Vickers VC-7 and V-1000

[Schneiderman]

Largely wishful thinking I'm afraid, commercial reality suggests otherwise. The VC7 had no clear advantage over the incoming Boeing designs other than the engines, and engines alone don't make a convincing case. At the time the project was cancelled Vickers had orders for just 6 V1000 with a maximum possible of 12. On the other had Boeing had built coming up on 1000 B47, the B52 had entered service, the Dash 80 had flown (and barrel rolled) and its derivatives were now rolling through the production lines. That track record with large, swept wing jets, would have counted for a lot in the eyes of potential customers. Without a definite technical advantage, significantly lower purchase and running costs, and competitive delivery schedules its hard to see how they would have attracted orders.

 

[Hood]

The whole origins of the V.1000 was about face, the MoS working party had chosen the final design before the OR or MoS Spec had even been thought about in detail. In hindsight, it would have been better in 1954 when civil interest was clearly lacking to have either removed all civil elements from the design (Vickers only began to advise this as a weight-saving solution a few months before cancellation) or to have scrapped the whole idea and stick with Comets. The truth is there simply wasn't resources to build a civil jet and a strategic jet transport at that time and combining both was not technically practical to meet both needs.

The Boeing 707 was superior in performance. In early 1955 the Chief Executive Officer of BOAC, Witney Straight, had obtained data from the MoS showing the Boeing 707 would cruise 40kts faster and carry 5,000lb more payload than the VC.7. DCAS Air Marshall Pike was asked to do an analysis, he found clearly the 707’s superior speed was due to its thinner wing with increased sweep. The V.1000s lower payload was due to the limiting strength of the wing. The CA, Baker, felt the VC.7 either needed a stronger wing or a smaller fuselage; it was knock-on effects from trying to adapt the V.1000 to carry a commercially viable payload on the transatlantic route (12,000lb non-stop). previous analysis had shownt the VC.7 was only profitable on transatlantic routes. At that time the MoS felt it had a winner still because the 707 couldn't not operate non-stop, and wouldn't unless Boeing could use the Conway, a prospect the MoS at that time thought unlikely. Vickers had argued the buried engine was aerodynamically superior to podded engines, but the 707's performance using the same engines discredited this argument and the Air Ministry began to worry it had been a poor design choice.

To be fair to BOAC, when they selected the Vickers in 1952 they hadn't really a clue what they wanted and had only just begun operational trials of the Comet. Operational experience was sparse, they even thought civil jets might need parachute-assisted landings due to short runways. They stuck with Comet in 1952 because it was available and they knew it worked. No-one in 1951/52 had any real idea of the potential jet market when most were sticking firmly to pistons and turboprops. BOAC backed the Britannia instead then went for the better 707.

 

[JFC Fuller]

The truth is there simply wasn't resources to build a civil jet and a strategic jet transport at that time and combining both was not technically practical to meet both needs.

The second half of this is definitely true, the two requirements were divergent.

 

[Schneiderman]

There's an interesting article in the 23rd Feb 1950 edition of Flight by Stanley Evans FRAeS AFiAeS (ex-Gloster and others). in which he states:
"We stated our own personal credo that designers of civil jets need to get clear away from the military-missile school of design. It seems obvious to us that the designers of the Comet have escaped the military handcuffs and used astute judgment in keeping well clear of the higher machinations of Dr. Mach, as characterized by the fully sweptback, high aspect ratio, razor-blade wing, exemplified in the Boeing B-47 and other recent military jets. We have also gone on
record as suggesting that the peduncular power-plant is retrogressive aerodynamic design and, in our view, only a passing fashion cycle bred under Hitlerian duress."
Easy to be wise after the event but I wonder how many British designers shared this view of podded engines at the time

 

[CJGibson]

I have studiously avoided any of the published accounts of V.1000, no disrespect to the various authors, although I did supply drawings for the Hayward article, which I haven't seen. I have however, worked through many of the V.1000/C.132 files from Kew. What struck me was the apparent non-feasibility of the take-off performance, which some wag described as fighter performance from a transport operating from fighter bases.

Attached is an interesting graph that I knocked up from weight figures gleaned from the various correspondence. Note how much heavier the civil version would have been. All that silverware and crockery no doubt.

Chris

 

[Schneiderman]

Imperial Airways outline specifications used to include numbers and weights for all cutlery, crockery and so on, right down to sugar tongs. A half bottle of champagne weighed 2lb 7oz, apparently.

 

[Schneiderman]

A good review of the Boeing progress towards the 707 in post #7 here

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3486.0.html

 

[Schneiderman]

Stuck on the Drawing Board makes reference to late Vickers consideration of podded engines for the V.1000, I have never seen any evidence about either how far they got or how serious about it they were though.

