VC 10 Pilots, please.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VC 10 Pilots, please.
Any ex VC 10 pilots, civil and/or military?
Can you tell me what were/ are the Vne and Mmo on the VC10 variants? ie Standard, Super and military tankers/transports.
Thank you.
Can you tell me what were/ are the Vne and Mmo on the VC10 variants? ie Standard, Super and military tankers/transports.
Thank you.
Not a VC10 pilot myself (my old man was), but this site has some useful info'. I had a quick look and there were some graphs from East African Airways who had the Supers.
Hope it helps.
A Little VC10derness
Hope it helps.
A Little VC10derness
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Formerly resident of Knoteatingham
Posts: 957
Received 121 Likes
on
61 Posts
Queen of the skies
RAF VC 10 C Mk 1 had MMO of .886 indicated and MNE of .935 indicated if memory serves.
Pilot Officer PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Current speeds:
VNO 310 KIAS to 32500' then MNO 0.866 IMN
VNE 397 at sea level to 371 at 28500' (linerly reducing) then MNE 0.94 IMN
"ACMF dated Sep 07"
Tonks
VNO 310 KIAS to 32500' then MNO 0.866 IMN
VNE 397 at sea level to 371 at 28500' (linerly reducing) then MNE 0.94 IMN
"ACMF dated Sep 07"
Tonks
Last edited by Tonkenna; 24th Aug 2008 at 19:45.
Would you care to comment as to why you think they are both incorrect?
I last flew the Tens (Standard, but with droop-snoot wing-tips to enable FL430) in '74 and manuals not with me at the moment as am on 'oliday.
Think the slight discrepancy between the figures of Tonks and POHL may be due to Tonks's being current, wheras POHL's more familiar ones may not be. Perhaps recent revision of Vmo envelope?
By the way, what I do remember is that M0.886 indicated (Mmo) is M0.86 corrected. We used to cruise at 0.86 indicated, which was 0.835 corrected. Don't remember the error being that bad on the B707.
The low Vmo at the lower altitudes was a rather disappointing feature of a great aeroplane.
Think the slight discrepancy between the figures of Tonks and POHL may be due to Tonks's being current, wheras POHL's more familiar ones may not be. Perhaps recent revision of Vmo envelope?
By the way, what I do remember is that M0.886 indicated (Mmo) is M0.86 corrected. We used to cruise at 0.86 indicated, which was 0.835 corrected. Don't remember the error being that bad on the B707.
The low Vmo at the lower altitudes was a rather disappointing feature of a great aeroplane.
Last edited by Chris Scott; 24th Aug 2008 at 17:22. Reason: Clarifications..
I last flew the Tens (Standard, but with droop-snoot wing-tips to enable FL430) in '74 and manuals not with me at the moment as am on 'oliday.
Think the discrepancy between Tonks and POHL may be due to Tonks being current, wheras POHL may be like me. Perhaps recent revision of Vmo envelope?
By the way, what I do remember is that M0.886 indicated (Mmo) is M0.86 corrected. We used to cruise at 0.86 indicated, which was 0.835 corrected. Don't remember the error being that bad on the B707, with its pitot up on the fin?
The low Vmo at sea-level was a rather disappointing feature of a great aeroplane.
Think the discrepancy between Tonks and POHL may be due to Tonks being current, wheras POHL may be like me. Perhaps recent revision of Vmo envelope?
By the way, what I do remember is that M0.886 indicated (Mmo) is M0.86 corrected. We used to cruise at 0.86 indicated, which was 0.835 corrected. Don't remember the error being that bad on the B707, with its pitot up on the fin?
The low Vmo at sea-level was a rather disappointing feature of a great aeroplane.
Nice to get back on topic with constructive info about the VC10, a classic aeroplane. B744 is the current "hotship" (.86 cruise-at least so it used to be prior to the now politically correct era of low cost indices). However, we have forgotten the high performance machines of decades ago; didn't the Convair 990 have a Mach .9 cruise? (Fuel cost not too important in those days!).
Whoops...
Phantom Driver,
Was hoping no one would notice my gaff about the B707 having its pitot up on the fin.
Having realised my “senior moment”, and shot in from the garden to edit it out, thought I’d got away with it. Now find that you’ve actually quoted it in your post, so there’s nothing I can do to conceal the blunder.
Actually, the “pitot” on the B707 fin is the HF antenna… [If memory serves this time, the VC10 uses its whole airframe as the HF antenna.]
Stanley Eevil’s “original” Vno/Mno figures sound right, except that we always referred to Vmo instead of Vno and Mmo instead of Mno. Subtle difference?
337kts at sea level was a bit pedestrian.
Was hoping no one would notice my gaff about the B707 having its pitot up on the fin.
Having realised my “senior moment”, and shot in from the garden to edit it out, thought I’d got away with it. Now find that you’ve actually quoted it in your post, so there’s nothing I can do to conceal the blunder.
Actually, the “pitot” on the B707 fin is the HF antenna… [If memory serves this time, the VC10 uses its whole airframe as the HF antenna.]
Stanley Eevil’s “original” Vno/Mno figures sound right, except that we always referred to Vmo instead of Vno and Mmo instead of Mno. Subtle difference?
337kts at sea level was a bit pedestrian.
That's true, 411A, the (single) "boosted" rudder being the only powered primary flight control on the B707; whereas the VC10's are all (electrically) powered. In the absence of the manuals, I recall 3 separate rudder surfaces, each with a PCU and (series) yaw damper; 4 elevators; and 2 ailerons per wing (outboard only, unlike the Seven-oh).
Having said that, I hasten to add that the balance-panel ailerons and elevators on the 707 seemed to work just as well.
The VC10 secondary controls are all hydraulic. The TPI (trimable horizontal stabiliser) can work off either of 2 hydraulic systems, whereas the 707's, as you well know, is electric with manual backup.
The trouble with the single rudder on the Seven-oh is that the Vmca rises to about 180kts when the "boost" fails, whereas the Ten normally still has 2 powered rudders remaining; unless you've lost all AC electrics, in which case there's no manual capability (which is why they fitted the EL-RAT).
Err.. apologies for the thread drift.
Having said that, I hasten to add that the balance-panel ailerons and elevators on the 707 seemed to work just as well.
The VC10 secondary controls are all hydraulic. The TPI (trimable horizontal stabiliser) can work off either of 2 hydraulic systems, whereas the 707's, as you well know, is electric with manual backup.
The trouble with the single rudder on the Seven-oh is that the Vmca rises to about 180kts when the "boost" fails, whereas the Ten normally still has 2 powered rudders remaining; unless you've lost all AC electrics, in which case there's no manual capability (which is why they fitted the EL-RAT).
Err.. apologies for the thread drift.
Last edited by Chris Scott; 26th Aug 2008 at 09:01. Reason: To confirm rudders are POWERED by AC electrics, not hydraulics
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Finland
Age: 77
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I remember there were three rudder surfaces.
They were powered by electrical systems 4, 1 and 2 or fourpence ha'penny in old money!!!
The VC10 had thrust augmentors and the main spar was milled from the solid.
Don't make them like that these days!!
They were powered by electrical systems 4, 1 and 2 or fourpence ha'penny in old money!!!
The VC10 had thrust augmentors and the main spar was milled from the solid.
Don't make them like that these days!!
Thread drift, but curious how did the electrical primary flight controls work on the VC-10? By electric, I presume you mean NOT hydraulic, hence the question. Were there electric motors driving the surfaces with feel units providing artificial feel?
GF
GF