David, you'll know...
Whatever, a fantastic record.....
BBC News - Vickers VC10 jetliners fly last mission from RAF Brize Norton
Whatever, a fantastic record.....
BBC News - Vickers VC10 jetliners fly last mission from RAF Brize Norton
Last Truly British Plane?
- Thread starter Keith1
- Start date
A thing of beauty for sure. At least they spared one for the museum . I think that is going to be a must see next time I am down that way.
The Classic Airforce Collection
Bob
The Classic Airforce Collection
Bob
Can't argue with that Keith, when I see the Victor somehow always compare it's looks with the Vulcan. Victor is more brutal - in your face even, and while I stare at a Vulcan for a long time, taking it all in, I will stare at the Victor for longer.
See the visual cues like the crazy mouth of the starbd intake with the two bug eyes above it 'here's Victor'.
On another note, the GT40 MkI looks smoother and prettier= Vulcan, while the MkII looks more brutal= Victor!
regards
Dave
See the visual cues like the crazy mouth of the starbd intake with the two bug eyes above it 'here's Victor'.
On another note, the GT40 MkI looks smoother and prettier= Vulcan, while the MkII looks more brutal= Victor!
regards
Dave
Little and large.
A friend of mine had a cabling laying contract at the RAE Farnborough, on one of the runs they had to cross the runway and much to their dismay discovered that the runway was built with solid concrete to a depth of 3 meters. Apparently necessary to land some of these 100 ton plus monsters.
A friend of mine had a cabling laying contract at the RAE Farnborough, on one of the runs they had to cross the runway and much to their dismay discovered that the runway was built with solid concrete to a depth of 3 meters. Apparently necessary to land some of these 100 ton plus monsters.
Last edited:
The victor was hastily adapted for refueling during the Falklands war. Anyone know why the Vulcan became "the" bomber and the victor scrapped?
As a child growing up in South Africa I flew on the vc10 many times. It took off in Johannesburg, landed in seychelles islands then columbo Sri Lanka on the way to Hong Kong. I think the VC10 also had the first application of a bypass fan jet motor to a transport plane. Apparently the rear mounted engines allowed it to take off hot and high where a 707 wouldnt, but theis caoability also meant it was less efficient than a 707.
I remmeber also that there was a little plinth they used to weel up behind the rear fuselage, just to ensure that when loading it would not tip up onto its taill accidentaly.
The Il62 had a similar setup, and they had a 4th little wheel that extended out the tail. There is a you tube video of a east german il 62 being laded in a feild when it was donated as a lilienthall monument. Carzy stunt that I cant imagine being allowed or even contemplated in these more controlled days.
As a child growing up in South Africa I flew on the vc10 many times. It took off in Johannesburg, landed in seychelles islands then columbo Sri Lanka on the way to Hong Kong. I think the VC10 also had the first application of a bypass fan jet motor to a transport plane. Apparently the rear mounted engines allowed it to take off hot and high where a 707 wouldnt, but theis caoability also meant it was less efficient than a 707.
I remmeber also that there was a little plinth they used to weel up behind the rear fuselage, just to ensure that when loading it would not tip up onto its taill accidentaly.
The Il62 had a similar setup, and they had a 4th little wheel that extended out the tail. There is a you tube video of a east german il 62 being laded in a feild when it was donated as a lilienthall monument. Carzy stunt that I cant imagine being allowed or even contemplated in these more controlled days.
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
I know very little about the VC10 though on the Nimrod fleet the VC10 in its Tanker roll would turn up and refuel the Nimrod which extended the time on task (most of the Nimrods had major fuel leaks towards the end of their lives and could only carry about 55,000lb of jet fuel (Avtur or Jet A1 ) compared with the design load of 84,000lb.
I often flew in the Nav Radar position in the Victor Bk1A in 67/68 and my only view of
the outside world was a very small circular window which you can just see on the Starboard ( that's on the right for all you turkeys ) just behind the Cockpit (Flight Deck? ) windows.
