Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The VC-10:  
User currently offlineZE701 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3883 times:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Russell Collins



I was on board an RAF VC-10 overnighting at Calgary airport 2 days ago, and on crewing in the next morning we were appraoched by a Canadian CRJ pilot on the ramp who asked what sort of plane it was that we were preparing. He commented that he'd never seen anything of it's sort.

Now I know that it's getting on a bit and not widely flown any more, (It's done 40 years RAF service next year) but I really am surprised that a pilot didn't recognise it. Is the VC-10 really that rare these days, and has it faded from memory so quickly?
Also I'm informed by another crew member that it is still one of the quickest passenger jets flying in the world today, is that anywhere near true? I'd find it surprising.

Regards,
ZE701

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3876 times:

Quoting ZE701 (Thread starter):
a Canadian CRJ pilot on the ramp who asked what sort of plane it was that we were preparing. He commented that he'd never seen anything of it's sort.

He hasn't been banned by VC-10 yet  duck 


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13241 posts, RR: 77
Reply 2, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3790 times:

I am sooooo jealous of ZE701!

However, VC-10 left commercial service early, had few customers, which was a factor in the former.
Anyone under 30 will barely remember BA VC-10's.

But this lovely aircraft has a fine reputation as a tanker, think of all the US, NATO allies it refuelled, from exercises to the Gulf in 1991 as well as more recent times.


User currently offlineZE701 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3783 times:

Thanks GDB. I didn't know it had such a poor sales record, but come to think of it I can only remember seeing in person the BA ones from time to time back in my youth at Ringway. And I'm only 33 by the way!
It's a good point you make about its' tanker career, (also many trooper flights flown) so I'm just very surprised the Canuck pilot didn't recognise it.

The RAF is planning around 7-8 more years of service for the old girls yet until the Future Tanker thing is up and running. I guess after that there will be no more left flying.
The troops that we carry won't mind though, compared to the Tristars the Vicky is hopelessly cramped to fly in! I'll stick to my Bae 146 thank you, less graceful from the outside but a sight more comfortable on the inside!


User currently offlineVC10 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 1412 posts, RR: 16
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3769 times:

ZE701

I do not know what the VC-10 is like with the RAF, but she could still cruise along and probably overtake many of to days airliners

The standard VC-10 cruise speed was Mach 0.84
Whilst the super cruise speed was Mach 0.84 or Mach 0.86

A great airliner which entered service with BOAC in 1964 for the standards and a little later for the super which was the first airliner that I did an Auto-land on, although the old girl was never cleared to do them in bad weather.

The following web site might be of interest to you

http://www.vc10.net/

littlevc10


User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3747 times:

And a fine looking aircraft as well. Almost as fast and good looking as this lady.

Big version: Width: 738 Height: 516 File size: 63kb


User currently offlineZE701 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3737 times:

The VC10 is NEARLY as fast......... but MUCH better looking!

But I suppose it's all opinion.


User currently offlineRC135U From United States of America, joined May 2005, 293 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3713 times:

The civil VC10 to me only looked right in BOAC colors (er...colours). Other civil operators simply looked like pretenders. Absolutely beautiful aircraft. Keep 'em flying RAF!

User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31702 posts, RR: 56
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3636 times:

Did the Russians copy the VC10 or was IL62 a Coincidence.  Smile
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineZE701 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3604 times:

The IL62 came after the VC-10. The story goes that the russians got hold of the plans during the cold war and pretty much ripped off the design!

The IL62 has the nickname VC-Tenski in the UK.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13241 posts, RR: 77
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3590 times:

Not sure if IL-62 was an intentional copy, they were both designed for use in restricted fields, VC-10 on BOAC's 'Commonwealth' routes in places like Africa, the IL-62 for austere fields in deepest Russia.
So a similar design for a longer range jet would be expected.

There was some espionage with Concorde/TU-144, but again, the Russians were looking for a broadly similar requirement, so spying was 'around the edges' rather than a full on attempt to reverse engineer.
Not sure how IL-62 compared with VC-10, the IL-62 had a much longer production life allowing for improvements.

I have heard at least at first, the Il-62 compared unfavourably with VC-10, but clearly not to the extent of TU-144/Concorde, where the 'copy' did not perform anything like as advertised, to the extend it was not a practical airliner.
Which you cannot say about IL-62.

