A Midair Crisis Over London | The Story Of BOAC VC10 G-ASGK

  Рет қаралды 220,011

Mini Air Crash Investigation

Mini Air Crash Investigation

3 жыл бұрын

Donations are never expected but appreciated: paypal.me/miniaircrash
Join My Discord: / discord
Image credit: Adrian Pingstone
This is the story of a british airways VC10 tail number gold alpha sierra golf kilo. The VC10 is an interesting aircraft, sure it has 4 engines at the back, it looks a certain way but to me the most interesting thing about the plane is its marketing. The official tagline of the airplane was “try a little VC10tenderness” which I have to say as far as taglines go is quite creative. On the 27th of november 1969 a VC10 was taking off from londons heathrow airport bound for new york. The takeoff was normal in the cockpit, nothing unusual, but in the cabin, specifically the back, the passengers and the cabin crew heard a strange rubbing noise. Now you have to remember the VC10 had 4 engines and all 4 engines were mounted at the back. The british needed a medium range plane to fly to parts of their empire, BOAC had 707s but they were too big for the job. The british needed a plane that could also land and take off from less than ideal runways. So the solution was to put the engines up on the tail so that debris wouldnt be an issue and to have 4 engines so that it could fly medium haul routes and thats how the VC10 got its distinctive look. So back to our story the plane took off and the crew carried out the noise abatement procedures and after that they pushed the engines back up to 94%. The plane continued to climb as the plane neared a navigational beacon in woodley, the crew flew into a cloud bank and they turned on the de-icing system as a precaution at 5000 feet. At 10:20 am as the plane was climbing the crew heard a loud bang and in the cockpit they got a warning that said that engine number 4, that is the right most engine, was on fire. Captain JH smurthwaite immediately called for a checklist on engine number 4, flight engineer R Frobisher had data that made the captain's day much worse. Engine number three was spooling down and could not be relit. They had lost all engines on the right side of the plane. As they were dealing with the failure of engine number three they got a fire warning on engine number three as well, it appeared that the right side of their plane was on fire. A fire in the air is never a good sign and so they needed to land as soon as possible.
The fire warnings were out but the crew had their hands on the engine fire extinguishers in case the fire came back. A person on the ground saw that the plane shedding bits, unknown to the witness they were watching the remains of the shattered engine. First officer smee immediately got on the radio with london control and requested an immediate return to heathrow.
The controllers asked the plane to turn to 060 degrees, they streaked back towards the safety of heathrow, but there was a problem, the plane was fueled up for a long flight and so was quite heavy they needed to dump some fuel to land, but with a potential fire at the back of the plane dumping fuel didnt seem like a good idea. I mean the last thing you wanted was a VC10 sized flamethrower. This meant that theyd be touching down weighing, 38,887 kilos or 85000 pounds. To compensate for the extra weight they'd have to land 25 knots faster than usual, at 168 knots. That was not all with two engines out of commision the B hydraulic line had failed and this meant that the right hand landing gear wouldn't work and so they had to do a gravity drop, or open the doors and let the gear fall and lock into place under its own weight. The left hand gear and the nose gear were powered by the A hydraulic line and so they worked. Due to the failure of the B line they wouldn't have brakes on landing. So they had to use a hydraulic accumulator to use the right hand brakes. The accumulator was charged and the plane touched down on the runway at Heathrow . They commanded full reverse thrust from engines 1 and 2 and braked

Пікірлер: 720
@lucindastarling1452
@lucindastarling1452 3 жыл бұрын
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...
@gkiltz0
@gkiltz0 3 жыл бұрын
It could easily drown out anything Boeing or Douglass ever made
@drivinmiatas5068
@drivinmiatas5068 2 жыл бұрын
hey! thats amazing, I really love this plane too! if you have any more stories id very much like to hear them.
@andyml1
@andyml1 Жыл бұрын
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…
@WingNuts2010
@WingNuts2010 Жыл бұрын
@@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.
@yvonneVC10
@yvonneVC10 8 ай бұрын
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?
@nigelpage612
@nigelpage612 3 жыл бұрын
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.
@Gremriel
@Gremriel 3 жыл бұрын
That has to be the most British name I've ever seen :)
@nekite1
@nekite1 2 жыл бұрын
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
@HellStr82 2 жыл бұрын
except there is nothing really super about the VC10 ...
