I don't know the VC-7, how it compared to anything, but I remember as a kid flying in Vickers Viscounts (turbo props) and then Vickers Vanguards (jets) when the airport got upgraded to take jets. This was TCA (Trans-Canada Airlines - precursor to Air Canada).
Here’s a comparative table of the various specs; (‘707’ refers to the 1956 spec model for direct comparison) - can't remember where I got it from sorry.
The HP.97 was Handley pages Victor derived airliner and the Atlantic was Avro's Vulcan derived airliner, both as with the VC-7 using the bombers wings and engines but with a new passenger fuselage.
[FONT="]The VC-7 with its buried engines was more aerodynamically efficient than the 707 but, had it continued into the 60's it couldn't accommodate bigger engines without a re-design of the wing root. However the class of engines it was designed to use powered the 707 for its entire life so that would not in fact have been a problem. [/FONT]
Incidently TCA were a fan of the VC-7 jet airliner and tried to persuade the British Government to continue with it.
From Richard Payne's 'Stuck on the Drawing Board'
V1000 and VC7
In 1951 a new specification was issued for a fast long-range strategic transport for the RAF. This was to replace the RAF’s existing Handley Page Hastings aircraft. It would be capable of flying service personnel and freight to any part of the world to accompany the new V-bombers then under development. One of the conditions for the new aircraft was that it must be based on an existing airframe. Under the Ministry of Supply, a working party was set up in June 1951 and, in November for that year, it reported on the proposals as drawn up by the invited aircraft companies.
Of the five companies that presented proposals, de Havilland naturally proposed a stretched development of their Comet jet airliner, while the other four contenders were developments of their respective company’s bombers. This led to all the projects being powered by Rolls Royce’ new Conway by-pass engine and based on the Handley Page Victor, Avro Vulcan, Vickers Valiant and Short S.A4 Sperrin. The major changes to these designs were new fuselages allied to the existing wing, landing gear and tail units. Additionally, Bristol and Saunders Roe put forward variants of their Britannia and Duchess respectively, but both were ruled out early on.
Alongside the RAF specification for a personnel transport was an opportunity for a joint military/civil transport, with a proposal for a large long-range commercial variant for BOAC. As the studies progressed it became clear that the Shorts fuselage diameter was too small at only 9ft 6in, and had capacity problems, having accommodation for only fifty passengers while having deficiencies in range. The Avro study featured a double-bubble fuselage, which it was felt would restrict weight on take-off, and require longer runways. The conclusions of the study were that the best designs were those form de Havilland and Vickers.
The winner of the contract was Vickers-Armstrong, whose original study was heavily dependent on the Valiant bomber Type 716. However, by the time a contract was placed on 2 October 1952 to meet Specification C132d issued under OR315, the resultant aircraft bore very little resemblance to its bomber ancestry. The contract for one prototype V1000 aircraft,

662, followed in March 1953.
Following this a production order for six aircraft was placed in June 1954, when it was envisaged that the total RAF requirement would be for twelve aircraft. The important VC7 commercial development was envisaged for both the North Atlantic and Empire routes, and would have been the first of the big jetliners. The original design with developed Avro engines had first been proposed as a Comet II replacement but by 1954 was being put forward against the Comet 3 replacement, its chief competitor being the Avro Atlantic, Bristol 187 and Handley Page 97 (Pacific). Thus out of the RAF specification had developed a large transport programme that could encompass both military and civil requirements, and for which BOAC had been consulted throughout the course of the discussions.
As a much larger airliner than the Comet, there was greater complexity in its design and, naturally this led to the development programme beginning to stretch out. To meet both civil and military requirements, the RAF had been forced to accept a bigger aircraft than originally anticipated, with a larger wing to enable carriage of the maximum fuel to meet BOAC’s needs. The basic V1000 was to be a low-wing design with the Rolls-Royce engines mounted similarly to the valiant within the higher swept inner wing. The wingtips, as on the proceeding VC10, were of the Kuchemann variety, and the fuselage tail cone was built integrally with the fin, the tailplane being mounted midway on the rear fuselage. Featuring a 12ft 6in diameter fuselage, accommodation could be provided for up to 100 passengers at six abreast.
The programme appears to be going well, with prototype construction of

662 under way at Vickers Wesley test flight factory, when it was found that the al-up weight had increased by some 18,000lb to 248,000lb. This should not have proved a problem as all that as required was an uprating of the Conway engines. However, for some strange reason BOAC now appeared to think that the engine would be incapable of providing the extra power required, especially for direct London to New York services, and began to cool towards the VC7. A meeting of the TARC in September 1955 did the V1000 no favours, as it saw no civil requirements for the aircraft. Instead, the committee advocated development of the Britannia and Comet while putting forward design studies for a new high subsonic aircraft to be available by 1964, and also for a Supersonic Transport.
At this time it was still projected that the first V1000 would make its maiden flight in June 1956, with the first production aircraft flying in January 1959, and entry into airline service in late 1959/60. In the meantime, Vickers were already looking at different engine options which included developed Conway’s Rco 5, RB125s or even developed Bristol BOL7s, as well as underwing engines, either in individual nacelles or two engines in a combined nacelle. Then came the final nail in the coffin; the RAF had been told to cut back on expenditure – and one of its most expensive projects was of course the V1000. Added to this, politics was now coming into lay. This was especially the case with regards to assistance to the floundering government-owned Shorts, which had seen a major loss of work on the Comet and swift jet fighter. There was also the need for further support for the already flying and slow-selling Britannia turboprop – which was now encountering many problems in trying to enable it to enter service. The writing was on the wall for the V1000.
Attempts were made to keep BOAC interested in the VC7 variants, but the airline would have none of it. The airline argued that the extra weight increase had penalised the aircraft’s performance. With the RAF unable to buy and BOAC unwilling, the V1000 and its civil sister, the VC7, were dead. Ironically, less than a year later, BOAC were allowed to order Boeing 707’s powered by developed Rolls-Royce Conway engines – who, they had argued just a year earlier, would not be capable of providing the extra trust for the VC7.
It was not just BOAC who were originally interested in the VC7. Early design studies had seen BEA making encouraging noises towards the aircraft back in 1952. Trans-Canada Airlines, who had successfully introduced the Viscount in April 1955, had also shown great interest in the VC7, to such a degree that they had even tried to persuade the British government to continue with the programme. However, with no domestic orders there was little chance of this happening.
Farcically, on 7 February 1956, just weeks after cancelling the VC7, the Ministry of Supply issued a letter to suppliers, requesting proposals for a new long-range high-speed aircraft capable of carrying a 30,000lb payload, powered by Rolls-Royce Conway engines. Vickers naturally dusted down their VC7 to see if it could meet the requirement, looking at both podded and buried engine variants, but this was to no avail, even though the project met most of BOAC’s new requirements.
The Ministry initially sent out invitations foe the new study to Avro, de Havilland, Bristol, Armstrong Whitworth and Handley Page. Later Fairey, sanders Roe, Vickers-Armstrong, Folland, Boulton Paul, Shorts, English Electric, Hawker and Gloster were invited to put forward proposals. Avro, who had been proposing he Atlantic airliner based on the Vulcan bomber originally as a Comet 3 replacement in 1954, against the Vickers 1000 and Bristol 187, decided to study a joint effort with sister company, Avro Canada, but this project appears not to have been taken too seriously. Of the other companies invited, the only serious projects put forward came form Armstrong Whitworth, Bristol, de Havilland, Handley Page and Vickers.
Armstrong Whitworth AW.174
A low-wing Transatlantic and Commonwealth airliner was proposed in June 1956. The 174 was a swept-wing design with the tailplane mounted on the rear fuselage with four podded engines mounted underwing in pairs. Proposed powerplants included the Bristol Olympus 531 or Rolls-Royce Conway 20. An all-up weight of 240,000lb was quoted, and accommodation provided for 110 passengers. There were, however, worries about the engine position as, although podded engines were considered a good idea, there were worries that being low slung they could cause serious damage in the event of a belly landing.
Length 140ft 6in, Span 134ft, Height 38ft 6in, Wing Area 2,900sq.ft
Bristol Britannia 600/Type 187
The 187 was a number of proposals put forward by Bristol for a follow-on Britannia. Other schemes had included variants of the Britannia powered by the new Bristol Orion engine. Of these, the series 400 featured a modified wing, the 420 a fuselage stretch to accommodate 133 passengers, the 430 a new thin wing and larger fuselage to seat 152, while the series 520 incorporated the 430 wing with developed Orion engines.
The new low-wing Bristol 187 (also called the Britannia 600) although considered to be based on the Britannia, was really a new aircraft with major alterations to the fuselage, and had a new wing. The project underwent a number of designs. An early variant from 1953 featured a fuselage of slightly wider circular diameter than the Britannia, with a new T-tail and swept fin, longer fuselage and shorter wing span, with 9 ½ per cent thickness on chord. Up to 102 tourist passengers could be accommodated at 40in-pitch with capacity for 1,200 cu.ft of freight. Power would be provided by the new Bristol BE25 turboprops of 4,500shp.
As time progressed, the deign evolved into a double-bubble fuselage with an external diameter of 12ft 6in. The powerplant remained four Bristol Orion 2 engines with the seating capacity increased to 170 passengers at six-abreast, and capable of travelling from London-New York non-stop, with a payload of 32,700lb at 410kts, and an AUW of 215,000lb. Boundary layer control was planned for the future, and a cruising speed of 435 knots was forecast. In mixed traffic configuration, 105 passengers could be carried, with 24 first-class seats at four abreast at a 53in pitch. There were 81 tourist seats at five and six abreast with an eight-seater lounge in the rear of the cabin.
Bristol themselves would have needed assistance to build the aircraft and proposed using the facilities at Shorts, who, had the project gone ahead, would probably have built one of the prototypes. The company had also held talks with Armstrong Whitworth, Fairey and English Electric. Development costs were estimated to be between £14 to £30 million. The government were expected to provide about half of this, with sales of up to 100 aircraft envisaged until 1965, with BOAC taking about 25. Production plans called for deliveries of 30 aircraft per year, with a break even achieved on 75 sales. Shorts were to assume responsibility for the wing and tailplane, with the first flight planned for early 1959 and entry into service with BOAC planned for the autumn 1962. There was however, scepticism with regards to building yet another large turboprop long-range airliner, even though BOAC showed early interest and, with the Britannia not selling in great numbers and Bristol requiring government assistance, the project was put into abeyance.
Length 141ft, Span 150ft, Height 39ft 6in, Wing Area 2,250sq.ft
Bristol/Convair/Canadair Joint Project
With Bristol thinking they could not handle a project the size of the 187, discussions were also held with general Dynamics (Convair) and Canadair during 1955/56 over the development of the 187. The new study was to be powered by four Bristol BE25 series 2 engines and would accommodate up to 150 passengers at six abreast on two decks, within a fuselage diameter of 13ft 8in. The mid-wing monoplane would have a range of 5,300 statue miles (4,600 nautical miles) and would operate the Transatlantic non-stop with a 25,000lb payload. The proposed all-up weight was put at 205,000lb.
It was envisaged that the maiden flight would take place in January 1960, with entry into service by April 1962. BOAC were interested in the proposals early on, as they featured a double-bubble fuselage. However, the government was not so ken, especially as it appeared that Bristol and the UK would have ended up giving a lot of technical knowledge to their American rivals. Design and production would have been split with Convair at san Diego having design responsibility, including production drawing, wing design and system and fuselage detail. Bristol would have been responsible for fuselage layout, stressing and general structure, manufacturing the fuselage and tail while there would have been two final assembly lines, one at Filton and the other at san Diego. The Bristol BE25 would also have been built under licence in America.
De Haviland Comet 5
De Havilland’s original proposal for a new jet for BOAC was centred on a development of the Comet 4. It was the Comet 5, which BOAC at first appeared to favour. A number of studies were mad under the Comet 5 moniker. One of these centred around a stretched Comet 4 with and AUW of 226,000lb, powered by four Rolls Royce Conway 10 engines of 16,000lb thrust. These were mounted, as with earlier Comets, in the wing, which now had a sweep back on ¼ chord of 30 degrees, and also featured a swept fin looking not unlike the V1000/VC7. Seating was provided for up to 105 passengers in tourist-class, and the maximum cruising speed was 563mph at 30,000ft. Development costs of the project were put at £8 to 310 million, and the company wanted orders for at least 30 aircraft to proceed. The first aircraft would have been available for delivery in 1962/63, with BOAC looking at ordering around 20 aircraft.
