WI Medway Trident and VC10 Super 200?

[Rule of cool]

Both of these airliners were shrunk at the request of their initial customer, the Trident from 111(130?) seat Medway sized to 97 seat Spey sized and the Super 200 from a 212 seat 28' fuselage stretch to a 174 seat 13' stretch for the Super VC10.

The Super VC10 was then embroiled in a public and damaging argument over it's economic viability, as it seat per mile cost was worse than the B707 and the BOAC Chair saying he was running a profitable company not a dumping ground for uneconomical British aircraft. The now underpowered Trident quickly grew out of its shrunken spec, the 1C had longer range, the 1E had up to 140 seats, the 2E was heavier and longer ranged with 128 seats 5 abreast and the 3B a 4th 'boost' engine and a 16' fuselage stretch for 180 seats (more than the Super VC10). The sales of both of these aircraft was poor compared to the successful BAC111 and Fokker F28, let alone the B727, B707 and DC9, DC8.

What If these 2 tug-of-war between BOAC/BEA and the aviation companies, with the Ministry of Aviation as the judge and interested party, had been won by the aviation companies and the Trident and VC10 Super 200 developed to their original, larger specs? After all it's not as if aviation companies know nothing about the airline industry, it is the primary and often lucrative market for their products.

 

[uk 75]

The unknown here is whether US airlines would have ordered either type as they did the Viscount and 111.
The 707, DC8 and CV880/990 were formidable competitors.
The 727 was one of Boeing's great aircraft in various sizes and capacities.

 

[Rule of cool]

I don't know about the US market, but the VC10 Super 200 would be the most capacious trans-Atlantic airliner in the world from 1966 to 1970 and would have better seat-per-mile operating cost than the B707. I think this would be quite a good selling point for flagship trans-Atlantic carriers on both sides of the pond, despite a presumably higher purchase price.

 

[uk 75]

What happens to the Boeing 747 and Boeing SST in this alternate world?

Options for both had crowded out anything else by 1968.

The rear engined VC10 can never compete with podded alternatives for ease or maintenance and engine safety. Even BAC was looking at podded versions of the type.

BOAC and BEA remain difficult customers, however the Government pressures them to take British airliners. But let us look at the leading airlines of the day.

Pan American and TWA were working closely with Boeing on the 707, 747 and SST. Both also selected the 727. I cannot see Juan Trippe choosing a British plane (other than Concorde which as a hedge to get the US SST built)

American Airlines and United are pretty much in the same place, though United does go with the Dc8 only to then order the 747.

In Europe Air France and Lufthansa go with Boeing. Alitalia, KLM, Swissair and SAS go with Douglas and then the 747.

Further afield Qantas goes with Boeing as does Air India. JAL buys Douglas but then 747.


Unless you radically improve British production lines to Airbus levels of output and quality changing a few BOAC and BEA orders and variants will not improve the performance of the UK industry in what is a pretty dismal period for industrial relations and adaption to new ideas coupled with outdated management structures.

 

[Archibald]

That the sticky point with pre-Airbus european airliners: dozens if hundreds at best, when Boeing and Douglas were churning airliners in the thousands.

 

[Archibald]

The rear engined VC10 can never compete with podded alternatives for ease or maintenance and engine safety.

I know that the VC-7 engines were not podded BUT - at least they weren't in the rear. Just sayin' .

 

[Rule of cool]

That the sticky point with pre-Airbus european airliners: dozens if hundreds at best, when Boeing and Douglas were churning airliners in the thousands.

Unless you radically improve British production lines to Airbus levels of output and quality changing a few BOAC and BEA orders and variants will not improve the performance of the UK industry in what is a pretty dismal period for industrial relations and adaption to new ideas coupled with outdated management structures.

My idea for this thread was for at least the British to go from trickling out dozens of airliners to pumping out hundreds in the 60s, making them the undisputed leader for airliners outside the US. That the US was making so many airliners, and the BAC1-11 and Fokker F28 sold in the ~240 range indicates that the market was there and when the product is good like the BAC1-11 the British industry can get the sales.

However I do not imagine the VC10 Super 200 and Medway Trident will make significant inroads into Boeing and Douglas market share, making an extra 100 of each over their historical numbers would make them quite successful in European terms.

 

[Rule of cool]

What happens to the Boeing 747 and Boeing SST in this alternate world?

Options for both had crowded out anything else by 1968.

These aircraft were revolutionary, whereas the VC10 Super 200 was a variation on the existing B707/DC8 theme. It will get sales at the expense of certain B707/DC8 orders where it's particular qualities of high seat capacity, good operating economics and perhaps also not being American are required. Once the widebodies become a thing the Super 200 will no longer be special.

....let us look at the leading airlines of the day.

What about the 2nd tier airliners? East African Airways bought 5 Super VC10s, Ghana ordered 3 but bought 2, Nigeria Airways ordered 2 VC10s but cancelled them and British United Airways (Britain's largest private airline in the 60s) bought 2 and got Ghana's 3rd. Surely there's a market in ex British colonies and other client states that could bump up that order book.

As for the leading airlines, the Super 200 is the most capacious tran-Atlantic airliner of the 60s by a significant margin; 212 seats to the B707's 179. It also has a high cruising speed and quiet cabin, which are nice touches. What leading airlines were in the market for such an aircraft in the 60s?

 

[Rule of cool]

One thing about the Medway Trident being developed is that the Medway engine would go into production, which might have significant spin-offs.

Also there was a ~1959-60 Avro proposal for the Trident fuselage with bigger wings and more powerful RB178 engines for the NATO MP aircraft competition. If the Medway Trident had been retained from the beginning it could have been put forward without the extensive modifications the Avro 776 required.

