FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1963
1963 - 0815.PDF
784 VC10 ON TEST Product with Differentiation? ONE of the best throw-away lines heard in Parliament for some time came from Mr Julian Amery, the Minister of Aviation, on May 13. Modifications to reduce the drag of the VC10, Vickers had told him, had been successful. This, he said, had been confirmed by his own advisers (who in this sort of problem would presumably be the Royal Aircraft Establishment). This came as something of an anti-climax—almost as if there had been a lot of turbulent air about nothing. After all, only the previous week a UK national newspaper had devoted its front-page main story to a report that the modification programme had failed, and the VClO's "wings will have to be changed." This led to an unprecedented denial by Vickers, who not only said it was untrue, but actually named the newspaper involved. Vickers did not say that the modifications had worked. So what flight-test miracle could have taken place in the next few days to enable the Minister to announce success ? Vickers are probably delighted that Mr Amery said what he did when he did. It certainly helped to compensate for the unfortunate adverse publicity (which flashed around the world within seconds of publication in Fleet Street) that had been caused by the false reports—though such exercises in PR are inevitably like trying to quench an oil-well fire with a bucket of water. Aircraft firms are, however, a cautious lot. Vickers were certainly frank enough about the way they told the world of the VClO's drag problem, and this suggests that they will be frank about the outcome of their efforts to solve it. Until it is solved, and seen to have been solved, they are understandably saying nothing. Their comment on Mr Amery's statement was simply "Yes, we have seen the light, but we now have to make a start on the engineering of the modifications." Vickers decline to release piecemeal progress reports on results of the modification test programme. They have openly told everybody they have not been as clever as they could have been in one partic ular aspect of VC10 design, and that they are going to fix it (shades of Convair and their astonishingly similar problem with the 880/ 990). Until they have fixed it, and the engineering thereof, com pletely to their own satisfaction, they have hung a metaphorical Do Not Disturb notice on their main gates. Nevertheless, it is encouraging to hear from the Minister that the—presumably—aerodynamic light has been seen. The upwards- inclined engine nacelles, the increased-span gulleys, and the altered "set" of the slats appear to be doing what was expected. The return of VC10 05 to Weybridge, the first VC10 to fly home to roost, was operationally an extremely interesting manoeuvre, particularly for the local residents of the Wisley/Weybridge area. The aircraft did not, as reported, return to have its engine nacelles restored to their original incidence, but to have the "set" of the slats altered. The problem was that these slats, as originally de signed, were intended to be faired perfectly into the wing profile by air loads in cruising flight; but things did not work out exactly as planned. A detail, perhaps, but perhaps worth thousands of pounds of fuel. The Minister was almost rapturous in the House of Commons about the VClO's quietness, saying that he had had a meeting in flight with Sir Matthew Slattery, BOAC's chairman. It is of course possible to have a meeting in any passenger aeroplane, especially as there are always plenty of chairs going spare these days. But the Minister's mind had clearly been impressed by the noticeably good standard of quietness in this big rear-engined airliner. Indeed, here is one of the two big answers to give a potential new big-jet customer who might ask "why wait for a VC10 rather than obtain quicker delivery of a 707 or DC-8 now?" Perhaps this was best summed up actually by a 'potential VC10 customer, Mr El Moneim Atallah of UAA, the Egyptian airline typical of those other small national operators whose job it is to stamp themselves with FLIGHT International, 30 May 1963 it J u Hi! ill] £> Ki a a O u >< I O 1 ill IJS lls.Ji Jill) S??S ?? z Q ? SI lB HI : -o -P laiili. » £ ass-si .a C O Q. II — «*>-• 3133" c -«n*i<i«M»»o-«i ft K. OS I I- < I- O S O w» 3 ill I* •- °»- -c F 3 3 .£ "^3 *— o .a..2 ex 9 ? 8 |"g& \ V t O C eo c/i *£: T£ .S fli — *J -O o - J if si I 111! ifljil 5sj;4.§ lillt! flllii II1!! lilts* Mill E-8-S.Sl* Q Sog s ®8©(D is m ps DI O o .ID C^p [o <3oo 00© i& © .0B = B 7~
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
