Post amazingly cool pictures of aircraft (Volume 1)

[Traveller]

Eric Mc said:

Thye also had tremendous performance - being quite powerful and having very sophisticated wings - part of the short field and hopt and high performance requirement set out in the original specifictaion.

Unfortunatley, these atributes made it less economical to operate compared to the American rivals so not many were built.

I remember reading a debate about this, and with hind-sight, the VC-10 compared quite favourably with it contemporaries in terms of operating costs, there is debate that it was negative propaganda from US manufacturers that hurt the VC-10, rather than actually being more expensive to operate. Adding in it's great short field performance allowing access to airfields that other could not could not get into.

The big missed opportunity was the Hawker Siddeley Trident, had all the ingredients to become a huge sales success, lots of innovation in the design, but a poor decision to fitting woefully underpowered engines, lost out to the later and similarly configured 727. Spoke to a pilot who flew the trident for BA, and it was according to him, a lovely aircraft to fly, if you could get it off the ground without falling asleep. The 727 went on to be the worlds most produced jetliner.

727



Trident

Edited by Traveller on Tuesday 28th July 09:08

[Bernie-the-bolt]

Eric Mc said:

Bernie-the-bolt said:

Eric Mc said:

I also think that the VC-10 is one of the elegant designs ever built.

I used to fly out to Iran in the mid 70's on VC10's prior to 707's and they are wonderful aircraft.

Quiet and comfortable from memory

Thye also had tremendous performance - being quite powerful and having very sophisticated wings - part of the short field and hopt and high performance requirement set out in the original specifictaion.

Unfortunatley, these atributes made it less economical to operate compared to the American rivals so not many were built.

In those days we used to fly into Mehrabad International Airport, which is approximately 1200m above sea level and the weather is extremely hot in summer (bloody freezing in winter mind!) and VC10's would go up like a rocket, but the 707's felt like they struggled to get off the ground!

Last flight I took out of there was shortly after the Shah had gone. Martial Law was in place and a night time curfew - the trip to the airport was interesting as a young 16 year old passing between tanks and men pointing guns at anything that moved!. We were on a BA 707, and the aircraft suffered damage at the airport and was not (officially) airworthy prior to flight. We took off, there was a massive bang from under the aircraft, everything shook violently for some minutes and although I'm a real fan of flying I don't mind saying I shat myself a tiny bit The Captain then decided we would divert to Kuwait as he was concerned the aircraft might be in a bad way - (that's what he told us over the mic ). Having sat at Kuwait Airport all day and some more, we were told again that he was sorry, but the Captain thought it prudent to take the risk and get us out of Iran rather than stop and be stuck in the capital under potential risk of gun fire (not that I think that would happen?)

Air travel - so romantic in those days

[Traveller]

Eric Mc said:

There were also a number of accidents directly atributable to the T-tail layouut which most rear engined layouts were forced to adopt.

The infamous deep stall, now that is a scary phenomena, once you are in it, game over, do not pass go, collect real estate at high speed.

[tuffer]

Mr Dave said:

And a picture of a VC10, just because I like turbojet powered rear engined planes. They sounded so much better, produced a lot more smoke and were less boring than the current boring airliners.

They did not sound so good at 5am in the morning when I used to live in the barrack block near the end of teh runway at Brize Norton!!!

Edited by tuffer on Tuesday 28th July 13:25

[Bernie-the-bolt]

tuffer said:

They did not sound so good at 5am in the morning when I used to live in the barrack block near the end of teh runway at Brize Norton!!!

Nothing like the sound of a Rolls-Royce Conway engine first thing in the morning to blow the cobwebs away

[tuffer]

Bernie-the-bolt said:

tuffer said:

They did not sound so good at 5am in the morning when I used to live in the barrack block near the end of teh runway at Brize Norton!!!

Nothing like the sound of a Rolls-Royce Conway engine first thing in the morning to blow the cobwebs away

Not after a Thursday night bop

[Ayahuasca]

Airliner development post-war must have been interesting as Britain toyed with the idea of competing with the US for domination of the market - there were even proposals for civilian versions of the V bombers:

Handley Page HP-111 project:



Avro Type 722

[FourWheelDrift]

Ayahuasca said:

Avro Type 722

Notice which way the seats face?

[Bernie-the-bolt]

FourWheelDrift said:

Ayahuasca said:

Avro Type 722

Notice which way the seats face?

That's so that bird crap doesn't get in your eyes

[Vipers]

Don't know if they still do it, but RAF passengers planes all had rear facing seats, a safety feature. Makes sense really.

[Invisible man]

The VC10 did but the Tristar doesn't

[Ayahuasca]

Vipers said:

Don't know if they still do it, but RAF passengers planes all had rear facing seats, a safety feature. Makes sense really.

Only if you crash.

[JuniorD]

Ayahuasca said:

Vipers said:

Don't know if they still do it, but RAF passengers planes all had rear facing seats, a safety feature. Makes sense really.

Only if you crash.

Otherwise rear facing seats for passengers are not generally practical or useful. For example during take-off and climb-out you'd be amost sliding or even hanging out of your seat. Similarly, nose up pitch during cruise would have similar (lesser) effect. Flight attendants can of course get away with rearward facing seats as they are used only for short periods, have shoulder harnesses (usually) and they need to keep any eye on the pax, especially the types who insist on going for the overhead lockers seconds after the nosewheel has touched down

[dr_gn]

JuniorD said:

Ayahuasca said:

Vipers said:

Don't know if they still do it, but RAF passengers planes all had rear facing seats, a safety feature. Makes sense really.

Only if you crash.

Flight attendants can of course get away with rearward facing seats as they are used only for short periods, have shoulder harnesses (usually) and they need to keep any eye on the pax, especially the types who insist on going for the overhead lockers seconds after the nosewheel has touched down

Trying to think of a 'hindsight' joke.

But can't

[Dr Jekyll]

A lot of the seats in BA club world are rear facing.

[sorrento205]

Half, to be exact

[Fabric 2.2]

http://gizmodo.com/5323825/crazy-russian-sukhoi-su...

Crazy Ivans indeed, didn't think flying without a cockpit at M2 would be possible for very long, let alone ejecting? Cool pic though.

Edited by Fabric 2.2 on Tuesday 28th July 18:26

[Eric Mc]

Why would they eject at mach 2 for a movie?

I doubt very much they were even flying at Mach 1.

[AstonZagato]

Eric Mc said:

Why would they eject at mach 2 for a movie?

I doubt very much they were even flying at Mach 1.

What would you film it from at Mach 2?

[Fabric 2.2]

Yeah was a tad sceptical, although it's being reported as 2.0 in Popular Science's aviation news thing. To be fair, doesn't say what happened to the sod who ejected