Trident autothrust system and autoland [Archive] - Page 2

FlamantRose

27th Dec 2010, 01:01

Hello everybody.

I worked at one time 1963 thru 71 for BEA in Paris Le Bourget Airport. I was in charge of the Load Control section and also acting Duty Officer and therefore pretty often on the tarmac. Owing to the BEA/BOAC merger I quit BEA and joined a US carrier as Station Manager Paris.

Reading this thread brought back many many happy memories. Dealing with Vicounts, Vanguards 951 & 953, Merchantman, Argosy, Comets, all the Tridents.
I recall, if I am not mistaken, that when the T3 came into service the Pilots called it the "5 APU Aircraft". Does anyone remember that ? or is my memory playing tricks ?

I'm sure I know quite a few of you wether venerable LHS or young F/O's at the time. Of course time has gone by for all of us and I often wonder if any of the LHS who were involved in WW2 are still with us.

Well many thanks indeed for having written so many nice things on that wonderful baby that was the Trident.

twochai

27th Dec 2010, 04:07

Trident was certainly fast, but not for long!

IIRC, the Trident 1E was delivered to Iraqi Airways (remember them?) by Hawker Siddeley (remember them?) with a guaranteed 85 pax from Baghdad to Cairo on an ISA+(XX) day. The reality was 16 pax in representative summer temperatures!

The Trident only oprated for ten years before the 727 replaced them in IA service!

411A

27th Dec 2010, 05:18

The reality was 16 pax in representative summer temperatures!

16 only?

Jeez Louise..that wasn't good.

Aileron Drag

27th Dec 2010, 19:41

I believe the STD from TLV to LHR was 0725.

In the summer, any delay would involve the possibility of offloading pax, due to the rapidly increasing OAT (That was after the water injection system was disabled).

I got to know the stop-end of 30 from just a few feet into the air.

I often wondered what would have happened with an engine failure at V1 + 1kt. Thankfully, no-one ever found out.

DozyWannabe

27th Dec 2010, 20:23

In the case of the Trident, "Spey" turned out to be an unfortunately appropriate homonym.

Prober

27th Dec 2010, 22:27

“Droops” would have caused any Gripper pilot to give one a very sideways look. It was never called that.
M.92 was regularly used in base training but I never heard of it being used in the cruise. I can only imagine what the fuel flow would have been.
I have mentioned in another link, during an emergency descent (real) the stopwatch proved a rate of descent of 22,000fpm. (In BEA it was drummed into us to use the stopwatch for everything. It seems to have rather gone out of fashion now, and I suspect this is partly (?) due to the idiot proof mechanism of the Boeing offering.)
Water Injection was certainly fitted to the T2. I cannot recall it ever actually working, but have many memories of it failing during the Take Off run and having to return to p..s the rest of it out all over the tarmac. It was a rather expensive embarrassment.
Early departures from the Eastern Med were required for performance reasons, but I remember one close shave due temperature. The flight (T3 IIRC) left Luqa in the cool of the dawn but at 1500ft nearly fell into the sea. It was fortunate that 24 was in use and there was sea to descend to! There was a very acute inversion at 1500ft in the order of 20C and the results were dramatic to say the least.
For FlamantRose, I flew into Le Bourget in both the Vanguard and the Trident and remember the lovely smell of many sticks of real French bread in the flight deck on the way home. I don’t remember 5 APU’s but the Boost Engine was often referred to as just another APU.
Prober

Hobo

28th Dec 2010, 06:17

I never saw it myself from outside, but when starting the boost, at night, just before entering the runway, I had a couple of comments that flame had appeared on light up.

From a Clipper 747: "...er tower...there's a sheet of flame just come out of the APU on this seven twenty seven ahead of us here holding 28R.....".

Tower: " Speedbird XXX confirm you've just started your boost?"

I suppose using the boost was a relatively unusual occurence anyway, I suspect about 5% of take offs max??

I also recall a couple of occasions ex Malta and Naples in T3's (and NIC in a T2) climbing into a severe inversion and it was only the curvature of the earth that gave us a climb. IIRC the Malta incident that Prober refers to prompted a serious look into the phenomenon, and there was a subsequent temp correction applied worldwide to all types for T/O performance in such circumstances.

Fortunately the T3 couldn't make NIC or TLV in one go.

petermcleland

28th Dec 2010, 11:19

One other problem with Malta was that the people were all a bit chunky and heavy and they all had several very heavy cabin bags each...With a full load and with the fixed load sheet weight for each passenger, I'm sure that the actual take-off weight was often quite a bit more than the load sheet take-off weight. The only way to have been sure was to get them and their cabin bags all off and weighed on a scale...This would have caused chaos!! :rolleyes:

blind pew

28th Dec 2010, 20:12

One T3 was nearly lost out of Malta at night.
P1 rotated below VR and took out the approach lights with the death rattle going.
It was flown on radio altimeter height, below 50ft, for several minutes with the rattle going in ground effect.
Eventually it burnt enough fuel and began to accelerate.
It was found that the incorrect runway length had been used for the calculation of the T/O data by the office wallahs.
No one had checked it.........no change there then.

Met one of the FOs after he had got his command on the 737 who described the flying as the best he had ever seen.

Re AJ post - there was no 4 engine requirement for BOAC - that was an airtours thing for the 707.

Our BALPA rep, who negotiated the merging of seniority lists fiddled the date so that he could get the 747.
My course was the first to go into BEA after the last course had joined BOAC - which was the correct place to start a joint seniority list - he changed it by two years with the provision that no BEA pilot would be senior to any BOAC pilot re bidding rites!!
Did me a huge favour as I got the Iron Duck - fantastic time.

Hobo

29th Dec 2010, 04:18

Re the Eastern Med, the T3 did the Cairo service (via tech stop Athens) for a month or so in lieu of a 707 (??) in the late 70's.

Meikleour

29th Dec 2010, 16:51

Blind pew: I have sent you a PM

slast

31st Dec 2010, 15:46

Also for the Eastern Med - one early T1 trip was a 6 day epic LHR-FCO-ATH (n/s) ATH-IST (n/s) IST-ANK (n/s) ANK-IST (n/s) IST-ATH (n/s) ATH-FCO-LHR. Not very productive as IST-ANK was only about 200 miles! Later it went to a 3 day trip - 4 legs to ANK on day 1 and a n/s ATH on the way back.

(EDIT: Actually having just looked it up I find that I did it 2 days after the "main gear as airbrake" event which was one of the early points in this thread. Also it was a couple of days before Christmas 66, and in our case we positioned LHR-IST and ATH-LHR on a Comet.)

TrafficPilot

31st Dec 2010, 17:54

What a wonderful thread!

I've spent the last couple of days enjoying reading all your memories of the lovely Trident.

petermcleland (http://www.pprune.org/members/174682-petermcleland) you have reminded me what a brilliant "add-on" David Maltby's Trident is for FS2004 and FSX. I've downloaded it again and installed it in FSX.
No "real" flying for me this week due to the holidays so it's been great fun hand-flying some foggy approaches using the Trident and ActiveSky Evolution weather. Nice to see you've retired to a beautiful part of the countryside. We used to have a cottage in Totnes so have spent many a happy time in that part of the South Hams.

One question regarding the Flight Sim version of the Trident which I see you provided information on. Have you noticed much difference in the handling qualities between the Trident 2 and 3 versions? From reading this thread it sounds like the T3 was somewhat more challenging on take-off in "hot and high" conditions?

Regards

Adam "TrafficPilot"

petermcleland

1st Jan 2011, 12:07

One question regarding the Flight Sim version of the Trident which I see you provided information on. Have you noticed much difference in the handling qualities between the Trident 2 and 3 versions? From reading this thread it sounds like the T3 was somewhat more challenging on take-off in "hot and high" conditions?

Adam,

You have caught me out with your simulator question as I normally fly the T3 in my sim. I fly it mainly from my own Flight Sim airport in Alaska, which took me three years to build. Its runway is a bit short for Trident operation and I do have to use the boost engine to get out with full fuel...I suppose I could do it easier with the T2 at its lighter max weight...But I stick to the T3 as it is what I flew till they amalgamated the Trident flights so that we all flew them all.

However, I'm quite sure that the Flight Sim differences between the types will be accurately represented with the correct empty weights and max weights in the config files.

Here are some more old shots that I published a few years back:-

Kick Off Drift...

FSScreenshots.com Forum - Viewing topic #5526 - Kick Off Drift... (http://forum.fsscreenshots.com/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=2&topic_id=5526&mode=full&page)

Some Technical Aspects of the Trident 3...

FSScreenshots.com Forum - Viewing topic #5527 - Some Technical Aspects of the Trident 3... (http://forum.fsscreenshots.com/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=2&topic_id=5527&mode=full&page)

Trident Tutorial...

FSScreenshots.com Forum - Viewing topic #5530 - Trident Tutorial... (http://forum.fsscreenshots.com/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=2&topic_id=5530&mode=full&page)

Hobo

1st Jan 2011, 13:08

petermcleland

1st Jan 2011, 18:00

Superb stuff, this really brings it all back Pete. Any particular reason for choosing Alaska?

On the first link the kick off drift series is showing the A/C well to the right of the C/L - or it appears to be in these pics.

I find this interesting as I have just been involved with building a 737 Sim (800NG layout in the scrap flight deck of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry48fSFPX4Y) written off 3/400 freighter). One of the problems we had was correctly lining up the visual with FS2004 ILS. The A/C would be on the ILS, but about halfway between the C/L and left hand edge of the runway visually. We eventually had to use a fiddle factor to the co-ords of the threshold to offset the visual on each R/W we wanted to use.

Back to the Trident...

pedant mode on....

