Shipbucket

Excellent what-ifs and some nice ideas for variants too.

I'm wary of the rotodome on the AEW version though, they don't tend to mix well with T-tails, its possible to do but there are risks with the airflow over the tail. I think Ilyushin/Beriev overcame them on the A-50, but it took some wind tunnels tests to get the right result.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

Perhaps this VC.10 has a modified tail to fit with the rotodome radar, after wind tunnel test, it can be done (I think). In my scenario this is a late 1960's to 1970's project, in Falkands War the VC.10 AEW1 was operational. Both the Electronic Warfare "R" ,the AEW and the TACAMO are variants of VC.10 with maximum possible range (not sure for Standard of Super).

The "R.2" is the 1980's model, current is the "R.4".

Super VC.10 had nearly 11,500km range with max fuel, so on this airframe the AEW, EW ("R") and TACAMO are based. With economic speed of 885km/h this translates to 12-13 hours patrolling (extended with refueling or course). VC10 AEW due to the drag of the radar dome has a bit smaller range, but I think it would be equivalent with E-3.My RAF VC.10 C2 have 80,000lb payload (and four Conway RCo.42/7,24000lb each).

B707-320B had 5750nm range and E-3A 4000nm, VC.10 Super has 445nm more range with max fuel (6,195nm vs 5750nm) so perhaps the range of an VC.10 AEW could be ~4400nm.

http://s14.postimg.org/p55v82n29/AWACS_Region_RAS_2.png
http://postimg.org/image/79qoldanx/5699d4ee/

According to these above, I think that the Beriev A-50 has the radar dome lower than the E-3. The tail seem identical with that of Il-76, but the dome itself has different shape, somewhat more egg like.

I'm not saying its impossible, but it would have to be carefully placed. I'll try and dig out the A-50 reference I read.
Anyway, I think its the best solution, the nose and tail solution as used on the Nimrod AEW.3 was too complicated and probably would never have worked well without a lot more money and time thrown at it. I like these variants and its sad not more use was made of the VC.10.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

I am glad the VC.10AEW is plausible. Working on wind tunnel models the right position could be found. What about the other variants?

Revised variants without windows- since these are purpose built (plus two VIP with). I moved the radar a bit forward in AEW.

From these the "R", the TACAMO, and the AEW remain in service. This RAF has now A330MRTT too, these replace gradually the VC.10K1/K2. Difference between these is that the K.1 does not have internal fuel tanks of the K.2, while both have "wet" tail fin and three points for refueling (center for bombers, wingtip for fighters). RAF also used civilian VC.10 for spares and still has some stock, since in my scenario more airframes built. The VC.10 C.1/C.2 replaced by Globemaster III.

VC.10 delivered in my scenario (civilian).*

-BOAC (passed to British Airways and retired until 1989): 22 Standard, 35 Super (of which 18 were the -200 variant) and 13 of total were Combis (4 Standard, 9 Super)*
-British Caledonian: 12 total (8 Super, 4 Standard from BUA)
-Gulf Air (second larger operator and third last) : 16 Total (4 Standard, 6 Super, 6 Super 200). Painted in "Golden Eagle" colors, remain in service until 1992.
-Olympic Airlines: 14 total, retired in November 1994. Some special flights to Rovaniemi from Athens at Christmas were scheduled however in that year.
-Cyprus Airlines: 8 total (6 Super, 2 Super 200, used in close cooperation with OA). Retired in January 1997, these were the last VC.10 in commercial service.
-Air Ceylon : 8 total (4 Standard, 4 Super)
-MEA : 2 Standard, 4 Super

*Rest as in real life
*Total number of airframes built for BOAC

I thought also give VC.10 to Quantas and Air India, for former our Australian mates are free to comment!

Sniped by another post!

Interesting thoughts. Can't say they're as pretty as the Nimrod however

With regards to the TACAMO aircraft, I'd hesitantly give it a CC designation. So in order it'd be as follows.

VC10 K.1
VC10 R.2 or E.2 (depending on how closely it matches the Nimrod RECCE profile.)
VC10 AEW.3
VC10 K.4
VC10 C.5
VC10 CC.6

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire

Why C.5? This C.1 is the real Type 1106, my C.2 is a freighter VC10. All these built specially for RAF from the beginning.

I used the R designation because this replaces Nimrod R.

For MPA I consider use the orginal design of Trident, powered by three RR Medway. Its civilian variant built in three times the numbers of the Trident we know.

What I was getting at was the designations would go sequentially, not out of sequence so (to the best of my knowledge) for the same type you wouldn't have two identical identifiers.

_________________
AU Projects: | Banbha et al. | New England: The Divided States
Blood and Fire