VC10 vs 707

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.

 

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.