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.

 

[alertken]

1,832 vs 117: Why.
Trident v 727 discussion (2007!): www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/original-spec-dh121-vs-b727.3082/

Trident 1C/Spey was ordered by BEAC 12/8/59 (to be produced jointly with Fairey, Hunting), stimulating DH merger contact with Vickers-Armstrongs, who 10/59 sampled it to scheme VC11, well-received by TCA. DH dumped V-A for HS Grp and agreed terms 18/12/59, same day that Bristol, EE and V-A settled terms to be BAC, after MoA D.Sandys told them all that Civil A/c Launch Aid would return for firms that coalesced.

DH (so, presumably, HS Group) invited Boeing to Hatfield, 2/60 to be overawed and so part-fund D.H.121, which HS did not care to continue to fund PV just for BEAC's 24: Hunting was flirting with BAC (bought 70%, 9/60), and Fairey with Westland, who bought 2/5/60. Sandys then rewarded the compliant with Launch Aid for Trident, VC10, (VC11, rolled 4/61 into) 1-11.
Through all of this RR continued to talk to Boeing about Medway (run 11/59) for their shrunk 707 scheme, and became its Design Baseline as it evolved, with 3 engines aft, and a high-lift wing - both necessary to serve Denver.

Pratt booted Medway off days before Eastern/United Launched 727, 40 each, 5/12/60. I have suggested: not due to Not Invented Here, but to aggressive Guarantees (operating cost, reliability) too tight, too late for RR to match.

So RR abandoned Medway for many Spey Applications. Trident's complex wing and normal Br sculpture made weight, so Operating Cost per Available Ton Mile, worse than ever-evolving 727...and that, I suggest, would have remained with Medway. It was $/ATM+Product Devt+Product Support that sold Boeing's product line.

 

[Rule of cool]

....................DH dumped V-A for HS Grp and agreed terms 18/12/59, same day that Bristol, EE and V-A settled terms to be BAC, after MoA D.Sandys told them all that Civil A/c Launch Aid would return for firms that coalesced.

While the BEA order for 24 + 10 Tridents wasn't enough for HS to PV fund the development it was the second largest civil order after the BOAC order for 35 + 20 VC10s. The British government believed that in 1958 HS was the only British company with the market capitalisation to handle such large orders and 'encouraged' the consolidation of the aviation industry into much bigger firms to handle such large orders.

Trident's complex wing and normal Br sculpture made weight, so Operating Cost per Available Ton Mile, worse than ever-evolving 727...and that, I suggest, would have remained with Medway.

I don't know how these things are calculated, but it appears as if the Medway would have significantly more available ton miles to play with than the shrunken specification. What's more during the development of the Spey Trident the specs crept back up to close to the proposed Medway sized initial version, only with much less thrust and room for growth.

Medway (proposed)
111 seats
127' length
123,000lb MTOW
41,370lbf
2070 miles

Original Spey (proposed)
80 seats
114'9" length
105,000lb MTOW
29,550lbf
930 miles

Trident 1 (prototype)
101 seats
114'9" length
107,000lb MTOW
31,200lbf
1345 miles

Trident 1C (initial production model)
108 seats
114'9" length
115,000lb MTOW
31,200lbf
2035 miles

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Something I've thought for a while . . .

At it's peak BOAC had orders & options for a total of 55 VC.10s. It eventually received 29. Have HMG force BOAC to buy 55 VC.10s and fewer Boeing 707s. IIRC (1) the eventual total was 31 Boeing 707s of which 19 were 707-420s with Conway engines and 12 were 707-320s with P&W engines. I've not checked, but IIRC (2) the 12 Boeing 707-320s took the place of cancelled VC.10s. That increases the number of VC.10s built for BOAC by 26 aircraft from 29 to 55. Some of the extra cost of buying the 26 extra VC.10s is offset by the money saved by not buying the 12 Boeing 707-320s.

The plan to convert 30-odd Victor Mk 1 bombers to tankers was the plan before the Valiant was prematurely withdrawn and the grounding of the Valiant only resulted in the earlier implementation of the plan. ITTL have the plan be to replace the Valiants with VC.10s and have at least 10 on order (to equip the third tanker squadron) before the Valiant was grounded. Buy an eventual total of 31 which increases the number of VC.10s built for the RAF from 14 to 45. Although it means spending more money in the 1960s it does avoid having to convert 24 Victor Mk 2s to tankers in the second half of the 1970s. In common with OTL the RAF may buy second-hand VC.10s in the late 70s & early 80s for conversion to tankers and as a source of spare parts.

Until recently the 31 aircraft were to have been 3-point tankers. However, I recently learned that in the 1990s the RAF had its 13 surviving VC.10 C.1s rebuilt as C.1K two-point tanker-transports, with a fuel capacity that was 81% of a VC.10 K.2s and 77% of a VC.10 K.3s. I also learned recently that, in practice, the fuel load of the K.2 and K.3 was capped by the maximum take-off weight before the tanks were full. Therefore, ITTL all 45 aircraft acquired in the 1960s were built to C.1K standard.

That increases the number built from 54 to 110 and maybe it keeps the VC.10 in production for long enough for BAC to accept CAAC's offer to buy 30 which would increase the number built to 140.

This may be a false memory, but IIRC MEA wanted to buy 10 until they were put off the idea by BOAC's anti-VC.10 campaign and bought Boeing 707s instead. (Although according to the VC.10 website they did operate a few leased VC.10s.) If that isn't a false memory and BOAC isn't anti-VC.10 ITTL that increases the total from 140 to 150 which is close to three-times the number built IOTL.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Something I've suggested before is to turn the three airliners into a proto-Airbus by employing Continental aerospace companies as major subcontractors with the objective of increasing sales in Europe.

And establish a production line in the USA or Canada to make them easier to sell to North America. IOTL Fairchild built the Fokker F.27 & F28 under licence, Allison built the Spey under licence, Canadair (a subsidiary of Convair/GD) had a licence on the Britannia, which it used to build the Argus & CL-44 and AIUI the former Avro Canada factory built parts of several Douglas airliners.

I thought of making the VC.10 a joint project between Convair and Vickers, with the former selling to the Americas and the latter selling to the rest of the World with the American doing it instead of the CV.880 & 990. Except production of the CV.880 & 990 was coming to an end by the time the first VC.10 flew so it wouldn't work. Although a joint Convair-Vickers project instead of the CV.880/990 and the V.1000/VC-7 would work.

 

[Rule of cool]

@NOMISYRRUC

You're forcing BOAC to buy an aircraft that was inferior in operating costs to the B707, which is why BOAC was anti VC10. I'm aware of the hypocrisy of BOAC, but that fact cannot be denied.

This is why I suggest the PoD as being the full 28' stretch Super 200, which I believe would be a a fundamentally better aircraft. The extra seats makes he operating cost better than the B707 and it would be the most capacious trans-Atlantic airliner in the world until the B747. Although it would be developed against the wishes of BOAC the biggest problem that BOAC has with the aircraft, seat-mile operating cost, would be gone.

I'd be happy to force BOAC to buy Super 200s instead of the 2nd batch of 12 B707-320s, as well as the 17 Supers they bought. I've not heard of the MEA interest but am not surprised, 10 is a pretty hefty order although not to outlandish when Nigeria got 5 Supers. Even 12 more for BOAC and 10 for MEA doubles Super (200) production to 44 and total production to 76, 4 short of Vickers break even point.

As for the RAF tanker fleet, given reason the original VC10 was developed became redundant soon after the they entered service I'd have the Government force BOAC to replace these with Super 200s and pass the ~17 almost new aircraft to the RAF for conversions to pure, 3 point tankers. That would add another 12 Super (200s) to the production total, bumping it up ITTL to 56 for a total of 88, surpassing the break-even point. Given that weight rather than volume was the limiting factor for VC10 tankers that RAF could make good use of the original VC10s great take-off performance.

Without a seat-mile problem and BOAC buying 36 Super 200s I imagine it would pick up more orders on the international market.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

@Rule of cool. Do you know about this? https://www.vc10.net/index.html

 

[Rule of cool]

@Rule of cool. Do you know about this? https://www.vc10.net/index.html

Yes, the airframes section has the serials of the 12 not built Super VC10s. Given they were allocated serial numbers it appears as if they were the closest to be produced.

 

[Caravellarella]

@NOMISYRRUC

MEA originally ordered four Douglas DC-8-62s to replace their Comet 4C fleet; then MEA's bank went "bust" so Douglas cancelled the order & refunded the deposits paid. MEA then selected four Super VC10s, but BAC were unable to provide financing for the order. Boeing stepped in and MEA ordered three Boeing 707-3B4Cs.

