Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
VC10- Early Long Ranger  
User currently offlineSU184 From Egypt, joined Feb 2004, 235 posts, RR: 11
Posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1883 times:

I was wondering why the VC10 didn't succeed as the B707 and DC8 did in the early jet days, although for me it it more elegent, it looked rugged and well designed to do the job, and it had very characteristic noise that you can't miss, I can only think of few airlines that bought it, BOAC (of course ), Gulf Air, East African, Ghana Airways, British Caledonian, can't think of others. Can anyone help, other than it was specifically designed to BOAC needs???

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ken Rose
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ian Oswald (via Martin Stephen)



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Snorre - VIP Vienna International Planespotters
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ken Wilkinson



8 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineGreg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1868 times:

It was hardly a long ranger! Designed mostly for hot and high African/Midde East routes if I'm not mistaken--not initially designed for transatlantic.

It was grossly overweight for the number of passengers. The 707 and DC-8 had far superior economics-- (even BOAC had to bite the bullet and replace them with 707's).

However, you'd be hard pressed to find a better looking first generation aircraft!


User currently offlineRICARDOAB From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 175 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1815 times:

The Ilyushin Il-62, which was the Russian copycat to the VC-10 was more long-range as it flew on Aeroflot's Asian routes to Vietnam, China, and Korea etc. More recently it has been flying tran-Atlantic for Cubana.

User currently offlineTu114 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1772 times:

Sadly the VC-10 was the victim of the same problem as other British planes developed around the same time (the Trident being a particular example) - a tendancy to design for the very particular requirements of the British and Commonwealth airlines. The VC-10 was optimised for long thin routes with hot and high airports with limited on the ground support. As such it was less economical for other uses than an aircraft (such as the 707) that was built with more general usage in mind.

It also didn't help that BOAC was somewhat indecisive about the specifications that they wanted. As I understand it the original proposal from Vickers was similar to the later Super VC-10. BOAC said that that was too large so the launch version was smaller. In service BOAC found that the standard VC-10 was not large enough....

Just a quick pet peeve - is there any actual evidence that the Il-62 was a copy? Probably not. It's like saying that the A320 is a copy of the 737 because they're both similar in size and layout.


User currently offlineNorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 3003 posts, RR: 37
Reply 4, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1753 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Just a quick pet peeve - is there any actual evidence that the Il-62 was a copy?

actually, there have been admissions by Soviet era engineers that they DID copy the VC-10's basic layout. However there the "espionage" ends, as beyond basic appearance they are very different aircraft.

Also the VC-10 was always to have bi-directional US East Coast to London range. BOAC however basically killed the VC-10 by telling potential customers they wanted "superior" (their term) Boeing 707s and that the VC-10 could not acheive its design specifications. However after the VC-10 went into service, and BOAC got 707-420s, passengers sided heavily with the VC-10 on a comfort basis, and the VC-10 could carry more pax out of shorter runways than a 707 or DC-8 (at least until the -62).

Yet another wasted opportunity...



Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
User currently offlineTu114 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1705 times:

The russians would have to have been some of the fastest engineers around given that the VC-10 and Il-62 both first flew in 1962....

As a matter of interest the aircraft history and data page for the VC-10 here on a.net has a useful potted history of BOAC's shenanigans ordering the aircraft.

There's also a good article here: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Vickers%20VC10


User currently offlineSU184 From Egypt, joined Feb 2004, 235 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1617 times:

The VC10 was designed as a long range aircraft from the beginning having a range of more than 11,000km with 174 pax, this comparable to the B707 with 10,000km, and the DC8 with 9000km with similar loads.
There is no wonder about the copying capability of the russians in those days, the Tu-144 was a copy of the Concorde and flew before it.
As for the IL-62, they had a problem with its CG, so with certain loads it had tanks to be filled with water as ballast, on one occasion during its brief history with UAA ( now EgyptAir ), it was stuck in the gulf area in early 70's asking for 4 tons of water at a time when everything was still underdeveloped in that area.


User currently offlineCarduelis From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2001, 1585 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1562 times:

Thanks for the excellent link Tu114, but being in BOAC at the time, my memory tells a slightly different story.

Whilst the Standard VC10 was intended for the hot climates, the Super specification from BA was that it should have a longer range than the 707, as mentioned above, and emphasised the ability to fly from UK to the West Coast of US.

When it was found that this range was not achievable, BA cancelled the additional Supers. BAC in retaliation reduced the number of spares needed for support downroute, so for a while the Super operated only LHRNYCLHR.

The 707s were not brought in to replace the VC10, they were there already with Rolls Royce 436s operating from around 1958 - the Comet, of course, was the first trans-atlantic jet, just beating the 707 to the post!

I worked on these 707s in the early 60s, and from late 1962, we did operate into Kano, Lagos, Karachi, Singapore, as well as Teheran, Delhi, Rangoon, Bangkok, and Hong Kong, with no trouble at all!

Later, a few more 707s BOAC were delivered, the first two from Cunard Eagle, which then merged into BOAC Cunard. Later again, some P&W engined versions arrived. These had not been allowed on the initial BA order, as the British Government at the time decided that all BOAC's 707s must have RR engines!

Anyway, my two pence . . . !





Per Ardua ad Astra! ........ Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense!
User currently offlineJetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7407 posts, RR: 50
Reply 8, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1479 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Here's a good site on the old VC10. Flew on it only once from PHL-LHR in 1976 with BA.

http://www.vc10.org/



Made from jets!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Early Long Flights? posted Wed Sep 6 2006 04:52:20 by Centrair
LH 747-8I As Long As The 747-8F? posted Wed Dec 13 2006 19:26:32 by MD 11
Oman Air Eye Long-haul With Used 763/764 Or 330 posted Tue Dec 12 2006 07:13:00 by Jimyvr
Austrian: None Of Long-haul Routes Are Profitable posted Tue Dec 12 2006 07:07:21 by Jimyvr
Why Will It Take Airbus So Long To EIS The A350 posted Wed Dec 6 2006 22:21:39 by Clickhappy
Belfast-Glasgow-Toronto Early 70s posted Wed Dec 6 2006 03:17:21 by Yulguy
Seat Pitch In Y Early 747 -100, 1970s posted Sat Dec 2 2006 23:23:39 by 767er
Does SAS Offer Wireless On All Long Haul? posted Fri Dec 1 2006 22:54:24 by Vio
BA 767s Long Haul posted Fri Dec 1 2006 14:32:54 by Albird87
Allegiant Adds Fourth RFD To PIE Early Next Year posted Wed Nov 29 2006 23:40:56 by KarlB737