(To me, TU-144 was more like the abortive Russian attempt to match the US Apollo programme, both started late for pure political reasons, with a smaller budget and really without the technology to make it work, though I doubt Tupolev had the horrendous in fighting the USSR Lunar project had. They just had artificial timelines meaning short cuts to try and circumvent technology gaps).

I was surprised however that the USSR went with a IL-76 based platform for their tanker, rather than IL-62.


User currently offlineIrish251 From Ireland, joined Nov 2004, 980 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3553 times:

With regard to the original post, remember that pilots' principal job is to fly their own aircraft, not to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of other types. That is the enthusiasts' job! I suspect that most will just about know the main dozen or so types they encounter on a daily basis and would not be au fait with the many subtypes of Airbus or Boeing unless the particular type features in their own company fleet. How often is any individual pilot in North America likely to have come across a VC10 in his/her travels? Not many, I would suggest, particularly if they are in the early years of their career.

The truth is that, outside the UK, and given that it is now only in military service, the VC10 is probably not well-known.


User currently offlineTugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5736 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3424 times:

Quoting ZE701 (Reply 3):
The RAF is planning around 7-8 more years of service for the old girls

I do have soft spot for the Iron Duck! I flew on them a few times on BOAC back in the 70's.

Any plans to add some winglets (blended or otherwise)?

Tug



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineTexfly101 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 351 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3397 times:

It is a very attractive airplane. Too bad there aren't pics in its civil use. I would think that the BOAC livery would have been really good looking.

User currently offlineVc10 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 1412 posts, RR: 16
Reply 14, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3390 times:

Texfly,

Just go to the following site and there are quite a few of the good old girl in BOAC and British Airways colour schemes

http://www.vc10.net/

enjoy little vc10


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13241 posts, RR: 77
Reply 15, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3375 times:

Quite a few pics on this site too.

I remember, living near LHR, the roar of the VC-10, the elegant shape climbing.


User currently offlineScintx From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 270 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3361 times:

The only VC-10 that I saw was a RAF back in 1999-2000 in Albuquerque. I landed in ABQ and saw it sitting at the AFB. I had a several hours before my next flight and was there when it took off. What a great site to see. I agree this is a beautiful aircraft. I tried to get a few people near me to check it out as it took off and they basically did not care. I'm just thankful I got to see one in operation.


Attention All Planets of the Solar Federation....We have assumed control.....We have assumed control......
User currently offlineTexfly101 From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 351 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3361 times:

Quoting Vc10 (Reply 14):
Just go to the following site and there are quite a few of the good old girl in BOAC and British Airways colour schemes

thanks very much, lovely aircraft...I'll add this site to my list and the pics to my collection...dj


User currently offlineSovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2642 posts, RR: 17
Reply 18, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3332 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The Il-62 wasn't a copy of the VC-10. The Il-62 was developed to replace the Tu-114. When Ilyushin sat down to build it they got a direct order/wish from ruler of USSR Krushchev for the plane to be a T-tail because he had really loved his recent experience in a Caravelle. Also, pylons for engine mounts weren't developed at all except on an Il-22 prototype that was abandoned. The basic Il-62 could be said that it wasn't technologically new at all. It doesn't have hydraulic boosters. It sometimes had to rely on a 3500kg water weight in the front of the plane so that it's center of gravity is acceptable. The main gear was purposely put in front of the center of gravity to make the tail a smaller size which then required the famous "fourth gear". The basic Il-62 also had no slats and one-slotted flaps(for lack of a better term). Anyway the only thing that the Il-62 did have at the time that was probably better than the VC-10 was the wing(not wing mechanization). The leading edge had a unique "break" which helped increase elevator efficiency, served partly as slats, and made it almost impossible for the plane to go into the dangerous T-tail condition known as deep stall. Basic Il-62 had 4 NK-8 engines and a range of 7000km. NK-8s have a bypass ratio of 1.24 and 103kN of thrust each and fuel flow of about 0.78lb/lb-h at cruise power. The VC-10 meanwhile was more technologically advanced than the Il-62. It had hydraulic boosters, no 4th gear, double-slotted flaps, and autopilot. The Conways were a little better in fuel economy than the NK-8s. Conways have a bypass ratio of 0.3 and 74.5 kN of thrust 0.735 lb/lb-h fuel flow. But the VC-10 flew 8100km, about 1000 more than the Il-62. They both had thrust reversers. The Il-62 was built more like a tank to suit the underdeveloped Soviet airfields and the VC-10 was made so it can serve "hot and high" destinations although the Il-62 could do that too. The VC-10 also had a faster cruising speed. The IL-62M was then developed to improve Il-62 performance. D-30KUs were installed which were far better than Conways. They have a bypass ratio of 2.42 and make 108kN of thrust. Fuel flow is 0.70 lb/lb-h. Also their reversers could now be deployed in flight. New navigation equipment was fitted, autopilot, and double-slotted flaps. No hydraulic boosters. To this day every Il-62 flying is flown manually without hydraulic boost. The Il-62M had a bigger range now extended to 8800km. The Il-62M is equal if not better than the VC-10 but the basic Il-62 wasn't that great and 1-2 of the basic ones are(I think) still flying today. The Super VC-10 was just a stretch and range actually dropped to 7600km on the Super 10. Both planes seated the same number of passengers. Anyway in short the basic Il-62 was inferior to the VC-10 but the Il-62M went ahead of it and currently still makes a profit so it isn't too bad at all. Both are great airliners IMO.