 

[Archibald]

Maybe the Supe VC-10 could pull an "A300 Eastern" happy incident of history ? back in 1977 the A300 had sold a miserable 38 airframe. Yet as luck would have it, it fit Eastern airlines requirements like no other airliner on the market. So Frank Borman, CEO and ex Apollo 8 astronaut, made an order. This was the US breakthrough Airbus needed, and the rest was History.

In the mid-1960's the DC-8 Super 63 had a niche around 260 passengers: created by the jump to widebody airliners (L-1011, Tristar, 747). Maybe the Super VC-10 could find itself a similar little niche inside the market.

 

[Rule of cool]

Maybe the Supe VC-10 could pull an "A300 Eastern" happy incident of history ? back in 1977 the A300 had sold a miserable 38 airframe. Yet as luck would have it, it fit Eastern airlines requirements like no other airliner on the market. So Frank Borman, CEO and ex Apollo 8 astronaut, made an order. This was the US breakthrough Airbus needed, and the rest was History.

In the mid-1960's the DC-8 Super 63 had a niche around 260 passengers: created by the jump to widebody airliners (L-1011, Tristar, 747). Maybe the Super VC-10 could find itself a similar little niche inside the market.

That's what I was thinking, it would only take 1 big airline with specific needs for BAC to build the 80 it needed to break even. If it could then double that number it would be a handy earner for BAC and Britain.

 

[zen]

If we have Medway go forward instead of Spey.....

The Swedes might stick with it for Viggen. ....could that limited VC10 purchase in compliment by the Swedes?

The Type 584/585 gets to a stronger case for NMBR.3 and ironically the French might seek it's licence instead of TF30....Mirage G etc....

Transport Command might prefer the larger VC10.
Getting in on Tankers earlier might help.
MPA.... doubtful unless there's some costs dropping.
AEWACS.......?
What might also benefit is the whole Poffler concept.

Potentially RR might fund the marine GT.

In theory Medway might lend itself to larger bypass fan sections.

 

[Archibald]

That's what I was thinking, it would only take 1 big airline with specific needs for BAC to build the 80 it needed to break even. If it could then double that number it would be a handy earner for BAC and Britain.

the Super 200 from a 212 seat 28' fuselage stretch

Can't remember how much pax could the biggest 707s seat ? 220 ? I do know there was no such thing as a "DC-8 Super 60 series" 707; for a host of technical reasons.
Long story short, the DC-8 had much grow and stretch potential than the 707, notably the undercarriage and wing. Boeing could have done it but studies show, too much modifications everywhere, so too expensive.

I was wondering whether the Super VC-10 could be pushed toward the DC-8-63 niche. Just for the fun of it I checked pax numbers of its Soviet lookalike, the Il-62 but it only sat 195.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

That's what I was thinking, it would only take 1 big airline with specific needs for BAC to build the 80 it needed to break even. If it could then double that number it would be a handy earner for BAC and Britain.

According to Charles Gardner CAAC wanted to buy 30 VC.10s (IOTL they were the Trident's second biggest customer) but production of the VC.10 had ended and it would have cost too much to re-start production.

 

[Rule of cool]

Can't remember how much pax could the biggest 707s seat ? 220 ? I do know there was no such thing as a "DC-8 Super 60 series" 707; for a host of technical reasons.
Long story short, the DC-8 had much grow and stretch potential than the 707, notably the undercarriage and wing. Boeing could have done it but studies show, too much modifications everywhere, so too expensive.

I was wondering whether the Super VC-10 could be pushed toward the DC-8-63 niche. Just for the fun of it I checked pax numbers of its Soviet lookalike, the Il-62 but it only sat 195.

The 707-320C could have 194 seats with 2900mn range, the 320B had 189 seats with 5000mn range. These were available from 1962 & 63.

The DC8-61 could have 259 seats with 3200nm range and the 62 had 189 seats with 5200mn range. These were available from 1967.

The Super VC10 could have 174 seats with 5960nm range, up from 151 seats with 5850mn from the standard VC10 due to a fuel tank in the tail. I presume that the somewhat bigger Super 200 will have somewhat less range than the Super but I'd think it would still be comfortably over 5000nm. The Super VC10 was available from 1965, so presumably the Super 200 would be available in the same year.

 

[uk 75]

As ever we have to get political.
Egypt, China, Romania, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Pakistan, Thailand, S Korea, Brazil, Argentina, Nigeria and Chile are amongst countries that might have bought some VC10 200s and Medway Tridents. You might even add S Africa and Rhodesia.
I dont see any of the N American and European airlines going UK though Air Canada and Qantas might if the politics was right.
A different set of governments becomes possible if Butler succeeds Eden in 1956 and not Macmillan. Butler would have been a more modern leader than the patrician Mac and probably could have beaten Wilson in 1964. Either Heath or Powell would have replaced him.
Unfortunately this does not alter the basic economic and social ills of Britain but it might make some alt history aviation changes easier.

 

[Rule of cool]

According to Wiki Trans Australian Airlines judged the Spey Trident operationally superior to the B727 but Ansett had chosen the B727 so they judged it too commercially risky to go with the Trident. This of course was in the era of airline regulation where TAA and Ansett flew the same routes on the same schedules, so much so that passengers on TAA flights could at times actually see the Ansett plane flying the same route and vice versa. If a first world airline could judge the Spey Trident operationally superior to the B727 then likely the basic aircraft wouldn't need much to pick up extra sales.

As for the VC10 Super 200, the combination of range and capacity over the B707 and DC8 should be enough to meet the needs of some airlines. Keeping in mind I'm only looking for success on a European scale, not an American one, so ~100 extra of each makes a big difference.