talk on the Trident airliner at Brooklands 23 march

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

That may be so WHBM, but the fact remains that dH planned for a lot more than 90 seats with their 121 as they were anticipating growing demand in the industry. You don't plan for 'now', you plan for the future.

As Boeing did with the tri jet that did take the world market.

[Chris Scott]

Would it be fair to suggest that Boeing plagiarised the rear-tri-jet concept from DH? (Answers on a postcard!)

rog747,
25/08/71 G-ASIW 0820 LGW/CFU 1105 // 1225 CFU/LGW 1535
06/08/73 G-ASIX 1100 LGW/RHO 1455 // 1550 RHO/LGW 1950
02/01/74 G-ASIW 1150 BOH/TCI 1530 // 1635 TCI/BOH 2005

[pax britanica]

Re the trident vs 727 I understood that Boeing did visit Dh but I doubt that the whole concept cme from their. More like the design parameters of the US majors which i think were on the lines of Dallas out of LGA or DCA leading to the extensive slat/flap system on the 727.

Also in general terms if you were going to scale down a plane from 707/DC8 size for short haul medium haul you would probably choose three engines as two were probably considered a bit risky or just didnt have the grunt and if you chose three engines you get one in the tail thus hight tail plane and therefore two aircraft that look alike.

Same with the IL62 VC2 need along hauiler got to have four engines . VC 10s needed a clean wing for hot and high empire routes , some of which visited basic places witha lot of FOD potential . IL62 long range , and Russias so big that can mean domestic and that can mean some rough airfields. either way no good having pod mounted engines on the wings to suck up rubbish so stick them on the tail in two pairs. Tail engines high tail so VC10and IL62 look a lot alike. DC9-1-11 etc so I think its the mission that makes the plane not copycatitng

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Same applies to Concorde and the TU144. The latter was dubbed 'Concordski' by the press inferring it was a Concorde copy. Shows what the press know!

A supersonic airliner requires a thin fuselage and highly swept thin delta wings, hence the superficial likeness of the two designs. However, there are two bits on Concorde that made it work as well as it did; the wing and the intakes (including the intake control system).

If the Russians had managed to copy those they would have had a winner on their hands!

[Allan Lupton]

Originally Posted by pax britanica

Re the trident vs 727 I understood that Boeing did visit Dh but I doubt that the whole concept cme from their.

Yes Shirer (Boeing Chief Engineer) and his team were "shown all" at DH's and a fortnight later announced the 727. "in early 1960 Hatfield accepted a return visit to Boeings and were politely received and told nothing". (as above this is from a senior de Havilland executive closely involved at the time.)

ETA SSD is right that you don't plan for now but for the future, hence the A300 and A380 had considerable capacity increases over what existed and were ready to go into service when needed

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by Shaggy Sheep Driver

That may be so WHBM, but the fact remains that dH planned for a lot more than 90 seats with their 121 as they were anticipating growing demand in the industry. You don't plan for 'now', you plan for the future.

As Boeing did with the tri jet that did take the world market.

The typical seating config for the Boeing 727-100 in the 1960s for US carriers (the bulk of deliveries) was F10 Y85. So much the same. They put more in later by squeezing up the seats, but so did everyone else. That was the standard of the time. Dan-Air had to install extra overwing exits when they put them into IT service.

[rog747]

rog747,
25/08/71 G-ASIW 0820 LGW/CFU 1105 // 1225 CFU/LGW 1535
06/08/73 G-ASIX 1100 LGW/RHO 1455 // 1550 RHO/LGW 1950
02/01/74 G-ASIW 1150 BOH/TCI 1530 // 1635 TCI/BOH 2005[/QUOTE]

thanks Chris
such civilised flight times - how simply lovely

BTW re RHO would you have flown in to Rhodes old airbase Maritsa now closed
the airfield behind and between the mountains ?

[rog747]

Originally Posted by WHBM

The typical seating config for the Boeing 727-100 in the 1960s for US carriers (the bulk of deliveries) was F10 Y85. So much the same. They put more in later by squeezing up the seats, but so did everyone else. That was the standard of the time. Dan-Air had to install extra overwing exits when they put them into IT service.

yes Dan Air added 2 extra type 1 rear doors to enable upto 150 pax on their 727-100's
they actually put in 146 Y but it was a squeeze for pax
the range enabled MAN-TFS at least

Channel AW got 139 in their One E's but STN or Berlin to LPA must have been a struggle

[A30yoyo]

The final indignity was the re-engine program for 50 UPS geriatric 727-100 freighters with Rolls-Royce Tay engines

[blind pew]

Chris VMO on the Trident was 365 knots.
The Trident 1s were reengined as it couldn't get airborne from Heathrow with a full load in summer...hence the nickname "gripper". (Ground gripper...got airborne due to the curvature of the earth).
Whilst the Trident did set records...some courtesy of pulling a certain circuit breaker as the overspeed siren would give one a headache..

The VC 10 also set a subsonic trans Atlantic record which stands today.

Biggest problem with the Trident was the way we flew it because many "couldn't".

The Iron Duck was a different kettle of fish and a real gentlemans aircraft.

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by rog747

Channel AW got 139 in their One E's but STN or Berlin to LPA must have been a struggle

Channel got very little use from their Tridents, which must have lost them a lot of money. Having ordered five, they only took delivery of two, the others having to be sold off cheaply by Hawker Siddeley as standing stock to BKS and Air Ceylon. The only mainstream contract they got was one aircraft based at Berlin in summer only. HS were sufficiently unimpressed with Channel that it was "cash with order" for spares, and the second aircraft spent at least one summer season standing at Stansted being robbed for parts to keep the Berlin one going. Apart from this use, they just picked up odd subcharters and the like around the place, and for the large Lyons Tours contract they got, which the Tridents had originally been ordered for, they bought the old Olympic Airways Comet 4B fleet, at scrap prices, instead.

[Alan Baker]

Originally Posted by Allan Lupton

Yes Shirer (Boeing Chief Engineer) and his team were "shown all" at DH's and a fortnight later announced the 727. "in early 1960 Hatfield accepted a return visit to Boeings and were politely received and told nothing". (as above this is from a senior de Havilland executive closely involved at the time.)

ETA SSD is right that you don't plan for now but for the future, hence the A300 and A380 had considerable capacity increases over what existed and were ready to go into service when needed

The old chestnut that Boeing copied de Havilland really needs to be put to bed. The idea that mighty Boeing, with nearly ten years experience of churning out hundreds of big jets, needed to learn anything from puny de Havilland, who's experience of (not very) big jets was producing a hundred or so Comets, is laughable. DH was a cottage industry compared to Boeing and the UK government knew it, hence the encouragement to merge the various British manufacturers into two groups.

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by Alan Baker

The idea that mighty Boeing, with nearly ten years experience of churning out hundreds of big jets, needed to learn anything from puny de Havilland, who's experience of (not very) big jets was producing a hundred or so Comets, is laughable. DH was a cottage industry compared to Boeing.

Ah yes, what could DH have shown Boeing ?



First jet airliner orders in the world (unlike Boeing)
First jet airliner into service in the world (unlike Boeing)
First jet airliner engines in the world (Boeing didn't do engines, let alone jets).
After the Comer 1 failures, still managed to get their next jet airliner into service first again (unlike Boeing).
A WW2 bomber that could carry the same payload as a B17 to Berlin, yet flew higher away from the flak, faster so it outran the fighters, and could drop down to deliver this at precision rooftop low level so it actually hit something meaningful.

What indeed ?

[DaveReidUK]

Shirer (Boeing Chief Engineer) and his team were "shown all" at DH's and a fortnight later announced the 727

I can't believe that anyone seriously thinks the launch of the 727 was a consequence of a visit to Hatfield a couple of weeks earlier.

[blind pew]

Don't know the truth about the 727 copying the HS121 but the autoland system was pinched from smiths as one of the development engineers suddenly quit and got a job stateside.

[chevvron]

Originally Posted by blind pew

Don't know the truth about the 727 copying the HS121 but the autoland system was pinched from smiths as one of the development engineers suddenly quit and got a job stateside.

And it was test flown on a DH Comet, XV 814. The crew (Capt was the great Ken Mills) proudly pointed it out to me the first time I flew in it.

[chevvron]

Originally Posted by WHBM

Ah yes, what could DH have shown Boeing ?



First jet airliner orders in the world (unlike Boeing)
First jet airliner into service in the world (unlike Boeing)
First jet airliner engines in the world (Boeing didn't do engines, let alone jets).
After the Comer 1 failures, still managed to get their next jet airliner into service first again (unlike Boeing).
A WW2 bomber that could carry the same payload as a B17 to Berlin, yet flew higher away from the flak, faster so it outran the fighters, and could drop down to deliver this at precision rooftop low level so it actually hit something meaningful.

What indeed ?

I suppose the B47 was the first 'big jet' produced by Boeing; first flew 17 Dec 1947. Comet first flight was 27 Jul 1949. Not quite 10 years eh?

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by chevvron

I suppose the B47 was the first 'big jet' produced by Boeing; first flew 17 Dec 1947. Comet first flight was 27 Jul 1949. Not quite 10 years eh?

Was the B47 not a military bomber, whereas the Comet 1, Comet 4 and 727 were passenger airliners (De Havilland had built their first military jet in 1943).

[Captain Dart]

The B-47 set the standard for large swept-wing jet aircraft fitted with podded engines on the wings. The twisting moment of the swept wing and aeroelastic effects were balanced by the weight of the forward swept podded engines. This reduced weight and increased the wing efficiency.

All modern jet airliners that do not have rear mounted engines owe their success to the revolutionary B-47. The Comet configuration, while first, went nowhere.

[Alan Baker]

Originally Posted by WHBM

Ah yes, what could DH have shown Boeing ?



First jet airliner orders in the world (unlike Boeing)
First jet airliner into service in the world (unlike Boeing)
First jet airliner engines in the world (Boeing didn't do engines, let alone jets).
After the Comer 1 failures, still managed to get their next jet airliner into service first again (unlike Boeing).
A WW2 bomber that could carry the same payload as a B17 to Berlin, yet flew higher away from the flak, faster so it outran the fighters, and could drop down to deliver this at precision rooftop low level so it actually hit something meaningful.

What indeed ?

Ah, de Havilland! That giant of 21st century aerospace............