Vickers VC-10 Projects

Hi,


here is a Super VC-10 artist drawing.
 

Attachments

  • VC-10.png
    VC-10.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 283
OK chaps and chapesses, I'm on the tap.

I'm helping out with a VC10 book and for the projects chapter, have been trying to find a side-view of the Triple and Double fuselage VC10s, specifically the fin shape.

Your mission, should you chose to accept it, is to proceed up to Nung river in a Navy patrol boat find a drawing (with a reliable source) of the fin for the VC10 Double and Triple.

Thanks

Chris
 
Chris,

Derek Wood's Project Cancelled (2nd Edition) shows a good 3-View of the Double-Decker on page 227, and on page 228, a very detailed cross-section through the fuselage.

Robert
 
Thanks, but it's the double and Triple fuselage jobs I'm after.

Chris
 
CJGibson said:
Thanks, but it's the double and Triple fuselage jobs I'm after.

Chris

My bad! But I think you'll find your answer in reply #11
 
I'd suggest that for an educated guess the tails would resemble VC-10 tails without the tailplanes at the top...
 
Maybe so, but I'd rather not estimate anything if there's a proper drawing available.

Thanks

Chris
 
Just noticed this thread doesn't appear to have a link to the 16 page brochure on the double deck VC10 (sorry Chris it only has one fuselage) at this webpage:



http://www.vc10.net/History/doubledeck_super_vc10.html
 

Attachments

  • DDVC10.jpg
    DDVC10.jpg
    58.5 KB · Views: 438
Chris,


They may not have had any side views drawn - they are 'notional' layouts and the top and front views give what is needed.


If forced to guess, the double bubble one with underwing engines would be a good guess. Maybe compare the fin length from top views in post 10?
 
CJGibson said:
Maybe so, but I'd rather not estimate anything if there's a proper drawing available.

Thanks

Chris

I was also suggesting that the side view of the top image in Reply #11 might be a good place to start, but I understand why you want a proper drawing.

I'm trying to remember where I've seen these double and triple fuselage drawings before, I'm sure there was a side view in them which is why I turned to the Project Cancelled book. Have you tried asking the VC-10 expert at Air-Britain ? I think there was an article in their Aero-Militaria magazine some time ago.
 
As one who has previously created imaginary twin fuselage versions of existing types, I can testify that quite often I only did a two-view plan as I found the side view was almost exactly the same as that of the regular version. Perhaps that's the reason they didn't bother with the side view either? Perhaps it simply looked like a regular VC.10 profile view...
 
I prefer not to extrapolate features. Anyway, the tail assembly on the Double and Triple are completely different as the tailplanes are mounted on the fuselage.

Chris
 
Asymmetric engines.

http://archive.aviationweek.com/image/spread/19690602/129/2
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    116.3 KB · Views: 501
There's a whole page about the VC-10 test bed for the RB211 over here:
http://www.vc10.net/History/Individual/XR809.html
 

Attachments

  • VC-10 G_AXLR-01.jpg
    VC-10 G_AXLR-01.jpg
    47.6 KB · Views: 507
Arjen said:
There's a whole page about the VC-10 test bed for the RB211 over here:
http://www.vc10.net/History/Individual/XR809.html

Thank you my dear Arjen.
 
Dear Boys & Girls, here are a pair of vintage photographs that I bought earlier this month at the Heathrow Aviation Enthusiasts' Air Fair at Kempton Park showing the original BAC VC10 Super 200 design (which remained a project, but wasn't "secret")......

Terry (Caravellarella)
 

Attachments

  • Super VC10-200 - 1.......jpg
    Super VC10-200 - 1.......jpg
    910.1 KB · Views: 364
  • Super VC10-200 - 2.......jpg
    Super VC10-200 - 2.......jpg
    916.7 KB · Views: 378
Gorgeous pics! "Dear Boys & Girls"! The twisted sense of humour! The same old avatar!

It's almost as if you'd never left, Caravellarella. Good to have you back on board...
 

Attachments

  • C5OtVRHWAAEI3bv.jpg
    C5OtVRHWAAEI3bv.jpg
    35 KB · Views: 171
  • C5OtU5xWcAET6wF.jpg
    C5OtU5xWcAET6wF.jpg
    20.2 KB · Views: 167
  • C5OuH0VW8AAfHKP.jpg
    C5OuH0VW8AAfHKP.jpg
    53.3 KB · Views: 179
  • C5OuH0kWEAkpHI0.jpg
    C5OuH0kWEAkpHI0.jpg
    16.8 KB · Views: 170
  • vc10_aew_f_600.jpg
    vc10_aew_f_600.jpg
    47.6 KB · Views: 160
  • vc10_aew_g_600.jpg
    vc10_aew_g_600.jpg
    75 KB · Views: 162
  • vc10_nimrod_600.jpg
    vc10_nimrod_600.jpg
    47.3 KB · Views: 167
Last edited:
 

Attachments

  • Haynes-H5799-back-cover_1.jpg
    Haynes-H5799-back-cover_1.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 156
  • Haynes-H5799-page-1_1.jpg
    Haynes-H5799-page-1_1.jpg
    2.6 MB · Views: 152
  • Haynes-H5799-page-2_1.jpg
    Haynes-H5799-page-2_1.jpg
    3 MB · Views: 149
  • Haynes-H5799-page-3_1.jpg
    Haynes-H5799-page-3_1.jpg
    2.8 MB · Views: 135
  • Haynes-H5799-page-4_1.jpg
    Haynes-H5799-page-4_1.jpg
    4 MB · Views: 154
If you quote the tweet text, the image you provided gains the necessary context, and as if by magic, becomes searchable.

DH "118" was de Havilland's proposed long-range jet for BOAC at the time VC10 design crystalised at Weybridge
 
Hi,

 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    81.7 KB · Views: 149
  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    187.3 KB · Views: 141
  • 01.jpg
    01.jpg
    119.1 KB · Views: 145
  • 02.jpg
    02.jpg
    383.7 KB · Views: 141
  • 03.jpg
    03.jpg
    164.7 KB · Views: 144
  • 04.jpg
    04.jpg
    202.9 KB · Views: 140
  • 05.jpg
    05.jpg
    189.7 KB · Views: 146
The only one I'm aware of was the use of RB.178 for the double-decker version.
 
Hi,



Note that the attachments to this post are a mix of VC-10 Superb and the Trident 5.
Interesting nonetheless. Is there another thread for the Trident/Bident ones. The one that has the CFM56s but keeps the RB162 booster is clearly making the case for a new wing.

Back on message with the thread, I read somewhere Vickers only needed to make 75 VC10s to make it worth their while. A low target that they missed, but shows they were never trying to reach 707 numbers.
 
I think comparing the VC10 with a 707 is like comparing a Rolls Royce with a Lincoln Continental. They are not really competitors, though they both go after the same customers.
BOAC quietly exploited the positive points of both on the Transatlanticr route.
In a bitter irony my first flight outside Europe in March 1982 on a classic VC10 route from Rome to Khartoum via Cairo was on a particularly worn out 707.
 
Hi,



Note that the attachments to this post are a mix of VC-10 Superb and the Trident 5.
Interesting nonetheless. Is there another thread for the Trident/Bident ones. The one that has the CFM56s but keeps the RB162 booster is clearly making the case for a new wing.

Back on message with the thread, I read somewhere Vickers only needed to make 75 VC10s to make it worth their while. A low target that they missed, but shows they were never trying to reach 707 numbers.

That’s a rather odd rationalisation - planning for relative commercial failure and then still falling well short of that retrospectively presented as an indicator of commercial realism.
 
That’s a rather odd rationalisation - planning for relative commercial failure

Building a business case around a lower volume market niche in order to avoid an established market dominating product is one of the most common strategies in business and a strong indicator of commercial realism. That the VC10 largely failed in its attempt is true but does not change the fact that the aircraft's investors grasped that the 707 would have an unassailable market position by the time the VC10 was ready for market, there is surviving documentary evidence to prove it.

This thread, that you participated in, has covered this very recently and is a better place for this discussion.
 
Hi,



Note that the attachments to this post are a mix of VC-10 Superb and the Trident 5.
Interesting nonetheless. Is there another thread for the Trident/Bident ones. The one that has the CFM56s but keeps the RB162 booster is clearly making the case for a new wing.

Back on message with the thread, I read somewhere Vickers only needed to make 75 VC10s to make it worth their while. A low target that they missed, but shows they were never trying to reach 707 numbers.

That’s a rather odd rationalisation - planning for relative commercial failure and then still falling well short of that retrospectively presented as an indicator of commercial realism.

What I actually said in its entirety....
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom