WI Medway Trident and VC10 Super 200?

[Rule of cool]

@Rule of cool's theory that more VC.10s would have been sold if BOAC had bought the "long" Super VC.10 instead of the "short" Super VC.10 is a variation of the proverb.
"Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door”.
I think it won't work because entering service in 1965 is too far away from the service entry of the Boeing 707 & Douglas DC-8 and too close to the service entry of the Boeing 747. (E.g. BOAC ordered its first batch of 747s on 01.09.66.) Furthermore, there are better ways to sell more VC.10s. See my previous posts.

I can't get past that the common factor in all of those lost sales was the aircraft itself, so if the aircraft was different then some of the sales results c/sh/would be different. Otherwise, you're coming up with individual reason for each and every sale in order to make it different.

Sure the B07 entered service years earlier, but it was maxed out on size very early while the demand for increased size continued, with the DC8-60 series in 1967 and the B747 in 1969, although it has been said in this thread that B747 sales were initially sluggish. The Super 200 should fit into this trend, at least well enough to pick up 50+ extra sales in the late 60s. Well, I think so in any case.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I can't get past that the common factor in all of those lost sales was the aircraft itself, so if the aircraft was different then some of the sales results c/sh/would be different. Otherwise, you're coming up with individual reason for each and every sale in order to make it different.

Sure the B07 entered service years earlier, but it was maxed out on size very early while the demand for increased size continued, with the DC8-60 series in 1967 and the B747 in 1969, although it has been said in this thread that B747 sales were initially sluggish. The Super 200 should fit into this trend, at least well enough to pick up 50+ extra sales in the late 60s. Well, I think so in any case.

I'd agree. Stretching the VC10 to max length the wings can handle would do wonders for fixing the cost per seat-mile.

 

[Scott Kenny]

And yes, the RAF would likely stick with their hot rods of the standard length fuselage and Super engines.

 

[Rule of cool]

And yes, the RAF would likely stick with their hot rods of the standard length fuselage and Super engines.

Yes, they can lift more weight and operate from worse airfields, all very important to an Air Force.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Message 129.

. . . although getting new-build VC10 tankers would be awesome!

E.g. the Black Buck operations in the Falklands War.

IIRC it took the RAF's entire force of Victor tankers to get one Vulcan to Port Stanley and back, with more Victors refuelling other Victors than the sole Vulcan. Although with my recent luck I haven't remembered correctly.

It looks like one VC.10 C.1K could carry twice the weight of transferrable fuel than one Victor K.2 and in my version of the timeline the RAF had 45 VC.10 C.1Ks in April 1982 instead of 24 Victor K.2s.

Therefore, each Black Buck raid could have been made by four Vulcan B.2s instead of one.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Link to Message 158.

Quotes from Message 158.

Could the VC.10 have been got into service sooner? The prototype flew on 29.06.62, the Standard entered service with BOAC on 29.04.64 and the Super entered service with the airline on 01.04.65.

One thing that springs to my mind is not building the Vanguard so Vickers can get on with the VC.10 and avoid the loss of £18 million that it made on that aircraft.

However, the VC.10 evolved from the Vanjet which in turn evolved from the Vanguard. Therefore, it may be necessary for Vickers "to do" the Vanguard before it can design the VC.10.

If Vickers could have put the VC.10 into service several years sooner by not doing the Vanguard it's a win-win situation for BAC and its predecessors.

• Vickers would have avoided the loss of £18 million that it made on Vanguard.
  • Because there was no Vickers Vanguard ITTL.
• Vickers would have avoided the loss of £20 million that it made on VC.10.
  • Because it would have sold enough VC.10s to break even - and then some.
• 43 Britannias would have been built for BEA and TCA instead of 43 Vanguards plus one prototype.
  • That would have avoided the need to transfer work from English Electric and Vickers to Filton when BAC was formed.
    • Gardner called it "The Filton Crisis".
  • It increased the number of Britannias built in Britain from 85 to 128.
    • And.
  • The aircraft would have been regarded as a moderate success, rather than a failure.
• The losses made on Britannia, Vanguard and VC.10 IOTL would have been replaced by profits on Britannia and VC.10 ITTL which would have given BAC the money and perhaps more importantly the confidence to develop follow-on aircraft.

The small commercial success of Britannia & VC.10 ITTL rather than the commercial failure of Britannia, Vanguard & VC.10 IOTL would have been "Great PR" for the British aircraft industry in general and BAC in particular. Which, would have been of great help when the time came to raise the money to build follow-on aircraft like Airbus and the BAC-311.

Nobody's gainsaid that.