That is also mention in the Vickers Putnam volume. In this it states that there were six schemes considered during Sept and Oct 1955. Five of these had twin-engine pods under the wings and the sixth had single pods, similar to the Boeing 707. Presumably the source of this information is held in the Vickers archives in Brooklands

 

[hesham]

From Klassiker der Luftfahrt 2011-08.

 

[Triton]

Minister of Defense Lord Alexander examines the model V.1000, 1953

Source:
http://alternathistory.com/upushchennaya-vozmognost-proekt-passazhirskogo-samoleta-vickers-v1000-velikobritaniya

 

[Triton]

Model of VC7 in civilian colors. The 150-seat aircraft was designed to fly at a speed of about 500 mph (804.5 km / h)

 

[Triton]

On the left is a model of a slender V.1000 at the show of the British aircraft designers in Farnborough; right, George Edwards (right), who said at the time: "The decision to cancel V.1000 means that we have thrown this very important market to the Americans without a fight, and we will regret this national decision for many years"

Source:

http://alternathistory.com/upushchennaya-vozmognost-proekt-passazhirskogo-samoleta-vickers-v1000-velikobritaniya

 

[alertken]

Regret.

V.1000 was cancelled 29/11/55, prototype 80% complete, cancellation charges to us: £4Mn. 6 were on order as RAF transports for elite tasks (some Hastings about to be replaced by 20 Britannia); an RCM variant (=ELINT) was anticipated. They were all replaced by 10 Comet C.2/T.2 and 3 R.2, which were capital-free, BOAC-rejected. No grounds for complaint there, GRE. So....VC7 pitched to BOAC, who declined.

So were DH schemes (Comet 5, D.H.118), which were funded to 2/57 by an MoS Study Contract, £10Mn., like GRE had enjoyed a V.1000 R&D contract. It was open to V-A to buy access to MoS' Intellectual (and physical) Property in the cancelled V.1000 - say a Reversal of the normal Launch Aid Sales Levy. If this was a blunder, a missed market, then GRE should go to Vickers Ltd for PV funds...
and exactly then he did, for Vanguard. That, he perceived, had real sales potential. Just like DC-8 and 707 did.

 

[Schneiderman]

Always fun decoding your posts Ken Having done so, yes, I agree

 

[Motocar]

Next drawing cutaway to retouch to join their parts ...!

 

[Motocar]

Ready

Cutaway Vickers-Armstrongs V.1000, retouched by Motocar

 

[blackkite]

Hi!

https://twitter.com/x/status/833360281359220737

 

[Archibald]

With Conways buried inside a cleaner wing, that aircraft could have beaten DC-8s and 707s into a pulp. No need for Gander stopover, for a start.
geez, what might have been... no proceeding with it was one of the dumbest decision in aviation history. Plus looking at the model, it would have been a stunningly beautiful aircraft.

 

[blackkite]

Hi!

Vickers V1000 / VC7 - the British 707 that should have been

www.britmodeller.com

 

[blackkite]

Aviation Historian 14

http://www.adictosavolar.com/2016/10/16/the-aviation-historian-01-17/

"LEFT A provisional drawing by CHRIS GIBSON of an initial Valiant-based low-wing study for Vickers’ Type 716, based on documents in The National Archives. By the end of 1952 the firm had dispensed with the Valiant elements and was working on the V.1000, the military version of which, with dorsal spine, is seen RIGHT."

The Canceled British Aircraft that Cost the UK Industry

I bet you thought you were going to be reading about the BAC TSR.2 when you came across the title of today's post, but while there's no argu...

aviationtrivia.blogspot.com

 

[kaiserd]

No it wouldn’t have, even if it had overcome it’s never ending weight growth issue.
Classic example of a “halo effect” for a cancelled aircraft that never had to face reality (apart from when it was cancelled).

 

[Hood]

Not to mention BOAC was totally disinterested in the VC.7 version.
Basically the RAF wanted a jet transport to support overseas deployments of V-bombers and quicker movement of cargo and men to the Far East and wanted BOAC to share to spread the R&D costs over more airframes.
Yes the weight was an issue, but was blown out of proportion and in fact stemmed from several blunders in the specification drawn up by the MoS. That was neatly hidden when Maudling stepped up in Parliament can claimed the cancellation was due to lack of money, while the civil servants disingenuously pretended the lack of public mention of the specification errors was to spare the industry from any overseas sales harm, hence Edwards rather public comments about losing the Transatlantic market.

 

[Archibald]

Not to mention BOAC was totally disinterested in the VC.7 version.
Basically the RAF wanted a jet transport to support overseas deployments of V-bombers and quicker movement of cargo and men to the Far East and wanted BOAC to share to spread the R&D costs over more airframes.
Yes the weight was an issue, but was blown out of proportion and in fact stemmed from several blunders in the specification drawn up by the MoS. That was neatly hidden when Maudling stepped up in Parliament can claimed the cancellation was due to lack of money, while the civil servants disingenuously pretended the lack of public mention of the specification errors was to spare the industry from any overseas sales harm, hence Edwards rather public comments about losing the Transatlantic market.