I note in the second link in this last post the pics show the thrust gauges set at 137,137,137. IIRCC the centre was 20 less ie 117 on a normal day. (I think the T1 was 10 less and the T2 15 (?))

...pedant mode off.

"A" the autoland was well off centre because of the strong crosswind component...FlightSim can not hold the centreline like the real aircraft did.

I had forgotten about that 20 less for the centre engine...You have to remember that I never flew the Trident as a First Officer, so certain things are a bit hazy. If I had remembered I would have told David Maltby about it and he would have programmed it in. Even so, he has programmed those thrust gauges to be set by just clicking on one of them (this makes all the calculations and then sets the three gauges)...Another piece of Maltby Magic like the Vital Data Card.

A long story about my choice of Alaska...Basically, I liked the wilderness of Alaska and I wanted to build myself an airport...I was flying a light aircraft (in the Sim) along the coast one day and moved just inside the shore and kept my eyes open for a suitable site I came to the end of the Russel Fjord and saw that bay, landed on the beach and said to myself "I will build my airport here!". That was a long time ago and I have been improving and adding things to it ever since!

Here it is working reasonably recently on a Friday (the President sometimes visits on the Thursday when all the F16s are having an R&R day ;)):-

YouTube - AIBlast1080.wmv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kgl2NDtDlOk)

I too have been doing some recent simulation with the 737NG:-

The Final Leg... - iFly Development Team Forums (http://ifly.flight1.net/forums/forum_posts.asp?TID=717&title=the-final-leg)

Cheers,

Peter.

Wookey

4th Jan 2011, 14:37

Happy New Year to all.

Just about caught up with this thread following my short break and surprised at some of the recent posts. Despite the generally positive comments regarding the Trident there are a number of posts during the past two weeks which seem to indicate that Trident's 'Gripper' nickname was extremely apt, almost to the point that the aircraft was inherently dangerous in certain load configurations with hot/short runway complications.

As a passenger (thats what we used to be called before the locost airlines detroyed the mystique of flying and the mutual respect between crew and their charges !!) I never really noticed a lack of climb performance (and I have departed TLV on the 0725), but then I guess only you guys in the front would have known the truth. However in the mid to late 70's I lived on the northern edge of Newcastle about 1 mile due south of the runway and I do clearly remember being amazed at the initial climb out performance of the (then) new Boeing 737s that had entered BA service, when compared to Tridents or 1-11s.

slast

4th Jan 2011, 15:09

Hi Wookey

What you need to bear in mind is that the limiting performance (i.e. what sets the maximum weight that can be lifted off a given runway at a given temperature) is set by what an aircraft can achieve with an engine inoperative, i.e. after a failure at the most critical point on that runway.

The airworthiness authorities define a minimum climb gradient that must be achieved after this failure, and it is not very much! This is a major factor in the manufacturers ability to sell the aircraft and it may be (I don't know) that the 737 had a wider performance envelope (e.g. could operate at maximum weight) off shorter runways and at higher temperatures than the Trident which was after all "optimised" to the BA network, so wouldn't often be exposed to temperatures above about 30deg.

However, fortunately for us all, such failures are extremely rare - failures themselves are rare and for them to happen at the worst point is even rarer. What this means is that on a NORMAL takeoff without a failure, the aircraft actually has the power of one additional engine compared to that needed to make the minimum climb gradient. That translates of course into a much steeper climb since the speed stays the same.

So in the case of a three engined aircraft, it needs 2 engines to make the minimum, but normally has 3, i.e. 50% more power than the minimum. In the case of a twin, it can make the minimum gradient on only one engine, but normally has 2, i.e. twice what is needed. So a twin on a normal takeoff will always climb faster than a three engined aircraft, which in turn will always climb faster than a 4-engined one that only has 33% more than needed. (Not sure how the 1-11 fits into your picture though, I never flew it and it may have not been anywhere near its performance limits).

Hobo

4th Jan 2011, 18:01

the aircraft was inherently dangerous in certain load configurations with hot/short runway complications

Wookey, slast is dead right in his response. Most aircraft will, at times, be operated near or at the limit of their take off performance regarding weight/temp/pressure altitude, and give, apparently, 'poor' performance. But this isn't the case, it's just that when operated nowhere near these limits (which the Trident was most of the time - say on domestic flights) the 'better' performance demonstrated might mistakenly be taken to be the yardstick of acceptable performance.

I can remember seeing the localiser aerials at very close quarters on 4 engined jets at certain hot and/or high airfields when starting a long flight.

Certainly, the Trident was never considered 'inherently dangerous' by those who flew it, quite the contrary.

