Jump to content

Talk:Vickers Viscount/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Things people said

Quiet? Since when had the Viscount ever been quiet, inside or out? It was always loud!

ckyliu

Well, if you ever flew the piston engine aircraft of the day such as the Super Connie, or even the CV 340/440s. All very loud and much vibration. The Viscount was particularily loud from the perspective of ground personnel as those Darts had a pretty loud scream on ground idle.

snowghost

I never remember the Britannia being loud! Guess the Viscount was quiet for the day though, when compared to the DC-3s and similar it was replacing and the Herald and such like it was competing with.

ckyliu

The Britannia's nickname was 'the Whispering Giant' so compared to the earlier piston-engined large airliners it was quieter. The same went for the Viscount, at least from the passenger's point of view. Another advantage from the passenger's POV was the lack of vibration inside the cabin, it being possible to place a coin on a table and then balance the coin on its edge whilst flying in the Viscount. On piston-engined airliners the coin would topple over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.80.49 (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
This is what a piston-engined aeroplane of that era (1940s) sounded like from the inside; [1] and [2] - it shows you why intercoms were developed. Civilian piston-engined airliners were not much quieter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I have flown in C-47, DC-4, DC-6, 049 Constellation and Viscount aircraft. For a passenger the Viscount seemed very quiet. For the ramp worker the all propliners were loud (at ORF in the late 50s the boarding gates were open and adjacent to the ramp). The Viscount had a very loud screech which required ear protection. My father ascribed his hearing loss in the lower frequencies to flying DC-3s. The loss of hearing in the upper frequencies he blamed on the Viscount (he also flew DC-6Bs, 727s, and 747s so his particular blame on two aircraft should be noted.

Two Viscount 720's crashed in Australia and the model is not mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.9.139.165 (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There were three Australian crashes that I know of. All crashes were due to mechanical failure of the aircraft. I thought there was a 4th crash at YBBN in 1954, with brake failure during a landing of a TAA training flight. I cannot find any info on it. VH-TVC at Sydney Airport 1961, VH-RMI at Winton (qld) 1966, VH-RMQ at Pt. Headland 1968. Sigma-t (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"In August 2010, only two Vickers Viscount aircraft (both ex-B.E.A. type 800, the first one reg. no. 3D-PFI), remained in airworthy flying condition in Africa, and there is a possibility that 9Q-COD ( the second one,ex. G-APEY) remains flyable, but is parked on the military ramp at Kinshasha. " Unless they are actually the first and second manufactured aircraft, which seems unlikely, shouldn't that be shortened rather? 194.176.105.142 (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

JFYI, BAe and the UK CAA withdrew and cancelled the Viscount's Type Certificate in 2000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.255 (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
There were three Australian crashes that I know of. All crashes were due to mechanical failure of the aircraft. - actually they were all due to improper (botched) maintenance procedures. Read the Accident Reports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
The accidents were:
The failure mode of Ansett Flight 325 was very similar to that of Capital Airlines Flight 75 over Chase Maryland in 1959 (see CAB Accident Report SA-341) http://prcarc1.erau.edu/awweb/main.jsp?flag=browse&smd=2&awdid=5

The Mid-Atlantic Air Museum Viscount type

The FAA lists Viscount c/n 233, N7471 as a type 797 Viscount. See: http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=N7471

There was only one Viscount 797 made. It was c/n 229. That airplane was originally constructed for Capital Airlines as a Viscount 745D. The sales to Capital was never concluded. In July 1957 the Capital livery was removed and in September the airplane was registered in England as G-APFR. In March 1958 the airplane was sold to the Canadian Department of Transportation which had Vickers-Armstrong convert the airplane to a Viscount 797D standard before delivery. It was registered CF-DTA. In April 1982 The Canadian DoT sold the airplane to Ronald J Clark who registered it in the USA as N660RC. Viscount c/n 229 was scrapped in Tucson, AZ in 1993.

Viscount 797D, c/n 229 was never the property of the Mid-Atlantic Air Museum.

The MAAM lists Viscount c/n 233 as a 745D. That is what it was originally built as for Capital Airlines. But . . .

Viscount c/n 233 was built for Capital Airlines as a 745D, N7571, fleet number 389. (http://www.vickersviscount.net) As in the case of c/n 299 the sale to Capital fell through. Viscount c/n 233 was converted to a 798D and sold to Northeast Airlines and registered as N6591C.

Northeast operated 10 Vickers 798D aircraft, eight were converted from 745Ds, while 2 were built from the start as 798Ds.

After the Northeast viscounts were repossessed in Sept. 1963. Viscount c/n 233 was sold at auction to Irving Trust Company which sold c/n 233. The airplane to four more owners, finally ending the property of Clara Strauss Abad who donated it to the Mid-Atlantic Air Museum which re-registered the Viscount N7471, it's original Capital Airlines registration.

Thus c/n 233 was' a 745D and 'was converted to a 798D. So is the MAAM correct in claiming that c/n 233 is a 745D?

It depends. The MAAM was also donated the fuselage of an ex-Capital 745D c/n 137.

Very often difference between various numerical versions of airliners denotes the interior arrangements of the airplane. Thus a Boeing 727-227 might have the interior and avionics specified by one airlines while a 727-212 might be built to a different airline's specification. They were both 727-200s, but probably had differences in galley, seating, and blue room arrangement.

Thus the differences between a 745D and 798D might just be the interior and/or avionics. The difference between a Capital airlines 745 and 745D was the engines (Dart 506 vs Dart 510), a more important difference than might be between the 745D and 798D.

This leads us back to the other Viscount fuselage donated to the MAAM, c/n 137. It was a 754D. Unlike c/n 233 it had not been used as a freighter and thus retained it's passenger interior. The MAAM used the interior of c/n 137 to restore c/n 233. In doing so they may have restored c/n 233 to it's original Capital Airlines configuration. Or they may not if the seats, galley and such were not identical to the original.

What about the FAAs listing c/n 233 as the singular 797? I don't know and can only speculate. In 1982 Ronald J Clark owned both the real 797D, c/n 229 (originally built for Capital as a 745D) and a real 745D, c/n 135. Perhaps FAA records became confused at that time. The problem with this speculation is that Ronald Clark never owned c/n 229.

The most exhaustive resource on the internet for the Viscount, .vickersviscount.net, lists both the 798Ds (except the two built as 798Ds, c/n 391 and 392, production of which started as replacement fuselages for Capital but were sold to Northeast before production was complete) and the 797D as "V.745D series Viscount." (The 745D was designed to meet CAA (later the FAA) requirements. For example the 745Ds and 798Ds had over-wing fuel dump tubes which Viscount 700 series, including Capital's 3 744s, aircraft not built for the US market did not have).

So the MAAM seems to be both right and wrong to call c/n 233 a 745D. From a strictly technical view Vickers-Armstrong sold it as a 798D.

In the end c/n 233 is displayed with the livery and registration it was originally flown with.

Is Wikipedia to hew to the absolute truth, or the romantic (though based on fact) "truth"?

Right or wrong?

Mark Lincoln Mark Lincoln (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

"233" was first flown on 28 June 1957 as N7471 a "745" and was converted to a Type 798 in July 1958 for Northeast Airlines and registered N6591C and delivered in August 1958. So as far as I can see is a Type 798 although it had a VIP interior added at some point when it was operated by Blax Knox Corportation. As you correctly said only one Type 797 and that was not "233". The big change between the 745 and 798 was the former had an integral forward airstairs I believe. MilborneOne (talk) 10:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Viscount c/n 233 almost certainly had a VIP interior installed in it's days as a corporate airplane. The interior was stripped when it was used as a light freighter by Monarch Aircraft.