@nigelpage612
@nigelpage612 2 жыл бұрын
@@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!
@andyrendell7430
@andyrendell7430 2 жыл бұрын
@@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..
@mikeboxall7955
@mikeboxall7955 3 жыл бұрын
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.
@gregandkaruna6674
@gregandkaruna6674 3 жыл бұрын
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
@mikeboxall7955
@mikeboxall7955 3 жыл бұрын
@@gregandkaruna6674 I totally agree but, those Conways were probably the most reliable engines available at the time.
@neillp3827
@neillp3827 3 жыл бұрын
Was this the trident?
@samwheat1302
@samwheat1302 3 жыл бұрын
@@neillp3827 No different plane. trident have three engines mounted like B-727.
@JBofBrisbane
@JBofBrisbane 3 жыл бұрын
@@neillp3827 no, this is the VC10.
@grahamariss2111
@grahamariss2111 3 жыл бұрын
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
@boeingdriver29 3 жыл бұрын
And to create it’s exceptionally quite cabin. It was marketed as Hush Power.
@grahamariss2111
@grahamariss2111 3 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@boeingdriver29
@boeingdriver29 3 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@PeterNGloor
@PeterNGloor 3 жыл бұрын
@@boeingdriver29 only for the people inside the plane.
@boeingdriver29
@boeingdriver29 3 жыл бұрын
@@PeterNGloor too true.
@davidgapp1457
@davidgapp1457 3 жыл бұрын
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.
@Max_Da_G
@Max_Da_G 3 жыл бұрын
580mph is a never-exceed speed. Limitation is structural as opposed to limitation by thrust-drag balance.
@andyrendell7430
@andyrendell7430 2 жыл бұрын
Did you operate the South America route to Lima? i recall Quito takeoff had to be before dawn owing to altitude and heat.
@davidgapp1457
@davidgapp1457 2 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@andyrendell7430
@andyrendell7430 2 жыл бұрын
@@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..
@andyrendell7430
@andyrendell7430 2 жыл бұрын
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.
@nick_steele9790
@nick_steele9790 3 жыл бұрын
Only complaint I have with this channel is he doesn't have nearly the subscribers he deserves yet ;)
@williamcorcoran8842
@williamcorcoran8842 3 жыл бұрын
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!
@ronniewall1481
@ronniewall1481 3 жыл бұрын
I HAVE USED HIS CHANNEL AS BACKGROUND. SOME VIDEOS IVE LISTEN TO SEVERAL TIMES.
@nick_steele9790
@nick_steele9790 3 жыл бұрын
@@ronniewall1481 Same!
@sandymiller0505
@sandymiller0505 3 жыл бұрын
I p my l klm
@Neilarmeweak550
@Neilarmeweak550 2 жыл бұрын
Yea but I wish he would at least give a like in the comments here and there
@scotthoward5114
@scotthoward5114 3 жыл бұрын
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
@scotthoward5114 3 жыл бұрын
@John Winum I have no doubt that contributed. Both passenger and cabin crew attitudes were very different in those days.
@carouselred8994
@carouselred8994 3 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@3Greens
@3Greens 3 жыл бұрын
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
@class2instructor32
@class2instructor32 3 жыл бұрын
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.
@joleharding5148
@joleharding5148 3 жыл бұрын
I agree makes my blood run cold...
@bobyan6029
@bobyan6029 3 жыл бұрын
What do you fly?
@joleharding5148
@joleharding5148 3 жыл бұрын
King airs right now, you?
@uzaiyaro
@uzaiyaro 3 жыл бұрын
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!
@andyml1
@andyml1 3 жыл бұрын
One of the most elegant aircraft of all time in my opinion....designed for hot and high airfields...
@briannewman372
@briannewman372 3 жыл бұрын
Yes Sir, Flew out of West Africa many times as a passenger in the 70's . Both rugged and comfortable.
@andyml1
@andyml1 3 жыл бұрын
@@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….😂
@adamnixon2886
@adamnixon2886 3 жыл бұрын
Yeah they are great as long as they aren't on fire 😅
@BigDsmoke
@BigDsmoke 3 жыл бұрын
@@adamnixon2886 😂😂😂
@TheLifeEvents
@TheLifeEvents 3 жыл бұрын
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.
