatoes from Las Palmas to Schiphol.
It was all BOAC’s fault, apparently, in insisting on short-hot-high runway performance…
But what a beautiful thing she is.