The VC10 and me

[uk 75]

One UK aircraft has been around me more than any other, and no, its not my beloved TSR2, AVS or Boeing SST. It is the VC 10
My Dad made me the Airfix kit. Until recently and from the age of 9 I could watch these elegant planes in their smart RAF colours doing circuits in and out of Brize Norton.
I narrowly missed flying to Khartoum on one, BA used a clapped out 707 instead.
Numerous models and books about or containing the VC10 fill my shelves.
A BOAC VC10 will probably be the model that I grab when I have to go into the Twilight Home...
Google Aeromini BOAC VC 10 and there are plenty of cheapish ones out there if you feel the same. Or post your iconic plane or project.

 

[uk 75]

Here is one...

 

[Tony Williams]

Nice plane - one of my favourites also.

From distant memory, I recall that the plane was designed for short runways in order to access as many airports as possible, so it had great take-off performance (and was incidentally very fast - IIRC it still holds speed records for subsonic airliners). The US equivalents could not match this performance but their problem was solved by extending the runways.

I would be interested to hear the reasons for underwing engines being preferred these days to tail-mounted ones. The latter would seem to have the advantage in reducing cabin noise levels (the VC-10 was noted for being very quiet inside) and also if an engine fails, there would be minimal effect on the handling as the thrust of the remaining engine(s) is so close to the centreline. But after the phenomenally successful Boeing 727, tail-mounted engines began to disappear.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I came back from my last military deployment on a VC-10, it was a great flight and we were very well looked after by the crew. I'll never forget that flight. The attached pdf is a paper/card VC-10 model.

 

[zen]

Tail mounted engines dominate the biz jet scene.....

Likely because of the lower cabin noise.

 

[Hobbes]

I would be interested to hear the reasons for underwing engines being preferred these days to tail-mounted ones. The latter would seem to have the advantage in reducing cabin noise levels (the VC-10 was noted for being very quiet inside) and also if an engine fails, there would be minimal effect on the handling as the thrust of the remaining engine(s) is so close to the centreline. But after the phenomenally successful Boeing 727, tail-mounted engines began to disappear.

The main reason is ease of maintenance (engines close to the ground means you don't need scaffolding to get to them for minor checks).

 

[Grey Havoc]

Beat me to it. In recent years though there has been some debate whether that has ended up being something of a false economy.

 

[Tony Williams]

The main reason is ease of maintenance (engines close to the ground means you don't need scaffolding to get to them for minor checks).

I thought it might be something like that. I wouldn't have thought it would be that problematic to have wheeled platforms, with adjustable deck heights, to be pushed into place to enable work on the engines.

 

[Hobbes]

it's all about minimizing the time spent on the ground between flights. 5 minutes to maneuver the platforms just so (while making sure you don't dent the cowling) is tiny, but it adds up over the lifetime of the aircraft.

 

[Rickshaw]

Wing mounted engines have quite a benefit aerodynamically. They twist the wing downwards and forwards while the aircraft is in flight. Rear mounted engines don't.

 

[EthelredTheUnsteady]

The VC10 is also the iconic airliner to me. I always admired its lines and in 1972 my brother and I got the chance to fly on one when a BOAC VC10 stood in for the Air New Zealand DC8 we had expected to take AKL-NAN. We had flown on Air New Zealand DC8s, Pan Am and AA 707s, but were pleasantly surprised by the greater comfort on the VC10 and astonished by the superior performance of the aircraft, especially the climb out where it seemed to take off like a rocket compared to the American-built airliners. It reached cruising altitude noticeably faster, much more like current airliners, and we settled in to the cruise regime much sooner. The service was as good as Air New Zealand's (my yardstick then and now), although perhaps a little more formal. I have never forgotten that flight.

 

[1635yankee]

Nice plane - one of my favourites also.

From distant memory, I recall that the plane was designed for short runways in order to access as many airports as possible, so it had great take-off performance (and was incidentally very fast - IIRC it still holds speed records for subsonic airliners). The US equivalents could not match this performance but their problem was solved by extending the runways.

I would be interested to hear the reasons for underwing engines being preferred these days to tail-mounted ones. The latter would seem to have the advantage in reducing cabin noise levels (the VC-10 was noted for being very quiet inside) and also if an engine fails, there would be minimal effect on the handling as the thrust of the remaining engine(s) is so close to the centreline. But after the phenomenally successful Boeing 727, tail-mounted engines began to disappear.