Viscount c/n 137, went into storage at Sussex County Airport, Georgetown, Delaware after it was sold by United Airlines in January 1969. It remained in storage at the Sussex County Airport from 1969 until February 1997 when owner Ronald J Clark had it scrapped and donated the fuselage to MAAM. I do not recall United ever replacing the interiors of the Viscounts it acquired in the Capital merger. It is very likely that N7439 had the original Capital Airlines interior when it was donated to the MAAM.

All of Capital's 745 and 754D Viscounts were delivered with the integral forward airstairs. The 3 744's were not delivered with the integral forward airstairs. The airstairs was not the difference between the 745D and the 798D. United brought all 9 745s up to the 745D standard to avoid having to maintain two different versions of the Rolls Royce Dart

Gary Baesel's excellent Capital Airlines Virtual Museum (http://baesel.net/cap1.htm) has photos of the MAAMs Viscount (http://baesel.net/ehrichmaam.htm). The virtual museum also has a picture of the ID plate from c/n 137 (http://baesel.net/tappe.htm). The same link has a link to a photo of N7439 at the MAAM (http://www.airliners.net/photo/116562/L/). Viscount c/n 137 retained it's original registration N7439 through it's entire life. Thus N7471 may well match it's original incarnation as a 745D.

Curiously the FAA lists c/n 137 as a 797, as it does c/n 233 (http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=N7439).

I have flown on Capital Airlines Viscounts many times (also a DC-4 and 049 Connie). The first time I flew it was on a Viscount from ORF to ATL in 1957. My father flew Viscounts for Capital and went with United after the merger. As a kid I used to sneak the Viscount manual out of his brain bag and read it. To me the Viscount is a special airplane.

N7471 is a 798D, but I don't think the MAAM is wrong to represent N7471 as the airplane it was when it made it's first flights.

Wikipedia would be wrong to not tell the truth.

Mark Lincoln Mark Lincoln (talk) 15:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

So you are happy that the current entry says it is a 798D which appears to be the case. MilborneOne (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I am the person who changed it. Mark Lincoln (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Further research indicates that United changed the Viscount seating arrangement from Capital's 48 seats to 40 seats. I never flew on a Viscount after the merger. Mark Lincoln (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Still further research has ascertained that the interior stripped from c/n 137 was for 48 passengers. The Mid-Atlantic Air Museum no longer allows ex-Capital pilots inside the airplane which is now in poor condition. Mark Lincoln (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The Information Box

The Information Box states the Viscount was developed into the Vanguard. This is not true. The Vanguard was designed to meet an entirely different specification by BEA. The Vanguard was designed as a Viscount replacement. Ironically Vanguard production ended before the last Viscount was produced.

George Edwards was head of the design team for both aircraft as well as the VC-10. The Vanguard had a double bubble fuselage (considered for the Viscount but rejected for a circular one). The Vanguard was 122' 10" long compared to 85' 8" for the Viscount 800 (less for the v.700s). The respective wingspans are 118' 7" vs 93' 8". Wing areas are 1,527 ft² vs 963 ft². Loaded weight is 141,000 lbs. vs 67,500 lbs. Vmax 425 mph. vs 352 mph. Passenger capacity 139 vs 75 (v.800, for the v.700 it was around 50). The Vanguard had Rolls Royce Tyne engines (5,545 hp.) the Viscount had Rolls Royce Dart engines (1,990 shp. in the version used on the v.800, 1,576 shp. in the last v.700s)).

They were products of the same company but that is all they had in common.

George Edward's team designed the V-1000/V7 (cancelled before the prototype was completed) between the Viscount and the Vanguard.

I may being picky but the Vanguard was certainly not developed from the Viscount. Mark Lincoln (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I would agree. MilborneOne (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Type 700D Specifications

I added statistics for the 700D Series Viscount for the simple reason that the 700 series constituted about two-thirds of all Viscount production.

All weight and performance numbers for airplanes are somewhat bogus.

As the Vickers-Armstrong sales pamphlet "The Viscount 700 Series Specification" states in it's preamble: "This specification describes a basic aircraft in which an attempt has been made to anticipate the needs of the average operator, although the detailed requirements of individual operators will probably affect the weight sheet, Section 16. However, at an all-up weight of 58,500 lb. these variations will not affect the performance guarantees in Section 2, provided that these requirements do not cause any alteration in drag or available thrust."

To put it simply, it depends.

It depends upon the specific details of the airplane, such as the weight and coefficients of lift and drag in the airplanes configuration; the atmospheric conditions such as the barometric pressure, temperature, humidity, viscosity and density of the air; even how dirty the airplane is (don't forget to consider how many hard landings have bent the airplane slightly out of the shape it had when it rolled out of the factory door).

The rate of climb figures are taken off a chart showing rate of climb vs altitude at the International Standard Atmosphere (ISA), a standard used to allow a consistent frame of reference. I have never flown an airplane on a standard day. Some variable, usually all of them, was not consistent with a "Standard Day." That is why Vickers also showed a rate of climb vs altitude chart "I.S.A. + 15° C. A much more useful number for an operator in Africa or much of the US.

Also though an airplane might be capable of the quoted speed, altitude and range specified it is impossible to do them all on the same flight. Or even two of them. For example maximum speed absolutely rules out maximum range and vice-versa.

Then there is the specification of "Maximum Speed." That is a totally useless number for most airplanes with the exception of fighters. For an airliner the important figure is the Economical Cruise Speed, or on occasion the Maximum Cruise Speed. Flying an airliner at it's "Maximum Speed" will soon cause bankruptcy.

Alas, the anal-retentive who designed the specifications template only allows the useless "Maximum Speed" specification. I cheated and posted the Maximum Criuse speed instead. (A compromise, knowing that airliners are more likely to be operated at their Economy Cruise speed),

What is even more of a problem is that today the Indicated Airspeed or, True Airspeed, is not the important number. The Mach number is the important one. No space on the Wikipedia Template for any Mach numbers.

With engine performance the story is the same. Atmospheric conditions can greatly effect power output. The numbers you see are on a test stand with optimal conditions. In the case of the Viscount power output for takeoff is improved with water methanol injection. Takeoff distances are greatly reduced, but there is a limited amount of water methanol.

Which leads to another set of important numbers not in the template. Takeoff and landing distances. Very important numbers. George Edwards (the guy who headed the Viscount design effort) designed the Vickers VC-10 to operate out of hot, high airports with short runways (think Nairobi, Kenya), by the time it finally reached service most of the runways had been extended which took away much of the VC-10's competitive advantage over the 707.

Do not think of tampering with the sacred Template. I tried that editing some articles about blimps. I tried to add the balloonet volume and configuration (important factors in blimp design) only to see the information deleted and have my wrist slapped.

The 700 series Viscount is what made the airplane a great success. The article needed to have the statistics for the 700s more than it did for the 800s.

My primary sources Are: http://www.vickersviscount.net/Pages_Technical/700%20Series%20Specification%20Performance%20Weights%20and%20Dimensions.aspx http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=380

Mark Lincoln Mark Lincoln (talk) 19:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with you changing the specs to the 700 but we dont normally have more than one set. MilborneOne (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The template used for the 800 is old and we would tend to use the Template:Aircraft specs these days as it gives more choices. MilborneOne (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Then keep the 700D specs. They represent the middle of Viscount development. Mark Lincoln (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Aircraft on Display

G-ALWF was converted to a 701A by replacing the Dart 505 engines with 506s.

701C The seven 701Cs were built with Dart 506 engines.

F-BGNR - the Viscount 35 website is defunct.

The Pima Air & Space Museum lists c/n 40 as a 744. This not true. There were three Viscount 744s constructed for Capital Air Lines. They were c/n 88, 89, & 90. Construction number 88 was damaged beyond repair while landing at Osaka, Japan 12 June 1961. Number 89 eventually served with the Empire Test Pilots School and was sold to Shackleton Aviation Ltd. which removed all useful parts. The hulk was eventually scrapped c. 1975. Number 90 was badly damaged when the landing gear collapsed at Midway Airport, Chicago, Illinois, USA on 20 February 1956. The aircraft was dismantled and returned to Vickers-Armstrong. It was rebuilt as a 757 (c/n 301) CF-THJ for Trans Canada Airlines. CF-THJ was scrapped in July 1971.

