BA Super VC10,s retirement compared to BA Boeng 707,s ?

Any VC10 related discussions.....
User avatar
vololiberista
Posts: 334
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 10:13 pm
Location: LIMZ - CUF

Re: BA Super VC10,s retirement compared to BA Boeng 707,s ?

Post by vololiberista »

Gwyn wrote:The 707 was built on the different principles to the VC-10 whereby it was designed to flex in turbulence as opposed to the VC-10 which was built to ride out the turbulence being of a more solid construction. The basic weight of the VC-10 was 7 tonnes heavier than the 707. Built out of the solid it was.

I flew passenger on the 707 occasionally and it was quite nerve-racking to see the outboard engine nodding upwards while the inboard engine was nodding downwards. I wondered what was happening was was happening in the wing between the engines.

Back on the VC-10 the only downside to the turbulence question was that, on a super especially, the fuselage would nod up and down and my cup of tea would empty it's contents over the floor. You could categorize the class of turbulence by checking the content loss of tea. Small things pleased small minds you might say.

Give me the VC-10 any time.
Do you think the flight 911 accident in 1966 over Fuji would have occured it it had been a 10 instead of a 707?
vololiberista

Gwyn
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:03 pm

Re: BA Super VC10,s retirement compared to BA Boeng 707,s ?

Post by Gwyn »

Hi there,

The 707 Fuji crash is an interesting comparison to the BUA VC-10 that hit severe turbulence over the Andes.

The Fuji crash was due to an encounter with severe turbulence in standing waves off the mountain resulting in over-stressing of the airframe outside of its design limits resulting in the tail becoming detached followed by the engines and we all know the final result. There was at the time a fatigue crack identified in the tail box area but, according to the investigation report, this did not contribute to the crash but a world-wide FAA directive found numerous incidences of the same fatigue crack. One aircraft that escaped the directive was a 707 operating as a cargo flight in Africa and on it's arrival into Lusaka, just after final flap was selected the tail fell off and the crew all died. I know of that crash well since one of our ex-instructors from Hamble was part of the crew and it was very sad that he ended up as he did after what was an illustrious career in the RAF.

With regards to the Andes aircraft it survived extreme turbulence and continued to Santiago, Chile where they found that some of the main structure had failed and the aircraft never flew again. It was amazing that the aircraft held together after the encounter. Such is the integrity of the VC-10 structure.

Whether it would have survived is debatable since the investigators found amongst the wreckage a cine-camera that was filming Mt. Fuji at the time of the break-up and established by a frame-to-frame analysis that the G forces applied to the aircraft were very high and, in their opinion, no aircraft could survive them and stay in one piece.

When I was on the 747-100 I went with an ex-707 Flight Engineer to the village close to the crash sight on the slopes of Mt. Fuji to pay my respects. This village has a ceremony every year to this day on the anniversary of the crash when, in their words, 'metal fell from the heavens'. It was very moving to watch the ceremony.

So,in conclusion, I just don't know whether the VC-10 would have survived Fuji.

Jelle Hieminga
Webmaster
Posts: 755
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2002 9:03 pm
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Re: BA Super VC10,s retirement compared to BA Boeng 707,s ?

Post by Jelle Hieminga »

My guess is that the VC10 might have suffered the same fate. Both designs were stressed to similar certification limitations and thus would both fail at a certain overload condition. The VC10 wing flexes less as it doesn't have any engines hanging off it (these provide some relief against the lift pulling them upwards), and because of this there needs to be more metal in there to achieve the needed strength. The maximum G-load that the structure can take will be similar for both aircraft though.

Ps, the Andes VC10 flew home, was repaired and is now at Brooklands (A4O-AB).
Buttons . . . check. Dials . . . check. Switches . . . check. Little
colored lights . . . check.

Gwyn
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:03 pm

Re: BA Super VC10,s retirement compared to BA Boeng 707,s ?

Post by Gwyn »

Jelle,

Well, you amaze me about the Andes aircraft. I was obviously fed duff gen by the BCAL guy I met who claimed to be one of the crew members.

One thing that he was right about was the 'flat-packing' of G-ARTA at LGW.

Yes, I agree with you about the stress levels for the aircraft of the day. The wing of the VC-10 was interesting whereby we needed 'Aileron Upset' on at the heavier weights to alleviate the wing loading. With it on it did have a detrimental effect on the climb rate. Having said that it still left the 707 standing in that department.

