The VC10 and me

[uk 75]

One UK aircraft has been around me more than any other, and no, its not my beloved TSR2, AVS or Boeing SST. It is the VC 10
My Dad made me the Airfix kit. Until recently and from the age of 9 I could watch these elegant planes in their smart RAF colours doing circuits in and out of Brize Norton.
I narrowly missed flying to Khartoum on one, BA used a clapped out 707 instead.
Numerous models and books about or containing the VC10 fill my shelves.
A BOAC VC10 will probably be the model that I grab when I have to go into the Twilight Home...
Google Aeromini BOAC VC 10 and there are plenty of cheapish ones out there if you feel the same. Or post your iconic plane or project.

 

[uk 75]

Here is one...

 

[Tony Williams]

Nice plane - one of my favourites also.

From distant memory, I recall that the plane was designed for short runways in order to access as many airports as possible, so it had great take-off performance (and was incidentally very fast - IIRC it still holds speed records for subsonic airliners). The US equivalents could not match this performance but their problem was solved by extending the runways.

I would be interested to hear the reasons for underwing engines being preferred these days to tail-mounted ones. The latter would seem to have the advantage in reducing cabin noise levels (the VC-10 was noted for being very quiet inside) and also if an engine fails, there would be minimal effect on the handling as the thrust of the remaining engine(s) is so close to the centreline. But after the phenomenally successful Boeing 727, tail-mounted engines began to disappear.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I came back from my last military deployment on a VC-10, it was a great flight and we were very well looked after by the crew. I'll never forget that flight. The attached pdf is a paper/card VC-10 model.

 

[zen]

Tail mounted engines dominate the biz jet scene.....

Likely because of the lower cabin noise.

 

[Hobbes]

I would be interested to hear the reasons for underwing engines being preferred these days to tail-mounted ones. The latter would seem to have the advantage in reducing cabin noise levels (the VC-10 was noted for being very quiet inside) and also if an engine fails, there would be minimal effect on the handling as the thrust of the remaining engine(s) is so close to the centreline. But after the phenomenally successful Boeing 727, tail-mounted engines began to disappear.

The main reason is ease of maintenance (engines close to the ground means you don't need scaffolding to get to them for minor checks).

 

[Grey Havoc]

Beat me to it. In recent years though there has been some debate whether that has ended up being something of a false economy.

 

[Tony Williams]

The main reason is ease of maintenance (engines close to the ground means you don't need scaffolding to get to them for minor checks).

I thought it might be something like that. I wouldn't have thought it would be that problematic to have wheeled platforms, with adjustable deck heights, to be pushed into place to enable work on the engines.

 

[Hobbes]

it's all about minimizing the time spent on the ground between flights. 5 minutes to maneuver the platforms just so (while making sure you don't dent the cowling) is tiny, but it adds up over the lifetime of the aircraft.

 

[Rickshaw]

Wing mounted engines have quite a benefit aerodynamically. They twist the wing downwards and forwards while the aircraft is in flight. Rear mounted engines don't.

 

[EthelredTheUnsteady]

The VC10 is also the iconic airliner to me. I always admired its lines and in 1972 my brother and I got the chance to fly on one when a BOAC VC10 stood in for the Air New Zealand DC8 we had expected to take AKL-NAN. We had flown on Air New Zealand DC8s, Pan Am and AA 707s, but were pleasantly surprised by the greater comfort on the VC10 and astonished by the superior performance of the aircraft, especially the climb out where it seemed to take off like a rocket compared to the American-built airliners. It reached cruising altitude noticeably faster, much more like current airliners, and we settled in to the cruise regime much sooner. The service was as good as Air New Zealand's (my yardstick then and now), although perhaps a little more formal. I have never forgotten that flight.

 

[1635yankee]

Nice plane - one of my favourites also.

From distant memory, I recall that the plane was designed for short runways in order to access as many airports as possible, so it had great take-off performance (and was incidentally very fast - IIRC it still holds speed records for subsonic airliners). The US equivalents could not match this performance but their problem was solved by extending the runways.

I would be interested to hear the reasons for underwing engines being preferred these days to tail-mounted ones. The latter would seem to have the advantage in reducing cabin noise levels (the VC-10 was noted for being very quiet inside) and also if an engine fails, there would be minimal effect on the handling as the thrust of the remaining engine(s) is so close to the centreline. But after the phenomenally successful Boeing 727, tail-mounted engines began to disappear.

Wing-mounted engines reduce wing bending moment, so the reduce wing weight. Tail-mounted engines increase fuselage weight and, because the engines are big weights in the back, the distance from wing to tail is reduced, meaning the horizontal and vertical stabilizers need to be bigger.