Vickers VC-10 Projects

[Mike Pryce]

Hi,

http://www.vc10.net/index.html

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]

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]

Anyone knows fuel capacity of Short Haul VC10 for BEA?

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

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

Is there a way we can blame the Shorts Aircraft Company for this?

 

[EwenS]

*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.
http://www.theaviationhistorian.com/public-downloads/content-PDFs/tah32_contentspage.pdf

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

*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.
http://www.theaviationhistorian.com/public-downloads/content-PDFs/tah32_contentspage.pdf

I was already aware of that.

 

[Mike Pryce]

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]

Ah, Mike, just what I needed to know. Was that the case back in the 60s or more recently

Chris

 

[EwenS]

But modern engines are supposed to be designed to prevent uncontained engine failures in the first place. But doesn’t always work I suppose.

 

[Firefinder]

Have a some VC10 bombers I found on my hard drive, No clue where I got them from.

Both dumb bombs and Skybolts.

 

[fightingirish]

Your source is either from a book or from a magazine article like as in the resent November 2021 issue of Aeroplane Monthly. In both cases written by our forum member Chris Gibson.

 

[jstar]

Possible source for the illustrations.

 

[CJGibson]

It's from the Aeroplane article. I didn't know they would using the bombloads piece.

Chris

 

[hesham]

From, VC10 Icon of the Skies,

there was a six variants of Vanjet, also here is the developments of
it.

 

[kitnut617]

Have a some VC10 bombers I found on my hard drive, No clue where I got them from.

Both dumb bombs and Skybolts.

Looking at that bomb load comparison chart, I note that the Vulcan is only showing 21 bombs (3x7). There's this UTube video that shows a short bit at the end they're loading clips with 10 bombs, so 30 max.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOmPJOT-wUg

 

[Firefinder]

Have a some VC10 bombers I found on my hard drive, No clue where I got them from.

Both dumb bombs and Skybolts.

Looking at that bomb load comparison chart, I note that the Vulcan is only showing 21 bombs (3x7). There's this UTube video that shows a short bit at the end they're loading clips with 10 bombs, so 30 max.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOmPJOT-wUg

Remember planes are limited by numbers.

but weight and size.

So its not unlikely both are true.

Excpet that one is a XXX bomb and the other is a XXXX bomb size wise.

 

[kitnut617]

I'm pretty sure they're both 1000lbers ---

 

[Mike Pryce]

I had a chat with a former Rolls Royce chap recently who swore blind there was a twin RB211 VC10 project 'to fly to San Francisco and India'. He thought Lockheed had a hand in it too.

I know they used a VC10 as a testbed with one RB211 but has anyone seen a project GA for a long range twin?

I think Weybridge built Tristar tailplanes so perhaps there could be a connection. Still, it struck me as something that would have made the pages of Flight etc. with lots of wild sales claims if true. Maybe he was confusing it with the BAC 3-11?

I guess with 1970ish 'ETOPS'-like rules it would have needed to stay near or over land (60 mins) as well.

 

[norseman]

Have a some VC10 bombers I found on my hard drive, No clue where I got them from.

Both dumb bombs and Skybolts.

Both Vulcan and Victor had max weapon loads north of 60,000lb as well, these were the standard internal loads. There was wing pannier designs for both but never adopted for service to allow higher number carriage. The aborted Vulcan B.3 as well as the VC.10 were to carry 6 x Skybolt missiles at just shy of 13,000lb weight each.

 

[hesham]

From this book.

 

[hesham]

From this book.