The Viscount at the Pima Air & Space Museum is a 724 c/n 40 built for TCA in 1954.

794D TC-SEL (c/n 430) was on of the last few 700Ds built. First flying in Sept. 1958. The last 700D was TC-SET (c/n 432) which first flew in Nov. 1958.

The list is completed with every surviving Viscount. There were several in the Congo but it appears all have been scrapped by 2015. All essential Wikipedia pages have been linked to the list. Mark Lincoln (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks but I have removed the "cockpits" consensus is not to include them if whole aircraft exist, we also need to replace www.vickersviscount.net as source as it is not reliable in wikipedia terms as a being self-published. MilborneOne (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The list included cockpits before I added any. The Vickers Viscount Network is the most inclusive source for information about Viscounts on the web. It's veracity is recognized by the British Library. British Library

It should not have had cockpits it was probably just missed, in wikipedia terms the website is a Self Published Source and not considered reliable, it may be an exception if the - "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" so have you any info that "Geoff Blampied" meets the criteria. MilborneOne (talk) 12:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Looks to be an "amateur" who knows their stuff, but as you say - self-published. (https://uk.linkedin.com/pub/geoff-blampied/29/784/952). GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Hughes Tool Viscount order

The Hughes Tool order for Viscounts was not completed. The construction of c/n 82 caused great problems for Vickers. Hughes had four engineers assigned to the factory and they under Hughes's intervention managed to disrupt the production line. Hughes insisted upon performing the first ground runs of c/n 82 but never showed up to perform them. Eventually the order was cancelled. The fate of the Hughes order should probably be added to the article. Mark Lincoln (talk) 02:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Vickers Viscount Network is a "reliable Source"

" in wikipedia terms the website is a Self Published Source and not considered reliable, it may be an exception if the - "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" so have you any info that "Geoff Blampied" meets the criteria. MilborneOne (talk) 12:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks to be an "amateur" who knows their stuff, but as you say - self-published. (https://uk.linkedin.com/pub/geoff-blampied/29/784/952). GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)"


Please consider:

"This page in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."

- Wikipedia:Verifiability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources

"Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria."

- ibid


"Definition of published

The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet."

- Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources


The Vickers Viscount Network is archived by the British Library under the category of Engineering which is non-fiction.

The UK Web Archive is available online, and thus is published.

The credentials of the British Library are available at: http://www.bl.uk/ The British Library UK Web Archive is published on line at: http://www.webarchive.org.uk/ukwa/

"The Archive contains sites that reflect the rich diversity of lives and interests throughout the UK. Search is by Title of Website, Full Text or URL, or browse by Subject, Special Collection or Alphabetical List."

- British Library

The Vickers Viscount Network is archived by the BL as Engineering: http://www.webarchive.org.uk/ukwa/subject/111/page/1

The VVN in particular is listed at: http://www.webarchive.org.uk/ukwa/subject/111/page/11

Any questions you may have may about the standards of the British Library UK Web Archive should be addressed if you contact: web-archivist@bl.uk


"Context matters

The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." (emphasis mine)

- Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

- Wikipedia:Verifibility Self-published sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources


The credentials of the researchers are provided at: http://www.vickersviscount.net/ContactUs.aspx

The VVN is a collaborative effort of over 60 researchers in 17 nations including:

Brian Burrage Co-founder, historian and photo archivist Runcton, near Chichester, West Sussex, England PO20 1PN

Mark Pilkington VH-TVR restoration team, Moorabbin near Melbourne, Australia

Dave Peters CF-THG restoration team Sidney, British Columbia Retired Air Canada Airbus A340 Captain

Jack Stephens Canadian researcher - Calgary, Alberta Former TCA - Trans-Canada Air Lines mechanical accessories technician

