I worked as Cabin Crew on VC10s from 1972-1981, thank you for the chance to watch this reconstruction of such a beautiful aircraft. We had an engine explode out of its casing on takeoff from Fiji in the 70's. Sitting by the rear doors, it was quite a bang! We dumped fuel and returned, then later did an empty 3 engine ferry to Honolulu. That was a long way on 3 engines but you never felt short of power on this Speedbird. I was also on the record breaking transatlantic flight from JFK to Prestwick. Breakfast was done at warp speed when the guys up front told us they were going for the record...
Lucinda - I was working in BOAC control centre at the time and recall the event. I’d heard that one female member of the crew panicked and later left the airline…
@@drivinmiatas5068 I was regularly told that the VC 10 (in the military role) was the fastest airliner in the world after Concorde, although there are some who argue that there were one or two other aircraft that were as fast. I was on a trans-Atlantic flight to the USA in the late 90s and was on the flight deck when a call came through from ATC. The VC 10 had passed the southwest corner of Eire and was settling into its cruise phase when the request came to turn 30 degrees to starboard for around five minutes before being vectored to the original flight path. The reason, Concorde was coming up behind us. Travelling nearly three times as fast as the VC 10, Concorde passed us on the port side in a climb and within five minutes its acceleration meant that it had disappeared from view, even though it was very clear and we had good visibility.
Hi, my sister started as cabin crew for BOAC in 1967 to 1983. She was on VC10's too, her favourite plane. Her name was Sölve Thomsen Foor. Also do you remember a Captain Dougie Cooper who flew the VC10's?
I was on duty at Heathow when this incident happened. The Captain in command was Capain Smurthwaite. The aircraft landed over 38,000 kgs over the Regulated Landing Weigh of 107,500kgs and was about 25 knots above normal landing speed. It was a remarkable piece of airmanship, and the fact that the landing gear coped with such a high landing weight bears testimony to he strength of the Super VC-10.
It is a truly remarkable example of flying, particularly the decision not to dump fuel. That captain had a very cool head and made the right decisions.
@@HellStr82 I would disgaree given the performance of the Sper VC10. Max Take off weight of the Super VC10 was 151,953kgs, and even in very high temperatures of say 46 degrees C, it would have a take off weight of about 147,000kgs. Compared to the Boeing 707-436 with RR Conway engines the Max Takeoff weight was about 141.000 but at the same high temperature the takeoff weight went down to aboutt 120,000Kgs. The Super VC10 had RR Conway 508 engines pusing out 22.000lbs thrust compared to the B707 at about 18,000kgs. There was also a Standard VC10 1ith a shorter body and less powerful engines. The Royal Air Force had a Hybrid version with a Standard body but Super VC 10 wings and engines. Out of Bahrain they were taking off at around 152,000kgs!
@@nigelpage612 Any direct gen on the W. South America route,mid-60s? A relative flew it beiefly, namely (?) Trinidad, Caracas,Bogota,Quito and Lima, which I think was the end of the route,but don't have any modern sources and log book missing for the period..
Well I hope they fixed that hydraulic issue after this incident, seems that most aircraft that had rear engines had issues with hydraulic failures, just look at the DC10 it could lose all three lines during an un contained engine breakup
I was an engineer on VC-10's. We were doing 'circuit bumps' flight training. On one flight we had a bird strike on Number 3 engine which wrecked it! Ground observers later described us passing overhead as soundin like a 'V1 WW2 flying bomb'!! We shut the engine down and landed safely. Then I put a work platform up to the engine when we stopped it was trashed inside many of the turbine blades were damaged. The concept of the 4 high rear engines was world leading and we should STILL be building them like this today! NOTHING could equal the VC-10's take off performance!
I don't expect there are too many folks around now that can remember the sound of a V1 flying bomb! I was a kid growing up close to Heathrow under the flightpath and I remember the VC10's were by far the loudest plane at that time. Only the later Concorde was louder, really. They were always trailing a lot of smoke too. Great plane though. I'm surprised they had good take-off performance as that wing design isn't the best for low-speed performance. Like the 727 and Concorde. I always remember them as an RAF plane too.
My son flew them with the RAF until they were decommissioned in 2013. He loved this aeroplane and said it was a joy to fly. The RAF crews referred to the VC10 as the "queen of the sky". The twin-engine arrangement caused no other issues, as far as I can find in any reports. If there was an engine failure the engine cowlings did a great job of containing the fragmentation. They made great air-to-air refuelers because of their relatively high speed so the fighters they were refuelling did not have to fly too slow. The VC10 also held the record for the fastest no-supersonic trans-Atlantic flight 5 hours and 1 minute in March 1979. It took until 2020 for the record to be broken by the new queen of the sky by a BA operated 747.
I still think the VC10 one of the nicest looking aircraft ever made. My uncle and aunt used to regularly fly on them between Trinidad and England and commented on what smooth flights those were. They found them to be lovely aircraft to travel on.
@@scotthoward5114 Agreed 100%. I flew as an unaccompanied minor from JFK to Antigua several times on a BOAC VC-10 in the 1960s. Crew and passengers were kind and considerate.
Agreed. I love his narrations. So many other channels play music and describe the crash in text bubbles. This means you have to watch the video. Who has time for that. With MAI we can listen in and do other things. It takes ba11s to narrate. Every year MAI gets better and better!
Many happy childhood memories of flying on BOAC VC10 Standard and Super to North America and the Far East in the 1960's and 1970's, also experienced many short filed take-offs in VC10, during the cruise on almost every flight I went into cockpit and had my BOAC Junior Jet Club logbook signed by the captains and everyone of them said how much they enjoy flying VC10. I loved the sound of the VC10 RR Conway engines :-) The BOAC livery looked elegant on the VC10, dark/navy blue and gold speed-bird...
The VC10 had its engines at the back not to avoid ingestion but so they could have full length flaps on the wing so they could operate from short hot high runways in Africa.
@@boeingdriver29 It certainly benefitted as a result but it was not the driver behind the decision, if they could have done it, they would have put the engines under the wing as it spreads the weight along the wings rather than have it all on the fuselage and thus require a stronger and so heavier wing to take the load.
@@grahamariss2111 I never said it was a driver but it was a consideration put forward by the marketing department of Vickers during early development planning. My grandfather worked for them as an engineer albeit at the end of his career. I wish I had flown it as it was loved by the pilots for its sweet handling especially at low speeds.
Regardless of configuration, if a turbine disk fails (rather than individual blades) the mass (energy) of the rotating disk is almost impossible to contain. We have witness many cases where a disk fragment has penetrated the cabin; in some cases killing passengers and severely compromising the plane (Delta 1288 for instance). So the configuration of the the engines side-by-side is not an outstanding safety concern of the VC10. Modern aircraft enjoy a host of sensor to alert the pilot to an engine problem; including oil pressure/temperatures, flow rates and vibration. These systems were rudimentary in the VC10 as per the era in which they flew. The number 3 engine gave plenty of warning it was in distress, but the pertinent information was not available to the pilots. It is the nature of flying that every accident is a potential lesson and a pointer to how we can design and operate aircraft in a safer manner. However the VC10, especially considering the locales to which it flew, was actually an extremely safe aircraft. I have flown the VC10 and aside from a few quirks (some associated with the sweep-back and others with the engine weight at the back) it is a phenomenal aircraft to fly - a real privilege. Accelerates, climbs and flies faster than any other commercial aircraft I've flown. Officially the top speed of the VC10 is around 580mph but it's an aircraft that always wants to go faster. It is the greyhound of commercial airlines, surpassed only by Concorde in terms of speed and journey time. One of the last of the truly "hands on" aircraft.
@@andyrendell7430 I'm possibly not understanding you question. Lima (LIM) is almost at sea level and although temperatures climb to 27 deg C and humid, I can't see how this would present a challenge for the VC-10. But, to answer the part of your question I do understand, the answer would be no, I haven't flown the VC-10 to Lima. Rio, yes. I believe there was a passenger/cargo service introduced briefly but beyond that I have no knowledge of the route. Lima is beyond the range of the VC-10 so a stop-over would've been required in any case. As for temperature-altitude, I flew to many destinations in Africa and to Singapore; temperature was less of a problem than on many newer aircraft! Incidentally, the top speed ever recorded by a VC-10 occurred during an incident in the Andes mountains in which a VC-10 briefly hit Mach 0.96. Although the aircraft reached its destination, it received significant damage to flying/control surfaces but was eventually returned to service.
@@davidgapp1457 Thanks- for the clarification. I referred to the Quito takeoff,at ca 2800 m, Lima was Indeed at sea level and just at the end of the then BOAC route,which is why I mentioned it. Did you know anyone operating this route? I had a relative who did,and mentioned the pre- dawn schedulimg..
Yes VNE is defined in Mach terms,ie percent of actual speed of sound at a given moment,varies with height,air pressure,even humidity.VNE for Super VC10 was I think 0.86 Mach,as demonstrated by rhe Andes incident,which I was bot aware of.
I love all the extra information in the comments from people who were there, or who know the aircraft. It shows the quality of people watching your channel, brought here by the straight forward, non sensational production of the information you give. Congratulations on providing a high quality production.
The VC-10 was a dream to fly in as a teenager back in the early 1960s. Very quiet cabin, even at the back. Up front it was almost silent. Good old fashioned spacious seating and passengers treated like royalty. My brother and I flew to Mauritius and back several times. We loved every minute.
Less asymmetric thrust problems with rear mounted engines. Increased risk of damage from an engine explosion. There is never a perfect design, always a compromise. Loved the VC10
The biggest flaw of rear side-mounted engine design is that at high angle of attack, the main wing can disrupt the airflow of the engine intake to the point that power is greatly reduced, and this can be extremely dangerous if the aircraft is about to stall. Such design likely will not be seen again.
@@unknownkw True that. It would never work with today's gigantic high bypass turbofans. That being said, is there specific incident which occurred to a VC-10 as you've described or is this a well reasoned conjecture on your part?
Yup cant pull over, cant get out, Swissair 111 should have turned around and landed in halifax right away instead of trying for Boston or wherever they tried to go.
I would expect it to be *the* highest up thing on the "no thanks" list! If there's anything thst more robs you of sleep at night, I'd love to know! Thanks!
@@briannewman372 I was reading a book about the development of the VC10 and critics of the Boeing 707 said that it could only take off due to the curvature of the Earth….😂
As a kid sent to UK boarding school, we used to get the East African Airways SUPER VC10 back to Nairobi in the 70s. Fantastic experience, and a full breakfast at Entebbe Airport, and hour before Embakasi.
Flew on a VC10 from Los Angeles to Sydney as a kid. Many stops for that flight. Fun memories. Thanks, as always, for your work on this channel. Always glad to learn everyone survived.
Fabuloso aircraft, carried us to boarding school through turbulent rainy seasons in east Africa to winter weather in Europe . BOAC cabin crew and flight deck crew were really kind to us. We adored that stunning aircraft.
When you look back on the VC10 history, after B O A C finished with them, they were passed on to the Royal Air force, where they were used for taking troops for overseas postings, they were still in use until the 1990's
Well done! Rear mounted engines do have their advantages and disadvantages. Close proximity to each other does pose an issue when an un contained engine failure occurs, however wing mounted engines do too as we saw in QF-32 (A380) where the turbine punched a hole up through the wing. United 232 (DC-10) also comes to mind where all 3 hydraulic lines that converged in the tail section were severed when the fan disk of engine #2 failed catastrophically. Lots of accidents/incidents throughout time have lead to many changes in the way aircraft are designed and fortified. I feel safe ether way:)
Back in 1995 a visitor I was expecting from Kazakhstan was flying on Uzbekistan Airlines from Tashkent to Heathrow on the very similar Ilyushin 62; at about the half way point it suffered a single engine problem and returned to Tashkent on the remaining three.
Perhaps a good comparison would be the loss of speedbird 712, a BOAC 707 that suffered engine failure taking off from Heathrow in 1968. In that incident the engine fell off the aircraft in flight and a major fire followed. Desite a sucessful emergency landing the aircraft was consumed by fire and there was loss of life. I always thought the VC10 had a good saftey record though with only a couple of loses. Flying pre 1970 was perhaps a riskier occupation. As a child I was a regular VC10 passenger and it remains my favourite airliner. Many years later after flying in new wide bodied jets a chance flight on a VC10 made me realise how small they were!
Bleiz Breizh I flew about 10 times in a VC-10 between 1965 and 1968 in the route Rio de Janeiro - London - Rio de Janeiro, but they used to take off from Gatwick Airport in London.
Particularly Pre 2000. Though problems still occurred with the technological advances as per the 737 Max for example in recent years. But pilot, operational and maintenance error has been reduced considerably by lessons learned from the pre period.
VC-10 sized flamethrower... nice! I've always wondered about the safety of that design, but prior to this video had not heard of an incident in the plane's history where it played a part.
I heard of an incident where a VC-10 encountered a microburst - a major killer at the time since it wasn't well understood and couldn't be detected easily - and was able to power out of it because of those four engines, saving everyone on board. It had a substantially better power to weight ratio than the 707, as it was designed for those hot-and-high, less than ideally maintained African airports. I think it's notable that this was the only major VC-10 incident that could directly be traced to the design of the aircraft itself, and even then it resulted in no injuries on board. (Other accidents resulted from probable pilot error and hijackings, which were relatively common at the time in that part of the world.) Arguably the 727 had a more resilient engine layout, as the centre engine was located further back in the fuselage, and the other two were separated by it. The 727 was also designed for a similar role, as a modest-sized airliner capable of operating in Africa. But the VC-10 could still power its way out of situations that the 727 would struggle with. One major shortcoming of the VC-10 was that the Rolls-Royce Conway was a low-bypass turbofan, and thus rather less efficient than later designs (though still a major improvement over the turbojets used in early jets like the Comet). In theory, each pair of engines could have been replaced by a single RB211 when it became available, yielding a conventional twin rear-engined airliner. Indeed one VC-10 briefly became an asymmetric trijet, with an RB211 prototype on one side and the original pair of Conways on the other. For reasons I don't fully understand, the airframe was found to have been twisted out of shape by those flight tests, and was decommissioned immediately thereafter. This appears to suggest that some airframe strengthening would have been needed to adequately support the RB211.
The East African SVC10 crash was attributed to a puncture from runway debris and incorrectly maintained brakes failing stop the plane before it overran the runway. ie no blame attributed to the pilots.
You can read an aircrew memoir of that microburst incident on vc10.net. It was an RAF 'Shiny Fleet' aircraft with Harold Wilson on board at Washington Dulles.
The design made sense at the time given the requirements. But its interesting that all these years later a modern jetliner had a similar blade failure which was not contained and dumped engine parts, some very big ones, over Denver! So we haven't fully solved this problem yet. The VC10 is my all time favorite aircraft to fly in. I made several trips in it and loved the exciting acceleration on takeoff and its superbly quiet cabin. Having the engines at the back kept a lot of the noise away. My fondest memory is watching the flight crew make a landing at Heathrow in fog using the VC10's autoland system. I had a aisle seat near the front of the cabin and in those days there was not the cockpit security of today and the Captain had the cockpit door open. He spent the approach monitoring the instruments and approach standing behind the pedestal, then when he saw the runway he slipped into his seat, buckled his seat belt and the plane made the smoothest landing I have ever felt. The VC10 was a wonderful aircraft!
I'm not an engineer, but I've seen some planes mount their engines on the top of the wings like the VFW-Fokker 614. Putting 2 on the tail and 2 on top of the wings maybe would have been a better way to keep the engines separate? Or just straight up having 4 engines on top of the wings.
The fastest sub-sonic airliner to fly transatlantic, and IIRC the first airliner to use turbo fans as opposed to turbojets. The tragedy of the VC-10 (as well as the DH-Trident) was a combination of muddled thinking between The Manufacturer, The British Govt. and the Target customer caused a plane designed for one market (Trans- Atlantic) to be re-purposed for another market (the rapidly disappearing “Empire” routes with “high & hot” airports in central Africa). By the time the VC-10 first flew those Empire routes no longer had the strategic importance or business they had previously due to the demise of the British Empire. Had the VC-10 launched with a Transatlantic configuration (the later Super VC-10) it could have gained far more sales as it significant advantages over the 707. It was not a 707 killer, but it had an economical cruising speed that was 10% faster than the 707 (newer engines, later to come to the 707) and was MUCH quieter INSIDE (due to the position of the engines).
So did I. We went to Jamaica from JFK in 1973 and when we returned I marveled at the gorgeous BOAC VC-10 parked at the adjacent gate. That plane made the Air Jamaica DC-8 Super 63 I was riding look like it was designed by someone who majored in balloon animals.
The VC10 had such an elegant design; truly beautiful. The four engines aft design was first applied on the Lockheed JetStar, the world's first purpose-built business jet. Undoubtedly the VC10 was the inspiration for the larger Il-62. The clean wing and large flaps of the VC10 made it the best choice for Nairobi and a few other high-elevation airports. Later, of course, those airports had runway extensions, which made them accessible to other quad jets. BOAC placed too many design requirements on the VC10, which made it less economical to operate than the US quad jets. It achieved its design goals, but when the shorter field capabilities of the VC10 were no longer necessary, BOAC bought more US products to save money. They put hefty requirements on the VC10 design, causing considerable tradeoffs, then abandoned that product in favor of economics. The aft-mounted engines made first class travel quieter, but I remember sitting in steerage class in the VC10 when I was a child. Darn noisy back there with the RR Conway engines. The A350 is beautiful as well, especially with its awesome winglet design. So, beauty lives on.
Asymmetry of thrust is less of an issue on the VC10, and an unconfined failure is less likely to damage the wing or cause a decompression of the cabin. Swings and roundabouts..
A beautiful aircraft. Flew on one from Nairobi to London, with stops at Entebbe, Uganda and Cairo, Egypt. Was at Entebbe for an hour or so walking from the aircraft to the then new terminal. Someone pointed out the old terminal in which Jewish hostages were held and from which they were rescued a couple of months later. Knowing the layout of the airport made the accounts of the greatest rescue mission ever so much easier to understand and appreciate. Astonishing work. Yes, a great 'plane. Philip O
Israel built that airport for Uganda in the 1950's, they had the blueprints for it, that is why they knew where everything was. They did a lot of work in helping irrigate, building water pipelines for farming. They also built their schools. They did likewise in Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria, and Ghana. Kenya was grateful to Israel, and they showed that by helping Israeli soldiers refuel their planes for their rescue mission in Entebbe.
With only 2 engines a fire enough weight and no hydraulics no brakes it still landed safely with all passengers and crew now that is called safety and this is just one case.I wish this magnificent aircraft is rebuilt i dont see a flaw in design this is more than perfect.Can be made even better.
Yes, the design of this aircraft was way ahead of its time. It was very tough. It Was designed for small rough landing strips and was fast comfortable with a huge range! The fact that this flight was able to continue to climb and safely return to the airport, overloaded, despite losing both engines on one side speaks to its superior design. As a boy, I flew in VC10's many times, even an emergency landing on a bush airstrip in Africa. Fantastic plane!
It’s important to note that the Ilyushin Il-62 which had a similar rear engine configuration to the VC10 was not so lucky whenever there was a catastrophic turbine failure either during takeoff or during an actual flight. The Ilyushin 62 was unable to sustain flight on only two engines and would inevitably plunge into the ground as a result. Happened on the outskirts of Moscow in the 1980’s - an Aeroflot flight bound for Sierra Leone with students on board. There was one survivor who soon succumbed to her injuries. Another flight lost two engines to a fire which uncontained, burned through hydraulic pipes rendering the Il-62 uncontrollable - leading to another crash. This shows how much work went into the VC10 as compared to the Il-62. I’m not hating on Soviet aviation though - as I have a very soft spot for the Tu-154 of the era - loved the design of that aircraft too!
Whilst this incident was a bad event, if the aircraft had not been so strong, things could have been far worse. In the event, this engine design proved to be reliable and it served for many years without serious incident. Your video was interesting. Thanks!
When this aircraft was designed, the options were 4 engines under the wings or four on the tail. The four in the tail section reduced weight of the aircraft significantly and provided near centerline thrust in case of an engine or multiple engine failures. The VC-10 was a solution for the issues BOACs were having with the 707 being significantly underpowered in the hot high density altitude airports of Africa. This aircraft was fast and efficient for its era. Sadly, as much as I like Boeing, the 707 and 727 combined with VC-10 development issues ended the aircrafts potential for real success.
I used to work for B. O. A. C, In the 1960's and to tell you the truth I preferred the VC10 than the 707, the VC10 was more comfortable to fly on for the passengers, also the 707's had lots of problems as well,
@@michaelhendle4597 I’ve read that pilots really like for aircraft. Timing can be everything. Had the Comet not had so many issues, I think it would have taken a much larger portion of the European market that ended almost exclusively Boeing’s. I’m not knocking Boeing, they did so much right and ultimately built some tremendously successful aircraft. I have about 5000 hours in Canadair Regional jets made in Montreal. I also have time in Embraer aircraft. I much preferred the Canadair product over the Embrair products. But, Embrair ultimately took the risk to make the EMB-170-195 that leap frogged ahead of the CRJ-50-90 in terms of passenger comfort and airline acceptance. Bombardier finally developed the C-series but it bankrupted the company and now Airbus owns the product. Over my years of flying, I preferred the L-1011 over the DC-10 as a passenger and pilot. But it only sold 290 where the DC -10 sold 440 with military variant. In the end neither were economically successful because Airbus delivered the A-330 before either could sale sufficiently to recoup their development and production costs pushed higher due to design flaws that caused several accidents. In the end, it appears timing is crucial because the best aircraft isn’t always the winner..... or at least from my experiences.
@@jameshammons2354 the c series? Good for Airbus. Its now called the A220. It’s actually a remarkable aircraft. It is very fuel efficient and will fill the market from roughly 110-160 seats of my memory is correct. Delta has ordered a boat load and I believe the market potential is several thousand. It’s is a size and efficiently to replace make it a bette choice for airlines operating under 160 seats. I could be wrong. I believe it’s 12-15% more efficient than a similarly equipped 737 max or Airbus a-320 NEO. However companies like Southwest most likely won’t order because keeping single 737 platform makes more sense and the Max is heavily discounted currently. I have friends flying all three. All are great aircraft. If I were a betting man.. I’d place money that Boeing and Airbus will introduce a new narrow body replacements sometime in 2028-2030 time frame. At that time, China and Russia will also be offering new products that will be highly competitive with the 737 max and A-320 NEO.
VC-10 was used on long range routes as well, in fact often, very rarely used short haul (if ever), is the most beautiful plane ever, looks like a graceful bird.
In those days there were two State airlines, BOAC for long haul flight's and BEA for short haul European flights, in 1971/2,the two merged and became BRITISH AIRWAYS
MACI, Very nice video, thanks for all the effort. Just FYI, the common terminology used for jet engines labels the ‘turbines’ as only the stages after the combustion chamber. The stages prior to the combustion chamber are labeled compressor stages. The large discs at the very front of a turbofan engine, providing all the bypass air, are most commonly labeled ‘fans’. This terminology differers from steam powered turbines. Turbines refer to rotary components that extract energy from a moving fluid and convert to mechanical energy. In a steam turbine, every stage is extracting energy from the rushing steam and thus the whole assembly is called a turbine. Same with a modern windmill, which are referred to as wind turbines. In the case of a turbojet engine, the stages before the combustion chambers are compressing the air, consuming shaft power (i.e. the opposite of a turbine). After the combustion chamber are one or more stages that extract energy from the hot gasses and are thus turbines. The shaft power thus generated is used to power the compressor stages. An automotive turbocharger also uses this nomenclature. The impeller in the exhaust stream is the turbine (centrifugal in this case), and the impeller in the intake air is labeled compressor. On a turbofan engine, one or more turbine stages provide the power (via shaft) to drive the fan.
Much of the newer aircraft have been affected by there fair share of problems over the years which have proved fatal . After watching many aircrash investigation programmes this seems to be unique . Like many others I've flown on a vc10 and I must say I've never felt so safe in one of these aircraft and one would empersis that for many years the Royal Air force used the vc10 not just for passengers but humanitarian , cargo and air to air tankers. Some of which were converted from ex British Airways. So to summarise. The vc10 was probably one of the best aircraft in the sky. Its also worth bearing in mind that some of the Concorde pilots were drawn from the vc10 crews..
stored at abingdon put back into service how many other planes have done this only one is the b52 going for years only reason vc 10 lost ground noise over american airports ala concorde
I was actually under the flight path of this aircraft and recall the incident well. Parts of the engine fell into a friend's garden - narrowly missing his greenhouse. They still fly a derivative of the VC10 as the RAF Nimrod.
You guys make a bloke feel all warm and fuzzy. Love the VC10. Who can ever forget the VC10/Anglo-French Concorde inspired Fireflash from the original 'SuperMarionette' Thunderbirds(are go)?? Da da dum-da-dum...
There are drawbacks to every engine layout, but it seems the four mounted on the tail could be the most problematic. The passengers and crew of G-ASGK were fortunate that the hydraulic controls weren't more severely damaged by the uncontained engine failure; that was not the case with LOT Polish Airlines Flight 5055 in 1987. Two of that aircraft's engines were disabled in a similar incident, but the shrapnel from the disintegrating engine punctured the tail and caused control failures, as well, which led to its crash. That particular IL-62 was an M series powered by the Soloviev D30KU turbofan, which was prone to uncontained failures. Earlier, in 1980, a LOT IL-62 experienced an uncontained engine failure which took out three of its engines, causing it to crash while on approach to Warsaw. That aircraft was the early version of the IL-62 powered by the Kuznetsov NK-8 turbofan.
Britt, 5055 crash reason was cost cutting and quality problems during engine production in the USSR. It was found out that the they did not have the required endurance. They did not put half of the bearing barrels in, additionally there were holes drilled into the bearing walls that, given the increased load per barrel, caused the slow disintegration of the bearing. Other deciding factors found were not sufficient protection of control mechanisms, not sufficient fireproofing of the tail section. Some memorable last words was sent from the crew just before the crash : Good night! Goodbye! Bye, we're dying! During the investigation, there were huge obstacles put in the way of Polish investigators. Cuban airlines IL-62 also encountered the same issue but the plane was saved. English wikipedia's article is quite good : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOT_Polish_Airlines_Flight_5055
@@woaln5213 Agreed, but a failure was TOTALLY uncontaminated. In such close proximity to the next engine or major flight controls that is an issue with this setup.
As you have stated there was a specific reason to put the four engines on the tail, simular considerations lead to the design of the Ilusin Il62 which in fact at the time also was a highly sucsesfull aircraft. It was deliberately kinda overpowered because of the high elevations and unpaved runways expected on the targed marked. When an aircraft is designed, keeping safety in mind is an important thing but you can't design for each remote posibility and still expect a profitable plane. These day's we design aircraft with only two engines with double the power but also double the trouble if one fails. Think for instance about the yaw caused by an engine failure loosing half the power during takeoff. Easy if you like me trained that 10 time's a week... Hard if you're last 'excitement' was half a simulator session year ago. In fact I think the Captains consideration about fuel dumping was a smart one. After all his primary job is to bring passengers back home alive.
A lot of aircraft of this vintage had all of their engines at the back. L1011, DC10, Trident etc. so it was safe enough in normal use but there will always be unforeseeable situations that cause accidents. Sioux City DC10 crash was caused by a titanium forging failure so was nearly impossible to foresee. The failure of its hydraulics caused the aircraft to become uncontrollable. This VC10 remained controllable all the way to a full stop! Bullet proof engines would be great but as the joke goes "why don't they make the whole aircraft out of black box materials?". Weight will always be a problem so holding high speed rotary parts inside an engine is very difficult.
Greetings from down under mate ,just woke and seen I have notification must watch your video before Go back to sleep , just waiting For the long ad to finish
Good vids..keep them coming ✈ Note 707 was NOT "too big" for BOAC Africa routes ~ it DID NOT meet runway & performance criteria, due to low power output (normal for the era). The VC10 specifically met the "African requirement" ✈
I have flown BCAL, BOAC & Ghana Airways a number of time in the 60’s & early 70’s and found it to be a very cool aircraft & I preferred it the Boeing 707 as it has shorter takeaway run. I didn’t realise it had this safety issue until I saw your video
Thank you, an interesting and well made video. Have flown many times in the VC10 during the course of my 35 years of military service - and the Nimrod. Fascinating aircraft.
I actually saw this plane on that day roaring over Hammersmith on its way back to Heathrow ,the noise was absolutely ear shattering as it was using full power in order to stay up, a day that i would always remember!! One of the engines landed in a farmers field in Berkshire ,and on the news showed it on the back of a farmers tractor and trailor, after bieng rescued from his ploughed field, i don't since recall a plane shedding parts of its powerplant over london, i remember the spectacle of that BOAC VC10 with fire spewing out of its righthand engine and what a relief it returnedto Heathrow safely
My love of aircraft started with this beautiful plane. I was evacuated as a war refugee to England when I was 8 years old on a Royal Air Force VC10. I was invited up to the cockpit while we were in flight, and I just stood there in awe looking at the glow of the dials, and the view from the cockpit windows. Much more simple times
I flew on a VC10 from Heathrow to Rome, what a beautiful aircraft!... A bit noisy in the aft cabin area on takeoff but, clean wings made for more fuel capacity.
Sounds like the crew did EVERYTHING right. First action for a fire warning, cancel the bell, second action sit on your hands and identify the problem. With close coupled engines, unlike the 707s under-wing engines, asymmetric thrust is not as big as problem. Also the VC10 was built for long range sectors. I have flown direct from Blantyre, Malawi to London Gatwick with Air Malawi with a cruise climb to flight level 430, in the 70s. Something the 707 couldn't never do. A lot of BOAC s routes were to destinations with runway width restrictions, like Blantyre and wing mounted engines would have been overhanging the sides of the runway. This configuration also allowed for full wing length leading edge slats which increased its "Hot and High" peformance.
I flew on them in the 60’s…many times from Brize Norton or Lynam to Akrotiri in Cyprus….RAF…I was a young boy at the time, it was so exciting, and you felt that you were in a rocket on take off, I recall on some flights the seats faced backwards, at least I am fairly sure of this….VC10 and Super VC10 planes were great.
I’ve asked this question in the past. With modern miniature cameras, would it be possible to mount cameras somewhere on the body of the plane so pilots could see quickly any problems behind them?
A lot of newer aircraft have them like the 777-400 which have a nose gear camera and tail camera. Likely you'll see more being added to newer aircraft but unlikely to see it as a retro fit requirement for older aircraft.
Probably could be possible but also add a lot of information and stress to the pilots in a difficult situation. That's why is better to just tell a machine that if an engine goes apart from certain limits to display a message so the pilots can define a course of action.
The Airbus A380 has a camera mounted on the tail of the aircraft. It's intended to let passengers watch the take-off and landing from an exterior perspective. It's actually how the flight crew knew the left wing tank was leaking on Quantas 32 after an uncontained engine failure on engine #2 sent pieces of the turbine disc through the left wing and along the belly of the aircraft.
@@GabbieTheFox Thanks for the info. It’s just that all the videos where aircrafts have tail problems it’s said that the crew didn’t know what was wrong behind them.
@@mickmorrison I don't think the flight crew have access to it from the flight deck though. Iirc it's part of the entertainment system. A passenger had to wave down one of the 4 pilots on the flight when he came into the cabin to assess the damage.
I flew on one of these on New Year’s Day 1970 to Lusaka in Zambia, it was such a quiet comfortable plane. I was also a member of the BOAC junior jet club, this meant a trip to the cockpit to get the logbook signed, i was 11 years old, what a fantastic trip that was. I did it about 6 times over a few years and i was the envy of the boarding school that i went to.
spectacular aircraft the VC-10 was it could stop in a third of the distance of a 707 would have been great to know the CVR great little video thanks Rolls-Royce Conway gas-turbo-jets
The VC10 was used as a test bed for the RB211 engine .G -AXLR had it's left engines removed and an RB211 fitted . It was so successful that the order of the day was re - engine the VC10 ! Sadly it never happened .A colleague of my father who worked for the ARB(Now the CAA) told me that Boeing were terrified they might do it ,that in itself should have reason enough to do it.
I watched a u-tube video where engine 4 on a Boeing 747 came and flew forward, then came in and took out engine 3 so it's not necessarily a bad design. Also BOAC had set the parameters for the plane and Vickers built it for them. I think they did pretty good. And oh boy, what a gorgeous aircraft !!
I grew up in the sixties under the flight path close to Heathrow airport. I remember the VC10's because just after take-off they *usually* looked like all their engines were on fire, like in this video. It was just lots of smoke, though. They were also by far the noisiest plane, until Concorde came along, of course.
In September 1973 I was a passenger on a BOAC Super VC10 , flying between Singapore ( Paya Lebar) and Sydney, that encountered a similar problem to the one talked about here. No 2 engine caught fire just after take off and the fire starved the air entering no 1 engine, inducing compressor stall. An overweight emergency landing was made back at Paya Lebar and crew and passengers exited the aircraft via the escape slides.
This sometimes happened when the over-enthusiastic onboard stokers over-coalled one of the Rolls Royce Conway steam turbines. The high water pressure caused by excess heat in the firebox used to cause either the engine to overspeed, or ruptures in the pressure vessel itself, fracturing joints/seams and causing an engine failure. Luckily, because the Conway’s turbine blades were carved out of solid granite, they rarely used to rupture the solid cast iron engine casing. But occasionally this did happen, like in this example.
Lovely video about a lovely aeroplane. I flew on VC-10s from London to Johannesburg and from London to Sydney, Australia. Felt well relaxed after the Jo-burg flight. Probably would have been the same after the Sydney flight too, but the 12 hour get lag ruined it. Very quiet and comfortable ride.
This reminds me of a virtually identical type of aircraft in this same situation. An Illyushin m62 for Polish Air Flight 5055. The aircraft suffered an uncontained engine failure on #1 which almost immediately destroyed the #2 engine as well and started an out-of-control fire which resulted in loss of flight controls, and the flight crashed 3 miles short of the return runway centerline. The last words on the cvr: "goodbye, goodnight, we're dying." *side note; they were also very overweight and actually did opt to dump fuel despite the danger. I don't recall it being noted whether this made the fire worse or not.
The VC 19 was a great plane, loved by passengers and pilots. I was somewhat over-engineered (it would fairly happily take off on 2 engines -- on the simulator that I used to work on), thus VERY safe. But it was a bit "thirstier" than the competition (the 707.) Sadly, the fuel crisis around that time killed it off (except for South American countries with a lot of "hot and high" airports where the superb maximum power was neded, and the UK airforce which was less concerned about economy.
I think the design is very safe the way it was designed. . If you have a fire it is mostly away from the airframe. It protects the flight surfaces and passages.
Thinking the same. It looks like this plane's design is a spin off of the Caravelle. The Caravelle flight I was on was the smoothest and quietest flight I have ever been on-before or since.
Brilliant aircraft but having said that, my father on his only long flight back about 1970 from Heathrow to Nassau endured a mid Atlantic return to London due to a cabin oxygen problem.
England/UK built such beautiful planes.This VC 10,De Havilland Comet,Concorde,Bristol Brittania,and many more.Other rear engined/t-tail planes were successful.Caravelle,Ilyushin 62,Tupolev 134,DC-9,727,717,Yakovlevs and more,anyway.
Interesting note about engines paired together, Concorde was classified as a 2 engine aircraft for its ETOPs rating. Thats because with 4 engines in 2 pods, it was assumed that any catasrophic failure of one engine would also take the other one out. Its saving grace for flying over water in ETOP's was the fact its glide ratio from FL600 and an assumed cruise of M1.9, it could glide with all engines out to safety relatively easily assuming there where no pressurisation issues.
Yeah, located on the tail - where all hydraulic systems (including backups) meet and just wait to be severed nice and clean by a catastrophic turbine failure :-) (see United Airlines Flight 232 for a DC-10 case specifically, but other types of aircraft following this design had similar incidents - i.e. Il-62). I guess using hydraulic fuses could offer some improvement, but I'm not a big fan of tail-mounted engines because of that glaring single-point-of-failure design issue. Could you provide reference to any cases where wing-mounted engine failure caused fuel tank rupture? Just being curious here, since I couldn't think of one from the top of my head, tried searching for one and failed.
@@przemysawotarzewski557, I can think of one that caused a passenger to be sucked halfway out the window and she died.🥺 But they glide better. I'm pretty sure the longest-gliding planes are not swept-wing.
@@patriciamariemitchel Yes, that one was pretty unfortunate. But @SkiSavoie seems to be concerned with engine placement near the wing fuel tanks and rupture / explosion in case of uncontained engine failure. That's why I asked if he could provide any example of such incident specifically.
@@przemysawotarzewski557, well, it was more than unfortunate. It was a passenger; a woman with a life! I don't get on a plane to become a statistic, fortunate or unfortunate.
I flew VC10s for BOAC/BA 1971-77 (when I transferred to another great plane the 747). The VC10 was very solid, reliable and extremely well engineered. The engine design layout worked well. Not quite as efficient as the 707 style, but designed for a special function. Engine failures were easily handled as opposed to wing mounted engines that could overpower the pilot. The Rolls Royce Conways were very reliable- I never suffered a real engine failure on them. The rear mounted engines were incredibly quiet in the cabin and unheard on the flight deck. In the cabin, there would be not a ripple on the surface of your coffee whereas a 707 and 747 would be visibly shaking as the engines nodded on their pylons. It was a very popular aeroplane with the crews and had an incredibly good safety reputation.
I worked as Cabin Crew on VC10s from 1972-1981, thank you for the chance to watch this reconstruction of such a beautiful aircraft. We had an engine explode out of its casing on takeoff from Fiji in the 70's. Sitting by the rear doors, it was quite a bang! We dumped fuel and returned, then later did an empty 3 engine ferry to Honolulu. That was a long way on 3 engines but you never felt short of power on this Speedbird. I was also on the record breaking transatlantic flight from JFK to Prestwick. Breakfast was done at warp speed when the guys up front told us they were going for the record...
It could easily drown out anything Boeing or Douglass ever made
hey! thats amazing, I really love this plane too! if you have any more stories id very much like to hear them.
Lucinda - I was working in BOAC control centre at the time and recall the event. I’d heard that one female member of the crew panicked and later left the airline…
@@drivinmiatas5068 I was regularly told that the VC 10 (in the military role) was the fastest airliner in the world after Concorde, although there are some who argue that there were one or two other aircraft that were as fast. I was on a trans-Atlantic flight to the USA in the late 90s and was on the flight deck when a call came through from ATC. The VC 10 had passed the southwest corner of Eire and was settling into its cruise phase when the request came to turn 30 degrees to starboard for around five minutes before being vectored to the original flight path. The reason, Concorde was coming up behind us. Travelling nearly three times as fast as the VC 10, Concorde passed us on the port side in a climb and within five minutes its acceleration meant that it had disappeared from view, even though it was very clear and we had good visibility.
Hi, my sister started as cabin crew for BOAC in 1967 to 1983. She was on VC10's too, her favourite plane. Her name was Sölve Thomsen Foor. Also do you remember a Captain Dougie Cooper who flew the VC10's?
I was on duty at Heathow when this incident happened. The Captain in command was Capain Smurthwaite. The aircraft landed over 38,000 kgs over the Regulated Landing Weigh of 107,500kgs and was about 25 knots above normal landing speed. It was a remarkable piece of airmanship, and the fact that the landing gear coped with such a high landing weight bears testimony to he strength of the Super VC-10.
That has to be the most British name I've ever seen :)
It is a truly remarkable example of flying, particularly the decision not to dump fuel. That captain had a very cool head and made the right decisions.
except there is nothing really super about the VC10 ...
@@HellStr82 I would disgaree given the performance of the Sper VC10. Max Take off weight of the Super VC10 was 151,953kgs, and even in very high temperatures of say 46 degrees C, it would have a take off weight of about 147,000kgs. Compared to the Boeing 707-436 with RR Conway engines the Max Takeoff weight was about 141.000 but at the same high temperature the takeoff weight went down to aboutt 120,000Kgs. The Super VC10 had RR Conway 508 engines pusing out 22.000lbs thrust compared to the B707 at about 18,000kgs.
There was also a Standard VC10 1ith a shorter body and less powerful engines. The Royal Air Force had a Hybrid version with a Standard body but Super VC 10 wings and engines. Out of Bahrain they were taking off at around 152,000kgs!
@@nigelpage612 Any direct gen on the W. South America route,mid-60s? A relative flew it beiefly, namely (?) Trinidad, Caracas,Bogota,Quito and Lima, which I think was the end of the route,but don't have any modern sources and log book missing for the period..
Superb aircraft, over engineered and extremely safe!
My Father was a flight engineer in the RAF and flew these back in the late 60's.
Well I hope they fixed that hydraulic issue after this incident, seems that most aircraft that had rear engines had issues with hydraulic failures, just look at the DC10 it could lose all three lines during an un contained engine breakup
@@gregandkaruna6674 I totally agree but, those Conways were probably the most reliable engines available at the time.
Was this the trident?
@@neillp3827 No different plane. trident have three engines mounted like B-727.
@@neillp3827 no, this is the VC10.
I was an engineer on VC-10's. We were doing 'circuit bumps' flight training. On one flight we had a bird strike on Number 3 engine which wrecked it! Ground observers later described us passing overhead as soundin like a 'V1 WW2 flying bomb'!! We shut the engine down and landed safely. Then I put a work platform up to the engine when we stopped it was trashed inside many of the turbine blades were damaged. The concept of the 4 high rear engines was world leading and we should STILL be building them like this today! NOTHING could equal the VC-10's take off performance!
I don't expect there are too many folks around now that can remember the sound of a V1 flying bomb! I was a kid growing up close to Heathrow under the flightpath and I remember the VC10's were by far the loudest plane at that time. Only the later Concorde was louder, really. They were always trailing a lot of smoke too. Great plane though. I'm surprised they had good take-off performance as that wing design isn't the best for low-speed performance. Like the 727 and Concorde. I always remember them as an RAF plane too.
My son flew them with the RAF until they were decommissioned in 2013. He loved this aeroplane and said it was a joy to fly. The RAF crews referred to the VC10 as the "queen of the sky". The twin-engine arrangement caused no other issues, as far as I can find in any reports. If there was an engine failure the engine cowlings did a great job of containing the fragmentation. They made great air-to-air refuelers because of their relatively high speed so the fighters they were refuelling did not have to fly too slow. The VC10 also held the record for the fastest no-supersonic trans-Atlantic flight 5 hours and 1 minute in March 1979. It took until 2020 for the record to be broken by the new queen of the sky by a BA operated 747.
I still think the VC10 one of the nicest looking aircraft ever made. My uncle and aunt used to regularly fly on them between Trinidad and England and commented on what smooth flights those were. They found them to be lovely aircraft to travel on.
@John Winum I have no doubt that contributed. Both passenger and cabin crew attitudes were very different in those days.
@@scotthoward5114 Agreed 100%. I flew as an unaccompanied minor from JFK to Antigua several times on a BOAC VC-10 in the 1960s. Crew and passengers were kind and considerate.
Only complaint I have with this channel is he doesn't have nearly the subscribers he deserves yet ;)
Agreed. I love his narrations. So many other channels play music and describe the crash in text bubbles. This means you have to watch the video. Who has time for that. With MAI we can listen in and do other things.
It takes ba11s to narrate. Every year MAI gets better and better!
I HAVE USED HIS CHANNEL AS BACKGROUND. SOME VIDEOS IVE LISTEN TO SEVERAL TIMES.
@@ronniewall1481 Same!
I p my l klm
Yea but I wish he would at least give a like in the comments here and there
Many happy childhood memories of flying on BOAC VC10 Standard and Super to North America and the Far East in the 1960's and 1970's, also experienced many short filed take-offs in VC10, during the cruise on almost every flight I went into cockpit and had my BOAC Junior Jet Club logbook signed by the captains and everyone of them said how much they enjoy flying VC10. I loved the sound of the VC10 RR Conway engines :-) The BOAC livery looked elegant on the VC10, dark/navy blue and gold speed-bird...
The VC10 had its engines at the back not to avoid ingestion but so they could have full length flaps on the wing so they could operate from short hot high runways in Africa.
And to create it’s exceptionally quite cabin. It was marketed as Hush Power.
@@boeingdriver29 It certainly benefitted as a result but it was not the driver behind the decision, if they could have done it, they would have put the engines under the wing as it spreads the weight along the wings rather than have it all on the fuselage and thus require a stronger and so heavier wing to take the load.
@@grahamariss2111 I never said it was a driver but it was a consideration put forward by the marketing department of Vickers during early development planning. My grandfather worked for them as an engineer albeit at the end of his career. I wish I had flown it as it was loved by the pilots for its sweet handling especially at low speeds.
@@boeingdriver29 only for the people inside the plane.
@@PeterNGloor too true.
Regardless of configuration, if a turbine disk fails (rather than individual blades) the mass (energy) of the rotating disk is almost impossible to contain. We have witness many cases where a disk fragment has penetrated the cabin; in some cases killing passengers and severely compromising the plane (Delta 1288 for instance). So the configuration of the the engines side-by-side is not an outstanding safety concern of the VC10. Modern aircraft enjoy a host of sensor to alert the pilot to an engine problem; including oil pressure/temperatures, flow rates and vibration. These systems were rudimentary in the VC10 as per the era in which they flew. The number 3 engine gave plenty of warning it was in distress, but the pertinent information was not available to the pilots.
It is the nature of flying that every accident is a potential lesson and a pointer to how we can design and operate aircraft in a safer manner. However the VC10, especially considering the locales to which it flew, was actually an extremely safe aircraft. I have flown the VC10 and aside from a few quirks (some associated with the sweep-back and others with the engine weight at the back) it is a phenomenal aircraft to fly - a real privilege. Accelerates, climbs and flies faster than any other commercial aircraft I've flown. Officially the top speed of the VC10 is around 580mph but it's an aircraft that always wants to go faster. It is the greyhound of commercial airlines, surpassed only by Concorde in terms of speed and journey time. One of the last of the truly "hands on" aircraft.
580mph is a never-exceed speed. Limitation is structural as opposed to limitation by thrust-drag balance.
Did you operate the South America route to Lima? i recall Quito takeoff had to be before dawn owing to altitude and heat.
@@andyrendell7430 I'm possibly not understanding you question. Lima (LIM) is almost at sea level and although temperatures climb to 27 deg C and humid, I can't see how this would present a challenge for the VC-10. But, to answer the part of your question I do understand, the answer would be no, I haven't flown the VC-10 to Lima. Rio, yes. I believe there was a passenger/cargo service introduced briefly but beyond that I have no knowledge of the route. Lima is beyond the range of the VC-10 so a stop-over would've been required in any case. As for temperature-altitude, I flew to many destinations in Africa and to Singapore; temperature was less of a problem than on many newer aircraft! Incidentally, the top speed ever recorded by a VC-10 occurred during an incident in the Andes mountains in which a VC-10 briefly hit Mach 0.96. Although the aircraft reached its destination, it received significant damage to flying/control surfaces but was eventually returned to service.
@@davidgapp1457 Thanks- for the clarification. I referred to the Quito takeoff,at ca 2800 m, Lima was Indeed at sea level and just at the end of the then BOAC route,which is why I mentioned it. Did you know anyone operating this route? I had a relative who did,and mentioned the pre- dawn schedulimg..
Yes VNE is defined in Mach terms,ie percent of actual speed of sound at a given moment,varies with height,air pressure,even humidity.VNE for Super VC10 was I think 0.86 Mach,as demonstrated by rhe Andes incident,which I was bot aware of.
I love all the extra information in the comments from people who were there, or who know the aircraft. It shows the quality of people watching your channel, brought here by the straight forward, non sensational production of the information you give. Congratulations on providing a high quality production.
The VC-10 was a dream to fly in as a teenager back in the early 1960s. Very quiet cabin, even at the back. Up front it was almost silent. Good old fashioned spacious seating and passengers treated like royalty. My brother and I flew to Mauritius and back several times. We loved every minute.
Less asymmetric thrust problems with rear mounted engines. Increased risk of damage from an engine explosion. There is never a perfect design, always a compromise. Loved the VC10
@kiku's Futaba Blue ice coming from a leaking toilet valve did the same for the MD80
Agreed. I mean you can't discard rear-mounted engines just because a small subset of accidents are engine failure and a smaller subset is uncontained.
@@narendranbhaskar It's also very nice and quiet for the pax.
The biggest flaw of rear side-mounted engine design is that at high angle of attack, the main wing can disrupt the airflow of the engine intake to the point that power is greatly reduced, and this can be extremely dangerous if the aircraft is about to stall.
Such design likely will not be seen again.
@@unknownkw True that. It would never work with today's gigantic high bypass turbofans. That being said, is there specific incident which occurred to a VC-10 as you've described or is this a well reasoned conjecture on your part?
I can definetely say that as a pilot, any sort of fire in the air is high up on the "no thanks" list. Thanks for the video
Yup cant pull over, cant get out, Swissair 111 should have turned around and landed in halifax right away instead of trying for Boston or wherever they tried to go.
I agree makes my blood run cold...
What do you fly?
King airs right now, you?
I would expect it to be *the* highest up thing on the "no thanks" list! If there's anything thst more robs you of sleep at night, I'd love to know! Thanks!
One of the most elegant aircraft of all time in my opinion....designed for hot and high airfields...
Yes Sir, Flew out of West Africa many times as a passenger in the 70's . Both rugged and comfortable.
@@briannewman372 I was reading a book about the development of the VC10 and critics of the Boeing 707 said that it could only take off due to the curvature of the Earth….😂
Yeah they are great as long as they aren't on fire 😅
@@adamnixon2886 😂😂😂
As a kid sent to UK boarding school, we used to get the East African Airways SUPER VC10 back to Nairobi in the 70s. Fantastic experience, and a full breakfast at Entebbe Airport, and hour before Embakasi.
The VC10 has had such a beauty of British Aviation 🇬🇧
Flew on a VC10 from Los Angeles to Sydney as a kid. Many stops for that flight. Fun memories.
Thanks, as always, for your work on this channel. Always glad to learn everyone survived.
Fabuloso aircraft, carried us to boarding school through turbulent rainy seasons in east Africa to winter weather in Europe . BOAC cabin crew and flight deck crew were really kind to us.
We adored that stunning aircraft.
I agree with Bernhard Ecklin. This is the most beautiful airliner ever built !! It looks so streamlined and elegant. Aarre Peltomaa
When you look back on the VC10 history, after B O A C finished with them, they were passed on to the Royal Air force, where they were used for taking troops for overseas postings, they were still in use until the 1990's
They were still in use over 20 years later they finished service in 2014
@@bikeymikey7408 Yep, RAF used them well in to the 2010s along with the L1011 from Brize Norton, now replaced by the A300 Voyagers
@@luvstellauk A330
@@kevinnorthfield5097 Sorry typo meant 330
also superb job as a tanker could out run most other types
The engine placement on the VC-10 always reminded me of the Fireflash airliner from Thunderbirds.
Definitely!
Methinks Fireflash was a nod to the VC10. You can see the similarities right off the bat. Loved that T tail...!!!
Lol remember that episode well from my childhood, the impossibly long runway and the cool trucks for it to land on
Yes!
@@datathunderstorm Apparently it was!
Flew from Auckland NZ to London return on BOAC Super VC-10's in 1974.
The design was a big step up from BOAC's previous jet airliner the DH Comet.
Well done! Rear mounted engines do have their advantages and disadvantages. Close proximity to each other does pose an issue when an un contained engine failure occurs, however wing mounted engines do too as we saw in QF-32 (A380) where the turbine punched a hole up through the wing. United 232 (DC-10) also comes to mind where all 3 hydraulic lines that converged in the tail section were severed when the fan disk of engine #2 failed catastrophically. Lots of accidents/incidents throughout time have lead to many changes in the way aircraft are designed and fortified. I feel safe ether way:)
Back in 1995 a visitor I was expecting from Kazakhstan was flying on Uzbekistan Airlines from Tashkent to Heathrow on the very similar Ilyushin 62; at about the half way point it suffered a single engine problem and returned to Tashkent on the remaining three.
Perhaps a good comparison would be the loss of speedbird 712, a BOAC 707 that suffered engine failure taking off from Heathrow in 1968. In that incident the engine fell off the aircraft in flight and a major fire followed. Desite a sucessful emergency landing the aircraft was consumed by fire and there was loss of life. I always thought the VC10 had a good saftey record though with only a couple of loses. Flying pre 1970 was perhaps a riskier occupation. As a child I was a regular VC10 passenger and it remains my favourite airliner. Many years later after flying in new wide bodied jets a chance flight on a VC10 made me realise how small they were!
It provided me with my most comfortable, quietest and most stable long-distance flight experience to date. It was an outstanding machine
Bleiz Breizh I flew about 10 times in a VC-10 between 1965 and 1968 in the route Rio de Janeiro - London - Rio de Janeiro, but they used to take off from Gatwick Airport in London.
Particularly Pre 2000. Though problems still occurred with the technological advances as per the 737 Max for example in recent years. But pilot, operational and maintenance error has been reduced considerably by lessons learned from the pre period.
VC-10 sized flamethrower... nice! I've always wondered about the safety of that design, but prior to this video had not heard of an incident in the plane's history where it played a part.
I heard of an incident where a VC-10 encountered a microburst - a major killer at the time since it wasn't well understood and couldn't be detected easily - and was able to power out of it because of those four engines, saving everyone on board. It had a substantially better power to weight ratio than the 707, as it was designed for those hot-and-high, less than ideally maintained African airports. I think it's notable that this was the only major VC-10 incident that could directly be traced to the design of the aircraft itself, and even then it resulted in no injuries on board. (Other accidents resulted from probable pilot error and hijackings, which were relatively common at the time in that part of the world.)
Arguably the 727 had a more resilient engine layout, as the centre engine was located further back in the fuselage, and the other two were separated by it. The 727 was also designed for a similar role, as a modest-sized airliner capable of operating in Africa. But the VC-10 could still power its way out of situations that the 727 would struggle with.
One major shortcoming of the VC-10 was that the Rolls-Royce Conway was a low-bypass turbofan, and thus rather less efficient than later designs (though still a major improvement over the turbojets used in early jets like the Comet). In theory, each pair of engines could have been replaced by a single RB211 when it became available, yielding a conventional twin rear-engined airliner. Indeed one VC-10 briefly became an asymmetric trijet, with an RB211 prototype on one side and the original pair of Conways on the other. For reasons I don't fully understand, the airframe was found to have been twisted out of shape by those flight tests, and was decommissioned immediately thereafter. This appears to suggest that some airframe strengthening would have been needed to adequately support the RB211.
The East African SVC10 crash was attributed to a puncture from runway debris and incorrectly maintained brakes failing stop the plane before it overran the runway. ie no blame attributed to the pilots.
You can read an aircrew memoir of that microburst incident on vc10.net. It was an RAF 'Shiny Fleet' aircraft with Harold Wilson on board at Washington Dulles.
The design made sense at the time given the requirements. But its interesting that all these years later a modern jetliner had a similar blade failure which was not contained and dumped engine parts, some very big ones, over Denver! So we haven't fully solved this problem yet.
The VC10 is my all time favorite aircraft to fly in. I made several trips in it and loved the exciting acceleration on takeoff and its superbly quiet cabin. Having the engines at the back kept a lot of the noise away. My fondest memory is watching the flight crew make a landing at Heathrow in fog using the VC10's autoland system. I had a aisle seat near the front of the cabin and in those days there was not the cockpit security of today and the Captain had the cockpit door open. He spent the approach monitoring the instruments and approach standing behind the pedestal, then when he saw the runway he slipped into his seat, buckled his seat belt and the plane made the smoothest landing I have ever felt. The VC10 was a wonderful aircraft!
I'm not an engineer, but I've seen some planes mount their engines on the top of the wings like the VFW-Fokker 614. Putting 2 on the tail and 2 on top of the wings maybe would have been a better way to keep the engines separate? Or just straight up having 4 engines on top of the wings.
Loved this aircraft quiet, fast and comfortable used to do the London to Teheran route.
The most beautiful jetliner ever built
She is beautiful. Saw several in the UK and Australia I believe but she ain’t a 747
Agreee Huge VC-10 fan here!
@@michaelparker4457 ..or even worse a DC-10 or L-1011..
The fastest sub-sonic airliner to fly transatlantic, and IIRC the first airliner to use turbo fans as opposed to turbojets.
The tragedy of the VC-10 (as well as the DH-Trident) was a combination of muddled thinking between The Manufacturer, The British Govt. and the Target customer caused a plane designed for one market (Trans- Atlantic) to be re-purposed for another market (the rapidly disappearing “Empire” routes with “high & hot” airports in central Africa). By the time the VC-10 first flew those Empire routes no longer had the strategic importance or business they had previously due to the demise of the British Empire. Had the VC-10 launched with a Transatlantic configuration (the later Super VC-10) it could have gained far more sales as it significant advantages over the 707. It was not a 707 killer, but it had an economical cruising speed that was 10% faster than the 707 (newer engines, later to come to the 707) and was MUCH quieter INSIDE (due to the position of the engines).
Tristar!
I can recall seeing VC-10s in BOAC livery at JFK as a kid, an extremely elegant combo.
I watched them on final to JFK. They were sooo beautiful.
So did I. We went to Jamaica from JFK in 1973 and when we returned I marveled at the gorgeous BOAC VC-10 parked at the adjacent gate. That plane made the Air Jamaica DC-8 Super 63 I was riding look like it was designed by someone who majored in balloon animals.
The VC10 had such an elegant design; truly beautiful. The four engines aft design was first applied on the Lockheed JetStar, the world's first purpose-built business jet. Undoubtedly the VC10 was the inspiration for the larger Il-62. The clean wing and large flaps of the VC10 made it the best choice for Nairobi and a few other high-elevation airports. Later, of course, those airports had runway extensions, which made them accessible to other quad jets. BOAC placed too many design requirements on the VC10, which made it less economical to operate than the US quad jets. It achieved its design goals, but when the shorter field capabilities of the VC10 were no longer necessary, BOAC bought more US products to save money. They put hefty requirements on the VC10 design, causing considerable tradeoffs, then abandoned that product in favor of economics. The aft-mounted engines made first class travel quieter, but I remember sitting in steerage class in the VC10 when I was a child. Darn noisy back there with the RR Conway engines. The A350 is beautiful as well, especially with its awesome winglet design. So, beauty lives on.
Excellent reconstruction of an incident with a nearly forgotten aircraft. Thank you Mini!
Asymmetry of thrust is less of an issue on the VC10, and an unconfined failure is less likely to damage the wing or cause a decompression of the cabin. Swings and roundabouts..
A beautiful aircraft.
Flew on one from Nairobi to London, with stops at Entebbe, Uganda and Cairo, Egypt.
Was at Entebbe for an hour or so walking from the aircraft to the then new terminal. Someone pointed out the old terminal in which Jewish hostages were held and from which they were rescued a couple of months later.
Knowing the layout of the airport made the accounts of the greatest rescue mission ever so much easier to understand and appreciate. Astonishing work.
Yes, a great 'plane.
Philip O
Israel built that airport for Uganda in the 1950's, they had the blueprints for it, that is why they knew where everything was. They did a lot of work in helping irrigate, building water pipelines for farming. They also built their schools. They did likewise in Kenya, Liberia, Nigeria, and Ghana. Kenya was grateful to Israel, and they showed that by helping Israeli soldiers refuel their planes for their rescue mission in Entebbe.
Error at 3:46: The aircraft did not weigh 38,000 kg, but 138,000 kg.
Yeah, I thought 85,000 lbs was too light.
Flew on the VC-10 once, wonderfully quiet cabin environment especially in First Class. The guys did a great job.
Me too. London to Kuwait via Baghdad and return in 1976.
With only 2 engines a fire enough weight and no hydraulics no brakes it still landed safely with all passengers and crew now that is called safety and this is just one case.I wish this magnificent aircraft is rebuilt i dont see a flaw in design this is more than perfect.Can be made even better.
Yes, the design of this aircraft was way ahead of its time. It was very tough. It Was designed for small rough landing strips and was fast comfortable with a huge range! The fact that this flight was able to continue to climb and safely return to the airport, overloaded, despite losing both engines on one side speaks to its superior design. As a boy, I flew in VC10's many times, even an emergency landing on a bush airstrip in Africa. Fantastic plane!
It’s important to note that the Ilyushin Il-62 which had a similar rear engine configuration to the VC10 was not so lucky whenever there was a catastrophic turbine failure either during takeoff or during an actual flight.
The Ilyushin 62 was unable to sustain flight on only two engines and would inevitably plunge into the ground as a result. Happened on the outskirts of Moscow in the 1980’s - an Aeroflot flight bound for Sierra Leone with students on board. There was one survivor who soon succumbed to her injuries.
Another flight lost two engines to a fire which uncontained, burned through hydraulic pipes rendering the Il-62 uncontrollable - leading to another crash.
This shows how much work went into the VC10 as compared to the Il-62.
I’m not hating on Soviet aviation though - as I have a very soft spot for the Tu-154 of the era - loved the design of that aircraft too!
Whilst this incident was a bad event, if the aircraft had not been so strong, things could have been far worse. In the event, this engine design proved to be reliable and it served for many years without serious incident. Your video was interesting. Thanks!
When this aircraft was designed, the options were 4 engines under the wings or four on the tail. The four in the tail section reduced weight of the aircraft significantly and provided near centerline thrust in case of an engine or multiple engine failures. The VC-10 was a solution for the issues BOACs were having with the 707 being significantly underpowered in the hot high density altitude airports of Africa. This aircraft was fast and efficient for its era. Sadly, as much as I like Boeing, the 707 and 727 combined with VC-10 development issues ended the aircrafts potential for real success.
I can’t agree with you more on that one.
I used to work for B. O. A. C, In the 1960's and to tell you the truth I preferred the VC10 than the 707, the VC10 was more comfortable to fly on for the passengers, also the 707's had lots of problems as well,
@@michaelhendle4597 I’ve read that pilots really like for aircraft. Timing can be everything. Had the Comet not had so many issues, I think it would have taken a much larger portion of the European market that ended almost exclusively Boeing’s. I’m not knocking Boeing, they did so much right and ultimately built some tremendously successful aircraft.
I have about 5000 hours in Canadair Regional jets made in Montreal. I also have time in Embraer aircraft. I much preferred the Canadair product over the Embrair products. But, Embrair ultimately took the risk to make the EMB-170-195 that leap frogged ahead of the CRJ-50-90 in terms of passenger comfort and airline acceptance. Bombardier finally developed the C-series but it bankrupted the company and now Airbus owns the product.
Over my years of flying, I preferred the L-1011 over the DC-10 as a passenger and pilot. But it only sold 290 where the DC -10 sold 440 with military variant. In the end neither were economically successful because Airbus delivered the A-330 before either could sale sufficiently to recoup their development and production costs pushed higher due to design flaws that caused several accidents.
In the end, it appears timing is crucial because the best aircraft isn’t always the winner..... or at least from my experiences.
How did that work out?
@@jameshammons2354 the c series? Good for Airbus. Its now called the A220. It’s actually a remarkable aircraft. It is very fuel efficient and will fill the market from roughly 110-160 seats of my memory is correct. Delta has ordered a boat load and I believe the market potential is several thousand. It’s is a size and efficiently to replace make it a bette choice for airlines operating under 160 seats. I could be wrong. I believe it’s 12-15% more efficient than a similarly equipped 737 max or Airbus a-320 NEO. However companies like Southwest most likely won’t order because keeping single 737 platform makes more sense and the Max is heavily discounted currently.
I have friends flying all three. All are great aircraft.
If I were a betting man.. I’d place money that Boeing and Airbus will introduce a new narrow body replacements sometime in 2028-2030 time frame. At that time, China and Russia will also be offering new products that will be highly competitive with the 737 max and A-320 NEO.
VC-10 was used on long range routes as well, in fact often, very rarely used short haul (if ever), is the most beautiful plane ever, looks like a graceful bird.
In those days there were two State airlines, BOAC for long haul flight's and BEA for short haul European flights, in 1971/2,the two merged and became BRITISH AIRWAYS
Ed Ed I used to fly from Rio to London and back twice a year between 1965 - 1968 but we used to take off from Gatwick, not Heathrow.
@@michaelhendle4597 BOAC and BEA merged on March 31, 1974. 😎
and 5000 miles to boot and the fighter aircraft speed wow.
MACI,
Very nice video, thanks for all the effort.
Just FYI, the common terminology used for jet engines labels the ‘turbines’ as only the stages after the combustion chamber. The stages prior to the combustion chamber are labeled compressor stages. The large discs at the very front of a turbofan engine, providing all the bypass air, are most commonly labeled ‘fans’.
This terminology differers from steam powered turbines. Turbines refer to rotary components that extract energy from a moving fluid and convert to mechanical energy. In a steam turbine, every stage is extracting energy from the rushing steam and thus the whole assembly is called a turbine. Same with a modern windmill, which are referred to as wind turbines. In the case of a turbojet engine, the stages before the combustion chambers are compressing the air, consuming shaft power (i.e. the opposite of a turbine). After the combustion chamber are one or more stages that extract energy from the hot gasses and are thus turbines. The shaft power thus generated is used to power the compressor stages. An automotive turbocharger also uses this nomenclature. The impeller in the exhaust stream is the turbine (centrifugal in this case), and the impeller in the intake air is labeled compressor.
On a turbofan engine, one or more turbine stages provide the power (via shaft) to drive the fan.
Much of the newer aircraft have been affected by there fair share of problems over the years which have proved fatal . After watching many aircrash investigation programmes this seems to be unique . Like many others I've flown on a vc10 and I must say I've never felt so safe in one of these aircraft and one would empersis that for many years the Royal Air force used the vc10 not just for passengers but humanitarian , cargo and air to air tankers. Some of which were converted from ex British Airways. So to summarise. The vc10 was probably one of the best aircraft in the sky. Its also worth bearing in mind that some of the Concorde pilots were drawn from the vc10 crews..
LOL
stored at abingdon put back into service how many other planes have done this only one is the b52 going for years only reason vc 10 lost ground noise over american airports ala concorde
I was actually under the flight path of this aircraft and recall the incident well.
Parts of the engine fell into a friend's garden - narrowly missing his greenhouse.
They still fly a derivative of the VC10 as the RAF Nimrod.
Negative.... the Nimrod was a coastal patrol aircraft based on a Comet 4 design
You are correct sir - I put it down to my advancing age😀.
The RAF did have a derivative of the VC 10
@@paulkearnsmusic Nope. They had VC 10s. There never was a derivative of it.
Can we have a little VC-10derness in the comments
That's such a vc10mptation
You guys make a bloke feel all warm and fuzzy. Love the VC10. Who can ever forget the VC10/Anglo-French Concorde inspired Fireflash from the original 'SuperMarionette' Thunderbirds(are go)??
Da da dum-da-dum...
There are drawbacks to every engine layout, but it seems the four mounted on the tail could be the most problematic. The passengers and crew of G-ASGK were fortunate that the hydraulic controls weren't more severely damaged by the uncontained engine failure; that was not the case with LOT Polish Airlines Flight 5055 in 1987. Two of that aircraft's engines were disabled in a similar incident, but the shrapnel from the disintegrating engine punctured the tail and caused control failures, as well, which led to its crash. That particular IL-62 was an M series powered by the Soloviev D30KU turbofan, which was prone to uncontained failures. Earlier, in 1980, a LOT IL-62 experienced an uncontained engine failure which took out three of its engines, causing it to crash while on approach to Warsaw. That aircraft was the early version of the IL-62 powered by the Kuznetsov NK-8 turbofan.
Britt, 5055 crash reason was cost cutting and quality problems during engine production in the USSR. It was found out that the they did not have the required endurance. They did not put half of the bearing barrels in, additionally there were holes drilled into the bearing walls that, given the increased load per barrel, caused the slow disintegration of the bearing. Other deciding factors found were not sufficient protection of control mechanisms, not sufficient fireproofing of the tail section.
Some memorable last words was sent from the crew just before the crash : Good night! Goodbye! Bye, we're dying!
During the investigation, there were huge obstacles put in the way of Polish investigators.
Cuban airlines IL-62 also encountered the same issue but the plane was saved.
English wikipedia's article is quite good : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOT_Polish_Airlines_Flight_5055
@@woaln5213 Agreed, but a failure was TOTALLY uncontaminated. In such close proximity to the next engine or major flight controls that is an issue with this setup.
@@tgg1765 I think the autocorrect bug bit you 🕷 .
@@deaf2819 yes, damn it, where is my can of Raid?!
@@tgg1765 I agree.
The most beautiful airliner - I was lucky to fly in the VC 10 and Super VC 10 many times as a youngster. Wonderful plane!
As you have stated there was a specific reason to put the four engines on the tail, simular considerations lead to the design of the Ilusin Il62 which in fact at the time also was a highly sucsesfull aircraft.
It was deliberately kinda overpowered because of the high elevations and unpaved runways expected on the targed marked.
When an aircraft is designed, keeping safety in mind is an important thing but you can't design for each remote posibility and still expect a profitable plane.
These day's we design aircraft with only two engines with double the power but also double the trouble if one fails. Think for instance about the yaw caused by an engine failure loosing half the power during takeoff.
Easy if you like me trained that 10 time's a week... Hard if you're last 'excitement' was half a simulator session year ago.
In fact I think the Captains consideration about fuel dumping was a smart one.
After all his primary job is to bring passengers back home alive.
also going over the pond (atlantic) the faa at the time was looking at redundancy of engines. now we run on 2 because engines are supposedly safer.
A lot of aircraft of this vintage had all of their engines at the back. L1011, DC10, Trident etc. so it was safe enough in normal use but there will always be unforeseeable situations that cause accidents. Sioux City DC10 crash was caused by a titanium forging failure so was nearly impossible to foresee. The failure of its hydraulics caused the aircraft to become uncontrollable. This VC10 remained controllable all the way to a full stop! Bullet proof engines would be great but as the joke goes "why don't they make the whole aircraft out of black box materials?". Weight will always be a problem so holding high speed rotary parts inside an engine is very difficult.
Greetings from down under mate ,just woke and seen I have notification must watch your video before Go back to sleep , just waiting For the long ad to finish
Good vids..keep them coming ✈
Note 707 was NOT "too big" for BOAC Africa routes ~ it DID NOT meet runway & performance criteria, due to low power output (normal for the era).
The VC10 specifically met the "African requirement" ✈
I loved the look of the VC10 impressive to me. The Air Force B52 uses four two engines pods for its eight engines. 😎
I have flown BCAL, BOAC & Ghana Airways a number of time in the 60’s & early 70’s and found it to be a very cool
aircraft & I preferred it the Boeing 707 as it has shorter takeaway run. I didn’t realise it had this safety issue until I saw your video
My first flight in a jet was in a VC10 from Salisbury (Harare) to London, via Nairobi and Rome
Cool!
Very good to hear that everyone survived! (I'm no expert, but the two engines either side do look rather close to each other).
Thank you, an interesting and well made video. Have flown many times in the VC10 during the course of my 35 years of military service - and the Nimrod. Fascinating aircraft.
Thanks for doing a video on this!
I actually saw this plane on that day roaring over Hammersmith on its way back to Heathrow ,the noise was absolutely ear shattering as it was using full power in order to stay up, a day that i would always remember!! One of the engines landed in a farmers field in Berkshire ,and on the news showed it on the back of a farmers tractor and trailor, after bieng rescued from his ploughed field, i don't since recall a plane shedding parts of its powerplant over london, i remember the spectacle of that BOAC VC10 with fire spewing out of its righthand engine and what a relief it returnedto Heathrow safely
Great vlog as always! I will just remind of the EL-AL crash in AMS. One engine takeing out the other good engine on the same side...
Yes but it was the damage to the wings that was the final factor in the AMS El Al crash. The pilot lost control after reducing speed prior to landing
My love of aircraft started with this beautiful plane. I was evacuated as a war refugee to England when I was 8 years old on a Royal Air Force VC10. I was invited up to the cockpit while we were in flight, and I just stood there in awe looking at the glow of the dials, and the view from the cockpit windows. Much more simple times
Very nice video, and a good looking aircraft. Thanks.
