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

Vickers VC-10 Projects

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
329
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.
 

JFC Fuller

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
3,353
Reaction score
652
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.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
329
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....
 

Mike Pryce

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
1,057
Reaction score
131
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....
I don't think they planned for failure, but to make a profit on a relatively low volume. They could see Convair failing in the market.
 

uk 75

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,327
Reaction score
972
I think the low volume makes perfect sense if you are talking Rolls Royce rather than Lincoln. The VC10 was high end engineering for demanding customers like the RAF and BOAC.
 

Odysseus1980

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
15
Reaction score
7
Anyone knows fuel capacity of Short Haul VC10 for BEA?
 

Wyvern

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
311
Reaction score
273
I remember a few months back (probably before I even joined the forum), I found a thread containing the VC 11 (VC 10 for BEA) and its competitors. I'll try find it an post it here. Hopefully the information you're looking for will be in there.
 

royabulgaf

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
464
Reaction score
41
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.
I follow the history of the US auto industry and the survival strategies of the independent companies. The strategy is called "Hit them when they ain't." They tended to find out that if they are successful in the niche, the big three moves in quickly. They occasionally find out there is no market there. Since you can manage a whole range of airllners by playing with fuselage length and fuel capacity, I remember the VC-10 ads stressed the rear engines made for a quieter cabin. For some reason this fell out of favor. Why?
 

EwenS

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
71
Reaction score
99
A few reasons immediately come to mind.
The high bypass turbofans are significantly quieter, both internally and externally, than the early airliner turbojets or even low bypass turbofans like the RR Conway in the VC10. So no longer a benefit from mounting aft.
With that big mouth less likely to be subject to foreign object damage from material flung up by the undercarriage.
Weight. While more powerful modern engines are heavier. Think of that extra weight right at the back that needs to be compensated for.
Easy maintenance. Much day to day servicing can be done on the ramp from ground level on modern underwing engines. No need for platforms to get to the tail mounted engines.

The last is probably the most significant for cost conscious airlines, where the budget airline is king, and where turnaround times are kept to a bare minimum. Aircraft utilisation is significantly higher than in the 1960s and ticket prices lower. An aircraft stuck on the ground earns nothing and costs the airline hard cash in parking fees etc.
 

CJGibson

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
1,365
Reaction score
512
Another reason was the perceived problem of contagious failure of side-by-side engines. I say perceived as I have no info on whether this was a genuine concern or Boeing/BOAC* propaganda.

Chris

*name your favourite villain of the UK aircraft industry destruction piece.
 

EwenS

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
71
Reaction score
99

A Tentative Fleet Plan

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Apr 9, 2018
Messages
106
Reaction score
136
*name your favourite villain of the UK aircraft industry destruction piece.
Is there a way we can blame the Shorts Aircraft Company for this?
There is an article in the latest edition of The Aviation Historian about the postwar history of that “uniquely problematic” company. Out today.
I was already aware of that.
 

Mike Pryce

BAe P.1216 book: harrier.org.uk/P1216.htm
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
1,057
Reaction score
131
Another reason was the perceived problem of contagious failure of side-by-side engines. I say perceived as I have no info on whether this was a genuine concern or Boeing/BOAC* propaganda.

Chris

*name your favourite villain of the UK aircraft industry destruction piece.
The FAA won't certify a plane where a turbine burst in one engine is likely to take out another. Which is a near certainty with the VC10.
 

CJGibson

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
1,365
Reaction score
512
Ah, Mike, just what I needed to know. Was that the case back in the 60s or more recently

Chris
 
  • Like
Reactions: zen

EwenS

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
71
Reaction score
99
But modern engines are supposed to be designed to prevent uncontained engine failures in the first place. But doesn’t always work I suppose.
 
Top