Gwyn

User avatar
vc10boy
Posts: 180
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:37 am
Location: East Ruston Norfolk

Re: BA Super VC10,s retirement compared to BA Boeng 707,s ?

Post by vc10boy »

Gwyn,fascinating insight from you,very interesting indeed..wasnt there an incident with very bad clear air turbulence with a RAF VC10 taking Harold Wilson to the states on decent..that could have been bad ..or good...depending on your veiws for the country :wink: ... its hard to say if a 707 could power out of that situation i suppose?.I expect the 747 100 was a very different animal to the vc10?..how did it feel, going back to the super vc10 fleet after being on the jumbo?,..double decker bus and E type jaguar spring to mind?..i flew on the 747 100 in 1985 to Miami,and flew on a BEA Comet,s and 707 in the early 1970,s..my dad worked on the Trident Chinese order.

Do you ever pop to duxford to sit at the controles of GC to relive the record attempt over the Atlantic?..im sure they would let you...only if i can co -pilot for you :wink:
vc10boy,s photo,s of VC10,s over the years...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/116993858@N08/sets/

User avatar
1103
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2003 4:14 pm
Location: About 5 miles from Wisley Airfield

Re: BA Super VC10,s retirement compared to BA Boeng 707,s ?

Post by 1103 »

Gwyn wrote:Jelle,

Well, you amaze me about the Andes aircraft. I was obviously fed duff gen by the BCAL guy I met who claimed to be one of the crew members.

One thing that he was right about was the 'flat-packing' of G-ARTA at LGW.

Gwyn
Somebody has merged the SIX event with the RTA event

http://www.british-caledonian.com/BCal_ASIX_Andes.html

http://www.british-caledonian.com/BCal_ ... des_1.html

http://www.british-caledonian.com/G-ARTA.html

Paul

petet16
Posts: 262
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 10:09 pm

Re: BA Super VC10,s retirement compared to BA Boeng 707,s ?

Post by petet16 »

Interesting picture of the damage to ARTA, that area is just forward of the Slat motor bay, between the wing torque box and the rear of the forward freight hold/VCCP bay, structurally it is a weaker area, and has acted like a crumple zone.

rynek
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2011 2:36 am
Location: King's Lynn, Norfolk

Re: BA Super VC10,s retirement compared to BA Boeng 707,s ?

Post by rynek »

Fuji crash and Dan-Air accident in Lusaka in 1977 revealed two different structural problems within B707 design. In case of Fuji accident first component to fail was a vertical stabilizer which then collided with horizontal stabilizer, this was followed by separation of all engine pylons, break-up of a fuselage and wing and collision with the ground. Post crash examination resulted in discovery of fatigue cracks in the vertical stabilizer which was later found in sixty other B707's and as a result Boeing had to introduce tail modifications and more frequent inspections. Dan-Air accident on the other hand was caused by fatigue crack in rear spar of a horizontal stabilizer. Post accident review of 521 aircraft (-300 and -400 models, as -100 and B720 had different stabilizers) revealed that 38 of them had horizontal stabilizer rear spar cracks similar to that of a Dan-Air machine, and 4 of those required spar replacement. Post accident investigation never found the reason why this particular crack appeared in this location nevertheless it was found that a crack originated from one of the skin fastener holes on the upper part of a stabilizer and it had been growing over a period of 7200 flights before the accident. I am aware that Boeing cooperated with AAIB during an investigation and they carried out some structural tests on stabilizers removed from other B707's purchased back by Boeing from different airlines. Boeing had about 8 ex-BOAC B-707-436s (G-APFF, G-APFH, G-APFI, G-APFM, G-APFN, G-APFO, G-APFP, G-ARRB) which were retired between 1976 and 1981. Stabilizers removed from two of them were used to recreate the conditions which triggered Dan-Air accident. According to AAIB report on of the aircraft was withdrawn from service after 56227 hours and 20052 landings, the other after 54086 hours and 19991 landings. I believe those were machines withdrawn from use in 1976 and they started service in 1960. Super VC10 stored in Duxford was used between 1965 and 1980 and it was retired after 54622 flight hours and 16415 flights. I guess it partially answers one the questions asked in the first post. I also know that G-APFL was stored in Entebbe in Uganda- that was one of the machines used by British Airtours. Most of the remaining -436s ended up being scrapped in USA in places such as Kingsman or Marana in Arizona- Jim Winchester's book provides a full list of all B-707's ever made and it also gives a brief information on what happened to most of them after retirement.

Post Reply