Therefore, if the VC.10 would have been in service sooner if there hadn't been a Vickers Vanguard, how much sooner?​

I want it to be 1960.

• That would enable VC.10s to be substituted for the 20 Boeing 707-420s that BOAC & Cunard Eagle received from 1960 and the 42 DC-8s that TCA received from 1960.
• Which in turn would have meant.
  • A minimum of 60 VC.10s for BOAC in place of the 31 Seven-Oh-Sevens it acquired to 1971 and the 29 VC.10s it received out of 55 that were planned (45 ordered & 10 on option) before the Treasury & BOAC cancelled 26.
    • And.
  • A maximum of 75 VC.10s for BOAC in place of the 20 Seven-Oh-Sevens it acquired to 1963 and the 55 VC.10s it had on order & option IOTL before the Treasury & BOAC cut the total to 29.

However, that's too optimistic, even for me. For one thing the 21,000lbst Conway engine for the Standard VC.10 and 22,500lbst Conway engine for the Super VC.10 may not be available in 1960.

I think April 1962 for the Standard VC.10 and April 1963 for the Super VC.10 is the best that can be done. That's two years earlier than IOTL and also means that both versions of the VC.10 would have been in service before Sir Giles Guthrie became chairman of BOAC.

• Sir Giles Guthrie became chairman of BOAC on 01.01.64.
  • And ITTL.
    • The Standard VC.10 would have been in service for 20 months.
      • And.
    • The Super VC.10 would been in service for 9 months.
  • Production of the 45 VC.10s on order for BOAC would have been more advanced.
    • IOTL 11 out of 12 Standard VC.10s were delivered by the end of 1964 and the 12th was delivered in February 1965.
      • And all other things being equal.
    • ITTL 11 out of 12 Standard VC.10s were delivered by the end of 1963 and the 12th was delivered in February 1963.
      • Except all other things were not equal because 15 Standard VC.10s were built for BOAC instead of 12 and the 3 extra aircraft were delivered well before the end of 1963.
    • IOTL.
      • The first Super VC.10 for BOAC flew on 07.05.64, the second flew on 29.09.64, the third flew on 01.01.65 and 5 more flew by the end of 1965 for a total of 8.
      • The first aircraft were delivered in March 1965 and 7 out of the 8 aircraft that had flown were delivered to BOAC by the end of the year.
      • The eighth aircraft was used for tests of the Elliot Autoland equipment and wasn't delivered to BOAC until June 1967.
      • The ninth aircraft flew on 28.01.66 and was delivered on 12.02.66.
      • The tenth to seventeenth aircraft were delivered 1967-69.
    • ITTL the first.
      • The first Super VC.10 for BOAC flew on 07.05.62, the second flew on 29.09.62, the third flew on 01.01.63 and 5 more flew by the end of 1963 for a total of 8.
      • The first aircraft were delivered in March 1963 and 7 out of the 8 aircraft that had flown were delivered to BOAC by the end of the year.
      • The eighth aircraft was used for tests of the Elliot Autoland equipment and wasn't delivered to BOAC until June 1965.
      • The ninth aircraft was due to fly on 28.01.64 and be delivered on 12.02.64.
      • The tenth to seventeenth aircraft were delivered 1965-67.
    • Therefore, it would have been a lot harder for him to have the number of VC.10s built for BOAC reduced from 30 to the 17 that he got, let alone to have all 30 cancelled, which is what he wanted to to.
      • 8 out of 30 Super VC.10s on order were already flying.
      • 7 out of 30 Super VC.10s on order were in service with BOAC and earning it lots of money.
      • The ninth aircraft would be delivered in 6 weeks time.
      • But all other things being equal delivery of the tenth to seventeenth aircraft built IOTL would only be advanced to 1965-67, with Nos. 10 & 11 delivered in 1965, Nos. 12 to 16 delivered in 1966 and the seventeenth delivered in 1968.
  • He may not have wanted to cancel the Super VC.10 order in the first place ITTL.
    • The Standard VC.10 had been in service since the end of April 1962 and was showing that the aircraft's higher operating costs were more than cancelled out by its higher load factors 2 years earlier than it did IOTL.
    • The Super VC.10 had been in service since the beginning of April 1963 and was showing that the aircraft's higher operating costs were more than cancelled out by its higher load factors 2 years earlier than it did IOTL.
    • Rather than wanting to cancel the entire order for 30 Super VC.10s he might want all the aircraft that he could get and convert the 10 on option into firm orders for a total of 40.
    • Even if he did want to cancel the Super VC.10 ITTL, it would have been very hard for him to persuade BOAC's owner (HMG) to let him to do so.
      • Both versions of the VC.10 were already in service and making more money for BOAC than its Boeing 707s.
        • And.
      • About one quarter of the 30 Super VC.10s on order had already been delivered.
  • Initially the VC.10 cost more to run than a Boeing 707 and had a lower utilisation rate. However, this situation was reversed by the early 1970s.
    • The reason for that may be that the VC.10 was a brand new aircraft and it took time for BOAC to learn how to make the most of it.
    • Meanwhile, BOAC had already learned how to make the most out of the 707 by the time the VC.10 entered service.
      • It had been in service with the Airline for 4 years when the Standard VC.10 entered service.
        • And.
      • It had been in service with the Airline for 5 years when the Super VC.10 entered service.
    • Putting the VC.10 into service two years earlier.
      • Might have reduced the initial difference between the operating costs and utilisation rates of the two aircraft. This is because BOAC would have had two year's less experience of operating the 707 before its rival entered service and therefore have been less proficient in its use.
        • And.
      • It gives BOAC another two years to learn how to use the VC.10 effectively so it would have become cheaper to run and have higher utilisation rates two years earlier.
• The Standard VC.10 was designed use airports that the Boeing 707 and DC-8 couldn't.
  • Unfortunately, this problem didn't exist by the time it entered service because said airports had extended their runways.
  • If the aircraft had been put into service two years sooner then there would have been more airports that only it could use and therefore it might have taken some sales from Boeing and Douglas.
• Every year before 1964-65 reduces the gap between the service entry of the VC.10 and the service entry of the 707, DC-8 & CV.880 family and increases its chances of selling in greater numbers.