Terry (Caravellarella)

 

[Caravellarella]

@NOMISYRRUC

MEA originally ordered four Douglas DC-8-62s to replace their Comet 4C fleet; then MEA's bank went "bust" so Douglas cancelled the order & refunded the deposits paid. MEA then selected four Super VC10s, but BAC were unable to provide financing for the order. Boeing stepped in and MEA ordered three Boeing 707-3B4Cs.

Terry (Caravellarella)

Make that three Super VC10s for MEA...

Terry (Caravellarella)

 

[Rule of cool]

I came across this, it's from a forum so should be taken with the pinch of salt but is interesting if true.

Several customers beyond the few outside of BOAC came close to signing, including what became Egyptair, a Thai operator, Kuwait, MEA had leased ones and wanted their own (covered above) and even (Czechoslovakia) CSA.

The last potential sale was to China, CAAC had already brought what would become 36 Tridents.

A quick look shows most of these bought handfuls of modern aircraft in the 60s that might be swapped for VC10 Super 200s, maybe 10-12 units in total, but CSA operated some 15 Il62 from the late 60s and CAAC 7 Il62 and 10 B707 from the early 70s so would be good gets.

 

[Rule of cool]

Digging a bit deeper Vickers/BAC created the following type designations:

1104 Nigeria Airways version, none built. (x2 serial numbers allocated)
1110 Generic designation for VC10A. None built.
1111 Version of VC10A for BOAC. Not built.
1125 Standard (could be a hybrid Standard/Super design) VC10 for Aerolineas Argentinas, none built.
1157 Super VC10 for Varanair Siam, none built.
1158 Super VC10 for CSA, none built.
1161 Super VC10 for Nigeria Airways, none built.
1162 Super VC10 for Tarom, none built. (Soviets vetoed purchase of British aircraft)
1163 Allocated to a specification for Super VC10s for China. Specification shows both full passenger and combined passenger/freight layouts so this version would have had a main deck freight door, none built.

What is a VC10A?
What about the strange Argentine version?

In any event I don't think dribs and drabs of standard or Super would 'save the VC10 the way the Super 200 would. I think the capability of that aircraft would lead to a few decent sales to more substantial airlines.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

At it's peak BOAC had orderes & options for a total of 55 VC.10s. It eventually received 29. Have HMG force BOAC to buy 55 VC.10s and fewer Boeing 707s. IIRC (1) the eventual total was 31 Boeing 707s of which 19 were 707-420s with Conway engines and 12 were 707-320s with P&W engines. I've not checked, but IIRC (2) the 12 Boeing 707-320s took the place of cancelled VC.10s. That increases the number of VC.10s built for BOAC by 26 aircraft from 29 to 55. Some of the extra cost of buying the 26 extra VC.10s is offset by the money saved by not buying the 12 Boeing 707-320s.

I was right about BOAC buying 31 Boeing 707s, but it was 20 with Conway engines and 11 with JT3D engines.

And only 27 of them were ordered by BOAC. The other 4 were ordered by other airlines, but BOAC bought them before they were delivered or not long afterwards.

• 20 Boeing 707-420s with RR Conway engines delivered 1960-63.
  • 18 Boeing 707-436 ordered by BOAC.
    • The original 15 ordered on 24.10.56 and delivered in 1960.
    • A follow-up order for 3 that was delivered 1962-63.
  • 2 Boeing 707-465 ordered by Cunard Eagle on 25.05.61.
    • G-AWRD was delivered to Cunard Eagle Airways on 27.02.62 and following Cunard's defection it was transferred to BOAC on 28.09.62.
    • G-AWRE was delivered directly to BOAC on 07.07.62.
• 11 Boeing 707-320s with P&W JT3D engines delivered 1965-71.
  • 7 Boeing 707-336C ordered by BOAC.
    • The first pair was ordered on 15.01.65 and they were delivered on 19.12.65.
    • The other 5 were delivered between 30.11.67 and 25.05.71.
  • 2 Boeing 707-336Bs ordered by BOAC on 16.01.70 and delivered on 18.02.71. 18.02.71 & 17.04.71.
  • 1 of 2 Boeing 707-365Cs ordered British Eagle International Airlines on 06.01.67. According to britisheagle.net.
    • G-ATZC was delivered to Airlift International as N737AL in 1967.
    • G-ATZD was delivered to British Eagle International Airlines Ltd on 21.12.67, but remained in Seattle until being registered as VR-BCP on the 04.02.68.
      • It was leased to Middle East Airlines Ltd between March 1968 and November 1968.
      • The aircraft was sold to BOAC as G-ATZD on 06.12.68.
  • 1 Boeing 707-379C ordered by Saturn Airways, but delivered to BOAC on 27.06.68.