Prober

4th Jan 2011, 21:52

Wookey,

Steve has given a very succinct resume of climb performance and I never felt that the ‘Gripper’ was dangerous in that respect. The nickname came from the long take-off run it required (thanks to early meddling), but once in the air it was beautiful to fly and it felt like a well worn and familiar glove. I only managed one V1 cut, at GVA so plenty of room. However, even at that speed, the stopping distance raised no eyebrows (except in approval) though there were a few ‘pops’ after taxiing to a stand, plus a small pile of carbon dumped on the tarmac as a souvenir. Lack of fuel space was a drawback and certainly caused me a few nail biting moments, as the T1 and T2 were operated at the extremes of their range. But Wookey, no, I never got the feeling that any of the crew regarded it as dangerous, nor even marginal (except as above).
Prober

Wookey

5th Jan 2011, 08:29

Thanks Chaps, thats reassuring. I have clearly over-reacted to some of the stories posted here. Again, as merely a passenger, I always enjoyed flying on Tridents and have many fond memories of those years.

One further question regarding visual approach procedures. As I mentioned in an earlier post in the 70's I lived in Newcastle and frequently flew LHR - NCL on Tridents. I distinctly remember on a number of occasions arriving in the NCL area (after a speedy flight from HRW) a rapid descent over the city and turning to finals over the A1/Gosforth Park Hotel which would be I would guess only 1-2 miles from the eastern end of NCL's runway. Was this a function of Tridents performance or just another example of the less controlled times we lived in back then?

Jolly exciting for us down the back but the short sector times (sub 40 minutes ?) certainly put pressure on the cabin crew to get the gin & tonics out !!!

twochai

6th Jan 2011, 19:45

I can remember seeing the localiser aerials at very close quarters on 4 engined jets at certain hot and/or high airfields when starting a long flight.

Certainly, the Trident was never considered 'inherently dangerous' by those who flew it, quite the contrary.

While all that is certainly true, 'modern' airliners have, by design, higher power-to-weight ratios and more thermodynamic power in reserve than any of the first generation big jets. This was done to provide more operational flexibility in a range of weight/altitude/temperature situations and made today's aircraft inherently safer as well. The VC-10 was perhaps the first example of such an airplane.

The much improved safety record of modern-day jets and turboprops certainly owes some of this benefit to more installed power.

Bergerie1

7th Jan 2011, 16:00

Twochai,

Even the VC10 made one hold one's breath on occasions. On take-offs from Entebbe at night at max weight when going north to London none of us believed there was enough stopping distance should an engine fail at V1. Crews were so concerned that one of BOAC's performance engineers was sent out to Entebbe to measure the actual performance achieved.

Of course it was correct and we were achieveing the book figures OK. The reason it looked so awful was that there were no obstacles at the end of the runway where the ground sloped down to Lake Victoria and one just seemed to depart into a black hole.

Wookey

7th Jan 2011, 16:28

twochai

Your power to weight ratio theory seems logical to me. I am not an aerodynamicist or aeronuatical engineer but have some limited experience in mechnical engineering.

Presumably the climb performance will be affected by how quickly the wing reaches sufficient airspeed to generate the lift required to get the aircraft mass airborne. Therefore the acceleration from start of roll to lift off speed is the important factor and this is where the power/weight ratio is most important?

In hot/high conditions, the air being thinner, engine performance (as with car engines) becomes compromised therefore slowing the acceleration and extending the point where lift off speed is attained (take off distance required).

Am I on the right track?

With regard to the Trident, the BEA meddling with the original specification and the use of the RR Spey was the cause of the aircrafts 'gripper' reputation?

ChristiaanJ

7th Jan 2011, 19:49

In hot/high conditions, the air being thinner, engine performance (as with car engines) becomes compromised therefore slowing the acceleration and extending the point where lift off speed is attained (take off distance required).
Am I on the right track?Halfway!
The other half is, that air density also crops up in the lift formula, so at hot/high airfields, you also need more true speed to obtain the same lift.

CJ

Iron Duck

7th Jan 2011, 20:59

But this isn't the case, it's just that when operated nowhere near these limits (which the Trident was most of the time - say on domestic flights) the 'better' performance demonstrated might mistakenly be taken to be the yardstick of acceptable performance.

My father, who sadly died this year, was foreman of the BEA metal plating shop at the Heathrow Engineering Base from around 1959 until he took early retirement at the BEA/BOAC merger. Being his son I was 'plane mad and remember a BEA Trident calendar he acquired for me in around 1964. Fabulous.

During the school holidays he would often take me to work with him and I'd spend the day in the BEA staff canteen at the end of 28L, as it was then, happy with my binoculars and Ian Allan books. I well remember in the late '60's that in comparison to most other types the T1/T2 appeared to have a sparkling climb performance. I well recall a TWA 707 coming off 10R being at only about 50' as it crossed the threshold and barely climbing as it disappeared over Hounslow.

Slightly changing the subject, I also recall seeing on a dark morning a 707 parked outside what was the Air India hanger south of 28L, starting up. It was directly tail-on to me and I clearly saw the combustion chambers in each engine lighting up, making a ring of bright dots. The memory is distinct and clear, but given that they must have been hidden by the turbine blades I have no idea why I should have been able to see them.