 

[Archibald]

Part of Message 129.

E.g. the Black Buck operations in the Falklands War.

IIRC it took the RAF's entire force of Victor tankers to get one Vulcan to Port Stanley and back, with more Victors refuelling other Victors than the sole Vulcan. Although with my recent luck I haven't remembered correctly.

It looks like one VC.10 C.1K could carry twice the weight of transferrable fuel than one Victor K.2 and in my version of the timeline the RAF had 45 VC.10 C.1Ks in April 1982 instead of 24 Victor K.2s.

Therefore, each Black Buck raid could have been made by four Vulcan B.2s instead of one.

From memory: it took either 11 planes or 11 tankers.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

From memory: it took either 11 planes or 11 tankers.

To do what?

 

[Archibald]

Black Buck ! Checked, it took 11 tankers to refuel that lone Vulcan.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

No large airliner apart from the Il62 followed the VC10 design.
Although the B727 succeeded where Trident failed, its successor the B757 resembled the best Trident variant the HS134.
Both the BAC111 and the DC9 have been replaced by 737s and Airbus 737 lookalikes.
You'll be arguing next that four engines buried in the wing were a great idea.

• Re your comment about the VC.10.
  • No large airliner apart from the Il-62 followed the VC.10 design because said design was inherently uneconomic or unsafe in comparison to aircraft with engines slung under the wings.
    • Because said design wasn't inherently uneconomic or unsafe in comparison to aircraft with engines slung under the wings.
  • I suspect that no large airliner apart from the Il-62 followed the VC.10 due to a combination of the following.
    • The next generation of engines was quieter than the early turbofans. Therefore, there was less need to put the engines as far back as possible to keep the passenger cabin as quiet as possible.
    • New high-lift devices meant there was no need for clean wings.
      • And last but not least.
    • The VC.10 was designed to operate from airports with runways that were too short for the 707 and DC-8. That was a problem that didn't exist when the time came to design the next generation of airliners because the airports had extended their runways.
  • To summarise, rear-mounted engines were the best solution to the problem at the time VC.10 was designed. Better solutions to the problem were available when the time came to design the next generation of large airliners and some of the problems that led to the VC.10 being designed the way it did no longer existed when the time came to design said next generation of large airliners.
    • Except the DC-10, MD-11 and Tristar all had two engines out of their three engines in pods under the wings and a third engine mounted in the tail. Which makes them a sort of hybrid between the 707 & DC-8 and the VC.10.
• Re your comments about the Boeing 727 and 757.
  • The B.727, which according to you was a loss making death trap waiting to fall out of the sky was in production for 22 years (1963-84) and 1,832 were sold. About two-thirds of them were sold to airlines in the USA who according to you were run by people that were too sensible to buy an aircraft that was unsafe and uneconomic.
  • The 757, which according to you was the safest and most profitable aircraft ever flown was in production for 23 years (1982-2004) and was so much better than its predecessor that 772 fewer aircraft were sold for a total of 1,050.
  • I suspect that 757 was the way it was because of improvements in engines and aerodynamics.
  • In common with what I wrote about large airliners I suspect that rear-mounted engines were the best solution to the problem when the 727 was designed and new technology made engines under the wings the best solution when the 757 was designed.
• Re your comments about the BAC.111 and Douglas DC-9.
  • I suspect that the BAC-111 would have been in production for longer and built in greater numbers if a re-fanned Spey had been available from circa 1970 or the Medway had been available when it was first designed.