 

[Rule of cool]

I was right about BOAC buying 31 Boeing 70s, but it was 20 with Conway engines and 11 with JT3D engines.

And only 27 of them were ordered by BOAC. The other 4 were ordered by other airlines, but BOAC bought them before they were delivered or not long afterwards.

• 20 Boeing 707-420s with RR Conway engines delivered 1960-63.
  • 18 Boeing 707-436 ordered by BOAC.
    • The original 15 ordered on 24.10.56 and delivered in 1960.
    • A follow-up order for 3 that was delivered 1962-63.
  • 2 Boeing 707-465 ordered by Cunard Eagle on 25.05.61.
    • G-AWRD was delivered to Cunard Eagle Airways on 27.02.62 and following Cunard's defection it was transferred to BOAC on 28.09.62.
    • G-AWRE was delivered directly to BOAC on 07.07.62.
• 11 Boeing 707-320s with P&W JT3D engines delivered 1965-71.
  • 7 Boeing 707-336C ordered by BOAC.
    • The first pair was ordered on 15.01.65 and they were delivered between 19.12.65.
    • The other 5 were delivered between 30.11.67 and 25.05.71.
  • 2 Boeing 707-336Bs ordered by BOAC on 16.01.70 and delivered on 18.02.71. 18.02.71 & 17.04.71.
  • 1 of 2 Boeing 707-365Cs ordered British Eagle International Airlines on 06.01.67. According to britisheagle.net.
    • G-ATZC was delivered to Airlift International as N737AL in 1967.
    • G-ATZD was delivered to British Eagle International Airlines Ltd on 21.12.67, but remained in Seattle until being registered as VR-BCP on the 04.02.68.
      • It was leased to Middle East Airlines Ltd between March 1968 and November 1968.
      • The aircraft was sold to BOAC as G-ATZD on 06.12.68.
  • 1 Boeing 707-379C ordered by Saturn Airways, but delivered to BOAC on 27.06.68.

In addition to those B707s BOAC received 12 VC10s and 17 Super VC10s, and serial numbers were allocated to 3 standard and 12 Super VC10s for BOAC but not built.

If the full 28" stretch VC10 Super 200 was built they'd be delivered from 1966, so there's likely nothing can be done about the first 18 B707s, they were delivered even before the first standard VC10. Even the 3 Cunard Eagle they got were likely too early to be replaced by VC10s, and the standards were unsuitable anyway.

However the final 11 were perfect candidates for replacement with Super 200s, the 12 BAC allocated serial numbers to. This would bring BOACs Super 200 fleet to 29.

I struggle to believe that if BOAC had a fleet of 29 of the most capacious trans-Atlantic airliners in the world that no other top tier airline would buy a decent sized batch.

 

[Siberia]

The unknown here is whether US airlines would have ordered either type as they did the Viscount and 111.

I doubt it. Unless they're filling a gap in the market that isn't being met, or the designs are miles better than comparable domestic ones, then I'd expect them to stick with American firms. I think the main export opportunity is likely to be Europe – provided that they're of roughly equal performance to American models the main attraction will be that they're paid for with pound sterling rather than dollars.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

@NOMISYRRUC

You're forcing BOAC to buy an aircraft that was inferior in operating costs to the B707, which is why BOAC was anti VC10. I'm aware of the hypocrisy of BOAC, but that fact cannot be denied.

FWIW a few years later HMG forced BEA to buy 26 Trident 3s and 18 BAC.111s instead of the Boeing 727s and 737s that the airline wanted. The Government didn't want to spend the Dollars and it compensated BEA for being forced to buy British. Have HMG do unto BOAC in your timeline as they did to BEA in ours.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I doubt it. Unless they're filling a gap in the market that isn't being met, or the designs are miles better than comparable domestic ones, then I'd expect them to stick with American firms. I think the main export opportunity is likely to be Europe – provided that they're of roughly equal performance to American models the main attraction will be that they're paid for with pound sterling rather than dollars.

