46 http://www.aeroplanemonthly.com AEROPLANE SEPTEMBER 2017It was clear which of the three
arrangements BAC favoured.
With larger-diameter engines,
underwing mounting would mean
reduced ground clearance or longer
undercarriages. The structural
penalties resulting from rear-mounted
engines were reduced by the effects of
the deeper double-deck fuselage.
The government, meanwhile, was
continuing to make it clear that it
expected BOAC to buy British and
that would include an expanded
VC10. Asked in June 1965 for his
views on a “hyper VC10”, aviation
minister Roy Jenkins was guarded, but
did acknowledge that it was “under
fairly active consideration.”
A BAC brochure dated September
1965 described a double-deck
airliner based on the Super VC10
and aimed at meeting the seat-mile
costs required by BOAC. Now there
were two versions, designated Super
VC10-265 and -265/80. They would
have used the Super VC10’s wings,
tailplane and undercarriage, suitably
stiffened to permit a maximum take-
off weight of 372,000lb (169,000kg).
Other existing components would be
incorporated to minimise acquisition
and maintenance costs.
The design featured a fuselage 33in
(84cm) longer than the Super’s, with
two decks accommodating a total of
265 passengers “to BOAC standards
of amenities and comfort”. The
rear freight hold would have a gross
volume of about 2,100 cubic feet (59
cubic metres).The upper cabin would seat 201
passengers and have the same cross-
section as the VC10’s. This would
mean that existing furnishings,
windows, galleys and toilets could
be used. The BAC paper pointed
out that the rear section of the upper
cabin was identical to the Super’s rear
saloon.
The lower fuselage section would
have the same radius as the upper
one to form a true double-bubble,
about 40.5in (103cm) deeper than
the VC10’s body. Up to 64 business
or tourist-class passengers could be
accommodated in the lower saloon
forward of the wing and there would
be a self-contained galley, two toilets
and additional stowage areas. Simple
straight stairs would connect the
two sections. Once more, existing
furnishings and windows could be
used in the lower fuselage.
All passenger, servicing and
emergency doors would be of the
VC10 outward-opening plug type
in three basic sizes. The largest,
57in (145cm) wide, would permit
the simultaneous loading of two
streams of passengers at the front of
the aircraft to the upper and lower
sections. Access to the rear saloon
in the upper section would be via a
normal Super VC10 rear entrance
door.Freight compartments on both
decks would be accessed via a large
door. It was envisaged that the aircraft
could swiftly be converted to carry
freight instead of passengers. Indeed,
the BAC document highlighted the
flexible internal arrangements possible
from the double-deck configuration,
which was also claimed to “present
the stylist with first-rate opportunities
for individual airline presentation.”
The aircraft would have been
powered by four rear-mounted
RB178-14 engines each offering
27,500lb of thrust. BAC claimed:
“The take-off performance
approaches that of the standard
VC10, which will permit flexibility
of operation on the complete BOAC
network rather than just on the
North Atlantic. It will also help
to offset future noise restrictions”.
With basic fuel tankage, it added, the
aircraft should be able to carry a full
load of 265 passengers from London
to New York.
But the document pointed out
that the -265’s centre section, wing
and fuselage were designed to permit
a maximum take-off weight of
400,000lb (180,000kg). There was arevised wing, designed to the same
limits as the Super VC10 but with
area increased by 7.5 per cent to 3,150
square feet (293 square metres). A
strengthened undercarriage would
have enabled the -265/80 to carry an
80,000lb (36,360kg) payload from
London to New York or a 42,500lb
(19,300kg) payload to Los Angeles.
It was suggested that an extended
fuselage would make it possible
for up to 330 passengers to be
accommodated.
The double-decker was thought
to offer much more development
potential than “the over-stretched,
over-developed single-deck aircraft”.
The double-bubble structural
philosophy avoided the weight
penalty and unknowns likely to
attend “the excessively long, slender
pressurised tube approach.”
BAC’s engineers were so
enthusiastic that they believed the
Super VC10-265 could herald
the start of a new era in airliner
development, even though it was
based on existing knowledge and
components.
A further brochure dated
September 1965 described three
variations on a high-density, short-
haul theme. One would have been
a double-decker similar to the -265
but accommodating 212 passengers
in six-abreast seating on both decks.
Seat pitch was envisaged as being
30in (76cm) and power would have
come from a pair of rear-mounted
RB178s. The following month, yet
another brochure described what
was called the Super VC10 Double-
Deck Airliner. Passenger capacity
had risen to 295 with a consequent
improvement in operating costs.
The two variants were now
designated Type 1180 and Type 1181.
They would have shared the same
double-bubble fuselage cross-section
with a smaller upper lobe having an
internal width at shoulder height of
136in (345cm) and the lower one
measuring 147.2in (374cm). A quartet
of rear-mounted RB178-14s would
have powered it.
The main differences between
the pair concerned their passenger
accommodation. The higher-density
Type 1180 would have carried 205
passengers on the upper deck with
six-abreast seating at a pitch of 34in
(86cm). There would have been 90
seats on the lower deck. The Type
1181 would have provided a higher
standard of accommodation for 286
passengers at the same seat pitch.
Range with 295 passengers was now
4,500 miles (7,250km).DOUBLE-DECK VC10
BELOW:
An October 1965
drawing showing
the cross-section of
the ‘double-bubble’
fuselage layout.38-47_AM_VICKERS_Sept17_cc C.indd 46 31/07/2017 13:29