    • In that case Airbus may have kept it in production instead of designing the A320 family and it might still be in production today, just over 60 years after the first aircraft was delivered to BUA (22.01.65).
  • The Douglas DC-9 was in production for 42 years (1965-2006) and 2,442 were built. No bad for an aircraft that according to you was an uneconomic death trap waiting to fall out of the sky.
    • Strictly speaking it wasn't replaced. Boeing ended production in 2006 without putting a new aircraft into production. It concentrated on building 737s instead.
    • For all we know the DC-9 would still be in production today (2025) if Boeing and McDonnell Douglas hadn't merged.
  • As I wrote about the Boeing 727 & VC.10 rear mounted engines were probably the best solution when the BAC.111 & DC-9 were designed and improvements in technology meant engines slung under the wings were better.
• Re your final comment.
  • @Rule of cool's retort was better than anything I could have written.
  • Rear mounted engines were a thing in the 1960s because there were the best solution at the time.
    • Rather than because the designers who used that engine configuration were idiots.
    • Which is what you seem to think.
  • Ten years later they weren't a thing because engines, aerodynamics and airports had improved. Not because there was anything inherently wrong with rear mounted engines, because they wasn't anything inherently wrong with rear mounted engines.
  • You also seem to think that rear-mounted engines were particularly uneconomic and inherently dangerous, which is why I wrote that the 4,897 BAC.111s, Boeing 727s, Caravelles, DC-9s and Tridents were uneconomic death traps.
  • If they had been uneconomic death traps they wouldn't have been built in those numbers.
    • Nearly half of them were DC-9s and that aircraft was in production for 42 years.
    • Not bad for an aircraft which (by your reckoning) should have been out of production soon after the Boeing 737 entered service because (by your reckoning) the 737 was significantly cheaper to run and much safer.
  • If they had been uneconomic death traps production of the BAC.111, Boeing 727 and DC-9 would have ended around 1970.
    • The 727 would have been replaced by an earlier version of the Boeing 757.
    • The DC-9 would have been replaced by a Boeing 737 lookalike.
    • The BAC.111 wouldn't have been replaced by anything because BAC would have been unable to raise enough money to pay the launching costs.
  • And yet they remained in production for a decade or more, in the case of the DC-9 several decades more.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Black Buck ! Checked, it took 11 tankers to refuel that lone Vulcan.

What confused me was "either 11 planes or 11 tankers".

According to the TV documentary it took every Victor the RAF had to get one Vulcan from Wideawake airfield to Port Stanley and back. The RAF had 23 Victor K.2s at the beginning of April 1982. The 24th was written off on 29.09.76.

 

[Archibald]

Drats, "11 planes" was supposed to mean "10 tankers plus 1 bomber".
Thinking about it further...
From 1960 to 1995 the RAF got a) varied fast jet transports: from Comet to VC-10 b) Nimrods for maritime patrol and c) varied tankers, from V-bombers to VC-10 to Tristar.
Presently wondering about an all VC-7 or all VC-10 : homogenous fleet. How much planes would that represent ?
I have fragmented elements like "49 Nimrods here... " "RAF transport command Comets & VC-10"... "converted V-bomber tankers, plus the VC-10s and 9 Tristars."

V bomber - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Vickers VC10 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Drats, "11 planes" was supposed to mean "10 tankers plus 1 bomber".
Thinking about it further...
From 1960 to 1995 the RAF got a) varied fast jet transports: from Comet to VC-10 b) Nimrods for maritime patrol and c) varied tankers, from V-bombers to VC-10 to Tristar.
Presently wondering about an all VC-7 or all VC-10 : homogenous fleet. How much planes would that represent ?
I have fragmented elements like "49 Nimrods here... " "RAF transport command Comets & VC-10"... "converted V-bomber tankers, plus the VC-10s and 9 Tristars."

V bomber - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Vickers VC10 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

329 V-Bombers including prototypes.

136 Vulcans: 2 prototypes, 45 B.1 and 89 B.2​

107 Valiants: 3 prototypes and 104 production aircraft.​

86 Victors: 2 prototypes, 50 B.1 and 34 B.2 (another 25 B.2 were cancelled)​

31 B.1 converted to K.1 tankers in 1960s.​

24 B.2 converted to K.2 tankers in 1970s of 29 planned.​

28 Jet Transports: 5 Comet C.2, 14 VC.10 C.1 and 9 Tristar.

13 our of 14 VC.10 C.1 converted to VC.10 C.1K tanker-transports in 1990s.​

Also 14 second-hand VC.10s converted to tankers in 1980s and 1990s.​

See earlier in the thread for the dates.​

Also 13 Comet 2 acquired in the 1950s: 8 C.2, 3 R.2 and 2 T.2.​

49 Nimrods: 3 R.1 to replace the Comet R.2 and 46 MR.1.

34 MR.1 converted to MR.2​

11 MR.1 converted to AEW.3​

One MR.1 lost before it could be converted to a MR.2 or AEW.3.​

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Drats, "11 planes" was supposed to mean "10 tankers plus 1 bomber".
Thinking about it further...
From 1960 to 1995 the RAF got a) varied fast jet transports: from Comet to VC-10 b) Nimrods for maritime patrol and c) varied tankers, from V-bombers to VC-10 to Tristar.
Presently wondering about an all VC-7 or all VC-10 : homogenous fleet. How much planes would that represent ?
I have fragmented elements like "49 Nimrods here... " "RAF transport command Comets & VC-10"... "converted V-bomber tankers, plus the VC-10s and 9 Tristars."

V bomber - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Vickers VC10 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I've already done a homogenous fleet of 45 VC.10 tanker-transports instead of 14 OTL VC.10 transports and 31 OTL Victor B.1s converted to K.1 transports. That's how this part of the thread started.

 

[Rule of cool]

Part of Message 129.

E.g. the Black Buck operations in the Falklands War.

IIRC it took the RAF's entire force of Victor tankers to get one Vulcan to Port Stanley and back, with more Victors refuelling other Victors than the sole Vulcan. Although with my recent luck I haven't remembered correctly.

It looks like one VC.10 C.1K could carry twice the weight of transferrable fuel than one Victor K.2 and in my version of the timeline the RAF had 45 VC.10 C.1Ks in April 1982 instead of 24 Victor K.2s.

Therefore, each Black Buck raid could have been made by four Vulcan B.2s instead of one.

n my delusional universe if the British have the sense to support the Super 200 and buy new build VC10 tankers instead of Victor conversions then they have enough sense to build the CVA01 & 02 and TSR2. Although that doesn't preclude a Black Buck mission as in 1964 they planned to keep Victor's as bombers until at leaat 1975.

 

[Pirate Pete]

Mention was made earlier regarding underwing (podded) mounted engines for the VC.10...This is from Putnams Aeronautical Series of books "Vickers Aircraft since 1908 by C.F. Andrews and E.B. Morgan...

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I've already written that TCA (now Air Canada) was the Viscount's third biggest customer, the second (and last customer) for the Vanguard, wanted to buy the VC.7 and wanted to buy the VC.11.

The Airline bought 42 DC-8s instead of the VC.7 which were delivered 1960-70.

• 11 were delivered 1960-61 and had Conway engines.
  • So they're out even in my version of the TL.
• 6 were delivered 1963-64
  • So they could be VC.10s in my version of the TL and the
• 25 remaining aircraft were delivered 1966-70 .
  • So VC.10s could be substituted in @Rule of Cools's version of the timeline as well as mine.

That's 25 or 31 extra sales for the VC.10 depending upon which version of the TL you believe.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Every time the regulators increase the noise reduction standards. 727s got Hush Kits in the 1990s to comply with whatever the then-current Stage of noise reduction regulations was.

That happen a lot in the 60’s? And did Hush kits lead to a drastic change in engine diameter that would have required a change in mount on a rear engine bird?

I assume that @ArtosStark's question was sarcastic, because AFAIK the FAA noise regulations (i.e. Chapters 1 to 4) were first published in 1977.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Rear-mounted engines yield a quieter cabin. All the engine noise that isn't conducted by structure is strictly compressor whistle which is much easier to dampen out.

But mounting engines in the rear makes upgrades significantly more expensive because you need to design and install new engine mounts.

How often do you upgrade the engines on a used airframe?

Don't know. However, it does happen.

The ones that are pertinent to the discussion are the BAC.111s and Boeing 727s refitted with Tay engines, the MD-80 which was a DC-9 with a higher-bypass version of the JT8D and the Fokker 100 which was sort of a Fokker 28 with Tay engines.

Therefore, I think saying that the VC.10 can't have it's engines upgraded or replaced because it's too difficult/prohibitively expensive is wrong or at least an exaggeration.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Don't know. However, it does happen.

