As it says can you make the Vickers VC10 a commercial success at least to the level of the Douglas DC-8.
Are we talking about the same UK Government whose meddling in BOAC and BEA’s operations is in large part the reasoning behind these airlines’ jerking around of Vickers and Hawker Siddley?Given how political the VC10 (and Trident) were it possible that the Government smooths their way.
For example BOAC, the state owned airline chopped and changed and basically jerked Vickers around, which shouldn't be the case with a state owned airline and a state managed aviation industry. Perhaps the Government could direct BOAC to replace it's 707s with VC10s to maximise the benefits to Britain of a state owned airline.
Another possible prospect was BEA, who wanted to buy 727s but the government denied this so HSA stretched the Trident and added a 4th 'boost' engine, some 28 of these were built. Perhaps this order could go to the VC10 instead.
This. Whatever the flaws of the VC7, what mattered was being THERE by 1955-58 because this was the moment when the 707, closely followed by the DC-8, steamrolled and flattened the airliner industry... even if the VC7 ends inferior to the 707, there are still the DC-8 and the Convair 880 / 990 to fight against.To make the VC-10 competitive with Boeing or Douglas you’d have to spec it to be optimized for the North Atlantic routes and ideally get it out the door in the late 50’s—the failure to build the VC-7 in this timeframe was a big mistake in hindsight.
How about build the version of the Super VC10 that Vickers offered BOAC for the Atlantic route? In @ BOAC decided they wanted a ‘smaller’ larger VC10 and that it should still have the hot and high capabilities of the standard. Daft, really.
Or Pan Am does end up ordering the variant offered to them, perhap?
It always baffled me that BOAC was allowed to play their games especially as every 707 bought was more foreign exchange the treasury could have used for something else, I never understood how the Treasury didn't put their foot down. Pre fuel crisis, fuel consumption was a marginal consideration anyway. So even if they were less fuel efficient no one was paying attention to the costs, passengers would still be flying the Atlantic and the VC10 was well liked by passengers as it was much quieter with less vibration in the cabin.@NOLAWildcat can't disagree with much of that, however I'm trying to untangle the stories of the 3 British airlines of the 60s, 1 successful 2 not so much and there does appear to be some room for improvement, if not ground breaking. It looks to be a pretty good example of the pitfalls of a planned economy.
BOAC wanted the VC10 because they couldn't fill 707s out of their Empire route. They made the biggest order in British civil aviation history first with 25 then with 35 VC10s in 58 only to get cold feet in 59. It was because of them that the Super 200 went from a 212 seater (max), bigger than the 707-320, to an average but still profitable 163 seater (2 class). If BAC had not listened to BOAC and kept the full 200 stretch the VC10 could have been the biggest airliner on the market as well as the quietest and fastest and will good runway length capability.
The DH.121 was to have ~111 seats in 1957, not too different from the 727, but at the insistence of BEA with the objection of the MoS , it was dropped back to about the size of the (very successful in comparison) BAC 111. Then it spent several years clawing back those seats going from 101 to 115 then added a 4th engine to get as many seats as a VC10.
Somewhere in that shell game of decisions is a good path. Hows this for a stab?
Now none of that is going to set the world on fire, but a few dozen more VC10s and a hundred more Tridents will put the British airline industry on a much better footing.
- DH and MOS win out over BEA and keeps developing the 121 in the original Medway size. BEA switches to the BAC111.
- BAC doesn't listen to the halfwits at BOAC who don't like the VC10 and keep the Super 200's full 28' stretch for maximum yield like they suggested. The govt tells BOAC that it will buy the small VC10s for the RAF to convert to tankers once enough Super 200s come online if they keep their full 35 on order.
- BEA switch to the bigger, longer range Trident from the BAC 111, the 727 sized Trident is picking up sales around the world.
- From 1965 BOAC is operating the largest, quietest and fastest airliner in the world, something that attracts more customers as it offsets it higher operating costs.
It always baffled me that BOAC was allowed to play their games especially as every 707 bought was more foreign exchange the treasury could have used for something else, I never understood how the Treasury didn't put their foot down. Pre fuel crisis, fuel consumption was a marginal consideration anyway. So even if they were less fuel efficient no one was paying attention to the costs, passengers would still be flying the Atlantic and the VC10 was well liked by passengers as it was much quieter with less vibration in the cabin.
I'm not sure why that would be the case.In addition, the tail-mounted engine arrangement made stretches and re-engining more complicated than comparable modifications on the two American airframes.
For the transatlantic market, probably not. The FAA was very hostile to twin engine aircraft, particularly twin engine aircraft conducting long over water fights. It may make a difference in Europe, Asia and Africa though.Thinking back to the RB-211 testbed, I wonder what the ecomomics of a twin engined Super 200 would look like? Could this change implementation of ETOPS?