VC 10 a commercial success.

ShySusan

Gone Fishin'
I think the problem with the VC-10 is that when compared to the DC-8-40, it's smaller, heavier and shorter ranged. The VC-10 could only carry 151 passengers over 5,080nm while having an MTOW of 325,000 pounds. The DC-8-40 could carry 177 passengers over 5,300nm at an MTOW of 315,000 pounds.

Maybe if BOAC had been more interested in the bigger version Vickers had offered them? If Vickers can get the -10 to 200+ passengers over 5,500+nm, then you might have something there. That could kill the Super 60 series from Douglas before it even launched.
 

Riain

Banned
Have the RAF order more, perhaps replacing some Comets earlier, as tankers instead of converting Victor B2 and as AEW instead of converting surplus Nimrods. That could get another 35-40 aircraft built and move the VC10 toward a critical mass where production is cheaper and variants enter service, which makes it more attractive to other customers.

British airliners of the 60s are just as bad as their military planes for fuckups.

Edit. A quick look, 54 VC10s and 117 Tridents, planes built specifically for British state owned airlines. 244 BAC 111s a plane built for sale on the world market. Solution, don't buckle to state owned airlines, keep export markets in mind and have the state owned airlines conform to these commerical realities.
 
Last edited:
It would also help if BOAC bought British in more than token numbers, something the Government could have insisted the nationalised airline did.
 
Like a lot of British airliners of the late 50’s and early 60’s, the VC-10 was a bespoke airframe designed for BOAC. The VC-10 design specs included challenging takeoff performance requirements at hot and high airports like Nairobi and Johannesburg in BOAC’s shrinking Empire network which resulted in a heavier, less efficient airframe than the 707 and DC-8. In addition, the tail-mounted engine arrangement made stretches and re-engining more complicated than comparable modifications on the two American airframes. As it was, BOAC didn’t want the VC-10 once they could compare it against the 707-420 and were dragged kicking and screaming into taking them.

Vickers delivered a very capable aircraft, however, one that was not nearly as versatile as the 707 or DC-8.

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.

Another method would be to build a family of aircraft similar to Boeing and Douglas where one manufacturer could satisfy a carrier’s entire fleet needs. With the British aircraft industry so fractured at the time, there wasn’t a way to bundle VC-10s with BAC-111s and Tridents the way Boeing could sell 727s with 707s and Douglas DC-9s with DC-8s.
 
Last edited:

Riain

Banned
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.
 
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.
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?

Look at the mess the British government made of Blue Streak/Skybolt/TSR/F-111K. I can’t see why they’d be any better in the civilian sector. The truth is they were not, resulting in Vickers and Hawker Siddley being forced to build airplanes based off of outdated requirements while navigating turbulent political currents rather than being able to produce designs optimized to go toe to toe with the US manufacturers on the world market. Not to mention that both of these designs were heavily affected by the British government’s forced consolidation of the UK aviation industry (which I’ll admit was necessary)

The planners and executives at BOAC and BEA wanted 707s and 727s because they were better designs for the majority of the airlines’ respective networks. The bean counters at BOAC didn’t care if the VC-10 could carry a bigger load out of Nairobi a few times a week than an 707 so long as the 707 was blowing the VC-10 out of the water on seat-mile costs on the North Atlantic routes or on the Kangaroo route. A VC-10 was never going to be a more efficient bird on the majority of BOAC’s routes than a 707-320C.

Regarding the Trident, yes, it was purposely built to BEA’s specs. But by the time it flew, it was found to be too small for the ongoing boom in traffic and was not nearly as adaptable as the 727 for enlarging. The need to fit the Trident 3B with its RB163 booster engine to give it enough performance to come close to the 727-200’s capabilities and the Trident’s nickname “Ground Gripper” certainly suggest it was never going to be the paradigm shifting aircraft that the 727 developed into during the 1960’s and 1970’s. Despite the Trident’s shortcomings, BEA and later BA did get good use out of them, flying them until the early 1980’s when 737-200Advs and brand new 757-200s replaced them in a hi-low mix.

As to your suggestion the Trident be dumped for more VC-10s, the two airframes were designed for completely different missions. Flying a VC-10 on many of the Trident’s regular flights would be equivalent to putting an A350 on the LaGuardia-Chicago shuttle—too big and heavy for the loads and Mission profile.

Sadly, I’m not sure you could make the VC-10 (and the Trident for that matter) much more of a success. Both aircraft designs were very advanced and did their proscribed missions well. The problem was that the missions were either too niche, or that another bird could perform these missions as well or almost as well while performing a slew of other missions better. But most importantly, the British economy was just not big enough to sustain the kind of military spending to keep the British aviation industry flush enough with cash to keep pace with the American giants in the commercial world. Couple that with the “Not-Invented-Here” syndrome that many of the US airlines held (remember that the US market was far and away the largest one at this point in time) and the willingness of Commonwealth airlines like Trans-Canada, Qantas, and Cathay Pacific to buy American, and the VC-10 never had a chance.

You’d either need a far stronger post-war Britain and Commonwealth or Airbus to be formed 10 years earlier for the VC-10 to have a chance.
 

Riain

Banned
@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?
  1. DH and MOS win out over BEA and keeps developing the 121 in the original Medway size. BEA switches to the BAC111.
  2. 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.
  3. BEA switch to the bigger, longer range Trident from the BAC 111, the 727 sized Trident is picking up sales around the world.
  4. 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.
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.
 
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.
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.

On top of that: when transatlantic jet flights started, the 707-120 and early DC-8 needed a stop either at Shannon, Ireland, or Gander, Canada.
If the British play smart with the advanced CONWAY engine and the VC7 sleeker aerodynamics, then the VC7 could eventually fly Europe - N.Y directly, and screw the Americans.

Get the RAF head out of his arse and add a load of VIP, cargo and tanker military variants to support the V-bombers - and this screw the 707 with its own bag of trick (hello, 800*KC-135s !) Also make it win the MPA competition instead of fucking Comet-Nimrod. Boom, MR.1, MR.2, AEW.3 and MR.4 are go, too.

So yes, there was a golden opportunity there.
 
Last edited:
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?
 

Riain

Banned
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?

The Super 200, with the 28' stretch giving 212 seats max, would be the biggest transatlantic airliner in the world from it's introduction in 1965 until the introduction of the DC8/63 in June 1968 which could cram in 259.

This could be the key point of difference, particularly given 1967-68 were the 707's biggest years with 118 and 111 built and 1968-69 were Douglas' with 102 and 85. Timing is everything in business (well, a lot anyway) and I'd think having the only 212 seat transatlantic airliner on the market for 3 years when the 2 biggest competitors sold 331 aircraft with only 189 seats would translate into significant sales for the bigger Super 200 if only they didn't listen to the dickheads at BOAC and reduce the stretch.
 
@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?
  1. DH and MOS win out over BEA and keeps developing the 121 in the original Medway size. BEA switches to the BAC111.
  2. 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.
  3. BEA switch to the bigger, longer range Trident from the BAC 111, the 727 sized Trident is picking up sales around the world.
  4. 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.
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.
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.
 

Riain

Banned
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.

It beggars belief, especially when the little private development BAC111 did OK in the marketplace with some 244 produced. I don't think its remotely unrealistic to double the production figures of both the Trident and VC10 by telling BEA and BOAC to jam it and going ahead with their own bigger designs.
 
In addition, the tail-mounted engine arrangement made stretches and re-engining more complicated than comparable modifications on the two American airframes.
I'm not sure why that would be the case.
In the case of stretches, you have to insert segments before and after the wings in either case.
In the case of engines, increasing diameter size is a significant problem with underwing engines. Even before the 737 max kludge that killed hundreds, you had cases where ground debris was a problem with the bigger fans. Which is why 737-200s with their tiny low bypass engines are still used in the Canadian North on gravel runways.
In many ways it ought to be EASIER to stick bigger diameter engines on a tail engine jet than an underwing one.
 
Well, they managed to stick this on the back of a VC-10...
VC10.jpg
 

Riain

Banned
IOTL the Super VC10 made money for BOAC, despite being smaller than it could have been. The Super 200 was designed to carry as many paying passengers as the VC10 layout would allow, which was a lot due to the very efficient wing unencumbered by engines. The Super 200 would have made even more money than the OTL Super offsetting its higher price than the Americans.
 
Everyone has already mentioned all of the options for expanding sales of the VC10 to operators based in Britain, but what of the Commonwealth and allied nations? Could you get Air Canada or Qantas or Air India or South African Airways to go for the Super VC10, perhaps by licensing it out to local builders?
 

Riain

Banned
Australia wouldn't be able to build an aircraft as big as the VC10, and even it could it would add another 30% to the VC10 price, already 10-20% more expensive than 707/DC8. The VC10 needs to stand on its own two feet, which I think the Super 200 would in the way the Super VC10 barely did.
 
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?
 

ShySusan

Gone Fishin'
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?
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.
 
Top