@Rincypoopoo
@Rincypoopoo 3 жыл бұрын
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
@markwallis7199
@markwallis7199 3 жыл бұрын
@kiku's Futaba Blue ice coming from a leaking toilet valve did the same for the MD80
@narendranbhaskar
@narendranbhaskar 3 жыл бұрын
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.
@markwallis7199
@markwallis7199 3 жыл бұрын
@@narendranbhaskar It's also very nice and quiet for the pax.
@unknownkw
@unknownkw 3 жыл бұрын
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.
@carouselred8994
@carouselred8994 3 жыл бұрын
@@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?
@michaelhendle4597
@michaelhendle4597 3 жыл бұрын
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
@bikeymikey7408
@bikeymikey7408 3 жыл бұрын
They were still in use over 20 years later they finished service in 2014
@luvstellauk
@luvstellauk 3 жыл бұрын
@@bikeymikey7408 Yep, RAF used them well in to the 2010s along with the L1011 from Brize Norton, now replaced by the A300 Voyagers
@kevinnorthfield5097
@kevinnorthfield5097 3 жыл бұрын
@@luvstellauk A330
@luvstellauk
@luvstellauk 3 жыл бұрын
@@kevinnorthfield5097 Sorry typo meant 330
@raypitts4880
@raypitts4880 3 жыл бұрын
also superb job as a tanker could out run most other types
@mapleleafaviation304
@mapleleafaviation304 3 жыл бұрын
The VC10 has had such a beauty of British Aviation 🇬🇧
@bernhardecklin7005
@bernhardecklin7005 3 жыл бұрын
The most beautiful jetliner ever built
@michaelparker4457
@michaelparker4457 3 жыл бұрын
She is beautiful. Saw several in the UK and Australia I believe but she ain’t a 747
@walternerd3147
@walternerd3147 3 жыл бұрын
Agreee Huge VC-10 fan here!
@bernhardecklin7005
@bernhardecklin7005 3 жыл бұрын
@@michaelparker4457 ..or even worse a DC-10 or L-1011..
@racgordon
@racgordon 3 жыл бұрын
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).
@Avgeek1564
@Avgeek1564 3 жыл бұрын
Tristar!
@commerce-usa
@commerce-usa 3 жыл бұрын
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.
@sct913
@sct913 3 жыл бұрын
The engine placement on the VC-10 always reminded me of the Fireflash airliner from Thunderbirds.
@t.p.mckenna
@t.p.mckenna 3 жыл бұрын
Definitely!
@datathunderstorm
@datathunderstorm 3 жыл бұрын
Methinks Fireflash was a nod to the VC10. You can see the similarities right off the bat. Loved that T tail...!!!
@thephantom2man
@thephantom2man 3 жыл бұрын
Lol remember that episode well from my childhood, the impossibly long runway and the cool trucks for it to land on
@philippal8666
@philippal8666 2 жыл бұрын
Yes!
@jackseymour1757
@jackseymour1757 Жыл бұрын
@@datathunderstorm Apparently it was!
@rosekay5031
@rosekay5031 2 жыл бұрын
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.
@musicforaarre
@musicforaarre 3 жыл бұрын
I agree with Bernhard Ecklin. This is the most beautiful airliner ever built !! It looks so streamlined and elegant. Aarre Peltomaa
@rodneyperkins2952
@rodneyperkins2952 3 жыл бұрын
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.
@bleizbreizh6264
@bleizbreizh6264 3 жыл бұрын
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!
@riazhassan6570
@riazhassan6570 3 жыл бұрын
It provided me with my most comfortable, quietest and most stable long-distance flight experience to date. It was an outstanding machine
@anthonywilliams9852
@anthonywilliams9852 3 жыл бұрын
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.
@markfernandes9715
@markfernandes9715 2 жыл бұрын
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.
@dewayneblue1834
@dewayneblue1834 3 жыл бұрын
I can recall seeing VC-10s in BOAC livery at JFK as a kid, an extremely elegant combo.
@johannesbols57
@johannesbols57 2 жыл бұрын
I watched them on final to JFK. They were sooo beautiful.
@kcindc5539
@kcindc5539 Жыл бұрын
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.
@kmanison
@kmanison 3 жыл бұрын
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!
@Edax_Royeaux
@Edax_Royeaux 3 жыл бұрын
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.
@fortworth7694
@fortworth7694 3 жыл бұрын
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...
@Kromaatikse
@Kromaatikse 3 жыл бұрын
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.
@StephenKNicholson
@StephenKNicholson 3 жыл бұрын
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.
@JDJLalor
@JDJLalor 3 жыл бұрын
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.
@mikec1163
@mikec1163 3 жыл бұрын
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:)
@stephenbritton9297
@stephenbritton9297 3 жыл бұрын
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.
@bernhardecklin7005
@bernhardecklin7005 3 жыл бұрын
Error at 3:46: The aircraft did not weigh 38,000 kg, but 138,000 kg.
@smartalex2578
@smartalex2578 3 жыл бұрын
Yeah, I thought 85,000 lbs was too light.
@sevesellors2831
@sevesellors2831 3 жыл бұрын
Loved this aircraft quiet, fast and comfortable used to do the London to Teheran route.
@Peasmouldia
@Peasmouldia 3 жыл бұрын
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..
@donnafromnyc
@donnafromnyc 3 жыл бұрын
Excellent reconstruction of an incident with a nearly forgotten aircraft. Thank you Mini!
@DerekGM6
@DerekGM6 Жыл бұрын
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.
@donrobinson6613
@donrobinson6613 3 жыл бұрын
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.
@bret9741
@bret9741 3 жыл бұрын
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.
@rogerhargreaves2272
@rogerhargreaves2272 3 жыл бұрын
I can’t agree with you more on that one.
@michaelhendle4597
@michaelhendle4597 3 жыл бұрын
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,
@bret9741
@bret9741 3 жыл бұрын
@@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
@jameshammons2354 3 жыл бұрын
How did that work out?
@bret9741
@bret9741 3 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@rilmar2137
@rilmar2137 3 жыл бұрын
Can we have a little VC-10derness in the comments
@LeonelEBD
@LeonelEBD 3 жыл бұрын
That's such a vc10mptation
@ThePaulv12
@ThePaulv12 3 жыл бұрын
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...
@boeingdriver29
@boeingdriver29 3 жыл бұрын
Flew on the VC-10 once, wonderfully quiet cabin environment especially in First Class. The guys did a great job.
@davidcrick1123
@davidcrick1123 3 жыл бұрын
Me too. London to Kuwait via Baghdad and return in 1976.
@emmanuelofori869
@emmanuelofori869 2 жыл бұрын
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.
@MrAlwaysBlue
@MrAlwaysBlue 3 жыл бұрын
Classic aircraft
@philipowen4803
@philipowen4803 3 жыл бұрын
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
@gailfisher1350
@gailfisher1350 2 жыл бұрын
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.
@the007cat
@the007cat 3 жыл бұрын
Just one small point only engines 1 & 4 have reversers fitted.
@scopex2749
@scopex2749 Жыл бұрын
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!
@renejean2523
@renejean2523 Жыл бұрын
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.
@richardjenkins4182
@richardjenkins4182 3 жыл бұрын
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.
@donnafromnyc
@donnafromnyc 3 жыл бұрын
Note the "Gold Speedbird" livery which was so elegant and understated, not matched till the Landor redesign in the 1980s up to 1997.
@markam306
@markam306 3 жыл бұрын
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.
@robinholmes785
@robinholmes785 3 жыл бұрын
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!
@lenkapenka6976
@lenkapenka6976 3 жыл бұрын
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.
@michaelhendle4597
@michaelhendle4597 3 жыл бұрын
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
@anthonywilliams9852
@anthonywilliams9852 3 жыл бұрын
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.
@daviddunsmore103
@daviddunsmore103 3 жыл бұрын
@@michaelhendle4597 BOAC and BEA merged on March 31, 1974. 😎
@raypitts4880
@raypitts4880 3 жыл бұрын
and 5000 miles to boot and the fighter aircraft speed wow.
@philsmith3738
@philsmith3738 2 жыл бұрын
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!
@waynebrundidge206
@waynebrundidge206 3 жыл бұрын
I loved the look of the VC10 impressive to me. The Air Force B52 uses four two engines pods for its eight engines. 😎
@virginiafry9854
@virginiafry9854 3 жыл бұрын
My first flight in a jet was in a VC10 from Salisbury (Harare) to London, via Nairobi and Rome
@borninjordan7448
@borninjordan7448 3 жыл бұрын
Cool!
