VC10 vs 707

What were the perational downsides of the VC10 vs 707. I had read that the VC10 had the first of the modern style fanjets, the RR conway, so in theory should have had less or the same fuel burn as the 707. But the 707 was bought by BOAC along with a reluctant VC10 order, yet the RAF flew the VC10 till recently. Or was it all poor marketing an support by the brits?

The also made the Bac 111 DC9 lookalike and the trident their 727. Were these aircraft really deficient.

 

I think that one must look at aerodynamics, weight, operational efficiency, and fuel burn to do the job. The airplanes that are mentioned above did not have the delicate melding of all elements. The military will fly airplanes that fit an operational slot and it may not be the best in operational efficiency that the airlines would demand. The Conway was heavier than the P&W and having four of them at the rear of the airplane didn't solve any problem. Again, configuration and the joyful combining of all elements is prime in any design.

 

The 707-420 series that made up BOAC's original order also used the Conway (as did Douglas' equivalent DC-8-40), so there would have been little or no difference in power or fuel efficiency. Later, they did get some P&W-powered 707-320s.

The VC-10 survived much longer as an RAF tanker than it did as an airliner (which could also be said about their L-1011s).

 

BA used to fly VC10's into ORD back in the 1970's. I understand it was very loud even back then. I did see one RAF VC10 take off and it was louder than the ll62's that used to come to ORD for LOT and Aeroflot back in the 1980's. Alot of airlines might have been worried about Vickers who was always having financial problems not surviving. It was fast but so was the Convair 990. Both did not sell well and both went out of service very early. I thought the VC10 was a good looking beast.

 

Il 62 a Russian VC10 look alike. Loved the little pole with tiny wheels that came out the back loke a poop to stop it falling onto the tail.

There is footage of some crazy east german landing a 62 in the field whehre Otto Lilienthall flew. That was a pre EU way of moving an aorliner on site for permenant display. Can you imagine the permitting it would take just to move one there by truck these days.

 

Here it is

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EP2fgosJ0A]IL 62 Ackerlandung 1989 - YouTube[/ame]

 

No workie.

 

They only built 54 VC-10s, so that had to really be a money losing proposition. Their VC-10 tankers are all retired now, but the KC-135 is still going strong.

 

Read some articles, said the VC10 burned fuel like crazy. Also went on to say that the Il 62 was a far better plane, more load, more range rugged etc.