Vickers VC-10 Projects

[hesham]

Hi,


here is a Super VC-10 artist drawing.

 

[CJGibson]

OK chaps and chapesses, I'm on the tap.

I'm helping out with a VC10 book and for the projects chapter, have been trying to find a side-view of the Triple and Double fuselage VC10s, specifically the fin shape.

Your mission, should you chose to accept it, is to proceed up to Nung river in a Navy patrol boat find a drawing (with a reliable source) of the fin for the VC10 Double and Triple.

Thanks

Chris

 

[kitnut617]

Chris,

Derek Wood's Project Cancelled (2nd Edition) shows a good 3-View of the Double-Decker on page 227, and on page 228, a very detailed cross-section through the fuselage.

Robert

 

[CJGibson]

Thanks, but it's the double and Triple fuselage jobs I'm after.

Chris

 

[zebedee]

Might be old news but I think there are side views in the Vickers Putnam volume...


Zeb

 

[CJGibson]

Nope.

Chris

 

[kitnut617]

Thanks, but it's the double and Triple fuselage jobs I'm after.

Chris

My bad! But I think you'll find your answer in reply #11

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Nope. Reply 10 doesn't have side views only top and front. Hence the request

 

[zebedee]

Ahhh... apologies... I am away from said volume till tomorrow so was going from memory!


Zeb

 

[Hot Breath]

I'd suggest that for an educated guess the tails would resemble VC-10 tails without the tailplanes at the top...

 

[CJGibson]

Maybe so, but I'd rather not estimate anything if there's a proper drawing available.

Thanks

Chris

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Just noticed this thread doesn't appear to have a link to the 16 page brochure on the double deck VC10 (sorry Chris it only has one fuselage) at this webpage:



http://www.vc10.net/History/doubledeck_super_vc10.html

 

[Mike Pryce]

Chris,


They may not have had any side views drawn - they are 'notional' layouts and the top and front views give what is needed.


If forced to guess, the double bubble one with underwing engines would be a good guess. Maybe compare the fin length from top views in post 10?

 

[kitnut617]

Maybe so, but I'd rather not estimate anything if there's a proper drawing available.

Thanks

Chris

I was also suggesting that the side view of the top image in Reply #11 might be a good place to start, but I understand why you want a proper drawing.

I'm trying to remember where I've seen these double and triple fuselage drawings before, I'm sure there was a side view in them which is why I turned to the Project Cancelled book. Have you tried asking the VC-10 expert at Air-Britain ? I think there was an article in their Aero-Militaria magazine some time ago.

 

[CJGibson]

It's him that's asking me!

Chris

 

[Stargazer]

As one who has previously created imaginary twin fuselage versions of existing types, I can testify that quite often I only did a two-view plan as I found the side view was almost exactly the same as that of the regular version. Perhaps that's the reason they didn't bother with the side view either? Perhaps it simply looked like a regular VC.10 profile view...

 

[CJGibson]

I prefer not to extrapolate features. Anyway, the tail assembly on the Double and Triple are completely different as the tailplanes are mounted on the fuselage.

Chris

 

[kitnut617]

It's him that's asking me!

Chris

Ah! well! that does create a problem ---- ;D

 

[hesham]

Asymmetric engines.

http://archive.aviationweek.com/image/spread/19690602/129/2

 

[Arjen]

There's a whole page about the VC-10 test bed for the RB211 over here:
http://www.vc10.net/History/Individual/XR809.html

 

[hesham]

There's a whole page about the VC-10 test bed for the RB211 over here:
http://www.vc10.net/History/Individual/XR809.html

Thank you my dear Arjen.

 

[Caravellarella]

Dear Boys & Girls, here are a pair of vintage photographs that I bought earlier this month at the Heathrow Aviation Enthusiasts' Air Fair at Kempton Park showing the original BAC VC10 Super 200 design (which remained a project, but wasn't "secret")......

Terry (Caravellarella)

 

[Stargazer]

Gorgeous pics! "Dear Boys & Girls"! The twisted sense of humour! The same old avatar!

It's almost as if you'd never left, Caravellarella. Good to have you back on board...

 

[starviking]

Lovely pics! Thanks for sharing Caravellarella!

 

[blackkite]

Hi!

#poffler hashtag on Twitter

See Tweets about #poffler on Twitter. See what people are saying and join the conversation.

twitter.com

Bisbos.com :: Aircraft : Cancelled : VC10

VC-10 unbuilt variants in books - A Little VC10derness

 

[blackkite]

Vickers/BAC VC10 Manual

All models and variants Designed in the 1950s to operate on long-distance routes, the four-jet Vickers VC10 saw service with BOAC and a number of other airlines from the 1960s to 1981. It enjoyed a further career with the RAF as a strategic transport and later as an aerial refuelling aircraft...

haynes.com

 

[blackkite]

 

[blackkite]

Hi! Competitor.

https://twitter.com/x/status/949193779818450944

 

[Hobbes]

If you quote the tweet text, the image you provided gains the necessary context, and as if by magic, becomes searchable.