@christopherbatty3837
@christopherbatty3837 3 жыл бұрын
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" ✈
@brittsaunders4621
@brittsaunders4621 3 жыл бұрын
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.
@woaln5213
@woaln5213 3 жыл бұрын
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
@tgg1765
@tgg1765 3 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@deaf2819
@deaf2819 3 жыл бұрын
@@tgg1765 I think the autocorrect bug bit you 🕷 .
@tgg1765
@tgg1765 3 жыл бұрын
@@deaf2819 yes, damn it, where is my can of Raid?!
@woaln5213
@woaln5213 3 жыл бұрын
@@tgg1765 I agree.
@martind511
@martind511 3 жыл бұрын
Great to see an investigation featuring a much loved aircraft. Only 3 aircraft were ever made featuring the twin rear engine configuration which means it was not necessarily an ideal setup. I believe the IL-62 also featured similar incidents where uncontained engine failure damaged its neighbour. Thanks for making this.
@stanislavkostarnov2157
@stanislavkostarnov2157 3 жыл бұрын
IL62 and its variants filled up a vary large part of the soviet fleet, so it was not a rare thing to see... and Tupolevs-154 would also regularly get a five engine design with 4 engines like this and one atop the tail
@martind511
@martind511 3 жыл бұрын
@@stanislavkostarnov2157 Sort of - The TU-154 had three engines - one either side of the rear fuselage and one integrated into the tail. As above, only 3 aircraft have the twin engines either side of the rear fuselage - the VC-10, IL-62 and Lockheed Jetstar.
@stanislavkostarnov2157
@stanislavkostarnov2157 3 жыл бұрын
@@martind511 in one of the modifications they certainly had a five engine version, I regularly saw it in Vnukovo (our dacha was nearby and I regularly went to plane-spotting there with my dad as a child)
@martind511
@martind511 3 жыл бұрын
@@stanislavkostarnov2157 I would have loved to have seen that - I have only flown on the regular Tu-154. IL-62 was my favourite to fly on though.
@paulkearnsmusic
@paulkearnsmusic 3 жыл бұрын
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.
@romer1816
@romer1816 3 жыл бұрын
Negative.... the Nimrod was a coastal patrol aircraft based on a Comet 4 design
@paulkearnsmusic
@paulkearnsmusic 3 жыл бұрын
You are correct sir - I put it down to my advancing age😀. The RAF did have a derivative of the VC 10
@SuperHeatherMorris
@SuperHeatherMorris 3 жыл бұрын
@@paulkearnsmusic Nope. They had VC 10s. There never was a derivative of it.
@mickmorrison
@mickmorrison 3 жыл бұрын
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?
@sirmonkey1985
@sirmonkey1985 3 жыл бұрын
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.
@EduardoEscarez
@EduardoEscarez 3 жыл бұрын
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.
@GabbieTheFox
@GabbieTheFox 3 жыл бұрын
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.
@mickmorrison
@mickmorrison 3 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@GabbieTheFox
@GabbieTheFox 3 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@bmc9504
@bmc9504 3 жыл бұрын
Thanks for doing a video on this!
@federicoprice2687
@federicoprice2687 3 жыл бұрын
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.
@asteverino8569
@asteverino8569 3 жыл бұрын
Thanks for this great report.
@lisonmendis8968
@lisonmendis8968 3 жыл бұрын
If your captions are off you are missing a lot
@coca-colayes1958
@coca-colayes1958 3 жыл бұрын
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
@joleharding5148
@joleharding5148 3 жыл бұрын
Great video again!
@pascalcoole2725
@pascalcoole2725 3 жыл бұрын
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.
@raypitts4880
@raypitts4880 3 жыл бұрын
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.
@brianfearn4246
@brianfearn4246 3 жыл бұрын
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..
@halojump123
@halojump123 3 жыл бұрын
LOL
@raypitts4880
@raypitts4880 3 жыл бұрын
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
@darrellborland119
@darrellborland119 3 жыл бұрын
Very nice video, and a good looking aircraft. Thanks.
@shuttle_aero9399
@shuttle_aero9399 3 жыл бұрын
Great Information Video!