Fuselage length 131ft, Wing Span 137ft, Wing Area 2,750sq.ft
De Havilland DH118
Replacing the Comet 5 was the 118 Comet development, accommodating up to 147 passengers in a six-abreast layout at 34in pitch. The 118 was powered by four 17,000lb Rolls-Royce Conway engines mounted in pods beneath the wings, and would have been capable of non-stop Transatlantic operations. An all-up weight of 240,000lb was proposed, and the aircraft would have been able to operate from existing airfields. The 118 Comet development was taken very seriously by both BOAC and the government in the mid-fifties. In a strange act, BOAC, who had been advocating the use of big turboprop airliners, and aw no need for the VC7, had at the same time been discussing a follow-on Comet development with de Havilland. Indeed, by November 1956, it was announced by BOAC and the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation were seriously discussing the 118, which would not have been available until 1962/63. However, by February 1957, the 118 had been dropped as de Havilland turned its attentions towards an all-new aircraft, firstly for BEA (DH119), then a joint study to meet the requirements of both BEA and BOAC (DH120), before settling on meeting purely BEA’s specification, which became the 121 Trident
Fuselage Length 137ft 6in, Span 137ft
Handley Page 97
The HP.97, which had its origins in 1951, had initially been proposed to BOAC in 1952 when the specification for a new long-range transport had first surfaced. Developed from the HP.80, Handley Page had offered the HP.96 for military transport and the HP.97 (also briefly called the Pacific) for civil use, but at that time the airline and government had chosen Vickers to manufacture the V1000/VC7. When BOAC’s requirement resurfaced, Handley Page chose to resubmit the HP.97, which could be used as a passenger/freighter. Based around the victor design, the HP.97 utilised the V-bombers wings powerplant (Rolls-Royce Conway – Victor B.2) and tail unit, combined with a new double-deck double-bubble fuselage 12ft wide and 15ft 6in high, with an estimated all-up weight of 190,000lb. In a 96-seater, 4-abreast arrangement, the upper deck would provide the seating accommodation, with a circular staircase leading to the lower deck where ladies and men’s dressing rooms and toilets would be located. Provision on this deck was also made for a large lounge and galley. In another layout, 20 first-class seats were provided at the front of the upper deck cabin, separated from the tourist-class where 75 passengers could be accommodated at 6-abreast, next to a lounge and bar. The lower deck would provide accommodation for a further 42 passengers at 5-abreast, the decks again being accesses by a circular staircase. Provision was made for front and rear baggage holds. The design had a proposed maximum all-up weight of 210,000lb and a range of 4,800 nautical miles. It was scheduled to make its maiden flight in 1958, and be available for BOAC for 1960.
Length 126ft 3in, Span 125ft 6in, Height 33ft, Wing Area 2,680sq.ft
Handley Page 102 and 108
The HP.102, proposed in 1955, was a tapered straight-winged laminar-flow-controlled airliner capable of operating over the same stages as the Boeing 707, carrying a payload of 25,000lb. Accommodation was provided for up to 120 tourist-class or 80 first-class passengers, with an AUW of between 120-150,000lb, and a range of 4,070 miles. It could travel at 435kts.
The HP.108 design, which superseded the HP.102 in 1956, also featured the low tapered unswept wing layout, with four Rolls-Royce Avon RA28 or RA29 engines of 10,000lb static thrust mounted in underslung twin nacelles, and there was a straight fin very reminiscent of the Comet design. To assist the design and save drag, small chord ailerons and elevators would be utilised, while the rudder was to be of a very small chord. To reduce speed on landing, blow-up flaps were also proposed. Accommodation was provided for up to 120 passengers with an all-up weight of 210,000lb and cruising speed of 435mph. Further designs of the HP.108 included slightly swept wings of 29 ½ degrees.
Wing Span 150ft, Wing Area 3,000sq.ft
Handley Page 111C – Treble One
Handley Page’s last attempt to produce a large long-range airliner for BOAC surfaced in May 1958 as the HP.111C (Treble One), which had an all-up weight of 260,000lb. Like the HP.97, the 111C was based around the Victor bomber, however the new design now featured a circular fuselage that was proposed for a number of roles – general freighter with rear loading, specialised freighter, freight/passenger or passenger aircraft. In the letter role as proposed to BOAC, accommodation was provided for 147 passengers on the upper deck and an additional 50 seats on the lower deck, with a cargo hold ahead of the wing, or 153 passengers on the upper deck with freight on the lower deck. The maximum passenger load could be carried across the Atlantic with one stop, or alternatively 133 passengers could be carried non-stop from London-New York. Four Rolls-Royce Conway 42 engines were mounted in pairs in the trailing edge of each inner wing, although Handley Page also proposed that Pratt and Whitney JT3-D3 engines could also be offered. The wing structure was to be essentially the same as that of the Victor, except or the section across the fuselage, engine and undercarriage bays, wing tips and trailing edge boxes. A cabin mock-up was built at Cricklewood, which was viewed by BOAC. Meanwhile, the military transport variant, the HP.111, had been selected by the Air Staff to meet the requirement for its large military transport. However, politics were to yet again prevail; the RAF were told that they could not have the aircraft they wanted but instead the order must go to Shots in order to maintain employment in Northern Ireland with their Belfast project. The loss of the military order ended any hopes of production of a civil variant and, also effectively took Handley Page out of large airliner design and production.
