http://rides.webshots.com/photo/1390155408048918155FhpzkHIn a quest for a larger-capacity of its Super VC-10, Vickers entertained the idea of a doubledeck version of its elegant four-engined airliner. Compare this design with that of the "extended" Boeing 707. (Source: Unknown, possibly The Putnam Aviation Review, of which only one issue was published, in the 1980s)
http://rides.webshots.com/photo/1129349558048918155mnKYmEForeseeing a need for a larger-capacity transcontinental airliner, Vickers proposed several unusual designs in 1964. Source: The Putnam Aviation Review, Vol. 1, No. 1, May 1989, page 31.
The numbers above are Vickers-Supermarine type numbers, which match with the strike aircraft projects. The "P" numbers shown on the scans, must be an entirely different system.´m a little confused, I know the Vickers-Numbers 579, 580, 581 and 582 as strike aircraft projects...
Hi,alertken said:SLL: at what point does a VC-10 stop being a VC-10: I surmise: The financial terms of the merger, trading from 1/7/60, creating BAC left legacy pain with the sire. So Vickers', not BAC's, Board carried the compounding losses of Vanguard and VC10. So, I guess, as long as some pedigree could be traced between the 1957 concept and 1960s' notions, Vickers would carry the adaptation engineering cost and would capture any profit. I think BAC adopted the 1966 dubble-bubble pitches to BOAC v.747-100.
Interesting that the first picture (P 581) shows the engines directly on the wings - it seems pylons were still not favoured.foiling said:Oops! I had four Vickers 3-views to send, thinking they'd go together. Realised my mistake, so here are the other 3. ;D
Interestingly the Nimrod airframe exhibited similar characteristics when it came to making them into MRA4's and I have seen a story about USAF personnel being astonished to discover the primitive manner in which the Handley Page Victor was manufactured. This also fits with the various stories of companies reusing jigs and tooling from earlier projects (I believe this happened in the case of both the VC-7 and VC-10). It seem to have been something of a British trait in this time frame and speaks to the poverty of the industry that helped to bring it down.alertken said:Even with the structural strengthening, the PSA L.1011-1 with lower lounge were, I believe, not operated with those seats sold. IIRC, on aborted take-off the nose wheel was designed to collapse into that area. 747 same, so only cargo underfloor in the lower 41.
The overriding issue with all VC10 schemes was weight. Hand-built, brick dunny: weight would be “30% less if designed (now…builders) appear to have adhered only loosely to the drawings (New) parts must be machined to match the unserviceable part” O/C,VC10 Major Servicing,St.Athan, P63,3/99,Overhaul & Maintenance magazine. Not solely a Vickers phenomenon: DC-8 structure was far less interchangeable than 707.
It has just occurred to me that the engine configuration in the top picture shows considerable resemblance to that of the DeHavilland DH.118, 119 and 120. Apparently Vickers looked at an underwing configuration in the dying days of the VC.7 programme, but the resemblence to the DeHavilland designs is remarkable.foiling said:Oops! I had four Vickers 3-views to send, thinking they'd go together. Realised my mistake, so here are the other 3. ;D
Sorry alertken, I don't understand your "shorthand". Meanwhile, here is an article in French about BOAC's order for the less stretched V1151 Super VC-10 that actually made it to production (so it isn't really a "project")......alertken said:June,1960: BOAC commande for 10 Super VC10; 6/6/60: US/UK Memorandum of Understanding to take Skybolt. We now know from Chris Gibson's VC10 "Pofflers" and Vulcan's Hammer books, this was no co-incidence.
I'm still not sure I understand your "shorthand" properly alertken; are you telling me that the VC-10 was overdesigned with its "brick-dunny" structure/weight penalty because it had a secondary (or even primary) purpose as a Skybolt-carrier? That does explain the lack of competitive operating economics with the contemporary Boeing 707-320B. I can't wait to tell all my VC-10-loving mates that their precious airliner-on-a-pedestal was compromised by a dual-purpose origin ;Dalertken said:The timing, 1957-61, of UK funding (Super) VC10 for BOAC nicely parallels RAF's search for a stand-off weapon of longer range than Blue Steel, begun 1955. That was to be carried by Mark II Victor/Vulcan, which in turn were designed for low utilisation/high performance. Dispersal, in-flight refuelling, airborne loiter...all these things were emerging in the 1955-58 timeframe. USAF toyed with stand-off weapons on KC-135, and with in-flight rollout from the ample cube of C-133: transports have no combat performance...but very long loiter time. So: hang >1,000nm. weapons on them, stooge around outside defences, and viola!: a multi-role combat aircraft. per CG's books: VC10/Skybolt. Hence BOAC's Chairmen wailing, post-Skybolt cancellation, for compensation for operating an unnecessarily heavy vehicle, designed not as we were told at the time, to fit Entebbe's short runway, but to carry 2 brace of ASMs.
While its nice to puncture a ego now and again and bring down 'fanatics', I cannot shake the perception of something else in that statement.I can't wait to tell all my VC-10-loving mates that their precious airliner-on-a-pedestal was compromised by a dual-purpose origin