Important British Aircraft
SSDriver
...Which could have been done with any airliner of the time! Precisely my point! There's nothing down to any unique feature of the Trident as an aeroplane that helped autoland. The Autoland engineers could have fitted that gear to any number of other airliners, and later, did!
Mr Driver, I think you are being a little disingenuous here and should read what you quoted before stating what I've underlined above.
No airliner of the time had fully triplex systems and to retro-fit them would have been difficult, going on impossible. Just to give you (and other young people here) a feeling for what was necessary to achieve a provable level of certificable reliability, we had three powerplants each driving an electrical system and an hydraulic sustem with an air-operable APU available to cater for a main engine failure case. There were also power cross-feeds to power an electrical system if an alternator/CSD failed or a hydraulic system if an engine-driven pump failed. That's only the broad brush.
You happily say "fit either with triple systems etc." but have you ever tried to design something, in the 1960s or now, which would get that system integrity on aeroplanes designed to not be like that, in particular twin-engined aeroplanes or those with manual reversion flying controls.
I shall stop soon as there seems no point in my writing the same thing again.
ETA perhaps you will accept that, like the Bellman, "what I tell you three times is true"
...Which could have been done with any airliner of the time! Precisely my point! There's nothing down to any unique feature of the Trident as an aeroplane that helped autoland. The Autoland engineers could have fitted that gear to any number of other airliners, and later, did!
Mr Driver, I think you are being a little disingenuous here and should read what you quoted before stating what I've underlined above.
No airliner of the time had fully triplex systems and to retro-fit them would have been difficult, going on impossible. Just to give you (and other young people here) a feeling for what was necessary to achieve a provable level of certificable reliability, we had three powerplants each driving an electrical system and an hydraulic sustem with an air-operable APU available to cater for a main engine failure case. There were also power cross-feeds to power an electrical system if an alternator/CSD failed or a hydraulic system if an engine-driven pump failed. That's only the broad brush.
You happily say "fit either with triple systems etc." but have you ever tried to design something, in the 1960s or now, which would get that system integrity on aeroplanes designed to not be like that, in particular twin-engined aeroplanes or those with manual reversion flying controls.
I shall stop soon as there seems no point in my writing the same thing again.
ETA perhaps you will accept that, like the Bellman, "what I tell you three times is true"
That certainly marks the Trident down as an Important Aircraft - a bit of history I was unfamiliar with, but basically you are saying that it defined the systems configuration of the modern airliner?
G
G
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why "Trident"?
Haraka
I was under the distinct impression, albeit not a first-hand recollection, that the Airco/DH 121 was named after BEA asked for suggestions (perhaps even in a BEA employees' competition?) and I remember being later told that an overwhelming majority wanted it called Trident.
However, I'll happily accept that the actuality might have been something completely different!
I was under the distinct impression, albeit not a first-hand recollection, that the Airco/DH 121 was named after BEA asked for suggestions (perhaps even in a BEA employees' competition?) and I remember being later told that an overwhelming majority wanted it called Trident.
However, I'll happily accept that the actuality might have been something completely different!
How about the Dove? Innovative use of adhesives in assembly and early in the commuter/business/commuter world. With American engines and aero updates it could still be rivalling the Kingair.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haraka - it was 5 engines. 3 Speys, a boost engine, and an APU. And it was called the dH 121 before it was called 'Trident'.
Mr Lupton. Thanks for the info. It adds nothing to the argument however - you are talking aircraft systems, and from what you describe it's a system that relies on 3 of everything. So it's not the system Concorde or a twin-engined airliner could use such as are most of today's, so probably doesn't even count as the aeroplane that laid down systems design in modern airliners.
So it was just the first fitted for auto land. Not a landmark, especially as that system seems to be Trident-specific.
The aircraft (if there is one) that defined modern airliner systems was probably Concorde, with fly by wire and full authority electronic engine control (full power plant control actually, including intakes and nozzles). Oh, and autoland!
Thanks for this, though:
Mr Lupton. Thanks for the info. It adds nothing to the argument however - you are talking aircraft systems, and from what you describe it's a system that relies on 3 of everything. So it's not the system Concorde or a twin-engined airliner could use such as are most of today's, so probably doesn't even count as the aeroplane that laid down systems design in modern airliners.
So it was just the first fitted for auto land. Not a landmark, especially as that system seems to be Trident-specific.
The aircraft (if there is one) that defined modern airliner systems was probably Concorde, with fly by wire and full authority electronic engine control (full power plant control actually, including intakes and nozzles). Oh, and autoland!
Thanks for this, though:
...you (and other young people here)
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In transit
Age: 70
Posts: 3,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would agree that the BAC 1-11 deserves mention. It was sold to operators all over the world, and had the big advantage that it was completely autonomous in that it needed no airfield support, making it ideal for 'milk-run' type flights were fast turnround was important.
