• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Vickers VC-10 Projects

Antonio

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,450
Reaction score
158
Vickers 450 seater project based on VC-10. Drawing from May 1964.

Source: Giants of the Sky by Bill Gunston
 

Attachments

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
453
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Double-deck Vickers VC-10.

In 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/1390155408048918155FhpzkH
 

Attachments

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
453
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com

Attachments

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,354
Reaction score
675
I apologise if this has already been covered here but i have tried the search function and come up with no results.

I am looking for details of the Vickers VC-10 Superb, the proposed double decked version of the Super VC-10 with a passenger capacity of 265. I recall seeing an image of the type a few years back along with some diagrams of other VC-10 variants that were to make use of the RB-211. Flight global has a number of images of the original super VC-10 proposal with 212 seats and wingtip tanks but the versions beyond this appear to be a bit of a mystery. If anybody has images of these types I would love to see them.

Kind regards sealordlawrence.
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,354
Reaction score
675
Jemiba,

Thank you very much for that, it looks like the 212 seat Super would have been a very elegant aircraft indeed, the Superb less so!
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,016
Reaction score
99
The wing-tip tanks make it look very Gerry Anderson-ish indeed!
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,183
Reaction score
808
Maybe interesting, it was proposed as a pure freighter with
swing-nose, too.
(again from Flugwelt 10/60)
 

Attachments

foiling

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
277
Reaction score
6
I found the following 3-views of VC-10 projects in "Vickers aircraft since 1908" by Andrews & Morgan. I hope they will be of interest to all you enthusiasts out there, and that they have not appeared elsewhere on this site.
 

Attachments

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,354
Reaction score
675
Thanks everybody, I am left wondering at what point does a VC-10 sop being a VC-10 though!?
 

Maveric

Fight for yor Right!
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
1,924
Reaction score
285
Hi,

I´m a little confused, I know the Vickers-Numbers 579, 580, 581 and 582 as strike aircraft projects...
...that´s wrong. ( My source: BSP Jet bombers since 1949 and Jet fighters since 1950)

Maveric
 

Bailey

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jul 24, 2009
Messages
309
Reaction score
5
Hi Maveric,

´m a little confused, I know the Vickers-Numbers 579, 580, 581 and 582 as strike aircraft projects...
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.

Regards Bailey.
 

foiling

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Aug 12, 2007
Messages
277
Reaction score
6
Bailey, if it is the 'p' numbers on my 3-views that you are wondering about please let me put your mind at rest: those scans were on my computer, and the p 582 etc is simply the page number in the book "Vickers Aircraft since 1908". I was never expecting anyone to be interested in the 3-views I'd collected, so it never occurred to me that it would be associated with the aircraft model, although that is an understandable conclusion. You guys are sooooo sharp, and see things I don't anticipate. There is a type number with the first scan, however.
 

alertken

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
567
Reaction score
110
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.
 

Spark

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
361
Reaction score
12
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.
Hi,

Possibly more in common than those aircraft collected under the 707 umbrella?
The Rolls-Royce RB 178-14 aft-fan gas generators/ turbofans expected to give what sort of performance?
I bet the VC7 that had an even bigger wing could have produced some very interesting cost effective developments with out the political cancer of forced amalgamation.

Happy New Year when it comes!
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,354
Reaction score
675
Scanning Flight Global's archives I have found yet another variant, this is a 'Developed Super VC-10'. The key points are that is was intended to have an additional 10ft fuselage stretch over the originally proposed 212 seat VC-10 taking total length to 196ft 6inches (extra length was to be inserted ahead of the wing) allowing for a total passenger capacity of 222. it was to be powered by Rolls Royce Conway 42/7 engnes of 24,000lb thrust each.

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1960/1960%20-%202723.html
 

PMN1

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
721
Reaction score
63
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
Interesting that the first picture (P 581) shows the engines directly on the wings - it seems pylons were still not favoured.
 

Caravellarella

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
1,034
Reaction score
196
Yes PMN1, and thank you for bringing this back to the original subject! I understand the optimal design configuration is to have the engines mounted at the centre of gravity. Looking that the rear engined configurations studied, it is possible that the Superb might have suffered for the same controllability problems that plagued the Tupolev Tu-154 and Ilyushin IL-62 (and which also must have frightened Hawker-Siddeley's designers working on the HS132). I suppose the lesson is you can't put that much weight at the back of such a large airframe......