Length 137ft 8in, Span 130ft (including tip tanks), Height 35ft 3in,
Wing Area 2,827sq.ft
Vickers VC.10
TheVC.10 designation was applied to a number of projects in the mid to late fifties. Earlier studies had centred on meeting the specification issued by BEA for a new short-/medium range jet, which tool on various designations at Vickers, including the vanjet and medium-range Jet, as well as various schemes of VC10. All of these made use of the vanguard fuselage, which was mated to various wing platforms including the Scimitar and Valiant. Later however, the design was changed to meet BOAC’s pure jet requirements, and emerged as a completely new airliner, not based around vanguard components or jigs. These featured three and the later four, rear mounted Conway engines, enabling an uncluttered wing, giving good airfield performance.
With BOAC being told that there was no possibility of reviving the VC7/V1000, early government proposals were for the airline to tale 30 Comet 5s plus 10 Boeing 707s. Meanwhile, the airlines DC7s would be sold and an additional 10 Britannia 310s would be ordered, plus 60 Bristol Orion engines for the later series Britannia. As already mentioned, the airline was especially keen on the DH118, which replaced the Comet 5. However, de Havilland said that they would only proceeds with the new programme if 30 aircraft were to be ordered as a break even of 70 aircraft was projected.
In the event, the 118 were not proceeded with, and the AW.174 and Handley Page projects were discounted. BOAC therefore elected to order the all-new Vickers VC1o with a Letter of Intent for 35 aircraft being placed in May 1957, and a full contract being signed for on 14 January 1958, with an additional 20 options. In 1959, Vickers proposed the VC10 Super 200 (Super VC10) development – which would have been the largest jet at that time – to seat some 212 passengers, with an all-up weight of 347,000lb. This aircraft, which was stretched by some 28ft, was designed for the high-density Transatlantic routes, and would have been powered by four Rolls-Royce Conway 42/2 engines. BOAC placed an order for ten of these enormous aircraft in June 1960, with a first flight scheduled for early 1964, and deliveries planned for the beginning of 1965. However, by 1961 the airline realised that the aircraft was too big for its routes, so the design was reduced in size to become the Super VC10 Type 1151.
(Original Super VC10) Length 186ft, Span 146ft, Height 39ft 6in
BOAC’s VC10 order originally totalled dome 45 aircraft. However, as time progressed this was reduced, and at one time nearly cancelled, until only 29 aircraft were procured. It was only through additional orders from the RAF for 14, and small contracts from BUA, East African and Ghana Airways, that BAC were able to maintain production at Weybridge, albeit at a very low rate, until the final delivery in 1970.
Throughout this period though, Vickers, and later BAC, were ever hopeful of expanding the VC10 product range with a number of derivative. Some of these included projects with two or even three fuselages joined by stub wings married to Super VC10 outer wings, to carry up to 450 passengers. Others were purely stretched variants. One very serious study undertaken in depth was the DB265 project.
Vickers Superb (Super Super VC10) DB265
In 1965 BAC made proposals for a new redesigned and re-engine VC10 model, which carried a number of titles including the Superb, DB265 or Super Super VC10. This study aw a new double-deck fuselage joined to the Super VC10 wings and tail/fin unit with seating provided for up to 265, or a maximum of 286 at 34in pitch. Major changes adapted from the VC10 were increased thinness of the wing panels, ribs and spars, with minor modifications made to the flaps and slats. The main undercarriage was reinforced and tail strengthened, while new nacelles housed four Rolls-Royce RB178 engines of 27,500lb thrust.
BAC were proposing that Sud Aviation of France could become a subcontractor on the DB265, as on the VC10 with BAC, then happy to take a secondary role to Sud on the future Airbus, then under study. Sud’s involvement on the project could have been up to 25 per cent. BOAC, who were quite interested in the programme, had originally been told that a decision would be taken by the government by October 1965, which would have enable delivery by early 1968. The carrier was considering placing an order for around 7 aircraft. However, as early government support was not forthcoming, this date soon stretched out to 1970.
Further studies were made to increase seating to 350, with lower deck seating increased for 5 to 6 abreast. A letter development, the 265/80, also features a new wing. Launch costs of the programme were estimated to be £40 million, a sum which BAC, already under financial problems due to the cancellation of the TSR2, could clearly not afford on their own. BAC wanted the government to give them a 100 per cent contribution, and to have the launch costs written off. However, a government report at the tome saw estimated sales for this type of aircraft as being only 30 to 40 by 1975, and 35 to 50 by 1980.
On 11 may 1966, it was announced by the Ministry of Aviation that the government were not going to provide any launch funds for the DB265, which would have become the first jumbo airliner and, with its passing indigenous British long-range aircraft, design effectively ceased. BOAC of course went on to order the Boeing 747, and become wedded to Boeing thereafter. The only production on the DB265 project amounted to a small fuselage cross-section.
Span 146ft 8in, Length 204ft 9in, Height 42ft, Wing Area 2,948sq.ft