244 were built and its only significant competition in short/medium haul was the Caravelle.
244 were built and its only significant competition in short/medium haul was the Caravelle.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember (just!) when the 1-11 was introduced. It was known as 'The Bus-Stop Jet' because it needed no airfield support. Why was it not more successful? Especially in the early years before the 737 came onto the market?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am fascinated in aviation history and engineering but not particularly expert on either so I am grateful for the fascinating discussion and explanations here.
I am now fully convinced that Concorde should be on the list, Anglo-French or not, I admit I always hoped that I could be persuaded!
I feel that perhaps the Vimy should not be on the list if that excludes the Trident and/or 111, so which one, or both of them do we add to a list of the world's 25 most precedent-setting planes?
So I now have Cayley's glider(s) in my non-negotiable FIRST FOUR precedent-setters, (which no-one has challenged) then:
Viscount
Comet
Trident and/or 111
Concorde
So with your comments I am now proposing that 5 or 6 British planes belong in Stepwilk's list of the world's 25 "Most precendential airplanes of all time".
Do we all feel honestly that Britain (with France in one case!) has contributed THAT many, when you have to consider some of the fine planes in Stepwil's opening list?
And if so, what can we say and do to amicably persuade Stepwill and others to start taking an interest in our achievements and including these five or six internationally important British and Anglo/British planes in their lists, books, TV shows, films etc..?
I am now fully convinced that Concorde should be on the list, Anglo-French or not, I admit I always hoped that I could be persuaded!
I feel that perhaps the Vimy should not be on the list if that excludes the Trident and/or 111, so which one, or both of them do we add to a list of the world's 25 most precedent-setting planes?
So I now have Cayley's glider(s) in my non-negotiable FIRST FOUR precedent-setters, (which no-one has challenged) then:
Viscount
Comet
Trident and/or 111
Concorde
So with your comments I am now proposing that 5 or 6 British planes belong in Stepwilk's list of the world's 25 "Most precendential airplanes of all time".
Do we all feel honestly that Britain (with France in one case!) has contributed THAT many, when you have to consider some of the fine planes in Stepwil's opening list?
And if so, what can we say and do to amicably persuade Stepwill and others to start taking an interest in our achievements and including these five or six internationally important British and Anglo/British planes in their lists, books, TV shows, films etc..?
G'day Joy Ride.
Just curious, what British aircraft in particular do you think have been omitted from history?
These British planes and achievements then get omitted from history
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airco DH121 (Trident) Advert
Aah, de Havilland - and nostalgia's still what it used to be!
http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPD...20-%203072.PDF
Some might find this advertisement interesting, from "Flight" magazine dated November 1959. At that stage the aircraft hadn't been named, and indeed, it seems nor had the RB.163 turbojet, later called the Spey.
Also, the statement claiming that "exterior noise no more than present propeller-driven short-haul liners" is, to say the least, somewhat debatable!
http://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPD...20-%203072.PDF
Some might find this advertisement interesting, from "Flight" magazine dated November 1959. At that stage the aircraft hadn't been named, and indeed, it seems nor had the RB.163 turbojet, later called the Spey.
Also, the statement claiming that "exterior noise no more than present propeller-driven short-haul liners" is, to say the least, somewhat debatable!
I would agree that the BAC 1-11 deserves mention. It was sold to operators all over the world, and had the big advantage that it was completely autonomous in that it needed no airfield support, making it ideal for 'milk-run' type flights were fast turnround was important.
244 were built and its only significant competition in short/medium haul was the Caravelle.
244 were built and its only significant competition in short/medium haul was the Caravelle.
I remember (just!) when the 1-11 was introduced. It was known as 'The Bus-Stop Jet' because it needed no airfield support. Why was it not more successful? Especially in the early years before the 737 came onto the market?
This is in contrast to the Caravelle which was sold to a significant number of the European national mainstream carriers of the time.
The principal competitor was the DC-9, which came along well before the 737 and with two engines/two crew was right in the same market. The first One-Eleven was delivered in March 1965, to Braniff, being aircraft No 17, which in itself is indicative of some development inefficiencies. Delta received the first DC-9 just six months later, and the type swept the secondary US airlines.
Also, the statement [about the Trident] claiming that "exterior noise no more than present propeller-driven short-haul liners" is, to say the least, somewhat debatable!
Last edited by WHBM; 17th Dec 2014 at 23:20.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: 40nm east of BLL
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concorde
I reckon the. Concorde to be a airliner-type business-jet!
The main group of Concorde costumers were businessmen with the task of getting a signature in ink on the other side of the Atlantic, and possible be back same day.
IMO it wasn't the planes first(!) crash and following 9/11 that slaughtered the Concorde, it was the web! The latter years of the Concorde, did the web evolve to handle contracts and payment, making fast business-trips over the Atlantic obsolete, and it's a tell tale sign of the planes downfall that the passengers at the last trip was leisure travellers combining an Atlantic cruise with the experience of supersonic flight. The Brits should have realised that before they used money on changing the fatal details and modernizing: They might have been dissapointed if 9/11 hadn't come first :-|
Last argument: Does anybody really miss the supersonic service of the Concorde today? I dont think so!
The main group of Concorde costumers were businessmen with the task of getting a signature in ink on the other side of the Atlantic, and possible be back same day.
IMO it wasn't the planes first(!) crash and following 9/11 that slaughtered the Concorde, it was the web! The latter years of the Concorde, did the web evolve to handle contracts and payment, making fast business-trips over the Atlantic obsolete, and it's a tell tale sign of the planes downfall that the passengers at the last trip was leisure travellers combining an Atlantic cruise with the experience of supersonic flight. The Brits should have realised that before they used money on changing the fatal details and modernizing: They might have been dissapointed if 9/11 hadn't come first :-|
Last argument: Does anybody really miss the supersonic service of the Concorde today? I dont think so!
Last edited by Flybiker7000; 18th Dec 2014 at 22:02. Reason: Correcting native autospell
SSD: not all Tridents had 5 engines, only the Mk3.
When I was at Glasgow, they seemed to take great delight lighting the booster engine as they passed the control tower when taxying for 24 (now 23). Sometimes you would get just a plume of vaporised fuel, other times a tremendous gout of flame would erupt!
When I was at Glasgow, they seemed to take great delight lighting the booster engine as they passed the control tower when taxying for 24 (now 23). Sometimes you would get just a plume of vaporised fuel, other times a tremendous gout of flame would erupt!
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,371
Received 110 Likes
on
77 Posts
So far, no mention of the Avro 748.
A rugged, reliable a/c which sold very well and is still flying today. However, I understand one of it's distinguishing and unsung features was in the structural design with a change from "safe life" to "fail safe".
That change alone should warrant a mention.
We won't mention the derivatives however, the last one in particular, unless we are discussing " How to build a heap of junk and then wonder why it doesn't sell".
You could hear a Vanguard, and indeed quite a few a/c of that era taxiing at MAN ( depending on the wind direction ) quite easily in the surrounding districts.
The 1-11. Whilst people go dewy eyed, because is it was British, over the type, the reality of operating the heap was it's downfall. The Spey wasn't exactly fuel efficient, operating in ambient temps, with a full load was "interesting" to watch, and then there was the little matter of routine maintenance.
The last was a time / manpower eater. Simple and routine tasks were never such.
The captive nut / QRF and access panels remained a mystery, if not an anathema, to UK designers for many years as did the concept of Customer Support.
A rugged, reliable a/c which sold very well and is still flying today. However, I understand one of it's distinguishing and unsung features was in the structural design with a change from "safe life" to "fail safe".
That change alone should warrant a mention.
We won't mention the derivatives however, the last one in particular, unless we are discussing " How to build a heap of junk and then wonder why it doesn't sell".
You could hear a Vanguard, and indeed quite a few a/c of that era taxiing at MAN ( depending on the wind direction ) quite easily in the surrounding districts.
The 1-11. Whilst people go dewy eyed, because is it was British, over the type, the reality of operating the heap was it's downfall. The Spey wasn't exactly fuel efficient, operating in ambient temps, with a full load was "interesting" to watch, and then there was the little matter of routine maintenance.
The last was a time / manpower eater. Simple and routine tasks were never such.
The captive nut / QRF and access panels remained a mystery, if not an anathema, to UK designers for many years as did the concept of Customer Support.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,617
Received 293 Likes
on
161 Posts
Phileas, the Islander is indeed a great success in terms of airframes built and longevity, but I'd hesitate to describe it as an airliner. "Mini Airliner" is one the many roles undertaken by a light utiity transport.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In transit
Age: 70
Posts: 3,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Vanguard in its passenger configuration was loved by the dental profession. If you had fillings at the beginning of a flight, they'd rattled and vibrated out by the end.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noyade, good morning Sir!
In my time in USA I have encountered all sorts of people, magazines, books, films and TV programmes concerning aviation, and in UK we are now very dominated by information originating in the USA.
I have gradually come to notice that over there there is a strong interest and pride in their own aircraft....this is quite right and normal! There is also a strong interest in "Enemy" aviation....the Me 262s, the Migs and Zeros they encountered, and other such things. These twin areas of interest are frequently discussed, written and broadcast about, and now these publications and broadcasts are becoming as or more common in UK than home-produced ones.
The interest in "Us vs Them" is perfectly normal in all countries, here we talk "Spits vs 109s"!
However, I have now very often noticed that British aviation gets little or no mention, and I feel this is not fair. Once an article or TV show is made that omits important British aircraft, then in time it becomes "source material" for the next ones, and with each repeat British aviation seems to get squeezed out.
Recently a thread was posted "Most Precedential airplanes of all time" by Stepwilk who is compiling a list of 25 for a US publication, but has not (so far) included any British aircraft.
I have sent him or her a friendly PM stating roughly what I am saying in this thread that I started, and I hope that on this thread we can get a short-list of British (or Anglo-British) planes that SHOULD be on the list.
Trying not to be too full of "National Pride" I do honestly believe that AT LEAST one British aircraft MUST be on any fair list of the most precedential 25 aircraft of all time, and I hope contributors to this thread can help to make an emphatic case for this!
In my time in USA I have encountered all sorts of people, magazines, books, films and TV programmes concerning aviation, and in UK we are now very dominated by information originating in the USA.
I have gradually come to notice that over there there is a strong interest and pride in their own aircraft....this is quite right and normal! There is also a strong interest in "Enemy" aviation....the Me 262s, the Migs and Zeros they encountered, and other such things. These twin areas of interest are frequently discussed, written and broadcast about, and now these publications and broadcasts are becoming as or more common in UK than home-produced ones.
The interest in "Us vs Them" is perfectly normal in all countries, here we talk "Spits vs 109s"!
However, I have now very often noticed that British aviation gets little or no mention, and I feel this is not fair. Once an article or TV show is made that omits important British aircraft, then in time it becomes "source material" for the next ones, and with each repeat British aviation seems to get squeezed out.
Recently a thread was posted "Most Precedential airplanes of all time" by Stepwilk who is compiling a list of 25 for a US publication, but has not (so far) included any British aircraft.
I have sent him or her a friendly PM stating roughly what I am saying in this thread that I started, and I hope that on this thread we can get a short-list of British (or Anglo-British) planes that SHOULD be on the list.
Trying not to be too full of "National Pride" I do honestly believe that AT LEAST one British aircraft MUST be on any fair list of the most precedential 25 aircraft of all time, and I hope contributors to this thread can help to make an emphatic case for this!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSD: not all Tridents had 5 engines, only the Mk3.
IMO it wasn't the planes first(!) crash and following 9/11 that slaughtered the Concorde,
it's a tell tale sign of the planes downfall that the passengers at the last trip was leisure travellers combining an Atlantic cruise with the experience of supersoniske flight. The Brits should have realised that before they used money on changing the fatal details and modernizing: They might have been dissapointed of 9/11 hadn't come first :-|
Last argument: Does anybody really miss the supersonic service of the Concorde today? I dont think so!
None of you seem to remember that the Trident was the successful solution to the conundrum of the time that 4 engines were too many and 2 were considered too few. As I recall one of BEA's technical pilots was influential in suggesting three engines would be the perfect solution for BEA's problems.
De Havilland developed the concept and Boeing took a keen interest and requested a vist with a view to collaboration.
DeH showed them round the DH121 project and then sat back to await the return invitation to Seattle.
Surprise, surprise - that never came and suddenly there was a Boeing project of almost identical specification which became the 727.
Sadly, in one of the recessions of the late 50s, BEA panicked and cut back the spec of airframe and engines to tailor the aeroplane to the average BEA sector. This made it deeply unattractive to other airlines while the 727 prospered. The Trident 3b was the closest to the orignal DH121 - much too late.
Finally, many DH/HS designers left to join Boeing.
Interestingly Flight in the 60s published an HS design concept for a twin-engine underwing aeroplane which was within a whisker of the dimensions of the 757 - including the low possition of the horiizontal stabiliser which was only finalised in the 80s for the 757.
So, arguably, the DH121 was the most influential British aeroplane of all time!
De Havilland developed the concept and Boeing took a keen interest and requested a vist with a view to collaboration.
DeH showed them round the DH121 project and then sat back to await the return invitation to Seattle.
Surprise, surprise - that never came and suddenly there was a Boeing project of almost identical specification which became the 727.
Sadly, in one of the recessions of the late 50s, BEA panicked and cut back the spec of airframe and engines to tailor the aeroplane to the average BEA sector. This made it deeply unattractive to other airlines while the 727 prospered. The Trident 3b was the closest to the orignal DH121 - much too late.
Finally, many DH/HS designers left to join Boeing.
Interestingly Flight in the 60s published an HS design concept for a twin-engine underwing aeroplane which was within a whisker of the dimensions of the 757 - including the low possition of the horiizontal stabiliser which was only finalised in the 80s for the 757.
So, arguably, the DH121 was the most influential British aeroplane of all time!
Last edited by scotbill; 18th Dec 2014 at 10:42. Reason: addition