Of all the three types of V Bombers I thought the Victor was the most aggressive looking , the ill fated Valiant the most beautiful ( also converted to tankers amongst other things ) and the Vulcan looked like a Steroid nightmare. Incidentally, the Vulcan concept was designed to have no crew at all and a five man crew was all very much last minute hence the flight deck became an add on and was very cramped for two men, both of whom had the be very small and very slim to get in there in between the seats.
I often flew in the Nav Radar position in the Victor Bk1A in 67/68 and my only view of
the outside world was a very small circular window which you can just see on the Starboard ( that's on the right for all you turkeys ) just behind the Cockpit (Flight Deck? ) windows.
Of all the three types of V Bombers I thought the Victor was the most aggressive looking , the ill fated Valiant the most beautiful ( also converted to tankers amongst other things ) and the Vulcan looked like a Steroid nightmare. Incidentally, the Vulcan concept was designed to have no crew at all and a five man crew was all very much last minute hence the flight deck became an add on and was very cramped for two men, both of whom had the be very small and very slim to get in there in between the seats.
Last edited:
But, was (is) the VC10 tanker the last truly British built plane in any kind of service - civilian or military?
Rather odd that they gave flight navigator such a restricted outlook in the Victor..but I suppose it was all instruments although it couldn't have hurt to stick your head out and check for visual references....
Finally, how very unusual that the MOD ordered two competing types in case one was a failure! (Valiant and Victor) They didn't mind wasting money in vast quantities back then did they?
Rather odd that they gave flight navigator such a restricted outlook in the Victor..but I suppose it was all instruments although it couldn't have hurt to stick your head out and check for visual references....
Finally, how very unusual that the MOD ordered two competing types in case one was a failure! (Valiant and Victor) They didn't mind wasting money in vast quantities back then did they?
Or I could argue that at least back then the money got spent on engineering and military equipement which no matter how wasteful led to jobs and indistrial capability. Now the same money gets spent(wasted) on social programs which so far have failed to deliver eradication of poverty for the recipients or economic benefits for the nation. At least in the past you got wastful military equipment.
On the VC 10 I remmebr going into the cockpit and there was some type of window hatch in the roof to which thye said a vuewfinder was attached to look at the stars for navigation. By the 70's when i went on them I doubt anyone was looking at the stars.
Was the BAE 146 not the last all british passenger jet?
What was the seat cost per mile for a VC10 compared to a 707?
On the VC 10 I remmebr going into the cockpit and there was some type of window hatch in the roof to which thye said a vuewfinder was attached to look at the stars for navigation. By the 70's when i went on them I doubt anyone was looking at the stars.
Was the BAE 146 not the last all british passenger jet?
What was the seat cost per mile for a VC10 compared to a 707?
Hello,
I think the 146 series miss out on that claim by using American engines.
I'm pretty sure the 707 would be a lower seat cost per mile than the nearest equivalent VC10.
Regards Steve
I had understood that the RR conway was the forst high bypass jet engine and it gave efficiency, but that the hot and high requirement for the VC10 meant it burned fuel. However that the later stretched ones were a match for the 707 but came later and that politics meant the 707 was purchased. But I would not swear by any of the above.
If its airframe and engine then yes the VC10 was probably it, but what nation builds an entire aircraft these days.
On a similar vein what was the last commercialy sucessful british desgn/airframe. Maybe the viscount?
Yeah its interesting how long the nimrod flew. I was never sure whether the scrapped new nimrods were total new builds or rebuilds of existing aircraft.
The rub angainst the comet Mk4 was that putting the engines in the wings meant that it could not be upgraded to more modern powerplants.
I woudl say that the durability of the nimrod indicates that any strutural questions about the comet were resolved long ago.
Apparently the caravelle has the same entire nose section of the comet?
The rub angainst the comet Mk4 was that putting the engines in the wings meant that it could not be upgraded to more modern powerplants.
I woudl say that the durability of the nimrod indicates that any strutural questions about the comet were resolved long ago.
Apparently the caravelle has the same entire nose section of the comet?