User currently offlineVc10 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 1412 posts, RR: 16
Reply 19, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3301 times:

Sovietjet,

What a good and informative reply and I have one question for you , did IL-62 have a movable tailplane.

When I was crew on the VC-10 back in the late 60s and early 70s I visited an IL-62 at Delhi and I have to say compared to the VC-10 the IL-62 flight deck was like stepping back a generation in flight deck instrumentation.

You are correct that the super VC-10 was a stretch, but it also had a slightly redesigned wing, a fuel tank in the fin, and an autopilot that was designed to do auto-lands, which the aircraft could do but it was never cleared to do them in weather limiting conditions.

Anyway thanks again for all that information

lilttlevc10


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13241 posts, RR: 77
Reply 20, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3273 times:

Yes, thanks Sovietjet, I suppose it is tempting, or was during the Cold War at least, to view Russian types as 'copies', rather than what they were, designed for specific Aeroflot needs.
I also remember seeing plenty of IL-62's at LHR, sadly born too late to see a TU-114 (quite the most remarkable big turboprop airliner ever built-the largest?)


User currently offlineSovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2642 posts, RR: 17
Reply 21, posted (8 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3256 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Vc10 (Reply 19):
did IL-62 have a movable tailplane.

Yes the Il-62 has a moveable tailplane. And now that you speak of it, the Il-62M also had a fuel tank installed in the fin, along with the Tu-154M.

regular position:
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tim Rees



takeoff:
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bill Sheridan



The first photo is a Il-62M, the second is just Il-62.

Quoting GDB (Reply 20):
Yes, thanks Sovietjet, I suppose it is tempting, or was during the Cold War at least, to view Russian types as 'copies', rather than what they were, designed for specific Aeroflot needs.

Of course, but if one were to go that route, what makes the B-727/Trident not copies? Or the DC-9/BAC-111. It can go either way, which is why the Soviet copies theory isn't true. A little espionage was there possibly on the Tu-144 but that was because the world was competing for the first SST. Sure, the Soviets flew it first but it was rushed and that's why it was inferior to the Concorde.


User currently offlineBuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2907 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (8 years 5 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3148 times:

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 18):
the Il-62M went ahead of it and currently still makes a profit so it isn't too bad at

I saw it yesterday in HAV making a spectacular approach. Great aircraft to see! It drops by in LIS as well regularly, although recently the IL-96 is more common.



I scratch my head, therefore I am.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic The VC-10:
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Why Does The RAF Hang On To The VC-10? posted Sat May 7 2005 01:59:49 by LHMARK
VC-10 At MSP Today! posted Sun Jul 9 2006 00:48:16 by RyanAFAMSP
VC-10 Fans posted Sat Jun 24 2006 21:06:37 by B742
Longest Non-Stop VC-10 Flight? posted Fri Feb 24 2006 18:17:52 by IFEMaster
VC-10 In Tucson? posted Fri Jul 8 2005 21:46:40 by Smokescreen
RAF VC-10 At ABQ posted Sun Mar 13 2005 05:01:48 by Hawaiian717
Why Was The OV-10 Bronco Retired? posted Mon Mar 31 2003 00:27:19 by CX747
Vickers VC-10 posted Thu Dec 19 2002 07:36:57 by Deuce2recon
VC-10 Fleetlists, Anyone? posted Tue Oct 1 2002 19:32:14 by Duke
Any "L-1011" Tankers Like The KC-10? posted Mon Jun 4 2001 22:57:20 by Mr Spaceman

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format