@JohnPaul-my6ct
@JohnPaul-my6ct 3 жыл бұрын
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.
@skisavoie
@skisavoie 3 жыл бұрын
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! 🤔
@przemysawotarzewski557
@przemysawotarzewski557 3 жыл бұрын
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.
@patriciamariemitchel
@patriciamariemitchel 3 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@przemysawotarzewski557
@przemysawotarzewski557 3 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@MrDavidJMa
@MrDavidJMa 3 жыл бұрын
Except when you go to dump fuel!
@patriciamariemitchel
@patriciamariemitchel 3 жыл бұрын
@@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.
@dolium544
@dolium544 3 жыл бұрын
LOT Polish Airlines Flight 5055 . An IL-62 (similar desing) had a similar problem. An engine failed breaking the other
@bruceabrahamsen221
@bruceabrahamsen221 3 жыл бұрын
Great aircraft
@gitaar70
@gitaar70 3 жыл бұрын
Thanks, great content!
@richardshiggins704
@richardshiggins704 3 жыл бұрын
Beautiful aircraft though clusters engined as here or with the Il 62 or indeed the Concorde can lead to neighbouring engine contagion in the event of uncontained engine failure . Therefore a potentially dangerous design feature .
@davidblurton7158
@davidblurton7158 3 жыл бұрын
but very very rare,, might have been the only time it happened,,,,
@eyesofstatic9641
@eyesofstatic9641 3 жыл бұрын
Nice video!!
@colin8696908
@colin8696908 3 жыл бұрын
I love these new visuals.
@hreader
@hreader 2 жыл бұрын
Very good to hear that everyone survived! (I'm no expert, but the two engines either side do look rather close to each other).
@ronniewall1481
@ronniewall1481 3 жыл бұрын
GOOD SHOW AS ALWAYS
@torgeirbrandsnes1916
@torgeirbrandsnes1916 3 жыл бұрын
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...
@finlaymcarthur7962
@finlaymcarthur7962 3 жыл бұрын
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
@tower_studios_dave
@tower_studios_dave 2 жыл бұрын
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
@georgekurgansky5986
@georgekurgansky5986 3 жыл бұрын
You make the best videos!
@Makotonine
@Makotonine 2 жыл бұрын
i love a happy ending, no casualties! nice!
@ashtonbailey3970
@ashtonbailey3970 3 жыл бұрын
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
@highlysuggestible861
@highlysuggestible861 3 жыл бұрын
Sure is a beautiful looking aircraft.
@adamnixon2886
@adamnixon2886 3 жыл бұрын
Excellent flying and crisis management
@susanbrettdavis8839
@susanbrettdavis8839 3 жыл бұрын
Best one yet!
@BillyAlabama
@BillyAlabama 3 жыл бұрын
Another good one!
@alancarter8396
@alancarter8396 3 жыл бұрын
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.
@admiralsnackbar69
@admiralsnackbar69 2 жыл бұрын
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!
@cmphighpower
@cmphighpower 3 жыл бұрын
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.
@davidstrachan4718
@davidstrachan4718 3 жыл бұрын
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.
@coca-colayes1958
@coca-colayes1958 3 жыл бұрын
I think in this day and Age its ok to have engines close together ,they can STILL fly
@johnentwhistlesurelysamsun1840
@johnentwhistlesurelysamsun1840 3 жыл бұрын
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
@richardshiggins704
@richardshiggins704 11 күн бұрын
Clustered engines always carry inherent contagion risk to a neighbouring unit . This was also the case with Concorde where the underwing engines were juxtaposed . The number 2 engine of the Air France crash at Gonesse contaminated the number 1 engine when it disintegrated having ingested runway debris from a previous aircraft (DC10-30 ) .
@dankbank666
@dankbank666 Жыл бұрын
That evacuation is hilarious
@puggie306
@puggie306 3 жыл бұрын
I flew on various VC-10 and they were a truly remarkable aircraft.
@deaf2819
@deaf2819 3 жыл бұрын
Up there in the air burning like a vcchicken10der left in the oven.
@user-oj4xp2lh4d
@user-oj4xp2lh4d 2 жыл бұрын
The best looking of any aircraft now and still. The nicest plane I ever flew in.
@slehar
@slehar 3 жыл бұрын
Interesting! Safety through engine separation! Never heard of that!