National airlines will care about currency. Privately owned airlines will care about initial costs.

 

[Rule of cool]

FWIW a few years later HMG forced BEA to buy 26 Trident 3s and 18 BAC.111s instead of the Boeing 727s and 737s that the airline wanted. The Government didn't want to spend the Dollars and it compensated BEA for being forced to buy British. Have HMG do unto BOAC in your timeline as they did to BEA in ours.

IIUC BOAC was forced to take 17 Super VC10s, the problem is that even if they were forced to take the other 12 it won't make the Super VC10 into an appealing aircraft. Perhaps if BOAC were forced to take those 12 aircraft some of the other potential buyers might pick up a few, but that will only get the numbers into the 70s. To get the production over 100 and perhaps even to 150 or more the aircraft would need to be inherently more appealing, which I believe the Super 200 would be.

As for BEA, I doubt being forced to get BAC1-11 at least wouldn't be much of a detriment, it was a successful airliner in the European context from a sales perspective.

 

[Siberia]

National airlines will care about currency. Privately owned airlines will care about initial costs.

How many private airlines, large enough to operate jets like these, were there in Europe until the 1980s or so?

 

[Scott Kenny]

How many private airlines, large enough to operate jets like these, were there in Europe until the 1980s or so?

Probably not many, but I'm not even sure where to start looking for that data.

 

[alertken]

BOAC was competing with US risk-capital carriers, BEAC with subsidised parastatals on routes protected for their monopoly. Sun/Sangria/ charterers took price-sensitive holiday traffic in cattle class, but until M.Thatcher liberated Brits to buy FOREX in 1979, the entire holiday package was paid for in £, freeing the pax to spend his £50 in lire or pesos. It was all so different then. BOAC's advantage over BEAC was their $ earnings, so they could claim no-hit on Treasury currency management.

We should stop whining on about VC10. BOAC secured a mandate in 1963 to get off the State's udder. It took until 1986-or-so to do so. They bought 707-320B for one reason: not to busy the dole office in Weybridge, but to buy competitive cost per Available Ton Mile.
So, Super Super 200, declined by BOAC, while still taking Pratt/707s. DC-8/60s made some sales thereabouts (not enough to finance DC-10, so they lost independence to McAir), but PAA had launched 747-100, stimulating a sales cascade inc 6 for BOAC. 200 Bus, missed.

 

[Rule of cool]

How many private airlines, large enough to operate jets like these, were there in Europe until the 1980s or so?

Probably not many, but I'm not even sure where to start looking for that data.

Here's a list of B707 operators and the number they flew. It looks like in the 60s that state airlines were the rule rather than the exception in Europe. All in all there appears to be plenty of scope for a VC10 Super 200 to pick up some decent orders, for example Vickers allocated a Type designation for Aerolineas Argentinas who ended up with 11 B707s.

 

[Pirate Pete]

Here's a list of B707 operators and the number they flew. It looks like in the 60s that state airlines were the rule rather than the exception in Europe. All in all there appears to be plenty of scope for a VC10 Super 200 to pick up some decent orders, for example Vickers allocated a Type designation for Aerolineas Argentinas who ended up with 11 B707s.

what list? (or am I missing something?)

 

[Rule of cool]

We should stop whining on about VC10. BOAC secured a mandate in 1963 to get off the State's udder. It took until 1986-or-so to do so. They bought 707-320B for one reason: not to busy the dole office in Weybridge, but to buy competitive cost per Available Ton Mile.
So, Super Super 200, declined by BOAC, while still taking Pratt/707s. DC-8/60s made some sales thereabouts (not enough to finance DC-10, so they lost independence to McAir), but PAA had launched 747-100, stimulating a sales cascade inc 6 for BOAC. 200 Bus, missed.

My whole interest in the VC10 Super 200 is that IIUC it's cost per Available Ton Mile was better than both the as-built Super VC10 and the B707.

BOAC passed on the Super 200 years before getting the mandate to become profitable. My contention is that Vicker/BAC was correct putting forward the 28' stretch Super 200, and BOAC was incorrect demanding it be shrunk to a 13' stretch, as it would have provided an economical airliners which itself would have generated sales. In the event after BOAC's bad decision to limit the VC10 stretch they were correct in not wanting their Super VC10 fleet to be too big. given their 1963 profitability mandate.