Wally Hasker Canadian researcher Ex Air Canada Viscount Captain

Alan Beardmore UK researcher Ex BMA - British Midland Airways and Dan-Air London engineer UK researcher Ex BEA - British European Airways Viscount Captain and Training Captain

Brian Powell UK researcher - Effingham, Surrey, England KT24 5LP Vickers-Armstrongs test pilot The first commercial pilot to have his licence endorsed for the Viscount' Chief training captain for Hunting-Clan, test pilot for the British United Group

Cliff Newton UK researcher - Chichester, West Sussex Virgin Atlantic Airbus A340 training captain Ex BMA - British Midland Airways, BAF - British Air Ferries, Air Liban and Air Algerie Viscount pilot

George Burton UK researcher, Hadleigh, Essex Manager Technical Affairs, European Regions Airline Association Ex BAF - British Air Ferries

Jamie Popplewell international researcher - Hockley, Essex, England SS5 4JB ex BAF - British Air Ferries engineer

John Overhill G-ALWF restoration team Duxford

John Woodhouse G-APIM restoration team Brooklands - Byfleet, Surrey

John Young UK researcher - ex Vickers-Armstrongs, Weybridge, 1954 - 1987

Mike Higgins F-BGNR restoration team Coventry

Romer Adams UK researcher - Viscount Preservation Trust

Ian Brown Assistant curator, aviation, National Museum of Flight, East Fortune, Scotland Home of Viscount c/n 7 G-AMOG

Austin John Brown European researcher Professional photographer and ex Cambrian Airways Viscount pilot

Mark Lincoln (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no doubt they are worthy people with a fondness for the Viscount but we should use published sources rather than self-published if we can, most of the factual information should be available in the number of Viscount books and monographs that have been published. MilborneOne (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I have several books covering the Viscount, also books written by people who crewed them, and a biography of George Edwards. I cited one in my solo (to this date) edit of the main Viscount page rather than the Vickers Viscount Network.

The best of the lot is "The Handbook of the Vickers Viscount" which is concise, comprehensive, packed with information and a good read.

The Handbook of the Vickers Viscount has chapters covering design evolution, the 630 test program, the development of the 700, introduction to service, breaking into the North American market, world-wide service, the 800 series, the 810 series, structures, systems, the development of the Dart, passenger viewpoint, and real performance in service. The appendices (with data for all versions) cover performance (including takeoff & landing distances) weights, dimensions, the Dart engines, all Viscount variants are covered (with an accounting of original operators of each and it's operators up to the 2nd or 3d) and a list of Viscounts produced by c/n.

It was published by a very credible firm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Allan_(publisher) with a long history of publishing specialty books covering railroads, aviation and other subjects http://www.books-by-isbn.com/0-7110/ .

The last chapter of The Handbook of the Vickers Viscount is "The Future."

The Handbook of the Vickers Viscount is an excellent source covering the subject well. But it lacks any coverage after 1968.

There were 41 years of Viscount history to follow it's publication.

The VVVN does cover the operators and individual histories of Viscounts to this day. It's database may be referenced by individual aircraft history (c/n or registration), operator fleets, construction list and registration by country.

I have checked the data it contains against the data in The Handbook of the Viscount and found no substantial discrepancies.

Moreover VVN provides FLIGHT & Aircraft Engineer articles concerning the Viscount: "BEA winter schedules and future plans," "Airscrew turbine progress," "Todays British transports," "Viceroy becomes Viscount," "Introducing the Viscount," "Another British first," "Tropical trials," "Britain's 'Big Three'," "Delivery De Luxe," "Transair buy Viscounts" and BEA Viscount V.802 loss" "http://www.vickersviscount.net/FlightMagazineReports/1946-11-14.aspx , information about George Edwards http://www.vickersviscount.net/Pages_History/SirGeorgeEdwards.aspx and the background & history of the Viscount http://www.vickersviscount.net/Pages_History/History.aspx as well as "The Turboprop World Beater http://www.vickersviscount.net/Pages_History/The_Turboprop_World-Beater_VISCOUNT.aspx . All very useful in showing the Viscount from a historical perspective.