Wing-mounted engines reduce wing bending moment, so the reduce wing weight. Tail-mounted engines increase fuselage weight and, because the engines are big weights in the back, the distance from wing to tail is reduced, meaning the horizontal and vertical stabilizers need to be bigger.

 

[Skypilot1987]

Nice plane - one of my favourites also.

From distant memory, I recall that the plane was designed for short runways in order to access as many airports as possible, so it had great take-off performance (and was incidentally very fast - IIRC it still holds speed records for subsonic airliners). The US equivalents could not match this performance but their problem was solved by extending the runways.

I would be interested to hear the reasons for underwing engines being preferred these days to tail-mounted ones. The latter would seem to have the advantage in reducing cabin noise levels (the VC-10 was noted for being very quiet inside) and also if an engine fails, there would be minimal effect on the handling as the thrust of the remaining engine(s) is so close to the centreline. But after the phenomenally successful Boeing 727, tail-mounted engines began to disappear.

The main reason for the rise of the underwing engines are weight and balance, the huge problem with tail mounted engines are that when empty the aircraft is tail heavy, loading therefore has to be performed carefully in order to not tip the aircraft onto its tail, often a loading pogo stick was fitted at the tail to give some early warning of a tip, in the case of the VC10’s soviet copy the Ill 62 a hydraulic tail wheel assembly would be lowered for the same reason.
As such the aircraft couldn’t be flown empty without significant ballast positioned in the front hold or with light passenger loads as the centre of gravity would be too far aft.

 

[Foo Fighter]

A potential advatage of tail mounted engines COULD be behaviour of the aircraft in single engine flying. Mount the engines properly and the yaw affect would be negated.

 

[uk 75]

It is worth noting that the 747 did not replace the VC10 in BOAC (later BA) service. The VC10 and 707 fleets continued to operate in dwindling numbers throughout the 70s.
BEA chose the troubled Lockheed Triststar as its widebody for the 70s. The Trident fleet was replaced by the 757 (which resembled the proposed HS134).
BOAC were looking at both the Tristar and DC10 to replace its 707/VC10 fleet. Once amalgamated with BEA as BA the Tristar won.

 

[BROF]

Rear-mounted engines for a large and heavy aircraft is a bad idea: loss of the relief in wing bending-moments as provided by judiciously placed engine nacelles (heavier wings); long and heavy fuel lines between wing tanks and engines; higher loads on the rear fuselage (heavier fuselage); higher drag in the worst place (rear fuselage); impossibility to fit large diameter fan engines; risk of contagious engine failure in case of 4-engine aircraft, and so on. And as explained above, the issue of CG shift on the ground at low/empty weights. BTW OKB Ilyushin solved it in a better way with the Il-62 rear auxiliary landing gear leg. In the VC-10, this led to the main landing gear and hence the wing being set in a very rearward position, wich in turn necessitad a larger horizontal tail to maintain elevator authority (heavier tail). Basically, weight and more weight. This architecture was chosen for the VC-10 to give the aircaft good performance out of small existing airfields in hot-and-high locations, for long-and-thin imperial liaisons, without realising that soon new airports (and longer runways) would be built for mass transportation.

 

[Archibald]

Rear-mounted engines for a large and heavy aircraft is a bad idea: loss of the relief in wing bending-moments as provided by judiciously placed engine nacelles (heavier wings); long and heavy fuel lines between wing tanks and engines; higher loads on the rear fuselage (heavier fuselage); higher drag in the worst place (rear fuselage); impossibility to fit large diameter fan engines; risk of contagious engine failure in case of 4-engine aircraft, and so on. And as explained above, the issue of CG shift on the ground at low/empty weights. BTW OKB Ilyushin solved it in a better way with the Il-62 rear auxiliary landing gear leg. In the VC-10, this led to the main landing gear and hence the wing being set in a very rearward position, wich in turn necessitad a larger horizontal tail to maintain elevator authority (heavier tail). Basically, weight and more weight. This architecture was chosen for the VC-10 to give the aircaft good performance out of small existing airfields in hot-and-high locations, for long-and-thin imperial liaisons, without realising that soon new airports (and longer runways) would be built for mass transportation.

To think the VC-7 would have avoided most of those hassles. Plus, we know from Nimrod experience that wingroot-mounted quad-jets can evolve with modern and larger engines.

Nixing VC-7 only to reborn it as VC-10 - with the engines now in the wrong place - was such a bonehead move.

Almost as stupid as shrinking the Trident design from Medway to Spey - only for it to inflate again during development; back to square one except Medway is gone... and Spey now make it underpowered. And in the end the poor thing ends steamrolled by the much similar Boeing 727.