The ones that are pertinent to the discussion are the BAC.111s and Boeing 727s refitted with Tay engines, the MD-80 which was a DC-9 with a higher-bypass version of the JT8D and the Fokker 100 which was sort of a Fokker 28 with Tay engines.

Therefore, I think saying that the VC.10 can't have it's engines upgraded or replaced because it's too difficult/prohibitively expensive is wrong or at least an exaggeration.

How are those engine mounts on the VC10 put together? Are they a full circle shape like the wing root mounts for the Comet or the center mount for the 727?

If so then it would be extremely expensive to replace with larger diameter engines, whether to just swap to RR/PW/GE-delete-as-appropriate or to upgrade later in life. Because you'd have to remove those hoops and replace with newer ones.

Side engines on a 727 bolt to a mount on the sides of the engine, so it was easier. Still took a bunch of titanium reinforcements around where the engine mounts went through the skin and bolted into the ribs and stringers.

 

[Scott Kenny]

While if the VC10 engine mounts are "eyebrows" that just go above the engines and the engines simply hang from them, it'd be simpler to do an engine swap with a larger diameter, as long as the engines could still hang correctly from the engine mounts.

Same applies if they're cradles, but cradles are a pain to remove engines from so I think they're unlikely.

 

[alertken]

Practicality of VC10 Earlier Certification: BOAC's "need" for shorter field performance than 707-400 was presented to their owner 4/57. It was an invention so Ministers had a basis to try to comply with the condition imposed for 707 $: that they be rolled over for a UK type. (Inconceivable that, say, Singapore would condemn itself to be served by only one Type). That "Br.Type" was sought 1/57, D.H.118 receiving publicity, till all notions lapsed 3/57, all Bids rejected as lousy cf 707/DC-8 of the day. So:
POD 1: taxpayer funding 3/57 for one of those - VC7 redux, Comet yet further faffed. Shall we forget that?

POD 2: BOAC Letter of Intent was 5/57: 35 Standard VC10: not confirmed with £deposit till 14/1/58, first flight 29/6/62; inaugural 29/4/64, after V-A had got their R&D time/cost wrong "by quite a bit". Why so long? One factor was Autoland, Elliott system needing Leader Cable to the runway: never to be used. Time, cost drag. So here: omit this kit? Another was Conway's advantage over turbojet JT3C, JT4A was lost to JT3D-3B before inaugural. RB80 had run 7/53,-funded 17/3/53 for V.1000, chop,, 11/11/55, but funding continued to provide price competition to B.Ol.200 for Mk.2 Victor/Vulcan: RR prioritised that (winning Victor) and Conway on 707-400 and DC-8/40. VC10 also-ran.

But market success would require a Super, capable of matching 707-320B, DC-8/50, to be earlier than 23/6/60 order, 1/4/65 inaugural.
Many have blamed BOAC for misreading the tea leaves and not foreseeing growth in Air Transport (see also BEAC shrinking DH.121).
That is unfair. We today forget 1960s. A300 was funded by 3 Nations assuming their captive flag carriers would each buy 6. Boeing funded 747 after they lost (C-5A) as an act of desperation, hoping to sell some freighters, cos PanAm's 25 would lead to few from few.
Of course V-A tailored VC10, DH tailored Trident, to the stated needs of their host/sponsor User: who would buy a type rejected by them?

A maybe POD: V1000 (RAF; civil scheme was VC7, BOAC disinterest to favour Comets). V-A's GR Edwards: “a decision we(=UK will) regret for many years (biggest) blunder of all”. D.Wood,Project Cancelled,,1975,P97, But: M.Thomas (BOAC Chair,,Out on a Wing,, M.Joseph,1964P328: “to be another 'world-beater', though I couldn't see why (its price was out) of all relationship to(707/DC-8)”. V-A's GRE had extracted PV funds for Vanguard, 13/4/55: he could have dumped that and put the £ into VC7, so to be, by default, the Br.Type to replace 707-400 (no other Bidder to the 1/57 "Reqt" was willing to put up much/any money). But..I see a Mercure, not a DC-8 slayer.

​

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

How are those engine mounts on the VC10 put together? Are they a full circle shape like the wing root mounts for the Comet or the center mount for the 727?

If so then it would be extremely expensive to replace with larger diameter engines, whether to just swap to RR/PW/GE-delete-as-appropriate or to upgrade later in life. Because you'd have to remove those hoops and replace with newer ones.

Side engines on a 727 bolt to a mount on the sides of the engine, so it was easier. Still took a bunch of titanium reinforcements around where the engine mounts went through the skin and bolted into the ribs and stringers.

While if the VC10 engine mounts are "eyebrows" that just go above the engines and the engines simply hang from them, it'd be simpler to do an engine swap with a larger diameter, as long as the engines could still hang correctly from the engine mounts.

Same applies if they're cradles, but cradles are a pain to remove engines from so I think they're unlikely.

Half-seriously and half-sarcastically how hard was it to replace the centre engine on a 727?

This is a rear view of the VC.10 C.1 that the RAF leant to Rolls Royce for RB.211 trials.
I found the image on the Plane Crazy website (https://planecrazy.me.uk/html/powerplants.html) and it looks like they copied it from The Science Museum.



And here's a superb view of it from the VC10.net website.
(https://www.vc10.net/History/Individual/XR809.html)

​

 

[Rule of cool]

@NOMISYRRUC your continued digging is reinforcing my faith that a different Super VC10 could have led to Vickers/BAC producing over 80 to break even and even over 100 to make a tidy profit and strengthen British industry.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Half-seriously and half-sarcastically how hard was it to replace the centre engine on a 727?

Fiddly. Not something people wanted to do very often.

Only reason we were doing it at all was the Hush Kit mods. And yes, that's for a heavy check where you strip the interior of the aircraft out to the metal and refurbish everything. Other airframes left their engines on the wings for the same work.

This is a rear view of the VC.10 C.1 that the RAF leant to Rolls Royce for RB.211 trials.

I found the image on the Plane Crazy website (https://planecrazy.me.uk/html/powerplants.html) and it looks like they copied it from The Science Museum.

View attachment 761953
​

Experimental stuff like that has extra budget for one-off parts made. Though it looks like they removed the twin-engine mount and installed a large single engine mount for that work, which is simpler than installing two new engines per side if the mounts have to change.

 

[Rule of cool]

Experimental stuff like that has extra budget for one-off parts made. Though it looks like they removed the twin-engine mount and installed a large single engine mount for that work, which is simpler than installing two new engines per side if the mounts have to change.

Apparently the testing bent the airframe and ruined it.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Apparently the testing bent the airframe and ruined it.

The VC10.net website says it was damaged beyond economical repair.

On 26th September 1975 the aircraft was delivered to RAF Kemble. Initially the aircraft would return to RAF service but it was found that the airframe was distorted, and repairs were deemed too costly. In the end the airframe was used for SAS training purposes and was left to decay at the site, eventually being scrapped.

Source: https://www.vc10.net/History/Individual/XR809.html

However, it's significant that the aircraft was returned to the RAF after the Mason Defence Review, which amongst other things reduced the number of VC.10 C.1s in No. 10 Squadron from 13 to 9. Therefore, XR809 was repairable and would have been repaired if it had been returned to the RAF before the Mason Defence Review or if said review hadn't happened.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Fiddly. Not something people wanted to do very often.

Only reason we were doing it at all was the Hush Kit mods. And yes, that's for a heavy check where you strip the interior of the aircraft out to the metal and refurbish everything. Other airframes left their engines on the wings for the same work.

Was it the same for the DC-10, MD-11 and Tristar?

Experimental stuff like that has extra budget for one-off parts made.

Non-experimental stuff like that doesn't need extra money (not extra budget) due to the extra cost (not extra budget) being spread over more than one unit.

I'm not convinced that putting a different rear mounted engine on an existing aircraft is significantly harder than doing the same for an under-wing engine and may not be the least bit harder.

Boeing 707, 717* and DC-8 originally had JT8C turbojets, but the pylons & pods were redesigned for the JT3D, Conway and later the CFM56.

*Better known as the KC-135.

Though it looks like they removed the twin-engine mount and installed a large single engine mount for that work, which is simpler than installing two new engines per side if the mounts have to change.

The drawing on this Facebook page shows how it was installed.

Log into Facebook

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

www.facebook.com

The OTL VC.10 had two different marks of Conway engine. The Standard had engines producing 21,000lbst each and the Super had engines producing 22,500lbst.

Also, how did we get into this? As far as I can remember @Rule of cool want's his TTL "big" Super VC.10 to have the same Conway engines as the OTL "small" Super VC.10. So why are we having a heated debate over the feasibility and expense of fitting a different engine to the VC.10.

 

[Pirate Pete]

Regarding the VC.10 engine installation…

VC10 Engine Installation

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

@NOMISYRRUC your continued digging is reinforcing my faith that a different Super VC10 could have led to Vickers/BAC producing over 80 to break even and even over 100 to make a tidy profit and strengthen British industry.

Although I've nothing against the Super VC.10 being the bigger version, you haven't convinced me that the result will be more sales.