(I would also recommend "the Dollar Earning Viscount" http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1955/1955%20-%200980.PDF , "The Viscount in the Air" (1949) https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1949/1949%20-%201460.PDF, "VISCOUNT IN THE AIR" (1953) http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1953/1953%20-%200375.PDF and "Towards Turboprosperity" http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1953/1953%20-%200388.PDF all available courtesy of Flight Global's extensive FLIGHT & Aircraft Engineer archive.)

Also on the VVN web page are a complete list of VVN researchers as well as examples of the organization's news letter http://www.vickersviscount.net/Newsletters/Newsletter1204.aspx which may be used to evaluate the nature of the organizations disposition.

Unless one has perused all the VVN has to offer, considered the data, presentation and compared it's information to printed sources it would be easy to shrug it off.

I have a strong preference of printed material and suspicion of stuff on the web. I remember the effort needed, nearly 50 years ago, to track down the 21 sources that constituted the bibliography of my historiography thesis. So I delight in the easy access to information provided by the web. Still everything found on the web must be carefully analyzed and scrutinized. But the mere fact that it is on the web is not an indictment. The mere fact that it is "self published" is not an indictment. The material has to be judged by it's substance.

When a source stands up to scrutiny, and provides material otherwise unavailable, it should receive consideration as a viable source.

Consider again that:

"The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."

- Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources

The information on the VVN is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.

The researchers of the VVN are very "qualified" given their credentials:

One is Assistant curator of the National Museum of Flight in Scotland http://www.nms.ac.uk/national-museum-of-flight/

One is a researcher at the Viscount Preservation Trust http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/search?query=Viscount+Preservation+Trust&items_per_page=10

Five are involved in restoring Viscounts at museums of repute check them out:

Australian National Aviation Museum http://www.aarg.com.au/

Brooklands Museum http://www.brooklandsmuseum.com/

Midlands Air Museum http://www.midlandairmuseum.co.uk/ (yes that is a Viscount on their home page)

National Museum of Flight http://www.nms.ac.uk/national-museum-of-flight/

Ferrymead Aeronautical Society http://www.aviationmuseum.eu/World/Oceania/New_Zealand/Christchurch/Ferrymead_Aeronautical_Society

At least eight were Viscount aircrew, including Brian Powell, a Vickers-Armstrong test pilot, who was the first commercial pilot to have his licence endorsed for the Viscount, became Chief training captain for Hunting-Clan and was a test pilot for the British United Group

There is a plethora of persons, qualified on the subject involved in producing the material at the VVN. There is a large number of persons "checking facts" and "scrutinizing the writing." The work itself is clearly, upon inspection, not the work of a few over enthused fans. It is clearly not biased, opinionated, or contrived.

The material it contains does stand up to scrutiny.

The criteria I apply when doing research, familiar to anyone taught history research methods, are well stated in http://www.bowdoin.edu/writing-guides/primaries.htm and http://www.bowdoin.edu/writing-guides/secondary.htm

The VVN passes those inspections

Mark Lincoln (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


As an after thought:

I went so far as to check out Gerry Sweet, author of the article "Turboprop World-beater VISCOUNT" published at the Vickers Viscount Network http://www.theaviationindex.com/authorlist

btw I would not cite my friend Gary Baesel's Capital Airlines Virtual Museum which is a fine collection of Capital memorabilia and anecdotes. It is not to be classified as an attempt at serious research, though some items on that page, under certain circumstances might be cited. For instance if one were composing an article on airline luggage stickers or matchbooks.

I do recommend Gary's site to anyone interested in Capital Airlines, or airlines in general http://www.baesel.net/cap1.htm

Mark Lincoln (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

A Capital Airlines 1955 promo film on the Viscount on YouTube here: [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.74 (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vickers_Viscount/Archive_1&oldid=1194190191"