Post amazingly cool pictures of aircraft (Volume 2)
Discussion
If you look at the nose shape and cockpit windows - and with the wing and engine locations, you might get a clue as to the manufacturer.
The nose shape eventually emerged on an aircraft that did get built. And the wing and engine combination bears a strong resemblance to a certain bomber.
My hunch is that BOAC were correct and that this design would probably have been uncompetitive before it had entered airline service.
The nose shape eventually emerged on an aircraft that did get built. And the wing and engine combination bears a strong resemblance to a certain bomber.
My hunch is that BOAC were correct and that this design would probably have been uncompetitive before it had entered airline service.
I'll put you out of your misery. It was the Vickers V1000 - which was Vickers' attempt to build a rival to the upcoming Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8.
Not one airline anywhere in the world expressed any interest in buying it.
It borrowed heavily on Vickers experience building the Valiant bomber - notably the wings and engine layout.
By the late 1950s it was becoming obvious to most manufacturers that burying engines in the wing roots was not good for all sorts of reasons - and that alone would have condemned the V1000 to rapid obsolescence.
The nose section was incorporated into the VC10.
Not one airline anywhere in the world expressed any interest in buying it.
It borrowed heavily on Vickers experience building the Valiant bomber - notably the wings and engine layout.
By the late 1950s it was becoming obvious to most manufacturers that burying engines in the wing roots was not good for all sorts of reasons - and that alone would have condemned the V1000 to rapid obsolescence.
The nose section was incorporated into the VC10.
Eric Mc said:
I'll put you out of your misery. It was the Vickers V1000 - which was Vickers' attempt to build a rival to the upcoming Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8.
Not one airline anywhere in the world expressed any interest in buying it.
Initially BOAC and TCA did, with some mild interest from Pan Am.Not one airline anywhere in the world expressed any interest in buying it.
BOAC finally objected on the grounds that it would need upgraded Rolls Royce Conways to provide the performance they required. No doubt it would have done, but so did the 707s they eventually bought. Incidentally TCA were interested up until the point of cancellation.
TCA did buy the Vanguard so they certainly would have looked at the V1000. But they didn't buy the V1000 and they didn't buy VC-10s either. They bought DC-8s (and later DC-9s too).
But the engines in the wings was the deal breaker.
Having engines in the wings gives very little advantages and quite a few disadvantages. Notice how many airliners have buried engines today. Yes - none. In fact, how many airliners after the Comet and the early Tupolevs featured them?
But the engines in the wings was the deal breaker.
Having engines in the wings gives very little advantages and quite a few disadvantages. Notice how many airliners have buried engines today. Yes - none. In fact, how many airliners after the Comet and the early Tupolevs featured them?
The V1000 was never offered as an airliner, it was for RAF Transport Command but for reasons budgetary or otherwise their airships decided bin it at the last minute. This after Vickers had got about as far as it's possible to get in building an aircraft without actually flying it, assembly jigs and fixtures in place, fuselages and wings in final assembly and a large wedge of taxpayer's money invested in it, everything was bulldozed and went for tinfoil. VC7 was to be the civvy version but without the initial RAF order to pay for the development it was going nowhere; as far as engines in wing roots being old hat or expensive to maintain, as the VC7 would likely have been available from mid-1956 it would have had 2 years march on the 707. The US airlines would have bought it because it was available even if they'd retained options on Boeings or Douglas' etc, the 707 wasn't available before the end of '58 and the DC 8 well into '59; it was a sellers market in the period 1958-62, even Convair sold a few aircraft and they were turkeys and late on delivery. Aberrations like Comet aside the first to market wins the prize, the commercial independence that financial success would have brought might have allowed Vickers to ignore the dead hand of BOAC and to compete with Boeing, Douglas etc and win.
MartG said:
Errr...
That and the large trainer remind me of a peice that was in a really old issue of FLIGHT magazine that I was given by my next door neigbour, featuring aircraft such as the B-888 Stratoflattener, a bomber so large (14 engines) that it had no room for bombs by the time its enormous crew and enough fuel had been added.http://worldcadaccess.typepad.com/blog/2010/03/spy... ...seeing as how we're posting some real Heath Robinson nonsense here now.
hidetheelephants said:
The V1000 was never offered as an airliner, it was for RAF Transport Command but for reasons budgetary or otherwise their airships decided bin it at the last minute. This after Vickers had got about as far as it's possible to get in building an aircraft without actually flying it, assembly jigs and fixtures in place, fuselages and wings in final assembly and a large wedge of taxpayer's money invested in it, everything was bulldozed and went for tinfoil. VC7 was to be the civvy version but without the initial RAF order to pay for the development it was going nowhere; as far as engines in wing roots being old hat or expensive to maintain, as the VC7 would likely have been available from mid-1956 it would have had 2 years march on the 707. The US airlines would have bought it because it was available even if they'd retained options on Boeings or Douglas' etc, the 707 wasn't available before the end of '58 and the DC 8 well into '59; it was a sellers market in the period 1958-62, even Convair sold a few aircraft and they were turkeys and late on delivery. Aberrations like Comet aside the first to market wins the prize, the commercial independence that financial success would have brought might have allowed Vickers to ignore the dead hand of BOAC and to compete with Boeing, Douglas etc and win.
The 707 had flown in prototype form as early as 1954. It was the US airlines that were holding back, not the manufacturers. Boeing (and Douglas) had to bide their time until the US airlines felt confident enough to take the plunge and order pure jets. The V1000 could have been around four years earlier and nobody would have wanted it.It was a typical British aircraft of its era - prompted into production by a government edict (Air Ministry, Admiralty or Board of Supply - it doesn't really matter) and then left high and dry when none of the potential users (the RAF, the Royal Navy or the nationalised airlines) expressed any interest in wanting to operate it.
It was a mad type of set up and really a legacy of what had been the way matters progressed from the 1920s right through World War 2. It was an outmoded way of producing aircraft, especially transports and airliners, by the 1950s.
Back in 1984 the BBC ran an excellent documentary series called "All Our Working Lives". One episode was on the aircraft manufacturing industry and it was a real eye opener to me as to how nuts the aircraft manufacturing process was post war.
Sir George Edwards, who was chairman of Vickers in the 1950s, has some interesting things to say about the V1000 and BOAC. Sadly, when the BBC repeated the series on BBC 4 a couple of years back, the aviation episode seemed to have gone missing. I have a poor VHS copy in my collection.
Sobering viewing.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff