Talk:Vickers VC10/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Engine transport pods

A question, I read that the VC-10 been used to ferry spare engines and then had 3 engines on one side (2 used) and 2 engines, anyone can confirm this and any pics around of this? RGDS Alexmcfire

Yes, the VC10 did ferry Conways. The ferried engine was conserved (mothballed) and placed inside what was known as a "spare engine pod" or "pinion pod". The pod was shaped like a torpedo or a bomb, or a drop-tank as used on some fighters. It was slung beneath the leading edge of the starboard wing (away from the pax entry doors), about 1/5 of the way from the fuselage to the wing tip. There was no plumbing in or out of the pod; the only connections were mechanical, to keep it fixed in place. Conways and other early jet engines were unreliable and regularly failed, so most if not all the VC10's contemporary types had provisions for carrying spares around to rescue stranded a/c away from base. Freight 707s and DC-8s carried them inside or in pods, as did Russian a/c. Plenty of pics around of pod-equipped VC10s and others - look for yourself. Not sure of this, but I believe the VC10 could only carry Conways as fitted to itself, not JT3s, etc.

Built in 196? AD or BC?

Freddie Laker's airline, ordered two combi versions (Type 1103) in 196, which they received in October 1964. Taking 1768 years to build two planes probably sets a new record for poor delivery turnaround ;-) Could someone find the real date?

Noise

"It was also one of the noisiest aircraft in the history of jet civil aviation, thanks to the close coupling of its 4 turbojets at the tail." The VC10 was loud? It was quieter than a lot of airliners from the same time period on the inside (many passengers noted this and BOAC always trumpted it) and furthermore it doesn't have turbojets... the VC10 had Conway turbofans. You'll find that the 707 was probably a louder plane from the exterior, as was the DC8. The 707-420 even had the same basic Conway engines on it and in the past had turbojets from other manufacturers - which I suspect to be significantly louder. I have since changed the sentence as this description is unfair and innacurate.

ckyliu

You bet it was louder than the 707! A lot louder!

Why?

Because:

1. the Conways fitted to the 707 were of an earlier, less powerful mark that developed 17,500 lb thrust as opposed to 20-22,000 lb thrust;

2. the 707 power units had thoughtful daisy-petal noise suppressors;

3. the VC10's engines were grouped together, focusing noise and thus attenuating its output.

So -- "unfair and inaccurate"???? Hardly!]

"In the history of civil aviation" - that's still a bit extreme don't you think? And I've yet to see any numerical data suggesting the VC10 was any louder than any mark of 707 or DC8.

On a new note, I'm led to believe the Super VC10 operating economics weren't really much worse than that of its contemporaries - in fact I have some data to indiciate fuel burn (something now cited in the article as especially high) was in fact lower than that of any 707.

ckyliu

Check out John Stroud, Jetliners in Service since 1952, Putnams, 1995. Kept tabs on a London-Lagos return. 17 per cent is the overall figure BOAC and Bcal agree on (see Adam Thompson's book, Airline [I think]). Also see Sir George's memories (spread across a range of titles, I am afraid). Sir George, looking at the Tu-144 in Paris in 1969 is quoted as saying that the Russians were likely to be much less economical than Concorde "these things are measured in half percents." How interesting that he should say it...

Operating economics are a blend of initial cost, maintenance spend, fuel consumption and load factor, inter alia. The VC10 argument has always been that initial cost was less than the 707, maintenance cost was lower because of the sounder structure, and load factors exceeded 80 per cent, thus offsetting the fuel spend. Other arguments were added at the time, like lower insurance premiums (now, here's something I have to see evidence of...)

But the facts speak for themselves. BOAC only saw fit to squeeze nine to 10 years out of each VC10 and BUA/BCAL couldn't wait to get rid of them. BUA was an independent airline and nobody had forced it to buy British (there may have been a hint when the South American routes came up for grabs...). British Eagle never even sniffed in the direction of a VC10 (it did buy BAC One-Elevens, so it was not pro-American; its 707s did have Conways...). Draw you own conclusions.

I've just been reading "Empire Of The Clouds" by the splendidly-named James Hamilton-Paterson, which states that the BOAC VC10s actually turned out to be more economical in service than their 707s. OTOH when I was a small Mr Larrington travelling between LHR and Hong Kong, the first 747s, with their ability to knock six or seven hours off the flight time and their in-flight films and so forth, were greeted with the fervour normally reserved for liberating armies. Mr Larrington (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

More Noise...

Mmm.. if you want some anecdotal evidence, a VC10 just flew over my head about 10 minutes ago (on its way to Brize Norton), and didn't seem noisier than any other jet aircraft of its size --- although possibly the RAF has modified it so as not to offend the sensibilities of the Oxfordshire gentry. I flew as a passenger on 707s several times, and do recall it was one hell of noisy plane (sorry about the swearing). Not a very scientific observation, but there it is. Atanovic (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Noise Inside and Out

I flew from Singapore to Sydney (1973) on the BOAC VC10, and sitting down the back. I can still hear the high-pitched whine now! They flew over my house at about 1500 feet and it was just unbearable. B707s and DC8s were certainly as bad during the mid 60s, but by the early 1970s the VC10 was the only one left doing that really high-pitched screaming ... like a million fingernails down a blackboard. Even the repowered 707s made a much lower pitched grumble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.1.126 (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Soviet espionage

Do me a favour!

Design documentation for the average 1960s airliner weighted two tons and would occupy a library hall. Microfilming it would take like a year. The only shred of evidence Cole produces in his silly eulogy of the VC10 is that a pissed EAA pilot lost his performance manual which was later supposedly recovered at Moscow. How disingenuous, infantile and Cold War romantic!

Besides, it was the VC10 which copied the Il-62 (go to Brooklands and examine the leading edge) -- well after the Russians had adopted the droops and chord extensions. Oh, and the Il-62 has a tailplane only 2/3 the size of the VC10s, and it is manually controlled (the Vickers tailplane has 17 hydraulic boosters, for Chrissake!).

Who coped who, then?

Nobody copied anybody! Staying abreast of developments in the other camp is one thing, and pissed EAA staff are good conduits for such background intelligence. Copying two tons of bumf is another matter altogether. And anyway, I bet George Edwards would have loved to get hold of the Russians' secrets, especially what that clever fourth wheel was doing at the back... Had he done so, he may have sold 150, not a measly 50...

Nobody gangs up on Douglas for copying the BAC One-Eleven, and on Boeing for copying the Trident, so the anti-Russian smear is just a silly, endlessly perpetuated slur.

So give it a rest!

No one ever said they had to copy the whole thing, did they? Furthermore I do not appreciate use of swearing in an encyclopaedia context such as this and feel it devalues your arguement somewhat. I don't think the IL-62 deisgn would have sold well in the west even if it was built by Vickers, simply because it was amazingly inefficient compared to alternatives available.

ckyliu

Inefficiency -- yes. Spying -- hardly. Come on, the "spying" camp is behaving in an infantile fashion ("Yeah, but we saw the Russians looking at it!"). Incidentally, my quoted source is wrong; should be Henderson. Err-r... ... swearing???

Most people realise that there is little chance that the Russians could have copied anything from the VC10 because of the timing and the fact that the IL-62 was partly a by-product of an earlier (1959) Ilyushin prototype supersonic jet (IL-66) that was never built. Apart from the VC10 later adopting aspects of the IL-62 wing design, other western manufacturers also copied the big Ilyushin's landing gear system (the number of landing gear accidents in airliners like the Boeing 707 may explain why this was so). As to the claim that the IL-62 was inefficient, the heavy fuselage was due to the fact that it was designed with a reinforced hull supposed to have permitted either a wheels-up runway or water landing (neither of which was ever proven). On the other hand it was the world's largest passenger jet in 1963 (some were configured for almost 200 passengers) and it is still in civilian use today so it would be considered a successful design. The IL-62M version was the longest lasting airliner of its type, and there has been a range of upgrades available over the years (triplex navigation system and uprated engines etc). Aria613 9/4/201

Judicious editing

Air Ceylon appears twice in the civilian users list, once under Ceylon and again under Sri Lanka. Surely an airline would only appear twice in such a list if the original country split into different countries rather than simply changed names? Also the RR test bed factory is listed as a civilian operator and there are government examples of VC10s listed as civilian users. A civilian operator is an airline that carries passengers or freight in a commercial role, not one that tests planes, and govt operators belong in the military and government operators list. Having such an over-inflated civilian listing suggests that someone is trying to imply that the plane had more users than it actually did. Aria6139/4/2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aria613 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Renaming/Moving

The VC10 was designated exactly as "VC10" (no spaces, no hyphens), rather than "VC-10" (except in the RAF). I submit that the page should be renamed or moved to the Vickers VC10 pointer page. Any pro/anti views? Livedvalid 19:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for the RAF's usage of the hyphenated form as its official type name? Letdorf 22:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC).

Introduction

"It magnified the leading issues of British post-War foreign and domestic politics until the Thatcher era: the break-up of the Empire, relations with the USA, de facto government control of the ostensibly private aircraft industry, and whether the priority ought to be to seek full employment and manage the market or to answer pure market demand."

Forgive my ignorance, but what is all of that supposed to mean? Whatever (if anything) it has to do with this aircraft, does it really belong in the introduction? A paragraph like this, that doesn't have any explanation accompanying it, only serves to confuse the average reader. The introduction needs to tell us what the subject is, not give us a confusing history lesson. Abc30 23:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree its a lot of unrelated political garbage and should be removed, this is an article about the VC10 not the politics of the time.MilborneOne 10:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Except the politics of the time played a large role in the success (or lack thereof) which the VC10 enjoyed. Nothing is isolated in the world of history. The paragraph might not belong in the intro, but it belongs in the article and should be expanded or clarified, not deleted. ericg ✈ 04:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont disagree but I rewrote the introduction noting that the political aspects were covered by the History/Political and aviation background paragraph MilborneOne 16:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Political and aviation background

"Hawker-Siddeley built on de Havilland's heavy aircraft experience"

What exactly was de Havillands heavy aircraft experience at this time - the Comet? Most of DH work was in small and medium aircraft Avro, HP, Shorts, Bristol and VA were the manufacturers of bug aircraft.GraemeLeggett 14:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

POV

There seems to be a fair bit of POV in this article. Is it just me or is the British government of the day being portrayed as a bundle of control-freak commies? --Eamonnca1 23:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

They were! All of Britain's aircraft manufacturers were forcibly merged in to the BAC a few years later, except Handley-Page and Hawker Siddeley. The government poked its nose in to both the airlines business (BEA and BOAC) and the manufacturers too. --150.237.47.51 16:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Was VC2 was the Vangaurd?

No, the VC-9 was the Vanguard, and the VC-8 could be considered to be the Viscount I suppose. VC-1 was the Viking, not sure what/if a VC-2 was.

86.145.219.253 (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you got a source which says that the VC9 was the Vanguard? 86.166.26.253 (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

From p571 of Vickers Aircraft since 1908 - VC-1 was the Viking, VC-2 was the Viscount, VC7 was the Vickers V1000. It states that "nothing has been traced" for the VC8 and VC9.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

VC7 was the Vickers V1000 - actually the V1000 was to be built in two version, the V1001 was the military bomber, from-which the V1002 VC7 was to be developed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.8 (talk) 12:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

RAF current usage

I cant see any mention of the passenger VC10 that the RAF are still running out of Brize Norton for troop transportation. I was told it will be in service till 2012, but this was in personal correspondence with the base press officer so not citable. It flies over my house regularly on troop runs. They also use a charter DC10 from a US company and seem to alternate the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.183.49 (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Is it not all explained in the section RAF service? MilborneOne (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)