Terry (Caravellarella)
 

Caravellarella

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
1,034
Reaction score
196
More fabe and thank you Overscan......

I have often wondered about the safety/evacuation aspects of all the VC10 double-deck designs. In the event of ditching wouldn't the lower deck occupants be below the water level? In the event of a wheels-up landing, wouldn't the the lower deck occupants be particularly vulnerable. Does anyone know if BAC considered these issues?

Lockheed added an underfuselage skid to the TriStar fitted with lower deck lounges that could be occupied during take-off and landing......

Terry (Caravellarella)
 

alertken

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
567
Reaction score
110
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.
 

Caravellarella

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
1,034
Reaction score
196
Dear Alertken, again I love your analysis......

Are we eroding the unmerited mystique that has grown up around the VC-10 (hope so ;D)......

Terry (Caravellarella)
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,354
Reaction score
675
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.
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

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
567
Reaction score
110
SLL: I would dissent from "poverty" in a £ sense - much munificence, inc. $, 1949-54 to retool for Korea-stimulus production.

Here's ak's theory: UK's class structure. Aero-build rested on: pioneer creative visionaries (design) + metalswarfing/chippie graft. For design UK sourced from Cambridge Nat.Sciences Tripos (=posh, boss) managing white-collar loftsmen (literate, could have gone into a nice banking job); for "shop floor" it was apprenticeship (artisan) for foremen, on-the-job for "hands" (lumpen proles). Labour turnover was low - folk retired after a full career with their local employer. Owner-bosses hoarded labour in bad times; Unions resisted "dilution" - expansion in good times with new hire unskilleds. So, skill-levels in fabrication/assembly were high, where they worked despite, not to drawings sent down from on high by remote scribblers who had never got their hands dirty. B.Wallis:‘“the practical shop element of personnel (was) bitterly opposed to (my) geodetics”. (He) was persuaded to accept design changes in the interests of cheapening manufacture’ S.Ritchie,Industry and Air Power, Cass, P83. : “Preston (Works) ‘boss’ (had) little time for designers and didn’t care who knew it” C.Gardner,BAC,Batsford,81,P30. So: Saville Row bespoke work, not Woolies mass.
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,354
Reaction score
675
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
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.

I suspect this design to be one of the later ones with a new wing and lower deck seating expanded to six abreast to provide for 350 passengers.
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,125
Reaction score
3,027
Hi,

the different between Vickers VC10 tanker variants from
Aircraft illustrated magazine;

1- VC10 C1K.
2- VC10 K2 (Type-1112).
3- VC10 K3 (Type-1164).
4- VC10 K4 (Type-1170).
 

Attachments

Caravellarella

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
1,034
Reaction score
196
Dear Boys and Girls, here is a contemporary piece in French about the BAC V1181 VC-10 double-decker proposal; also known as the DB265 or Superb......

The piece comes from the 1st August 1965 issue of Aviation Magazine International......

Terry (Caravellarella)
 

Attachments

Caravellarella

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
1,034
Reaction score
196
Dear Boys and Girls, here is a piece in French about the original Super VC-10 200 212 seat "project" and BOAC's order for ten of this version. The little column on the right hand side shows that 120 Boeing 707s were already in service by this date; quite telling really......

The piece comes from the 9th July 1960 issue of Les Ailes......

Terry (Caravellarella)
 

Attachments

alertken

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
567
Reaction score
110
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.
 

Caravellarella

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
1,034
Reaction score
196
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.
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")......

The article comes from the 23rd June 1961 issue of Les Ailes......

Terry (Caravellarella)
 

Attachments

alertken

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
567
Reaction score
110
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.
 

Caravellarella

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
1,034
Reaction score
196
alertken 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.
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 ;D

Terry (Caravellarella)
 

Caravellarella

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Messages
1,034
Reaction score
196
Dear Boys and Girls, here is an extensive article in French about the then Vickers VC-10 which was probably still (then) at the "project" stage. Notice the early design configuration with external fluted exhaust silencers/mixers, straight wing-tips and a simpler form of tail-plane bullet......

The article comes from the 5th December 1959 issue of Les Ailes......

Terry (Caravellarella)
 

Attachments

zen

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
1,836
Reaction score
589
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
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.
 
Top