The trick is to avoid BOAC's anti-VC.10 press campaign and Sir Giles Guthrie's attempt to have all 40 Super VC.10s that were on order or option in January 1964 cancelled. That's the main reason why looked for plausible ways to get the aircraft into service sooner.

Having all 55 aircraft that were on order and option for BOAC built gets you to 80 VC.10s. After some more digging my current guess is that you could get a minimum of 164 built (rather than 162*) if the aircraft remains in production when China made its OTL offer for 30 and if you allow 31 extra aircraft to be built for the RAF instead of the Victor B.1s converted to tankers.

Furthermore, if the aircraft remains in production into the middle 1970s (which it will if it remains in production long enough to accept the Chinese order) you could get as many as 216 to 270 built. Which is four to five times more than OTL. Although it would be easier to do that if the VC.10 could be put into service two years earlier than IOTL.

*According to the VC10.net website BUA ordered 4 originally but when it signed the contract it was 2 firm orders and 2 options, with one of the options effectively being taken up when it bought Ghana AW's third aircraft. Meanwhile, MEA wanted to order 3 with options for 2 more for a total of 5. That gets us one extra aircraft from BUA and one extra aircraft from MEA increasing the total from 162 to 164.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Regarding the VC.10 engine installation…

VC10 Engine Installation

Ah, excellent. looks like it's an "eyebrows" type design, which is a lot easier to work with.

Was it the same for the DC-10, MD-11 and Tristar?

Yes. The rings make a very solid limit on how easy it is to change engines. L1011s would be easier than DC10/MD11s.

Non-experimental stuff like that doesn't need extra money (not extra budget) due to the extra cost (not extra budget) being spread over more than one unit.

Experimental builds can use other methods of fabricating the component that would cost too much to do for series production.

I'm not convinced that putting a different rear mounted engine on an existing aircraft is significantly harder than doing the same for an under-wing engine and may not be the least bit harder.

Let's see here... Any aircraft using ring structures around the engines was difficult to re-engine.
Buccaneer? The S1 to S2 rebuild required replacing entire frame sections.
A-5 Vigilante? Was unable to be re-engined due to the forged components in the tail section that had J79 sized holes in them. (TF30s would have been good for the Vigilante, better range and power)
Comet? Sounds like later Comets got redesigned engine sections. Impossible to refit Comet 1s with Avon engines without a major rebuild.

 

[Rule of cool]

Although I've nothing against the Super VC.10 being the bigger version, you haven't convinced me that the result will be more sales.

The trick is to avoid BOAC's anti-VC.10 press campaign and Sir Giles Guthrie's attempt to have all 40 Super VC.10s that were on order or option in January 1964 cancelled. That's the main reason why looked for plausible ways to get the aircraft into service sooner.

Having all 55 aircraft that were on order and option for BOAC built gets you to 80 VC.10s. After some more digging my current guess is that you could get a minimum of 164 built (rather than 162*) if the aircraft remains in production when China made its OTL offer for 30 and if you allow 31 extra aircraft to be built for the RAF instead of the Victor B.1s converted to tankers.

Furthermore, if the aircraft remains in production into the middle 1970s (which it will if it remains in production long enough to accept the Chinese order) you could get as many as 216 to 270 built. Which is four to five times more than OTL. Although it would be easier to do that if the VC.10 could be put into service two years earlier than IOTL.

*According to the VC10.net website BUA ordered 4 originally but when it signed the contract it was 2 firm orders and 2 options, with one of the options effectively being taken up when it bought Ghana AW's third aircraft. Meanwhile, MEA wanted to order 3 with options for 2 more for a total of 5. That gets us one extra aircraft from BUA and one extra aircraft from MEA increasing the total from 162 to 164.

I totally agree that Sir Giles Guthrie ruined the Super VC10s chances of a good sales record. IIUC Sir Giles' objection was that the seat-mile-cost of the OTL Super was inferior to the B707 and his job, which as I've learned from this thread only occurred from 1963, was to make a profitable airline. Therefore my next step back from this point is to think of how the Super 10 doesn't meet this particular objection, and it appears as if the Super 200 would have superior seat-mile-cost number to the B707, which this thread appears to have borne out.

So my 'solution' to Sir Giles is to give him what he wanted, which isn't unreasonable form an airline exec's perspective, in VC10 form.

 

[Rule of cool]

Of course the ulterior motive of this thread is to see if Britain can build enough airliners in the 60 to have a viable widebody in the 70s. Certainly a touch over 400 VC10s, Tridents and BAC111s isnt enough, but almost 650 might well be.