Classic aircraft
i love a happy ending, no casualties! nice!
I flew on a VC10 from Heathrow to Rome, what a beautiful aircraft!...
A bit noisy in the aft cabin area on takeoff but, clean wings made for more fuel capacity.
My husband was based at RAF Nrize Norton just before these beautiful birds were retired was awesome seeing them coming and going. What a noise!
Note the "Gold Speedbird" livery which was so elegant and understated, not matched till the Landor redesign in the 1980s up to 1997.
Sounds like the crew did EVERYTHING right. First action for a fire warning, cancel the bell, second action sit on your hands and identify the problem.
With close coupled engines, unlike the 707s under-wing engines, asymmetric thrust is not as big as problem.
Also the VC10 was built for long range sectors. I have flown direct from Blantyre, Malawi to London Gatwick with Air Malawi with a cruise climb to flight level 430, in the 70s. Something the 707 couldn't never do.
A lot of BOAC s routes were to destinations with runway width restrictions, like Blantyre and wing mounted engines would have been overhanging the sides of the runway. This configuration also allowed for full wing length leading edge slats which increased its "Hot and High" peformance.
I flew on them in the 60’s…many times from Brize Norton or Lynam to Akrotiri in Cyprus….RAF…I was a young boy at the time, it was so exciting, and you felt that you were in a rocket on take off, I recall on some flights the seats faced backwards, at least I am fairly sure of this….VC10 and Super VC10 planes were great.
Just one small point only engines 1 & 4 have reversers fitted.
I’ve asked this question in the past. With modern miniature cameras, would it be possible to mount cameras somewhere on the body of the plane so pilots could see quickly any problems behind them?
A lot of newer aircraft have them like the 777-400 which have a nose gear camera and tail camera. Likely you'll see more being added to newer aircraft but unlikely to see it as a retro fit requirement for older aircraft.
Probably could be possible but also add a lot of information and stress to the pilots in a difficult situation.
That's why is better to just tell a machine that if an engine goes apart from certain limits to display a message so the pilots can define a course of action.
The Airbus A380 has a camera mounted on the tail of the aircraft. It's intended to let passengers watch the take-off and landing from an exterior perspective. It's actually how the flight crew knew the left wing tank was leaking on Quantas 32 after an uncontained engine failure on engine #2 sent pieces of the turbine disc through the left wing and along the belly of the aircraft.
@@GabbieTheFox Thanks for the info. It’s just that all the videos where aircrafts have tail problems it’s said that the crew didn’t know what was wrong behind them.
@@mickmorrison I don't think the flight crew have access to it from the flight deck though. Iirc it's part of the entertainment system. A passenger had to wave down one of the 4 pilots on the flight when he came into the cabin to assess the damage.
The best looking of any aircraft now and still. The nicest plane I ever flew in.
I flew on one of these on New Year’s Day 1970 to Lusaka in Zambia, it was such a quiet comfortable plane. I was also a member of the BOAC junior jet club, this meant a trip to the cockpit to get the logbook signed, i was 11 years old, what a fantastic trip that was. I did it about 6 times over a few years and i was the envy of the boarding school that i went to.
spectacular aircraft the VC-10 was
it could stop in a third of the distance of a 707
would have been great to know the CVR
great little video
thanks
Rolls-Royce Conway gas-turbo-jets
LOT Polish Airlines Flight 5055 . An IL-62 (similar desing) had a similar problem. An engine failed breaking the other
The VC10 was used as a test bed for the RB211 engine .G -AXLR had it's left engines removed and an RB211 fitted . It was so successful that the order of the day was re - engine the VC10 ! Sadly it never happened .A colleague of my father who worked for the ARB(Now the CAA) told me that Boeing were terrified they might do it ,that in itself should have reason enough to do it.
I watched a u-tube video where engine 4 on a Boeing 747 came and flew forward, then came in and took out engine 3 so it's not necessarily a bad design. Also BOAC had set the parameters for the plane and Vickers built it for them. I think they did pretty good. And oh boy, what a gorgeous aircraft !!
I grew up in the sixties under the flight path close to Heathrow airport. I remember the VC10's because just after take-off they *usually* looked like all their engines were on fire, like in this video. It was just lots of smoke, though. They were also by far the noisiest plane, until Concorde came along, of course.
I flew on the V10 to Australia 🇦🇺 back in the 70s. The sound of it was amazing, I wonder if the RAF use still use them??
In September 1973 I was a passenger on a BOAC Super VC10 , flying between Singapore ( Paya Lebar) and Sydney, that encountered a similar problem to the one talked about here. No 2 engine caught fire just after take off and the fire starved the air entering no 1 engine, inducing compressor stall. An overweight emergency landing was made back at Paya Lebar and crew and passengers exited the aircraft via the escape slides.
If your captions are off you are missing a lot
This sometimes happened when the over-enthusiastic onboard stokers over-coalled one of the Rolls Royce Conway steam turbines. The high water pressure caused by excess heat in the firebox used to cause either the engine to overspeed, or ruptures in the pressure vessel itself, fracturing joints/seams and causing an engine failure. Luckily, because the Conway’s turbine blades were carved out of solid granite, they rarely used to rupture the solid cast iron engine casing. But occasionally this did happen, like in this example.
Thanks for this great report.
Lovely video about a lovely aeroplane. I flew on VC-10s from London to Johannesburg and from London to Sydney, Australia. Felt well relaxed after the Jo-burg flight. Probably would have been the same after the Sydney flight too, but the 12 hour get lag ruined it. Very quiet and comfortable ride.
Great Information Video!
I flew on various VC-10 and they were a truly remarkable aircraft.
This reminds me of a virtually identical type of aircraft in this same situation. An Illyushin m62 for Polish Air Flight 5055.
The aircraft suffered an uncontained engine failure on #1 which almost immediately destroyed the #2 engine as well and started an out-of-control fire which resulted in loss of flight controls, and the flight crashed 3 miles short of the return runway centerline.
The last words on the cvr: "goodbye, goodnight, we're dying."
*side note; they were also very overweight and actually did opt to dump fuel despite the danger. I don't recall it being noted whether this made the fire worse or not.
The VC 19 was a great plane, loved by passengers and pilots. I was somewhat over-engineered (it would fairly happily take off on 2 engines -- on the simulator that I used to work on), thus VERY safe. But it was a bit "thirstier" than the competition (the 707.)
Sadly, the fuel crisis around that time killed it off (except for South American countries with a lot of "hot and high" airports where the superb maximum power was neded, and the UK airforce which was less concerned about economy.
"I mean, the last thing you want is a DC 10 sized flamethrower" 🤣🤣
I think the design is very safe the way it was designed. . If you have a fire it is mostly away from the airframe. It protects the flight surfaces and passages.
An excellent aircraft. The tail mounted engines are similar to the Caravelle.
Thinking the same. It looks like this plane's design is a spin off of the Caravelle. The Caravelle flight I was on was the smoothest and quietest flight I have ever been on-before or since.
Brilliant aircraft but having said that, my father on his only long flight back about 1970 from Heathrow to Nassau endured a mid Atlantic return to London due to a cabin oxygen problem.
You guys ever seen a DC-9?
@@JBofBrisbane Yes, it's crap, wouldn't fly on it, even for free.
@@g.davidtenenbaum8563 I've flown in Caravelles.
Sure is a beautiful looking aircraft.
The *VC10* was an amazing plane & only beaten across the pond by another amazing British aircraft *Concorde!*
Beautiful plane. I had the privilege to be on board of one from Kuala Lumpur to London.
Jealous l had to put up with them disturbing my education landing and taking off from Wisley cherished memories
England/UK built such beautiful planes.This VC 10,De Havilland Comet,Concorde,Bristol Brittania,and many more.Other rear engined/t-tail planes were successful.Caravelle,Ilyushin 62,Tupolev 134,DC-9,727,717,Yakovlevs and more,anyway.
I think in this day and Age its ok to have engines close together ,they can STILL fly
Interesting note about engines paired together, Concorde was classified as a 2 engine aircraft for its ETOPs rating.
Thats because with 4 engines in 2 pods, it was assumed that any catasrophic failure of one engine would also take the other one out.
Its saving grace for flying over water in ETOP's was the fact its glide ratio from FL600 and an assumed cruise of M1.9, it could glide with all engines out to safety relatively easily assuming there where no pressurisation issues.
Engines located on the tail of the plane as opposed to them being bolted on the wings under the fuel tanks? No problem for me! 🤔
Yeah, located on the tail - where all hydraulic systems (including backups) meet and just wait to be severed nice and clean by a catastrophic turbine failure :-) (see United Airlines Flight 232 for a DC-10 case specifically, but other types of aircraft following this design had similar incidents - i.e. Il-62). I guess using hydraulic fuses could offer some improvement, but I'm not a big fan of tail-mounted engines because of that glaring single-point-of-failure design issue.
Could you provide reference to any cases where wing-mounted engine failure caused fuel tank rupture? Just being curious here, since I couldn't think of one from the top of my head, tried searching for one and failed.
@@przemysawotarzewski557, I can think of one that caused a passenger to be sucked halfway out the window and she died.🥺
But they glide better. I'm pretty sure the longest-gliding planes are not swept-wing.
@@patriciamariemitchel Yes, that one was pretty unfortunate. But @SkiSavoie seems to be concerned with engine placement near the wing fuel tanks and rupture / explosion in case of uncontained engine failure. That's why I asked if he could provide any example of such incident specifically.
Except when you go to dump fuel!
@@przemysawotarzewski557, well, it was more than unfortunate. It was a passenger; a woman with a life! I don't get on a plane to become a statistic, fortunate or unfortunate.
I flew VC10s for BOAC/BA 1971-77 (when I transferred to another great plane the 747). The VC10 was very solid, reliable and extremely well engineered. The engine design layout worked well. Not quite as efficient as the 707 style, but designed for a special function. Engine failures were easily handled as opposed to wing mounted engines that could overpower the pilot. The Rolls Royce Conways were very reliable- I never suffered a real engine failure on them. The rear mounted engines were incredibly quiet in the cabin and unheard on the flight deck. In the cabin, there would be not a ripple on the surface of your coffee whereas a 707 and 747 would be visibly shaking as the engines nodded on their pylons. It was a very popular aeroplane with the crews and had an incredibly good safety reputation.
Excellent flying and crisis management
That evacuation is hilarious
Up there in the air burning like a vcchicken10der left in the oven.