I have to say, though, even though this is a Trident thread, that to me the best-sounding aircraft at ground idle was the Iron Duck. It reminded me of a bronze bell. I'll never forget.

Swedish Steve

8th Jan 2011, 10:08

I clearly saw the combustion chambers in each engine lighting up, making a ring of bright dots.

I've seen that on a Trident. In 1974 when I was working at LHR, I was driving around the terminal for a couple of days with a propulsion engineeer. We were parking across the cul-de-sac from each departing Trident while he watched the start up with binoculars to see if the flame propagation was regular. You could see the flame move round the engine from can to can.

Hobo

8th Jan 2011, 11:57

It's like trees on a golf course, the rotor and stator discs in the turbine are 75% air and when they line up you can see straight through. (Or on the golf course, in my case, hit the tree.)

Iron Duck

8th Jan 2011, 13:05

It's like trees on a golf course, the rotor and stator discs in the turbine are 75% air and when they line up you can see straight through.

Thanks, Hobo. I suppose I'd assumed that turbine disks were like fan disks, less than 50% air, and that therefore one would never be able to see past both rotor and stator.

Shorly after starting up the 707's flames became invisible. Would this be because the flames themselves had reduced?

Hobo

8th Jan 2011, 15:37

Because they were burning at a lot higher temp (and therefore different colour) than at start up maybe??

twochai

9th Jan 2011, 00:01

In hot/high conditions, the air being thinner, engine performance (as with car engines) becomes compromised therefore slowing the acceleration and extending the point where lift off speed is attained (take off distance required).

Wookey: You are absolutely on the right track, however, as Bergerie 1 says:

Even the VC10 made one hold one's breath on occasions

Any airplane, except one with electric motors, will eventually run out of steam as Weight/Altitude/Temperature increase. There's no substitute for horsepower!!

That's also one reason why you're starting to see electrically powered UAV's.

TC

Prober

9th Jan 2011, 18:20

An example of the difference altitude can make was demonstrated to us when we carried out a wet lease for Avianca in Bogota (8,455ft IIRC). Normal Vr would have been 120 -130 Kts. It still was as the Indicated Air Speed, but actual Ground Speed at rotate was, on average, something in the order of 195 Kts. Approach power (B757) is usually 1.16 EPR. At BOG it was 1.26.

BN2A

15th Jan 2011, 16:34

In it's day, was the Trident economical compared to other machines?? Today, smaller Airbuses will struggle performance-wise and climb rate at high weights, but is economical once it gets into the cruise...

Cracking thread, keep it up!! Let's outdo the Concorde thread!!!

:D

Aileron Drag

15th Jan 2011, 17:05

I think some of us are reluctant to pursue the subject for too long, for fear of becoming boring.

The average 'Gripper' driver looks back, I suspect, with a degree of adoration for the old girl (I certainly do). However, in the 90's and 00's any talk of the Gripper would be met with the response, "Oh no, not another b*oody Trident story", from the 25 year old F/O.

We old farts soon learned to keep silent. :)

Kiltrash

16th Jan 2011, 19:02

Gripping as the Trident thread is, to those of us lucky to have flown in her, I doubt it will knock the Concorde thread of the top of the must read daily list, mearly due to the fact that Concorde was untenable to most mere mortals who could only dream of flying in her.

However please do not drop the Trident thread

pax britanica

17th Jan 2011, 16:19

I am glad the thread is still running-as an 'aviation enthusiast' (I stopped actual spotting at 14) living right on top of LHR Tridents were the most common site or so it seemed.
Also the most common sound but they didnt stand out that much against the Caravelles (how could two Avons make more noise than 4 or so it seemed ) VC10s etc. The T3 was also easy to tell by ear because the boost engine made a very distinctive noise.

Re-reading this fascinating thread again today it brought back a question to my mind. Sometimes when Tridents lined up for take off ( and I remember this scene with them using the intersection on as it was 10R (block79?) as the engines spooled up a jet of white vapour shot out from below the engines-was this water injection or something else?
Wonderful and fascinating variety of sights and sounds in those days at Heathrow-no doubt why I am sitting here reading PPrune 40 years on.
PB

Aileron Drag

17th Jan 2011, 17:18

"Concorde was untenable to most mere mortals who could only dream of flying in her."

All you needed was lots of money.:)

So far as flight crew were concerned, the Concorde fleet was listed on the annual bid-list, but very few (IMO) pilots bid for the type because...

1. It was a 7 year freeze for an F/O.
2. It was a 'final type' for a captain - ie. you're on it for life.
3. The route network was remarkably limited.
4. There was very little 'hands-on' flying.
5. Every sector was (as a flight-engineer pal of mine said of his Concorde job) "like a flaming sim-check", with so many things going wrong!
6. Fuel was always a real worry. Remember the Flight Manager who flamed-out exiting the runway?

It was a wonderful icon, and I suspect that most of us would have killed to fly it ONCE.

But as a full-time job - no way.

slast

17th Jan 2011, 18:16

As a bit of light relief, here's an slight indication of how it felt to be P3... actually of course the P3 wasn't a qualified F/E and switched with the RHS P2. But this is such a good bit of aviation insider video I thought some of you might not have seen it. Anyway, as our transatlantic friends say, "Enjoy....!"
YouTube - The FE's Lament 2010 HD (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4TRSYhrEJE)

bizdev

17th Jan 2011, 19:20

"....as the engines spooled up a jet of white vapour shot out from below the engines-was this water injection or something else?"

This was probably the oil/air mix being ejected from the engine's internal cooling/sealing outlet. Once the engines were running at power, the bearings would seal up and the oil content of the cooling air outlet would disappear. (if I remember correctly)

bizdev

pax britanica

17th Jan 2011, 19:49

Bizdev
Many thanks-I do seem to recall this was transient event but a very noticeable on the Tridents,I don't seem to recall other planes doing similar. I suppose it is one of those nice quirks of the time that came from having so many different types of aircraft. Other favourite oddities of the time were the great noise Swissair CV 990 s made and the enormous moving silencer contraption on the back of Alitalia DC8-40 engines . Apologies for thread drift into general nostalgia for LHR in the late 60s Thanks again
PB

Wookey

27th Jan 2011, 16:10

In post 250, 777fly said:

The T1 had excellent high speed handling. I remember seeing over 0.95M during our high fly exercise (cb pulled) .......

I can guess which cb was probably pulled (:)) but I presume you wouldnt get away with this now in the nanny state we now seem to live in.

However 0.95M seems pretty impressive and I would guess not matched by any other civilian aircraft apart from Concorde?

Hobo

27th Jan 2011, 21:28

As a copilot, I did a couple of air tests in Tridents, including several full stick pushes at various configurations. These were suprisingly 'gentle' with little or no negative g IIRC, presumably due to the low speeds at push (with the shakers going full blast of course).

We also had to do high speed runs, IIRC at .88, for 5 minutes.

Peter Hunt, IMHO the best tech manager ever, once told me that he had been involved in the flight test programme at Hatfield on the T3 with John Cunningham. This included a 'terminal velocity' dive, on each example prior to delivery, which involved winging over to a vertical dive with full power to see what the TV was.

Prober

28th Jan 2011, 09:44

Well, what was it (the TV)? Don't leave us in suspense. By the way,I remember .92 was the usual high speed demo on base trg for the T1.
Prober

Wookey

28th Jan 2011, 10:01

Way back then when oil was a sensible price was there a tendency to exploit the Tridents remarkable speed to make up time after say a delayed departure? I remember some very rapid transits from LHR to NCL !!

Flightwatch

28th Jan 2011, 15:10

Just a personal memory of the speed of the Trident.

Many moons ago when I was a 23 year old co-pilot on the Viscount I was due to position from the N.E. of England to LHR on a Trident. The Captain, who was one of life's characters, and excellent if ill-advised operator, asked me if I would like a little fun. Of course says I in youthful ignorance. "OK he says, you sit in the RHS, the F/O sits in the E/O's seat and the E/O on the jump seat".

After a briefing which could hardly scratch the surface of my lack of knowledge of a jet aircraft laying particular emphasis on the setting of power on the take off run, never having operated one before, we set off into the wild blue yonder at what seemed like breakneck speed. I was used to the leisurely speed of the Viscount - I remember the routing down A1 was POL - LIC - DTY - Garston each portion of which required a position report and normally took about 10 minutes in the Vimy. Of course they all took a little less than half this and I seemed to be constantly on the r/t. I really didn't know which way to look as we rocketed up to FL260 then down again.

Of course we survived and a great time was had by all except the E/O who was distinctly uncomfortable with proceedings and 2 years later I was flying the 1-11, I never again sat in an operating seat of the Trident. I might add in slight mitigation that I had previously been allowed to hand fly a Britannia 102 by the same Captain on an empty positioning flight in cruise, so I wasn't a totally unknown quantity to him. However apart from the size of the flight deck which was more akin to a ship's bridge, the speed and handling characteristics were much closer to what I was used to.

I feel safe in recounting the story now as I at least 2 of the 3 other players have left us and the statute of limitations must have run out after 43 years.

Happy, politically incorrect, technically dangerous and pre CRM days. I can't imagine anybody being foolish enough to try the same stunt nowadays, but I enjoyed it!

Hobo

28th Jan 2011, 18:44

Prober, IIRC, I think special 'test flight' pitots were fitted, Pete said TV was 'very close' to M1.0 ..... he didn't say which side...

Regarding high speed sectors, my logbook tells me I once did Aldergove-LHR in 38 minutes (with 632 kts G/S at one stage IIRC), and LHR-CDG in 29 mins A/B-Landing.

slast

28th Jan 2011, 19:30

petermcleland

29th Jan 2011, 12:01

Peter McLeland,

I just bought MS Flight SimulatorX as a result of seeing your pictures etc, never having had any desire to do simulator work at home previously!