The classic bureaucratic idiocy / B.S that led to great britain aircraft industry agonizing and vanishing...

 

[kaiserd]

Not to mention BOAC was totally disinterested in the VC.7 version.
Basically the RAF wanted a jet transport to support overseas deployments of V-bombers and quicker movement of cargo and men to the Far East and wanted BOAC to share to spread the R&D costs over more airframes.
Yes the weight was an issue, but was blown out of proportion and in fact stemmed from several blunders in the specification drawn up by the MoS. That was neatly hidden when Maudling stepped up in Parliament can claimed the cancellation was due to lack of money, while the civil servants disingenuously pretended the lack of public mention of the specification errors was to spare the industry from any overseas sales harm, hence Edwards rather public comments about losing the Transatlantic market.

The classic bureaucratic idiocy / B.S that led to great britain aircraft industry agonizing and vanishing...

I’d recommend Chris Gibson’s “On Atlas’ Shoulders” for it’s neat summary of the V.1000 story.
The blunt truth is that (apart from its engines) it wasn’t as advance as the B707 and DC8 (as acknowledged by various minutes from the time specifying need for research etc to try to catch up with US industry).
The V.1000 was an aircraft designed to (probably over-ambitious) military transport requirements, those requirements didn’t change or were relaxed, but the V.1000 got heavier and heavier needing more and more power. This made a marginal civil version into an absurdity, and the military version marginal.
But there was never a 707-beater there to be had; that situation had it’s roots back in the Comet debacle or before.

 

[Hood]

I’d recommend Chris Gibson’s “On Atlas’ Shoulders” for it’s neat summary of the V.1000 story.

I would also recommend my article The Genesis of the V.1000 in Air-Britain Aeromilitaria, March 2015. This deals more with the design studies and the specifications but does address the cancellation
Also, Professor Keith Haywards's article The Blame Game, Vickers V.1000: The Ultimate Political Football, in Aviation Historian, No.14, January 2016. This is a brief but nicely balanced account (some good pictures too of the prototype).

And let's be clear, the V.1000 was the best of a rather dubious bunch of designs and the design drivers were military and not civilian requirements.

 

[Antonio]

The Genesis of the V.1000 in Air-Britain Aeromilitaria, March 2015.

Is that still available? Where?

 

[hesham]

From Aeroplane 2008/5.

 

[hesham]

From, British Aircraft Corporation - Crowood.

 

[xt828]

Apologies if this has previously been discussed here, but in looking at the Valiant-derived heritage of the VC.7, and in particular its wing design, was the intention to construct along similar lines to the bomber? I am thinking in the direction of the fatigue failures that ended up causing the Valiants to be withdrawn and scrapped.

 

[Hood]

The original Vickers Type 716 that was selected by the Air Ministry and Ministry of Supply was designed around the Valiant's wings, undercarriage and tail unit.
However as the design progressed and grew in size and weight from the Type 716 into the Type 1000, it diverged from the base Valiant. For example the wing was extended in span by 10ft from 130 to 140ft, wing area went up from 2,476ft2 to 3,263ft2, the design all-up weight growing from 175,000lb to 226,000lb. So the Valiant heritage was watered down to almost non-existent.
Even if we compare the original Type 716 to the production Valiant B.1, the wing was smaller (span 114ft 4in, area2,362ft2 and max weight was 159,042lb, which was lower than the 716's AUW. In addition the moving of the wing would have altered the spar attachment points and stressing.

In any case, even had the spars been identical, the Valiant's spar fatigue life would have been much less of an issue had it not been inflicted on lower altitude flying (the Valiant B.2 had required 10,000lb additional structural strength for its planned low-level role) and would not have affected the V.1000 with its similar high-altitude cruise operating profile.

 

[RocketJavelin]

Hello! Just came across this reference, just wondered if anyone might know what it was referring to. Much appreciated!

 

[Archibald]

The original Vickers Type 716 that was selected by the Air Ministry and Ministry of Supply was designed around the Valiant's wings, undercarriage and tail unit.
However as the design progressed and grew in size and weight from the Type 716 into the Type 1000, it diverged from the base Valiant. For example the wing was extended in span by 10ft from 130 to 140ft, wing area went up from 2,476ft2 to 3,263ft2, the design all-up weight growing from 175,000lb to 226,000lb. So the Valiant heritage was watered down to almost non-existent.
Even if we compare the original Type 716 to the production Valiant B.1, the wing was smaller (span 114ft 4in, area2,362ft2 and max weight was 159,042lb, which was lower than the 716's AUW. In addition the moving of the wing would have altered the spar attachment points and stressing.

