Talk:Vickers VC10/Archive 2

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 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.  &mdash;Comp dude 123 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)
 * Support with reservations At the risk of commenting nearly a decade late (2018 comment on a 2010 section), I support a split. However, my reservations are that the military aircraft article needs significant re-writing and expansion, not just split and no rewrite. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:20, 4 January 2018 (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.  &mdash;Comp dude 123 19:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * Well expressing money values in shillings and pence, the biggest number of pence that you can have,  is 11 pence.  Any more than 11,  and you have another shilling....   So 2s24d would be 4 shillings and 2s13d  would be 3 shillings and 1 penny,  so 3/1 .      So whatever those figures are,  shillings and pence is not it.Lathamibird (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * ... and for a while BOAC's chairman was Whitney Straight, who was an American by birth.
 * ... and that other great traitor Winston Churchill whose MOM was an American. I'll bet the VC-10 did not carry higher load factors than the 707, and was not cheaper to operate. If you'd ever flown a BOAC machine you'd know they crammed the passengers up like sardines in a tin simply to make it cover its costs.


 * 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)


 * Neutrality please. What is it with you British? The contributors of this article almost gush when describing this aircraft.  Please describe it as if you were writing about an Airbus/Boeing/Embraer product.  Leave your nationalistic fervor for the forums.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.115.159.58 (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * In the 1970s and 1980s the VC10 could get out of Johannesburg at any time on hot days with a full load whereas DC-10s could only get out at 2:00 AM with just sufficient fuel to get to Nairobi.


 * "2.24d for the 707 and 2.13d for the VC10," - the figures are actually decimal fractions of old pre-decimalisation pennies., i.e., 2.24 old pennies, and 2.13 old pennies respectively. In other words, just over tuppence each, or in today's money, around one new pence per-mile.


 * By the 1960's most large UK companies were using computers for their accounting and other data processing and so the figures are almost certainly decimal fractions of pre-decimal currency, and the large-scale computerisation of business and banking was one of the reasons for the UK's decimalisation of its currency in 1971. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.189 (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2017 (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)


 * Perhaps by putting you at the rear by the engines, the most noisiest part of the cabin - and the favoured spot by the crew for the moaners and complainers - the cabin staff were trying to tell you something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.189 (talk) 10:21, 21 November 2017 (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)


 * The rear-mounted engines were usually shielded by the lowered flaps during take-off and landing. This meant that runway debris such as stones, dried mud, etc., on less well-maintained runways was less likely to be thrown up and ingested by the engines, especially when the latter were operating at high power. The non-use of remoulds may have been a precaution against possible damage should a tyre burst while taxiing. It may also simply have been because some smaller less-frequented airports might have lacked the facilities to jack-up an aircraft the size of a VC10 to change a wheel, in which case the aircraft would be stranded there until the wheel could be changed.


 * The VC10 was designed to be usable to and from places such as Lagos, Accra, Harare (then Salisbury), Bulawayo, Kampala, etc., which at the time did not have the more modern airport infrastructure built later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.6 (talk) 09:31, 14 April 2016 (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)
 * The passengers aboard a highjacked VC-10 does not appear notable to an article about the aircraft type. The fact that a notable poet and political activist was aboard is relevant to the poet's article, and even to the article on the highjacking (if we had one) but not really significant to the history of the aircraft type.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "does not appear"? Hm, that is a polite way of talking, so much the better, but does it correspond to formal rules? In other words, is it sufficient to revert a well-meant contribution? I can't help feeling it smells like WP:POV, though it may, itself too, be honestly well-meant. Then again, I can't help wondering if the presence on board of a person really but then really famous would have been considered irrelevant, too. Michael Jackson? Jacques Chirac? Alexander Solzhenytsin? to name but a few... Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I invited Rayne to add a reference for the information offered, on her/his own talk page. If none comes, I will quite assent to the removal, it will then have a documented ground and reason. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that this is the sort of information that belongs in the British Airways Flight 870 article. Agree with that survivors are generally not notable enough to me mentioned in sections of articles and lists of aircrashes, with the possible exception of sole survivors that have their own article and are notable for reasons other than being the sole survivor. In any case, the information is uncited, and is free to be removed by a challenger. Having been removed, it should not be readded without a reference. Mjroots (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for discussing reasonably. Still, I should like to see a formal confirmation of your statement Having been removed, it should not be readded without a reference. Some around here seem to feel the same, and (ab)use it as a pretext for removing any addition that displeases them, for whatever reason, and without any documented ground - leaving well meaning contributors flabbergasted, at least, and most likely quite demotivated. After all, there is no lack of WP:xxxx rules, surely there must be one to confirm your point of view? Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Or, in others words, the reversal that I reverted seems to me in blatant conflict with the Assume good faith principle. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:V, first paragraph and WP:PROVEIT. Mjroots (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing new there, I noted the obvious lack of reference already today at 16:52 (my time=UTC). Strange (or not?) that you should come up with it only now. I am less and less insisting the mention should remain (I never really argued pro, I only questioned certain backgrounds), but am even less convinced of the intellectual honesty of certain contributors. Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Another nay-sayer has joined the club, again without offering any formal reference. I think I give up, brute force has again shown it will always win in the end. Enjoy yourselves, gentlemen, I'm going fishing. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * and to top it all, a firm yet polite word of comment was removed from users talk page - no, I am not giving any names. The pack will obviously not take a word of criticism, nor will they answer the essential question (objective, documented criteria, you remember?). It is something to leave, it is worse to leave in disgust. Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comparing people to wolves is polite? Not where I'm from. Anyway, I removed your post per the note on my talk page that I prefer to discuss article issues on the relevant talk page. It seems clear the consensus here is to remove the name, so I did that. Life interrupted my editing, so I was not able to comment until now. Per WPBRD, the name should never have been readded in the first place, whether you agreed with the reasoning or not. WPAIR isn't some monolithic cabal, and we have had plenty of vehement disagreements. When we do agree, that's probably a good sign there's a consensus, documented or not. - BilCat (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * probably meaning WP:BRD and WP:AIR? Then you might have observed BRD does not encourage reverting, among others. And no, sorry, I did my best to remain polite but I can imagine my bitter words came across otherwise. And if you care to read carefully, you can see it is not me who implied monolithic cabal. And yes, if some clique agree to some consensus without formal discussion, and impose it on me and on other well-meaning contributors, that will make me feel a sheep under attack. Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Some more recommendations from WP:BRD: Enough said? Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Care and diplomacy should be exercised.
 * Look at the article's edit history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun.
 * Discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit, on the article's talk page.


 * I think you reached the point of "enough said" at "I'm going fishing"! Fish weren't biting, huh? - BilCat (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

large, not mid-sized aircraft
Now the VC-10 is mid-sized but at the time, it was one of the larger airliners, along with the DC-8 and 707. Suggest writing that it is mid-sized, but large at the time, .... Vanguard10 (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vickers VC10. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151231084758/http://www.flugausstellung.de/flugzeuge.html to http://www.flugausstellung.de/flugzeuge.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140316020502/http://www.das.org.uk/Vickers%20Super%20VC10%20Type%201151%20G-ASGC.htm to http://www.das.org.uk/Vickers%20Super%20VC10%20Type%201151%20G-ASGC.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Dawsonfieldcamels.jpg