I downloaded the files but the Tridents don't seem to be available, and I'm wondering if that's because Dave Maultby's website refers to FS4 and 9, not X. The file structure for FSX doesn't seem to be quite the same as is described, e.g. there's no "Aircraft" folder but rather a "sim objects/airplanes" one, and I wonder whether that is what is wrong - any thoughts?
Steve

Well I got rid of FSX years ago as I didn't like it...I use FS9(FS2004). I'm familiar with the structure of FSX though as I was one of the beta testers for it. I know that many of DM's aircraft do work in FSX from other people so I will go and ask your question. I'll get back with any info.

EDIT...Hi Steve,

I asked the question and got this reply:-

"Hi Peter,

The latest version of DM's Trident packages come with a readme file that covers the slight changes that need to be made to the file structure and effects. There are also some replacement files included with the panel package to allow their use in FSX.

The versions I'm referring to are the packages ending in _20081209.zip."

Let me know if you have any difficulty obtaining those files :)

Discorde

29th Jan 2011, 17:21

Did a year on the T3 as an F/O. My line training was conducted by two TCs. The first was a rather grumpy older chap (RM) who told me off when I said I was enjoying the experience. 'You're not here to enjoy yourself,' he growled. The second chap was younger and more laid back (JM). He asked me to hand fly a departure one day. After a while it seemed to me there was a problem with roll control – the a/c seemed to have become very sensitive in roll and I found I was overcontrolling. Afraid to admit my lack of knowledge – obviously some factor had intruded that I should have known about from the ground school course – I persevered. The overcontrolling got worse. I looked across at JM, not knowing how to proceed. To my surprise he was grinning. 'Do you want the dampers back in now?' he asked. He'd switched them off without me noticing, presumably to demonstrate their necessity. He was a great character. He could devour an RE2 between landing and parking (with the F/O taxying).

A boost story. Oslo to LHR, mid-winter, full load of pax (140?). Contaminated runway, but TO perf okay with boost. Taxi out, light the boost just before entering the runway. P1 advances the throttles – the boost flames out! Taxi back to the gate. The engineer can't help – 'you'll have to take it boostless back to LHR'. Rework the TO perf w/o boost. Can only take 40-odd pax. I don't know how the ground staff did the cull but we left behind 100 odd v angry pax.

Midland 331

29th Jan 2011, 19:33

This is an utterly absorbing thread. Sadly my contact with The Trident was either seeing the Northbound Belfast Shuttle turning vaguely left over The Midlands, or the decaying machines on the fire dump at the 23 threshold end at Teesside, almost as if they were victims of Midland's mid-eighties inroads into the shuttle routes.

Meanwhile...

London Heathrow B.E.A. Vickers Vanguard G-APER and two De Havilland Tridents | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/beechwoodphotography/5045901021/in/set-72157621801791123/)

tubby linton

29th Jan 2011, 19:41

I remember a flight fromNicosia to LHR in a T3.The crew had problems with the boost but got it going eventually.I have a copy of the plog the captain gave me when I deplaned and I will try and post it when I find it.

tubby linton

29th Jan 2011, 21:07

The only one I could find tonight was a LHR-PMI from 1974

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5132/5399301560_4e5c39a77a_b.jpg

fizz57

31st Jan 2011, 15:29

Thanks to all for a wonderful thread. I flew as pax on Tridents many, many years ago when studying in the UK even though international flights in those days cost nearly a month's pay. One episode that stuck in my mind is a flight from Edinburgh when, shortly after starting the take-off roll, the plane braked hard and taxied rapidly to the other end of the runway.... whereupon it did a neat 180 and took off in the opposite direction. No explanation was forthcoming from the flight-deck although there was considerable buzz in the cabin!

Anyway back to autothrottles, just for fun I coded up a pid controller for David Maltby's sim that can couple independently to the three throttles - there's a screenshot at http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/9435/t3ath.jpg (http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/9435/t3ath.jpg) . It is certainly odd seeing only two throttles moving, particularly in the descent when throttles 1 and 3 are near idle and the middle lever sticks up like a... sore thumb, I suppose.

One thing I've noted is that there isn't much reserve power with a Trident 3 on the glideslope at MLW with full flaps and gear down, and engine 2 set at 11200rpm. If it gets below the glideslope (thanks to FS's fickle wind system - DM's autoland does a superb job) it is hard put to climb back without adding power to No. 2. I suppose that's why the engine 2 setting on the T3 is higher than the T2, but even so it appears quite marginal.

Also, while engine 2 appears to be under-producing on the approach, it seems to produce too much thrust for the descent and the plane doesn't slow down easily at all, especially when clean.

