DBWI: Korean Air retires 747

I think the rot set in back in the '60s when BAC stole a march on the double-deck aircraft market by building the double-deck VC10 'Superb'. Since BOAC, Quantas and TCA were already using the Standard and Super VC10 it was a natural extension for them to buy the Superb. Didn't exactly help that Pan Am had already decided it preferred the Super 200 over more 707s.
But the introduction of the 767 and relaxation of ETOPS rules in the 1980s pretty much pulled the rug out from under Vickers.

OOC: I don't think the Superb would be that much of a match for the 747, given its specs.
 
Vickers? By the '80s BAC/BAe's civil aviation wing was part of Airbus. Take a look at the big T-tailed twin engine Airbus A300, A320, A330 etc. and you'll see the old VC10 influence. Even the A340 and A380 have designs that can be traced back to the VC10.
Passenger surveys also suggest that the rear-engine layout is much preferred to the engine under the wings configuration. I've flown in both Boeings and Airbus and the difference is really noticeable. There is a good reason that the endurance of the crew of an RAF VC10 based Guardian AEW1 is a longer than a 707 bases E-3 Sentry.

OOC: IMVHO the 'Superb' would not have killed the 747, but it probably would have been available first and that can count for a lot in civil aviation. The freighter proposals for the VC10 were also pretty impressive. In any case I'm coming from a universe where BOAC had more faith in the VC10 and did not stand for 'Boeing Only Aircraft Corporation', while Pan Am became a sort of BOAC in reverse.
 
Also, keep in mind that the VC.10 was only as successful as it was due to "Commonwealth preference" trade laws in Britain, Australia, and Canada which basically amounted to a ban on the purchase of aircraft built outside the Commonwealth.
 
Also, keep in mind that the VC.10 was only as successful as it was due to "Commonwealth preference" trade laws in Britain, Australia, and Canada which basically amounted to a ban on the purchase of aircraft built outside the Commonwealth.
Economically it was never a great aircraft - too much power for too few seats, which was forced by the hot-and-high requirements for the Commonwealth routes served by BOAC. The tail is also the wrong place to put the engines structurally - far better to put them on the wing as Boeing did and even some of the VC-7 proposals had, since this allows you to put the engine right next to the source of lift and so eliminate the structural weight otherwise needed to transfer the engine load from the tail to the wings. Put bluntly, air travel is also only ever going to be a big thing in very large countries with lots of internal travel - where the USA is about the only candidate. Airlines will have a natural preference for aircraft built in their own country of origin, if nothing else because they'll get better support from the manufacturers.
 
Top