Vickers VC-7 and V-1000

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
 

Attachments

  • v1000_weight gain.png
    v1000_weight gain.png
    46.9 KB · Views: 632
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.
 
JFC Fuller said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
From Klassiker der Luftfahrt 2011-08.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    452.5 KB · Views: 798
Minister of Defense Lord Alexander examines the model V.1000, 1953

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

Attachments

  • Vickers_V.1000-01-680x583.JPG
    Vickers_V.1000-01-680x583.JPG
    43.5 KB · Views: 573
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)
 

Attachments

  • Vickers_V.1000-10-680x413.JPG
    Vickers_V.1000-10-680x413.JPG
    28 KB · Views: 526

Attachments

  • Vickers_V.1000-06.JPG
    Vickers_V.1000-06.JPG
    64.2 KB · Views: 565
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.
 
Ready

Cutaway Vickers-Armstrongs V.1000, retouched by Motocar
 

Attachments

  • Cutaway Vickers-Armstrongs V.1000.jpg
    Cutaway Vickers-Armstrongs V.1000.jpg
    298.2 KB · Views: 421
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.
 
Aviation Historian 14
"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."

aviationtrivia.blogspot.com

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 aviationtrivia.blogspot.com
 

Attachments

  • 13-2.jpg
    13-2.jpg
    76.8 KB · Views: 300
  • VC7.jpg
    VC7.jpg
    90.2 KB · Views: 294
Last edited:
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).
 
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.
 
Hood said:
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.
Click to expand...

The classic bureaucratic idiocy / B.S that led to great britain aircraft industry agonizing and vanishing...
 
Archibald said:
Hood said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
kaiserd said:
I’d recommend Chris Gibson’s “On Atlas’ Shoulders” for it’s neat summary of the V.1000 story.
Click to expand...

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.
 
From, British Aircraft Corporation - Crowood.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    144.8 KB · Views: 206
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.
 
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.
 
Hello! Just came across this reference, just wondered if anyone might know what it was referring to. Much appreciated!

1652445976481.png
 
Hood said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

View attachment 677996
Click to expand...
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
 
Last edited:
Archibald said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Hood said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hood said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hood said:
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.
Click to expand...
Landor742 said:
Certainly one of the most graceful designs put to paper.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
alertken said:
Spark: The VC7/V1000 on every count was simply the superior aircraft and by huge margins.
Why do you utter such things? Who can say? Paper. You dismiss as conspiracy or incompetence
Click to expand...
To keep the flow of conversation:
smurf said:
alertken said:
Remembering the general performance(s) of the government of the day...
Click to expand...
Based on the written transcripts, incompetence sure sounds like a leading candidate.

"Treasury failed to release funds" wtf?
"The OR was not well written" happens, but is not indicative of particularly competent people at wherever was writing the requirements.

Do I need to continue?



xt828 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Wasn't that a result of the alloys used? If they didn't use the same aluminum alloy (DTD 683) it would not have had the same issues.
 
fred, #160, brochure engineering, others' engineering issues.

Valiant spars do not demonstrate institutional incompetence. Nor did the Ansett/Viscount spar failure ("clap hands Case") which no more destroyed Vicker's business reputation than did Lockheed's comparable Electra case.

The BOAC 707 issue alluded to was a Certification matter where UK's Regulator required, and US FAA positively unrequired a feature (the small ventral fin). Common, then. When Dan Air acquired 727 they must install (IIRC stick pusher), which must then be uninstalled when the a/c moved into FAA Regulation.

Boeing engineering issues long preceded 737 MAX. Dan Air lost a 707 when the horiz. stab attachment failed: the fix was replqcement strengthened material; 747s built before (c.1983) must rebuild the Lower 41 front fuselage - a job beyond (most) Operators' engineering capacity; fuselage belly skin corrosion affected 737-200: highly competent Britannia A/W Engineering put 70,000 man hours into the fix.

What matters is not that such issues arise, but how all concerned respond. Pinto, Unsafe at any Speed, dished a generation of Ford/US Seniors...because they denied, dissembled. On the issues here Boeing, Lockheed, Vickers sorted promptly. On Valiant, if UK had so desired, a fix would have been sorted (as e.g. Buccaneer, grounded 2-7/80). Ministers took it as an opportunity for a saving (Nimrod, too, 31/3/10).

Reaction to the 737 MAX issue by IAG/BA and by Ryanair was to buy it in batches of 100... so impressed were they by Boeing's response.
 
Pretty sure they will have managed to get a good discount. Also, being a force to reinforce faith in Boeing, Boeing would have seen it as a benefit worthy of the price. Never underestimate the power of money in promotion of a product.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom