In addition to its military application, both the Ministry and Vickers also intended to use the same basic design as the VC7, a six-abreast trans-Atlantic jet airliner for British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC).
[4] Meanwhile, the Royal Air Force (RAF) had been pursuing development of a new generation of strategic bombers: the Vickers Valiant, the Avro Vulcan, and the Handley Page Victor.
Noting the favourable performance attributes of the Valiant, both the Ministry of Supply (MoS) and Vickers became interested in a prospective transport derivative, as a potential long-range successor to the smaller Comet.
[4] RAF requirements also provided some complications for the design, such as necessitating the use of double-slotted flaps to achieve the short field performance sought, along with the integration of a rear-mounted sizable hydraulic freight elevator for self-loading operations.
It retained the Valiant's shoulder-mounted wing, which would have left many rows windowless, and also meant that it had long landing gear that BOAC considered unsuitable.
[9] In June 1954, the Secretary of State for Air William Sidney, 1st Viscount De L'Isle announced that a production order for the military variant, designated as the V-1000, was to be placed for the RAF.
[6] A key innovation of the V-1000 was its intended use of the Rolls-Royce Conway, which was the first production bypass engine, offering both increased range and improved fuel economy.
[13] The VC7 proved to be of concern to aircraft manufacturers in the United States, where both Boeing and Douglas were in the process of designing their own jet transports to a very similar requirement from Strategic Air Command.
Both companies undertook expensive re-designs of their projects to compete, enlarging the fuselage to match the VC7's 3+3 layout and increasing the overall size and weight of their aircraft.
[citation needed] In mid-1955, it was acknowledged that the V-1000 would have a higher all-up weight of 248,000lb, instead of the 230,000lb figure that had been originally forecast, negatively impacting the aircraft's performance.
The Air Staff, seeking to reduce expenditure due to pressure from HM Treasury, noted the V-1000 to be one of the most expensive ongoing projects, and thus came to favour its cancellation.
[9] This selection had coincided with political pressure to bolster employment in Northern Ireland, where much of the production of the Comet 2 was to have been conducted under licence by Short Brothers.
The Comet 2's cancellation, along with the aborted Supermarine Swift fighter, had left Short's with a bleak future; an order for Britannias, to be built in the same factory, was seen as providing a neat solution for all concerned.
[15] During the conference, a MoS spokesperson spoke in-depth on the V-1000 and its termination, observing that the programme had taken "long than was hoped to overcome some of the programs of meeting the specification", as well as highlighting the role played by the Britannia in substituting for the intended V-1000 fleet.
[18] After reviewing this information, Thomas announced that he would not purchase the VC7 due to its weight increases impacting its performance; according to Woods, the real reason was BOAC wanting to avoid having to support another British aircraft programme in addition to its existing commitments.
[20] Following the cancellation announcement, Mauldling stated to the press that the decision had been made due to both BOAC and the RAF being unwilling to order the type, leaving him without any alternative.
[21] BOAC declared that they were perfectly happy with the Britannia for their trans-Atlantic routes, and would remain so until an enlarged de Havilland Comet 4 arrived in a few years.
As had been pointed out at the time, the VC7's performance from limited airfields was considerably better than that of the Boeing 707, which required long runways and extensive ground support.
[9] Deputy Leader of the Labour Party George Brown asked "does not this decision mean that the American companies, the Douglas and the Boeing, will, in effect, be so far ahead of us in the next development of the pure jet that we shall have 10 or 20 years to make up at some stage afterwards?
Air Commodore Arthur Vere Harvey expressed concerns of the industry in general, while William Robson Brown questioned the wisdom of cancelling at such a late date given that £2.3 million had been invested in the project.
[9] In response, the Minister of Supply, Reginald Maudling, noted that it was extremely unlikely that other airlines would order the VC7, as "everyone concerned accepts that we cannot launch an aircraft of this category into the markets of the world unless we first have a home purchaser who will buy and operate it, which is not so in this case.
"[9] He declined to offer continued financial support to Vickers for the civilian model for this reason; he also claimed that development had been lagging and weight had increased to offset performance.
[23] The V-1000 was an all-metal jet-powered aircraft, having adopted a conventional monoplane configuration and broadly resembling a scaled-up version of the de Havilland Comet.
[24] The engines, buried within the wings, were placed further outboard than the preceding Comet to reduce cabin noise and avoid the rear fuselage encountering the jet blast.
[24] The tail surfaces were conventional and adopted a similar shape to that used for the wing; the tailplanes had a pronounced dihedral to keep them clear of the jet exhaust.