727 v Dh121

[J.Don.]

Anybody out there who flew both of these A/C, & if there is, could they be good enough too share their experience, & tell me how they compared, i.e. what were they like to fly. I have heard various horror stories about the Trident when fully loaded & wonder if the 727 was similar.

Regards J.Don.

[TRISTAR1]

I did not fly the Trident but have about 6000 hours on the 727.

The 727 was (is still in some parts of the world) a great aircraft to fly. Flew better heavy than light.

I guess that is why over 2000 were built and only a handfull of Tridents.

[DH106]

I did not fly the Trident but have about 6000 hours on the 727.

The 727 was (is still in some parts of the world) a great aircraft to fly. Flew better heavy than light.

I guess that is why over 2000 were built and only a handfull of Tridents.


Wot - 2000 vs 'only a handfull' built on the basis that the 727 was a 'great a/c to fly' & ' Flew better heavy than light'.

I rather think operating economics, price, supporting package and not least politics were the major issues - not how they flew.

Also there were approx. 120 Tridents built - whilst this is not on the same scale as 2000 for the 727, it's hardly 'just a handfull'.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

The Trident missed the bus because dH built the Trident 1 far too small, because that's what BEA wanted (or thought they wanted).

By the time they'd got the aeroplane up to the size required by the world's airliners, Boeing had taken the market with the 727.

As a PPL I've obviously never flown either (but have flown in both). But I can say that the dH 121 was by far the better looking IMHO. In fact, it was one of the best looking airliners of all time. Fast, too.

SSD

[Wycombe]

...the Trident may have been the "gripper" and a commercial disaster, but it pioneered autoland and CAT III operations.

Discovery Wings have been showing the clips of the crew at Bedford (I think it was) with arms folded and screens up as the a/c lands itself.

Amazing stuff :ok:

[Conan the Librarian]

Whereas the Gripper was called the name for just that, the 727 pioneered many of the new short/medium haul jet routes and was by comparison an accomplished performer. With all those flaps and slats working away, it could get into many places previously thought impossible for jets. With the rear airstair, it was self contained and really did the lions share of creating jet travel for the masses from 1963 until the advent of true mass travel was realised in the the Jumbo.

I have never found a crew that dislike the jet and the many, many jumpseat trips that I have done in 727s of different operators, will always be times that I shall never forget. (and also the left hand seat in a Stimulator session - now that DID make me concentrate)With a range of MTOW from 160,000 to 208,000lbs, nobody could ever say that it was not a supremely flexible aircraft that was designed for the market in much the same way that Trident wasn't. Until overtaken by the 737 at 1832 units I think, the 727 was the most popular airliner in the World. I am working from memory and fondness here, so my "facts" may be slightly out as my addled brain looks back through the old rose tinted specs.

As an aside, it is fun to think that variants of the engines for both Trident and the 727 had other lives as military powerplants. The Spey, crackled away in the Buccaneer, the mighty 'toom and the Nimrod, whilst the JT8D ended up at a whopping 28,000lbs thrust I think, (as the Volvo RM8?) in no less than the Saab Viggen.

What a crying shame that Trident was so compromised in design,by the time it first arrived in service. Who knows what chunk it might have taken out of 727 sales? While Boeing and Douglas gave Britain a lesson in marketing and stuffed the VC-10, they pulled the same stunt on the Trident too.


Happy days...

Conan

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

While Boeing and Douglas gave Britain a lesson in marketing and stuffed the VC-10, they pulled the same stunt on the Trident too.

Conan

True, but magnificent aeroplane though the '10 was, wasn't it designed for BOAC to get into and out of short, hot & high fields in pre-747days? Hence it had a lot of wing, which didn't help its cruise performance.

Soon after the VC10 went into service, those short runways were extended to accomodate the 747, and that superb short-field performance was not required any more....

[777fly]

Shaggy and Conan summed it all up. The Trident (DH121) was compromised by the specification demanded by it's major launch customer, BEA. It was a superb aircraft, but much too small and optimised for high speed, point-to-point. By the time it evolved into the Trident 3 ( similar to the B727) it had lost its market advantage.

It was a great aircraft to fly. The Trident 1 had 38 degree swept wing, which apart from allowing a phenomenal roll rate, gave a cruise mach of .885 and an Mno of .93. In the days before decent simulators, when we actually had to fly the type rating exercises, I saw mach .99 on a high-fly and 18,000 fpm rate of descent in a practise depressurisation. It handled like a fighter through all that. As previously mentioned, we pioneered all of the modern autoland techniques, including the first commercial autolands in Cat 2 & 3. The high speed wing had its downside, hence the 'gripper' title. Approach speeds were high by modern standards and an 1800 metre runway was a big challenge in tricky conditions. The early T1 had Spey 505-E engines, with no contingency power available. Full throttle was IT. Lumbering over 'the hump' , halfway down the runway at RAF Luqa in Malta, on a hot night was alarming, to say the least. It was a great aircraft, but Boeing definitely got it 'right first time ' with the B727.

[Skylion]

The original DH 121 design and size,- which was very foolishly and naively shared with Boeing with an alleged view to licensed production in the USA,- was very similar to the 727-100 . Two things then happened. Firstly BEA insisted that the aircraft was too big and in reducing capacity to a ludicrous 88 while retaining 3 engines. Any child with a pencil and the back of an old envelope would have worked out in less than a minute that that was an awful lot of engine/fuel/capital cost/maintainence per passenger. The next was that Boeing said " thanks a lot but don't think we will proceed with that" and shortly afterwards came up with the right size basic configuration of around 112,- and that swept the board. Had de Havilland had the money to build both their own 112 seater and take BEA's money for the 88 seater they could have come out with a decent market share and sold maybe 500. As they didn't have the money or the courage the project was economically doomed from the start and only saved from complete disaster by the fact that the Chinese wanted a modern aircraft but didnt at that time want to buy American. The same was true of Iraqi Airways, and Kuwait.
Another nail in the coffin was the DH addiction to RR and the Spey. They needed to offer the Pratt and Whitney JT8D as an alternative from the start.

[happ1ness]

Whilst on my ATC cadetship back in the early eighties did 16 hours on the Trident at Cranebank. I remember one of the instructors Eddie(?) Lack being quite enthusiastic over the Trident. Sad day when so many were scrapped at Prestwick .:)

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

The last Trident to fly in UK airline service was G-AWZO.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b132/GZK6NK/G-AWZOGatwickoct72.jpg

I flew on it December 31st 1985 from Manchester. We did a low pass at Liverpool and IOM, then back at Manch before a tight visual circuit to a somewhat ropey landing. :)

That night it flew the Manch - Heathrow shuttle, the very last Trident service (they could not meet noise regs for 1986). It was later positioned to Hatfield 'for preservation'. In fact, it was just left to rot.

Here it is a few years ago:

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b132/GZK6NK/G-AWZO.jpg

It has since been broken up. :ugh:

[Chris Royle]

Skylion,
Have you any more details of this?
Chum who is an ex BEA Trident driver would be interested to know more. When? How? Who? etc.
"The original DH 121 design and size,- which was very foolishly and naively shared with Boeing with an alleged view to licensed production in the USA"

Thanks,
Chris

[Sir Stanley Bigh]

The Trident Preservation Society have a website and board (similar to pprune in fact) which is well worth a visit if you are a fan of the Trident.
It is at http://www.classicbritishaviation.org/
Follow the link to the TPS Discussion Area