In any case, even had the spars been identical, the Valiant's spar fatigue life would have been much less of an issue had it not been inflicted on lower altitude flying (the Valiant B.2 had required 10,000lb additional structural strength for its planned low-level role) and would not have affected the V.1000 with its similar high-altitude cruise operating profile.

So in a sense, the VC-7 / V-1000 escaped a Comet / Valiant sad fate... only to die of politics and weight obesity. A pity, really.

 

[Schneiderman]

Hello! Just came across this reference, just wondered if anyone might know what it was referring to. Much appreciated!

View attachment 677996

Actually the title is
"Wind-tunnel tests of the Vickers type 1000 Mk.III aircraft at high subsonic speeds."
according to the catalogue of RAE Technical Notes compiled by FAST

 

[RocketJavelin]

Hello! Just came across this reference, just wondered if anyone might know what it was referring to. Much appreciated!

View attachment 677996

Actually the title is
"Wind-tunnel tests of the Vickers type 1000 Mk.III aircraft at high subsonic speeds."
according to the catalogue of RAE Technical Notes compiled by FAST

Thanks, that makes a lot more sense! Is the FAST catalogue online?

 

[Schneiderman]

Thanks, that makes a lot more sense! Is the FAST catalogue online?

Unfortunately not, but they will carry out a search of the catalogue if you provide key words, dates etc. and then provide copies at a reasonable price.

 

[Hood]

So in a sense, the VC-7 / V-1000 escaped a Comet / Valiant sad fate... only to die of politics and weight obesity. A pity, really.

I would also add, that if DTD 683 was used in its structure like the Valiant there could have been fatigue problems. Telling airlines they need to re-spar their fleet would have been disastrous. Had that happened on top of the Comet issues Britain's chances of selling any future airliner would have been about 0.00%.

Yep not the first time a file name at Kew is wrong - in fact probably 90% of the titles on the Discovery search and the actual file vary in format and wording to some degree.
Being a Tech Note it probably won't be very large, likely to be mainly pages of equations and graph paper with perhaps a photo of the wind tunnel model or a plan of it if you are lucky.
But I must admit this has escaped my previous Kew hauls on V.1000.

 

[lostcosmonauts]

From a slim Dutch book on modern aircraft ~1950 (also included general layout line drawings)

 

[Landor742]

Certainly one of the most graceful designs put to paper.

 

[fredgell]

I would also add, that if DTD 683 was used in its structure like the Valiant there could have been fatigue problems. Telling airlines they need to re-spar their fleet would have been disastrous. Had that happened on top of the Comet issues Britain's chances of selling any future airliner would have been about 0.00%.
Yep not the first time a file name at Kew is wrong - in fact probably 90% of the titles on the Discovery search and the actual file vary in format and wording to some degree.
Being a Tech Note it probably won't be very large, likely to be mainly pages of equations and graph paper with perhaps a photo of the wind tunnel model or a plan of it if you are lucky.
But I must admit this has escaped my previous Kew hauls on V.1000.

I would also add, that if DTD 683 was used in its structure like the Valiant there could have been fatigue problems. Telling airlines they need to re-spar their fleet would have been disastrous. Had that happened on top of the Comet issues Britain's chances of selling any future airliner would have been about 0.00%.
Yep not the first time a file name at Kew is wrong - in fact probably 90% of the titles on the Discovery search and the actual file vary in format and wording to some degree.
Being a Tech Note it probably won't be very large, likely to be mainly pages of equations and graph paper with perhaps a photo of the wind tunnel model or a plan of it if you are lucky.
But I must admit this has escaped my previous Kew hauls on V.1000.

I would also add, that if DTD 683 was used in its structure like the Valiant there could have been fatigue problems. Telling airlines they need to re-spar their fleet would have been disastrous. Had that happened on top of the Comet issues Britain's chances of selling any future airliner would have been about 0.00%.
Yep not the first time a file name at Kew is wrong - in fact probably 90% of the titles on the Discovery search and the actual file vary in format and wording to some degree.
Being a Tech Note it probably won't be very large, likely to be mainly pages of equations and graph paper with perhaps a photo of the wind tunnel model or a plan of it if you are lucky.
But I must admit this has escaped my previous Kew hauls on V.1000.

Certainly one of the most graceful designs put to paper.

 

[fredgell]

I seem to recall that BOAC had to do an expensive wing reengineer on the 707s at some point in their life - I cant find the reference unfortunately.

However it seems to meet the case outlined here - it was necessary and predictable yet didnt seem to impact sales nor appear in brochures.

Brochure engineering was an art in those days - and I wonder just how well the 707 met its stated performance figures in its early life.
WRT Vc7/V1000 are we actually comparing like with like or two lots of myths.