Perhaps an ex-Trident pilot can comment on whether these are artefacts of the sim or whether the real planes were like this.

blind pew

2nd Feb 2011, 16:23

surplus power on approach or not!
Did my annual route check with one of the few who stood up against management at the papa india inquiry.
It was in the days before the Dibley descent computor - which was aimed at fuel saving and not dragging the beast in for the last 15 miles.
Did a perfect one into marseilles - spooled the engines up around 5 miles - you couldn't do it that late with some of the guys (in my final company we did it around 2 miles - but that is another story)
Last sector of the day was into heathrow at close to max landing weight onto 27 or 28 right.
ATC asked the preceding to keep 180 knots to the outer marker but unfortunately it was Alitalia whose english is marginally better than the Frogs.
The DC8 reduced to final approach speed as they didn't understand the instruction.
We were instructed to reduce to minimum safe speed but were still 20 knots plus faster than the Italians and around two grand we were told to execute a standard missed approach.
TOGA - advance the throttles and rotate to Go around attitude - check the speed before calling for the gear and flaps - forget the order for retracting them in BEA - and the speed had dropped around 10 knots below final approach speed.
Had never been in that situation before - nor were we trained to think.
Didn't want to call for the gear as with land flap we should have the gear siren blasting away - and at that indicated speed we would have got the death rattle if I called for the flaps.
Eventually I lowered the nose, descended, accelerated and then cleaned up.
Nothing was said in the debrief and I went home and reread the books to see what I should have done.

It didn't cover it - a bit like before papa india when we didn't have a procedure for a stick push.

There was also the trident 2 in nicosia that got low and slow during a training detail and firewall thrust wasn't enough to redeem the situation.
Gear and wing broke off which was repaired by BEA and reregistered as X ray Mike.

So yes - low and slow a Trident doesn't have a lot - if any - spare thrust.

(then there was the T3 at madrid........)

Discorde

2nd Feb 2011, 17:32

Ah, the good old days! If anyone's interested, I've started a thread entitled 'LHR nostalgia' on the 'Aviation History and Nostalgia' forum.

slast

3rd Feb 2011, 10:47

Just for reference, while the gripper certainly didn't feel as if had a lot of spare thrust capacity, it obviously did meet them -BCARs at the time, now subsumed into JARs/FARs. These require that in the landing configuration, (i.e. gear down and landing flap) the steady gradient of climb may not be less than 3.2 percent, with the engines at the power or thrust that is available 8 seconds after initiation of movement of the power or thrust controls from the minimum flight idle to the go-around power or thrust setting" and at a speed not more than Vref.

That 8 second spool up allowance plus the fact that 3.2% is not much of a climb gradient - a bit less than 500 fpm at 150 kts. - means that the transition to a climb after pushing the thrust levers to go-around seems to take an awful long time!

Aileron Drag

3rd Feb 2011, 16:52

On the subject of perf, you should have tried a two-engine ferry. Now that was an interesting take-off. There was a period of about 20 seconds from V1, during which an engine failure would result in the Airways Pension Scheme having three fewer monthly cheques to write in the future.

It was volunteer only, and we received a very nice commemorative tie for doing it - a three-pronged trident (as in Neptune's), with flames burning from only two spikes.

The trip was MAN-LHR, with a T/C with initials VG. Didn't phase him at all, as he'd done several already. The perf calcs took forever.

Still got the tie and, now, the pension too.:)

blind pew

3rd Feb 2011, 17:57

slast - I presume the go around performance was at airfield level and didn't take into account the altitude - which would have given a lower climb performance.

You probably remember the T3 that diverted to Madrid after an engine failure on take off (Malaga?) without checking the go around perf.

As often happened atc gave clearance for an Iberia DC9? to line up (always the worst controllers I came across) with full thrust she kept descending and the skipper ended up lowering the nose, cleaning up and followed the lower terrain.

Min drag was around 230kts I believe.

Jo90

4th Feb 2011, 09:45

Full load ex GVA. R/W 24 in use. Wind calm. Boost required (high terrain to the SW for anyone unfamiliar with Geneva).
Lined up for departure but boost would not start. Taxied back towards the ramp explaining to Pax that we could not take off as one of our engines was not working.
P3 checks manuals and says 'Hey we can use 06 without the boost.'
Ask ATC if we could use 06 - he says OK.
Check perf numbers and set up for new SID. By now we are just approaching the 06 holding point.
ATC says 'Line up cleared immediate TO with right turn out, traffic on approach 24 at 10 miles.'
With no time for thought had to explain to pax in about 10 seconds that even though one engine wasn't working we were going to take off anyway!

I still wonder just how that was received down the back!

petermcleland

3rd Mar 2011, 19:07

I have re-rendered the TridentTurnround video in 1080 HD and it is now very suitable for Full Screen viewing.

YouTube - TridentTurnround1080.wmv (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvCgAdunVZc)

Click the resolution up to 1080 HD and then if you have a slowish Broadband which causes buffering pauses, click the Pause icon in the bottom left corner...Now WAIT as the pink band moves from left to right, till it gets about halfway across. Now click that same Pause icon to start it running again and finally click the Full Screen icon at bottom right...It should now run through without further pausing.