DH "118" was de Havilland's proposed long-range jet for BOAC at the time VC10 design crystalised at Weybridge

 

[hesham]

Hi,

A Little VC10derness

A tribute to the Vickers VC10 Airliner. This site relates the full story from its early beginnings with BOAC to its current use as a tanker with the RAF.

www.vc10.net

 

[alejandrogrossi]

There's a whole page about the VC-10 test bed for the RB211 over here:

C/n 829 - XR809

Arjen
One question
Apart of the VC10 test bed (photo)
Was there any study for a re-engine version (4 by 4)?
The VC10 is absolutely beatyful in 4 engine configuration

 

[Hobbes]

The only one I'm aware of was the use of RB.178 for the double-decker version.

 

[Hobbes]

Hi,

A Little VC10derness

A tribute to the Vickers VC10 Airliner. This site relates the full story from its early beginnings with BOAC to its current use as a tanker with the RAF.

www.vc10.net

Note that the attachments to this post are a mix of VC-10 Superb and the Trident 5.

 

[Mike Pryce]

Hi,

A Little VC10derness

A tribute to the Vickers VC10 Airliner. This site relates the full story from its early beginnings with BOAC to its current use as a tanker with the RAF.

www.vc10.net

Note that the attachments to this post are a mix of VC-10 Superb and the Trident 5.

Interesting nonetheless. Is there another thread for the Trident/Bident ones. The one that has the CFM56s but keeps the RB162 booster is clearly making the case for a new wing.

Back on message with the thread, I read somewhere Vickers only needed to make 75 VC10s to make it worth their while. A low target that they missed, but shows they were never trying to reach 707 numbers.

 

[uk 75]

I think comparing the VC10 with a 707 is like comparing a Rolls Royce with a Lincoln Continental. They are not really competitors, though they both go after the same customers.
BOAC quietly exploited the positive points of both on the Transatlanticr route.
In a bitter irony my first flight outside Europe in March 1982 on a classic VC10 route from Rome to Khartoum via Cairo was on a particularly worn out 707.

 

[zebedee]

You can find them in my original

Interesting nonetheless. Is there another thread for the Trident/Bident ones. The one that has the CFM56s but keeps the RB162 booster is clearly making the case for a new wing.

You can find them here with the original text from the June 1987 BAe Hatfield Future Projects Newsletter

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/designs-that-led-to-the-hawker-siddeley-trident.1299/post-355814

Zeb

 

[hesham]

You can find them here with the original text from the June 1987 BAe Hatfield Future Projects Newsletter

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...-the-hawker-siddeley-trident.1299/post-355814

My dear Zebedee,

sorry for this double post.

 

[kaiserd]

Hi,

A Little VC10derness

A tribute to the Vickers VC10 Airliner. This site relates the full story from its early beginnings with BOAC to its current use as a tanker with the RAF.

www.vc10.net

Note that the attachments to this post are a mix of VC-10 Superb and the Trident 5.

Interesting nonetheless. Is there another thread for the Trident/Bident ones. The one that has the CFM56s but keeps the RB162 booster is clearly making the case for a new wing.

Back on message with the thread, I read somewhere Vickers only needed to make 75 VC10s to make it worth their while. A low target that they missed, but shows they were never trying to reach 707 numbers.

That’s a rather odd rationalisation - planning for relative commercial failure and then still falling well short of that retrospectively presented as an indicator of commercial realism.

 

[JFC Fuller]

That’s a rather odd rationalisation - planning for relative commercial failure

Building a business case around a lower volume market niche in order to avoid an established market dominating product is one of the most common strategies in business and a strong indicator of commercial realism. That the VC10 largely failed in its attempt is true but does not change the fact that the aircraft's investors grasped that the 707 would have an unassailable market position by the time the VC10 was ready for market, there is surviving documentary evidence to prove it.

This thread, that you participated in, has covered this very recently and is a better place for this discussion.

 

[kaiserd]

Hi,

A Little VC10derness

A tribute to the Vickers VC10 Airliner. This site relates the full story from its early beginnings with BOAC to its current use as a tanker with the RAF.

www.vc10.net

Note that the attachments to this post are a mix of VC-10 Superb and the Trident 5.

Interesting nonetheless. Is there another thread for the Trident/Bident ones. The one that has the CFM56s but keeps the RB162 booster is clearly making the case for a new wing.

Back on message with the thread, I read somewhere Vickers only needed to make 75 VC10s to make it worth their while. A low target that they missed, but shows they were never trying to reach 707 numbers.

That’s a rather odd rationalisation - planning for relative commercial failure and then still falling well short of that retrospectively presented as an indicator of commercial realism.

What I actually said in its entirety....