@bermudarailway2411
@bermudarailway2411 3 жыл бұрын
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.
@CarlsVlogs
@CarlsVlogs 3 жыл бұрын
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??
@alejandrayalanbowman367
@alejandrayalanbowman367 3 жыл бұрын
An excellent aircraft. The tail mounted engines are similar to the Caravelle.
@g.davidtenenbaum8563
@g.davidtenenbaum8563 3 жыл бұрын
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.
@Thursdaym2
@Thursdaym2 3 жыл бұрын
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.
@JBofBrisbane
@JBofBrisbane 3 жыл бұрын
You guys ever seen a DC-9?
@alejandrayalanbowman367
@alejandrayalanbowman367 3 жыл бұрын
@@JBofBrisbane Yes, it's crap, wouldn't fly on it, even for free.
@anthonywilliams9852
@anthonywilliams9852 3 жыл бұрын
@@g.davidtenenbaum8563 I've flown in Caravelles.
@micstonemic696stone
@micstonemic696stone 3 жыл бұрын
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
@alanmccormick2805
@alanmccormick2805 3 жыл бұрын
Flew in the RA F version to Changi and back in one after posting finished superb. When on detachment to Akrotiri, we always enjoyed watching them landing for fuel and then leaving again after.
@andyrendell7430
@andyrendell7430 Ай бұрын
My father was BOAC VC10 aircrew and his saying was that something going wrong won't kill you- it's 3 or more things and probably all at once.707 Flight 712 was an interesting example when they got back in by the skin of their teeth and the 3 rule well exceeded too,though 5 did die and the aircraft destroyed. Another saying was that if you can keep your head when all around are losing theirs and blaming you: you don't understand the true situation.
@BillyAlabama
@BillyAlabama 3 жыл бұрын
You’re terrific!
@robbrownplanespotting
@robbrownplanespotting 3 жыл бұрын
Another awesome video, a big like. Stay safe folks :-)
@DavidHughes-op6zl
@DavidHughes-op6zl 2 жыл бұрын
"Awesome". Full of awe? Really? Then how would you describe sunset over The Mekong, the vast vista that is The Rockies or (I'm told) the Taj Mahal by moonlight...? Your wordbank appears to have run out of currency.
Vickers VC10 - the lost flagship
18:58
Skyships Eng
Рет қаралды 433 М.
A Deadly Mistake That Went Unnoticed | The Crash Of Pan Am Flight 799
10:40
Mini Air Crash Investigation
Рет қаралды 208 М.
When Jax'S Love For Pomni Is Prevented By Pomni'S Door 😂️
00:26
They RUINED Everything! 😢
00:31
Carter Sharer
Рет қаралды 25 МЛН
Guided tour of a Vickers Super VC10 at Duxford airfield.
14:00
Paul Stewart
Рет қаралды 150 М.
This ALMOST Was Britain's  Worst Air Crash | British Airways Flight 006
12:13
Mini Air Crash Investigation
Рет қаралды 176 М.
The Oil Change That Crashed A Passenger Jet | The Crash Of Smartlynx 9001
13:31
Mini Air Crash Investigation
Рет қаралды 407 М.
How A Simple Coincidence Killed 112 People | Dan Air 1903
10:01
Mini Air Crash Investigation
Рет қаралды 85 М.
Hawker Siddeley Trident | Rise and fall of the mighty trijet
17:30
Skyships Eng
Рет қаралды 244 М.
Falling At The Last Hurdle | Saudia Flight 163
16:15
Mini Air Crash Investigation
Рет қаралды 969 М.
Accidental take-off of Victor  Bob Prothero explains what happened.
5:07
Tense moments for the Connie over Sun N’ Fun
12:00
Lewis Air Legends
Рет қаралды 154 М.
Main filter..
0:15
CikoYt
Рет қаралды 4,2 МЛН
WWDC 2024 - June 10 | Apple
1:43:37
Apple
Рет қаралды 10 МЛН
iPhone 15 Unboxing Paper diy
0:57
Cute Fay
Рет қаралды 3,8 МЛН
Cadiz smart lock official account unlocks the aesthetics of returning home
0:30
ПОКУПКА ТЕЛЕФОНА С АВИТО?🤭
1:00
Корнеич
Рет қаралды 1,4 МЛН