747400sp
Topic Author
Posts: 3890
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 7:27 pm

Why The VC10 Never Made A Good Cargo Jet?

Fri Oct 24, 2008 9:36 pm

When I look at the VC10, I wonder why it was not successful in the cargo world. VC10s are near the size of a DC8s, but has an short field performose like 727s. I would cargo company back in the 80's and 90's would have love them.
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5549
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: Why The VC10 Never Made A Good Cargo Jet?

Fri Oct 24, 2008 10:09 pm

Without getting into specifics of performance load carrying etc.
I would say the biggest reason was that there were so few of them, a total of 54 aircraft and of those at one time 26 were in RAF service. The remaining fleet hardly had the economies of sscale to be of value to anyone.

Cheers
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19287
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Why The VC10 Never Made A Good Cargo Jet?

Fri Oct 24, 2008 10:22 pm



Quoting StealthZ (Reply 1):
I would say the biggest reason was that there were so few of them

Of the 40 VC-10s and Super VC-10s that went into airline service, 24 were purchased by the RAF for conversion to tankers and for spare parts to support the RAF's original 14 VC-10s delivered new. And 7 other airline aircraft were written off in accidents or terrorist incidents. There just weren't enough for a freighter conversion program to make economic sense.
 
User avatar
Jetlagged
Posts: 2562
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:00 pm

RE: Why The VC10 Never Made A Good Cargo Jet?

Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:01 pm

If the RAF VC10 C.Mk.1 transports had come on the market in the 80s or 90s I'm sure they would have been snapped up by cargo operators. They already have a cargo door, etc. They also had Super VC10 engines on a Standard VC10 airframe. Payload v. range would have been good, I suspect.

At the time of the VC10 tanker conversions, the C.Mk.1 transports had very low life airframes. They have been used much more intensively since then as tankers themselves so sadly this will mostly have been used up.

Wonderful aircraft, the VC10.  spin 
The glass isn't half empty, or half full, it's twice as big as it needs to be.
 
Alessandro
Posts: 4962
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 3:13 am

RE: Why The VC10 Never Made A Good Cargo Jet?

Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:56 pm

Several versions where suggested, one with Globemaster loading ramp,but as the aviation world was dominated by USA and USSR back then few bought VC-10s despite being a good design.
From New Yorqatar to Califarbia...
 
iRISH251
Posts: 635
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 3:56 am

RE: Why The VC10 Never Made A Good Cargo Jet?

Sun Oct 26, 2008 9:57 pm



Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 3):
If the RAF VC10 C.Mk.1 transports had come on the market in the 80s or 90s I'm sure they would have been snapped up by cargo operators. They already have a cargo door, etc. They also had Super VC10 engines on a Standard VC10 airframe. Payload v. range would have been good, I suspect.

Much as I like the VC10, I wonder if its economics would have acceptable. It is a stoutly-built aircraft but this means that it is heavy for its size. The RR Conways are also very noisy and have never been the subject of a hush-kit programme. There might also have been some modifications required for civilian certification, as I'm sure the military machines differed in some respects from the civil VC10s. All in all, you might have seen a similar situation to what happened to the RAF Britannia fleet - low-time aircraft in great condition but most of which went on to have short civilian lives (and of course some were broken up without ever flying again).
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: Why The VC10 Never Made A Good Cargo Jet?

Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:09 pm



Quoting Irish251 (Reply 5):
Much as I like the VC10, I wonder if its economics would have acceptable. It is a stoutly-built aircraft but this means that it is heavy for its size.

Somewhere around 1982 I saw a FI article which claimed that the VC-10 was so well protected against corrosion that it turned out not to cost any more than a 707 to operate in the long run when maintenance was taken into account. I'll breathe a sigh for what might have been.
 
GDB
Posts: 12679
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Why The VC10 Never Made A Good Cargo Jet?

Fri Oct 31, 2008 11:29 pm



Quoting Areopagus (Reply 6):
Somewhere around 1982 I saw a FI article which claimed that the VC-10 was so well protected against corrosion that it turned out not to cost any more than a 707 to operate in the long run when maintenance was taken into account. I'll breathe a sigh for what might have been.

BOAC, who after all wrote the spec for the VC.10, then had second thoughts, started circulating, (including to Boeing), data suggesting the VC-10 was significantely more expensive than the 707.
The later 707's were better in fuel consumption, (after all, it had much more development from a much bigger production base and a much bigger and better capitalised company).
But in other respects, the VC-10 was a match.

Just as BOAC were doing the dirty on BAC, they started to find that the VC-10 had unprecedented pax appeal. Pax were chosing BOAC in many cases to fly on the VC-10.
The rear mounted engines gave a lower cabin noise, it was seen as smoother.
This appeal would still continue to a degree, into the wide body era.

This is how UK industry managed itself in the 60's, a state airline specified a type for BAC to build.
Then they reduced thier order, then smeared the type, all the while taking tax £.
From the same pot of tax £ that helped to build the VC-10!
A government minister responsible for promoting trade, was understandably angered and bewildered by all this.
Since he found himself how some prospective VC-10 customers were put off by BOAC's actions.

Some civil VC-10's were fitted with a cargo door, but when 13 Super VC-10 were cancelled by BOAC, these included 5 airframes with cargo doors.

BAC did propose a cargo VC-10 in the 60's, with a swing nose for cargo loading directly into the fuselage.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bluepoole and 16 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos