I heard some people claiming the VC-10 had an aerobatic certification. I tired searching the web to confirm this but I haven't found anything.

Did it have an aerobatic certification? What exactly is meant by "aerobatic certification"? What kind of maneuvers can you do, that you can't do on other liners?

I believe it was our VC-10 enthusiast, Voloberilista, or something to that extend, who stated it could do aerobatics? You could try to PM him with directions to this thread. I think he only hangs around the FS2004 forum.

The 707 has been barrel rolled, so could it obtain a licence for this one manover......for the sake of conversation.

Matt

Quote:


Not really. A barrel roll involves a full rotation through the inverted (as like any other full roll) so would be classed as an aerobatic manouvre - unless you say that a roll isn't an aerobatic manouvre.

Quote:


I don't know what is the criteria for an aerobatic manouver, however the 707 roll was a 1G roll.

Quote:

In as much as it looks scary!!!

http://www.aviationexplorer.com/707_roll_video.htm

But it is only 1G.  I'll delve into the CAA definition of "Utility" to find out exactly their idea of aerobatics.  But certainly the VC10 could and was chucked about the sky in true aerobatic manoeuvres.
Vololiberrista

Quote:


The reason for it's lack of success was largely political. BOAC were forced to order it and did everything they could to do it down falsifying efficiencies, passenger figures  etc etc etc. The reason behind this is that they were in the pocket of Boeing.  The head of BOAC at that time had a secret agreement to "acquire" (not buy) 707's Yes that's right. Boeing gave BOAC launch 707's for free!!!!!

The fact that the VC10 was prefered by crew and passengers alike was quite embarassing for BOAC espècially as most chose it over the 707 when crossing the Atlantic. Even though the vc10 was not "designed" to fly over the Atlantic it proved much more efficient than the 707.

Yes it is built like a brick but it doesn't glide like one!! It was designed from the outset as a high performance jet which is why it was given the "utility" certificate.

There are many film clips showing it's performance capabilities. And here's one you can all try for yourselves.
That is to rotate before the numbers on rwy13 at Kai Tak  this is fully loaded at 335,000lbs MTO!!!
A sinch in a VC10  8)
Vololiberista

Quote:



Well, argue as much as you like, but last time I barrel rolled, it was an aerobatic manouvre - by definition of the VC10's final operator...

You may be quite right about it being subject to manouvres as such (Dizzy Addicot's name appears here and there), but I doubt they would get the certification and clearance in the release to service/airworthiness certificates...

Quote:

I'm not in a position to argue as you obviously know more about the VC10 than me. Give me a quote from a reliable source & I will believe you. I have no idea what a Utility certification means in this sense but this doesn't sound like ARB (Air Registration Board) terminology to me. The CAA was not formed until 1972.

Quote:

I have no doubt that modern arliners are tested just as stringently if not more so before being certified to carry passengers.

Quote:

An "Unrestricted" Certificate of Airworthiness is normal for all commercial passenger carrying aircraft. On 7th June 1946, Bristol 170 Freighter G-AGVB was granted the first unrestricted Certificate of Airworthiness for a new (British built) post war aircraft. The Bristol Freighter is hardly an aerobatic type. http://glostransporthistory.softdata.co.uk/JetAgeRMC_Bristol170.htm

PS. The DH.106 Comet was granted an Unrestricted passenger-carrying Certificate of Airworthiness in early 1952.

While researching this I found a very interesting obituary to the late David Davies who was the chief test pilot of the ARB/CAA flight department for 33 years until his retirement in 1982. He was directly responsible for checking the handling of all new aircraft types on the British civil register, from the first jet airliner, the Comet, to the supersonic Concorde & including the VC10. In fact he wrote the book Handling the Big Jets which is still regarded as the jet pilot's bible. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,173-948284,00.html

I rather like a couple of quotes in the obituary. Quote:

Quote:

I don't know about the old BCARs but I checked the current EASA/FAA civil certification regulations & the "normal" "utility" and "special" categories apply to FAR/JAR/CS-23 (Normal, Utility, Aerobatic, and Commuter Category Aeroplanes)
(1) Aeroplanes in the normal, utility and aerobatic categories that have a seating configuration, excluding the pilot seat(s), of nine or fewer and a maximum certificated take-off weight of 5670 kg (12 500 lb) or less; and

(2) Propeller-driven twin-engined aeroplanes in the commuter category that have a seating configuration, excluding the pilot seat(s), of nineteen or fewer and a maximum certificated take-off weight of 8618 kg (19 000 lb) or less.

Heavy airliners are covered by FAR/JAR/CS-25 (Large aeroplanes) which is not split into these separate categories. http://www.easa.eu.int/doc/Agency_Mesures/Certification_Spec/easa_cs25_amendment...