Simviation Forums

As of last Friday, the fastest airliner in the world is no longer carrying passengers:

Royal Air Force suspends passenger operations with VC10 fleet

Hopefully as the article eludes to, the decision maybe reviewed in the future. A sad day for all concerned if not, and an end to passngers turning up in true style (not a relatively boring AirBoeingBus) at some major airports around the world (and then making lots as noise and setting of the alarms as they leave!*).


*well, as little noise as possible, which is still quite a lot!

Sad indeed....another iconic aircraft I'll never get to fly on (Damn being born 10 years late...concorde etc. )

At least I've had the pleasure of seeing her 30ft above my head  8-) 8-)

Surely this will make your life a bit more Hassle free then C?

.mic

The Ministry of Dumbasses strikes again

I guess my Paderborn pictures will be the last ones I have taken then. In a previous life that involved a blue suit, I spent may an hour down the back being ferried from place to place. I have also been in the cockpit for take off and landing once during a "jolly"
I am not normally a nostalgic person when it comes to the passing of a mechanical thing, but the VC10 is in another league. As Charlie says, the fastest airliner to fly (apart from Concorde) and a form that could appear on Page Three any day of the week 8-)

Matt

Bugger, this is quite a loss...at least Prince Andrew brought one out to Sydney when he visited a few months ago.

I thought the CV990 was the fastest non-supersonic airliner?

I thought the CV990 was the fastest non-supersonic airliner?

Over to Charlie :-?

Matt

According to the Super VC10 Performance manual, it's normal cruise is .84 mach, while the CV990 max cruise is .91. However, I saw a page that say the VC10 could cruise at .94, so I'm not sure.

Here's an interesting discussion(s) on the subject.

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/9304-vc10-mach-94-a.html

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/340198-v ... lease.html

Apparently MNO was 0.866. MNO in 747 is around 0.9.

All in the above 2 posts are correct. In RAF service VC10 cruises at M.84 or M.82 dependant on the variant, and a maximum normal operating limit (currently) of M.866 in the cruise in RAF service (mainly due to the fact that we've got things sticking out the front, dangling off the wings and want to be economical with fuel!).

M.94 is the Mne (Vne varying with altitude from 397KIAS@sea level up to 371KIAS at 28500ft).

So what's the Mne of the 990? Sadly the internet gives the normal laymans figures (other than the M.91 cruise - which arguably, if fuel was not a player the VC10 could and would manage), which are fairly meaningless.

Looking on the 990, it seems it was quick, but not if you put a lot of fuel in (in the carrots!).

As an aside, it was interesting that both the VC10 and CV990 used aerodynamic devices invented by Mr Kuchemann. The Convair had his "carrots" and the the VC10 has his wingtips!

As an aside, it was interesting that both the VC10 and CV990 used aerodynamic devices invented by Mr Kuchemann. The Convair had his "carrots" and the the VC10 has his wingtips!

Ok, that was very geeky. You can all wake up now!

Interesting article by Flight, including a statement which almost seems to contradict the earlier one (which was true). Is it me or has that been a symptom of the UK Plc in recent years. I think "spin" is the word!

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/01/22/337527/uk-updates-guidance-on-vc10-passenger-flights.html

Good news though.

Interesting article by Flight, including a statement which almost seems to contradict the earlier one (which was true). Is it me or has that been a symptom of the UK Plc in recent years. I think "spin" is the word!

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/01/22/337527/uk-updates-guidance-on-vc10-passenger-flights.html

Good news though.

Translated, we have just worked out how much charters and reallocation of the Herc fleet would cost and are now looking how to clarify our first statement and are hoping that no one took any real notice so we can carry on as usual new week

Matt

Translated, we have just worked out how much charters and reallocation of the Herc fleet would cost and are now looking how to clarify our first statement and are hoping that no one took any real notice so we can carry on as usual new week

Yep. Maybe they put up two pictures, one of a Herc, and one of a 10, and asked them to point to the one they think would be best carry long haul pax!

It's probably as it should be though. Put civvies on the (slightly more modern) Tristar or charters, but allow military pax on the '10.

One of the saddest things, if not the saddest, is it takes away one of the final opportunities that were available for people, mainly children, to come up and see what goes on up the front on the flight deck of an airliner.

How many of us on the forum older than our mid teens were inspired by going up front on an airliner when we were younger? Quite a few I suspect. The charters that will inevitably replace some of our civilian carrying passenger routes will, just like any other civilian airliner, have the door firmly locked.

That's one thing we'll miss.