Talk:Vickers VC10

Split

I'd like to suggest splitting this article. It occurs to me that a big chunk of content towards the bottom of the article is a little unwieldy, and that it's all on one subject - military use & support of the VC10 - whereas the previous sections are very much about earlier service as an airliner. Focusing on the design only would be unhelpful but I note that there are substantial hardware changes between the current military kit and the aicraft as they were used by airlines.
I'd like to split this content on the military VC10s into a separate article and tidy it up accordingly.
This split would be consistent with other articles on military-adapted airliners; for instance Boeing C-137 Stratoliner, Airbus A330 MRTT, and so on.
Comments / complaints? bobrayner (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

At 44 kb the article does not scream out for splitting per WP:SPLIT but looking at it I can see what you mean. It needs a good tidy up first and see what it looks like then. Whole paragraphs of the RAF history section are uncited and could, in theory, be removed by any editor. They possibly go into too much detail (becoming unencylopedic) as does some of the earlier background history. Better use of standard section headers might help. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it would work as separate articles but I don't see a problem as is. Mark83 (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - before we think of splitting the article we should trim the excess fat - such as the OTT discussion of background politics, much of which is not directly related to the VC10, and the discussion on servicing - these throw the article out of balance.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally I find the background interesting. But perhaps it would work as summary style, i.e. have a {{main|}} link to that information somewhere else? Mark83 (talk) 20:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - as I did in splitting the [[Lockheed TriStar (RAF)}]] information from the Lockheed L-1011 TriStar article - I think both article are better for having slpit them. The RAF history is quite extensive, and I do think it would be better off in a variant article.However, I understand the objections too, but often splits are put on hold for a rewrite that never happens. Splits are often a perfect opportunity to clean-up articles, and it usually forces improvements to be made to both articles. And while the article is not as long as some, having both civil and military types does somewhat limit our coverage, especially with specs. - BilCat (talk) 20:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose a civil/military split although I would support a child article something like Vickers VC10 operational history as it could focus on the RAF operational history and give some focus in finding references and tidying up the RAF service bit. I dont think a complete split like Tristar would work where only a few aircraft are RAF operated, the RAF have operated nearly all the surviving VC10s. All the standard stuff should stay behind like design/dev, variants operators, specs etc. MilborneOne (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support: This was originally developed as a civil aircraft, so it should only contain info about its use as a civil aircraft with another article that has info about its military usage. Having a picture in the infobox of an aircraft in RAF colors seems to give readers the idea that it was only used as a military aircraft. —Compdude¹²³ 16:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Lots of aircraft have dual use so having a military image doesnt really matter. I think we should tidy and remove all the uncited and non-notable stuff in the operational history first. It is not that big an article when all the fluff is removed. MilborneOne (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - One airframe, dual use. But dual use as a transport unlike eg Lancaster/Lancastrian. However if the section on military use is starting to overburden the article, and its not a case of unnecessary detail then that which is good content could be hived off, though a summary would still need to remain. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Dubious claim

"BOAC had calculated that the Boeing 707 cost £4.10 per passenger-mile while the VC10 would cost £4.24. "

This is a very remarkable claim. So to carry each passenger a thousand miles, the cost would be four thousand pounds ? Airfares were high in the 1960's but it didn't cost four thousand pounds to travel a thousand miles, that was a stupendous amount of money in those days. To carry each passenger from London to Australia would cost forty thousand pounds - not ! To carry 150 passengers from London to Australia six million pounds - not ! Note that the following paragraph says you could buy the whole plane for around 3 million pounds.

Has someone converted this to some kind of funny-money ? Shillings and pence ? Zloty ? I dunno but there is something wrong with it.Eregli bob (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes that doesn't seem right. Is the sentence sourced? If not you can remove the sentence, because that does not seem right at all. —Compdude¹²³ 19:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

[1] has 2.24d for the 707 and 2.13d for the VC10, a big difference between pence and pounds. MilborneOne (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I had a relative who worked in BOAC's costing section in 1964 and she recalls that the cost per passenger mile regardless of whether there was no passengers or a full load, the aircraft would have cost about £0-00-08 or 8d (8 pence in pre-decimalisation currency) per passenger mile to operate. That equates to 03 pence or £0.03 in decimalised currency. It also explains the UK - US single airfare at about £144.00 in the 1960's. So yes someone has got it wrong. She also said that a VC10 was cheaper than a 707 to fly, but the chairman of BOAC had a tendency to reject all and any British aircraft in favour of Boeing earning the unofficial title for the airline as "Boeing Only Aircraft Considered." He was often known to have very private meetings with staff from Boeing, and BOAC's staff excluded - draw your own conclusions but it stinks!The Geologist (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

In those days the cost of kerosene was just about negligible. BOAC would have been aware that UK manufactures took their customers to the cleaners when it came to spare parts, on rare occasions when spares were available. Those who owned British-made de Havillands wished that they didn't. 220.244.87.181 (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

"2.24d for the 707 and 2.13d for the VC10," - the figures are shillings and pennies (.d) - the decimal equivalent (not allowing for inflation) is around 15p and 12.5p.

