exFWAOONW From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 284 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7120 times:
I don't know if it could carry enough cargo to make enough money on a long-haul flight to be profitable. Weight/balance would have been a pain, too with the engines and bags and cargo behind the wing only. Was this envisioned as a high-density commuter a/c?
Seems like a clever and simple design. The double bubble is composed of two identical sections; one mounted the 'correct' way up to form the top deck, and one inverted to form the bottom deck. Mind you, look at the legroom on the lower deck looks atrocious!
American 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3321 posts, RR: 14 Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6948 times:
If you look on p11 of the report, you will see three cargo configurations for the planned model. The bottom one has an all cargo configuration on the lower deck, single deck config for the passengers, so it is not just cargo behind the wing, I think that one could have made money if Vickers had proposed it to the airlines. Weight and Balance would not have been an issue like it would have been on the other proposed configs. It could have been called the VC-10 Combi.
Quoting exFWAOONW (Reply 1): Was this envisioned as a high-density commuter a/c?
I think it was envisioned as a high capacity long haul aircraft, before Boeing announced the 747.
"Aimer jusqu'a l'impossible, c'est possible". Tina Arena.
longhauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4280 posts, RR: 36 Reply 6, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5628 times:
Looking at a MTOW of 385,000 lbs, this looks more of an answer to the DC-8-61/63 than competition for the B747. It allowed DC-8-61/63 capacity without the large ground footprint.
The structure looks much like the Vanguard, but taken to further extremes. The double-bubble concept of fuselage design is very strong, and much stronger than non-circular arcs on the sides of a fuselage. Remember that an Achilles heal of the B747 structure is the straight fuselage panels from the upper deck to the lower deck, which requires a lot of attention.
Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
rolypolyman From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 152 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5481 times:
I'm surprised they stopped stretching the VC-10 at the 1150's length (172 ft). Surely they could have tacked on another 20 or 30 ft and it would be similar to that of the DC-8-60 and the upcoming widebodies. Seems it would have been a cheaper solution.
777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2402 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5429 times:
Quoting BooDog (Reply 7): Quoting incitatus (Reply 5):
Did these engines even exist?
Notice on page 5 that it's a quad engine plane, not a twin engine plane.
Quoting rolypolyman (Reply 9): I'm surprised they stopped stretching the VC-10 at the 1150's length (172 ft). Surely they could have tacked on another 20 or 30 ft and it would be similar to that of the DC-8-60 and the upcoming widebodies. Seems it would have been a cheaper solution.
Question of the day: with what power plant?! They assume a minimum of 27.5K lbs. but I'm going out on a limb and claim that would've been "A340-esque!" The conventional VC-10 engines had a thrust rating of 22.5K lbs; a 20+% increase probably would've been asking a lot (both time and money) from RR.
The CASM is projected on page 15 and from the looks of the chart, they were aiming at about a 4,300nm range which would've pit it head-to-head with the 707, DC-8, and 720, (this bird would've carried quite a few more pax) and eventually the early 747s, DC-10, L-1011 and so on. Obviously, a crowded field of competitors in the not too distant future.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16820 posts, RR: 57 Reply 11, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 5397 times:
I once heard that McD once considered using part of the lower hold for seating on the MD-11 (not the A380 look-alike MD-12). I think there wasn't sufficient interest to justify having to add lower emergency exits.
777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2402 posts, RR: 3 Reply 12, posted (2 years 8 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 5257 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 11): I once heard that McD once considered using part of the lower hold for seating on the MD-11 (not the A380 look-alike MD-12). I think there wasn't sufficient interest to justify having to add lower emergency exits.
I'm pretty sure there have been threads about that very subject (as well as the L-1011) but can't remember if there would have been lower-level windows as well...
Other way around Doc; MD-12 project vastly precedes the 380... And anyway, the -12 was a much better looker, something about those MD windows working well without a huge "bulge" upfront... But I digress
This concept of a double decker VC-10 I think might have worked, as long as it had sufficient time advantage over the DC-10 & L1011. The 747 is really out of reach capacity wise to something like this, as well as with range, but a double deck VC-10 may well have kept TriStars from ever entering the BA fleet. The bigger question I haven't seen asked here... What would have become of Airbus?
Something like this may well have rendered the A300 stillborn. Not permanently, for sure. But maybe at least until the early '80s, and then also maybe with a much more UK centric Airbus Consortium... Throw this one on the "Now that would have been interesting" pile!
rampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 2851 posts, RR: 7 Reply 14, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4923 times:
This web site / discussion forum http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread212956/pg1
mentions early British proposals for 707 and DC-8 competitors, much bigger than the Comet, and one of the larger proposals includes a double-decker seating more than a 707, but not as much as this double-decker VC10. Anyhow, it's more interesting "what ifs". I don't recall the discussion or thread, but I'm pretty sure I found the link via an A.net thread 3 or 4 years ago.
The A300 and A320 can actually trace their heritage to cancelled British projects, notably the BAC2-11 and 3-11.
The 2-11's heritage was the VC-10, the 3-11 the 1-11
Check out on line sources such as Wiki for the ins and outs of the story, and in particular the short sightedness of the UK Govt, which meant Airbus was born with a German/French heart and not a UK heart. There should now be A320's rolling off the Warton production line
An interesting aside is that at the demise of the VC-10 project many UK aerospace engineers went to work for......Boeing. The 747 contains a number of VC-10 features deep inside
incitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 3777 posts, RR: 14 Reply 18, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4388 times:
Quoting BooDog (Reply 7): Notice on page 5 that it's a quad engine plane, not a twin engine plane.
Yes I was aware of that, and that is a big part of the engineering problem. Besides the structure supporting the additional thrust, how was the additional thrust going to be accomplished? Would it result in a different fan diameter or a lot more weight requiring an all-new engine mount?
shankly From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 1472 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4169 times:
Quoting columba (Reply 17): BTW what did happen with Vickers, did they become a part of BAE
Vickers merged with Hunting, English Electric and Bristol to form the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC), which itself was later merged with Hawker Siddeley to form British Aeropsace, which has gone through many changes and is now effectively a defence business called BAE Systems
The BAC 1-11 was originally a Hunting aircraft
The list of UK manufacturers that have fallen from grace is a point of great sadness for Brits like me. True, some of the planes were not good enough, e.g. Handley Page Herald or were created bespoke by the "Ministry" to satisfy two fickle customers BOAC/BEA e.g. the Britannia and Trident.
The true lost opportunities were the VC-7, which would have given the 707 and DC-8 a huge challenge, the misrepresented VC-10, which in my view is the finest postwar jet airliner and the Trident and 1-11, which if fitted with better American P&W engines would have probably meant the UK still being a significant producer of commercial airliners. Even the last effort, the fine HS146 should have been launched in 1974 and would have been streets ahead of rivals, but was delayed until the late 1970's and as such missed the boat
rampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 2851 posts, RR: 7 Reply 22, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4028 times:
Quoting shankly (Reply 20): Vickers merged with Hunting, English Electric and Bristol to form the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC), which itself was later merged with Hawker Siddeley to form British Aeropsace, which has gone through many changes and is now effectively a defence business called BAE Systems
Thanks for that. I had wondered who begat whom in British aviation, never clear on the chronology. Along the same line, where are Shorts and Scottish Aviation in any of this? And wasn't DeHavilland also absorbed into Hawker Siddeley? Set me straight if I'm mistaken.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 23, posted (2 years 8 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4023 times:
Engines would have been the key, really something more than a moderately improved Conway needed.
RB.178 - which seems to have had higher bypass (like standard JT-8 to the versions on the MD-80 onwards), or a high bypass version - both apparently proposed.
Sticking with moderately uprated Conways means the range of this type, from other sources, being more like 2800 nm.
Better engines means end of 1960's in service for this, trouble is, would BAC dare, even with a BOAC order?
BOAC who after specifying VC-10, slashed orders, bad mouthed it (to Boeing's delight), then found out pax loved it so then started marketing it.
Or a decade before, specified the VC-7/V.1000 than cancelled it, saying too soon for new jets, months later buying (same R/R engine powered). B707-420's saying we need new jets.