... and for a while BOAC's chairman was Whitney Straight, who was an American by birth.

As regards the hot-and-high short runway 'Empire' airfields, most of the places the VC10 was originally designed for were in the British and ex-British colonies in Africa and with the growing independence movements in these places, many of the ex-pat professionals who made up the largest part of the passenger traffic were either leaving the countries permanently, or being replaced with locals at much lower wages. So the airlines had their international traffic dry up. In addition, for some of the new state's leaderships, British airliners were the last ones the newly-independent governments were going to let their new national airlines buy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Air Canada

I remember going to the Dorval Airport and seeing the VC10 under the livery of Air Canada. My father even flew it several times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.2.222 (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Noise

There was a lot of info regarding the noise of the VC-10. It has been deleted by some VC-10 fanboy. I lived under 07 flight-path in Sydney, 60s and 70s. In the mid-60s all a/c made a loud scream on approach, let alone take off. By the early 70s Boeings and Douglas' were fairly quite, and the Comet 4 was never really bad. The VC-10 was in a class of its own; you hear it coming, all they way from Singapore. I had the misfortune of 5-hour trip in a BOAC VC-10, in the rear row, next to the engines. Where did this idea of a quiet interior come from? While it may never have been reported, I'll bet most airports refused to accept VC-10s by the late 70s.220.244.87.181 (talk) 02:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Last days of RAF service

The main article states that the planes were retired on the 20th, it is correct that this was the last mission, but this BBC article states they will be retired on the 25th.. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-23864590)

Additionally this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-23864590, supports that there were 3 remaining VC10s flying with the RAF, with the first of the three to leave service, ZA148 'Guy Gibson VC', on the 28th August to be preserved in Cornwall at Newquay Ariport Aerodrome.

A great shame the final 2 will be broken up!Yellowxander (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand that ZA150 (the last VC10 built) was due to fly to Brooklands for preservation today and ZA147 will fly to Bruntingthorpe on Wednesday, possible the last VC10 flight. MilborneOne (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

missed this article above: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-24165590.

Just found this: http://www.wingsandwheels.net/news/item/117-%E2%80%98queen-of-the-skies%E2%80%99-retires-to-dunsfold-park.html ZA150 will be at Dunsford. Notes Allan Winn, Director of Brooklands Museum, says, “It is hugely important for us to have saved this aircraft as the last heavy airliner ever to be completely built at Brooklands – and indeed in the UK. But it is also significant as its retirement marks the end of an unbroken century of front-line service by Brooklands-built aircraft with the British armed forces. That is a unique record, unchallenged by any other factory-customer relationship anywhere in the world. We are delighted that Dunsfold Park has made it possible for us to house this symbolic aircraft back in Surrey. QI? An an email today from XH558 it states that she will be the last fully british 4 engined aircraft airworthy, maybe worth mentioning that the VC10 was the last 4 engined british aircraft in service?..Yellowxander (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Dubious claim

"The engines were also further from the runway surface than an underwing design - of importance considering the nature of the African runways." This does not hold up, the rear engines were vulnerable to debris thrown up by the undercarriage. I remember reading that the VC10 was always fitted with new tyres (i.e. no remoulds) to reduce the risk of engine damage from tyre blowouts. --DesmondW (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Addition of incident survivor

I challenged the addition of a survivor to a hijacking to the article and suggested it should be discussed here to gain a consensus, unfortunately User:Jan olieslagers has decided to edit war rather than discuss so I have opened this discussion to gain a consensus or otherwise for an addition. I challenged the addition as it has no relevance at all to the VC10 per my original edit summary survivors of incidents are not really notable in an aircraft type overview. MilborneOne (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

No you did not challenge the addition, you reverted it. And without referring to any published policy, either. And you only open this discussion after I told you you need to, before you can bluntly revert an addition of potential worth (after all, the person mentioned is noteworthy enough to have an article of her/his own). I would have quite welcomed a challenge, might even have supported it, perhaps, but I decline your blunt reversal of an addition obviously well-meant and potentially valuable. You should have discussed first, before reverting. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

PS if you absolutely need to challenge the mention, you could as well state its being unreferenced. That would at least offer a valid and documented explanation to the well-meaning contributor - but a reference might well be found and offered, if duly asked for. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)