PDA

View Full Version : Trident Water injection


Gripper123
3rd Mar 2018, 22:32
I'm writing a book about British commercial aircraft 1960-1980 and am trying to get some definitive data on the Trident 2 water injection system. The Spey 512W was the engine concerned. Can any other poor old soul remember dry/wet max take-off weights. how much the water weighed or the tank capacity?
Apologies to all BOAC pilots for mentioning the T word.
Thanks

exeng
3rd Mar 2018, 23:54
I wasn't aware it was a system that the Trident used, although having spent many years watching various departures I had begun to think that something like that could be a good idea.

The BAC 111 with Speys certainly did employ water injection on some models. There was a terrible crash when somebody decided to fill the water tanks with kerosene.

Out of interest I flew as an F/E for Qantas who used water on take off for their 747-200's when necessary. The sim was a nightmare when checking water failure on take off and/or engine failure. (as I remember one water tank fed the left two engines and another the right) In those instances the F/E called the shots and it was difficult.

I never did a water take off for real. After the sim details I'm very glad I was spared the reality.


Kind regards
Exeng

chevvron
4th Mar 2018, 01:18
I was told years ago that every time a Convair 880 took off from Heathrow using water, they had to start taking RVR readings.

blind pew
4th Mar 2018, 06:22
They have a set of T2 MANUALS but you need to make an appointment. The old museum adjacent to uniform stores was great but they had some jobs worth on my last visit at waterside who wouldn't give me access. Suggest you email them first.

ZFT
4th Mar 2018, 06:30
From fading memory B707B/C dry MTOW Dry 334k lbs , 336K Wet but was such a long time ago. Had water for about 2 mins.

Allan Lupton
4th Mar 2018, 07:46
Can any other poor old soul remember dry/wet max take-off weights. how much the water weighed or the tank capacity?

As I recall it the water was used to extend the Spey's flat-rating to higher ambient temperatures, rather than increasing the maximum thrust. It follows that the MTOW did not change.
Can't remember tank capacity but as, unlike the 1-11, the Trident did not use water in the missed approach only the amount of water needed for the take-off was loaded and it was all used.

dixi188
4th Mar 2018, 08:17
IIRC the Spey 512-14DW on the BAC One Eleven 475 and 500 was 12000 lb st thrust Dry and 12500 lb st thrust Wet.
I was a sometime flying spanner on the SOAF -475s and they would often be DRY out of Muscat at 35 C and wet out of Hurn, UK at 10 C due to the 6000ft runway.
It wasn't a lot of extra thrust but every little helps.
I seem to recall the typical fuel flows at T.O. power were 7,000 to 8,000 lbs/hr dry and > 10'000 lbs/hr wet ( the FF needles went off the top of the scale).
The Demin Water tank held 110 imp. gallons and this would last about 2 mins.
This means that there was more water than fuel going into the engine on a Wet T.O.

ZeBedie
4th Mar 2018, 21:02
unlike the 1-11, the Trident did not use water in the missed approach

On the 1-11, we used to dump the remaining water soon after take-off. Otherwise it would freeze in the cruise.

Allan Lupton
4th Mar 2018, 21:36
On the 1-11, we used to dump the remaining water soon after take-off. Otherwise it would freeze in the cruise.
That's why it was usually water-methanol, rather than simple de-min water, on 1-11s of course.

bcgallacher
4th Mar 2018, 23:52
Trident 2 and BAC 1-11 used only de- min water never water meth. Dart engines were the only civil engines that to my knowledge used water meth. On Trident it was dumped in flight.

bcgallacher
5th Mar 2018, 05:25
A little further info on water/watermeth injection. On the RR Dart the water meth was injected into the first stage compressor,the methanol burned in addition to the fuel in the combustion chambers to keep the temperature up.On the RR Spey the de - min water was injected to the rear of the compressors and the CASC unit (just a fancy name for the FCU.)was uprated in wet mode to increase the fuel flow. I once observed a watermeth power check on a Viscount where the supervisor performing the engine run forgot to switch the pump on and at max dry power he reached over and switched it on - the result was a tremendous roar and the engine wound down with water meth pissing out the intake and exhaust, the water meth control unit would have been trying to restore the power but having no flow would have been wide open so basically poured so much in it put the fire out. No immediate damage was done but i often wondered if the thermal shock had any consequences.

oldchina
5th Mar 2018, 08:41
The Paninternational 1-11 was doomed because it only had one water tank feeding two engines. I suppose if the 1-11 had two tanks the idiot would have still have put kerosene in both, but I thought it a strange design even so.

oldchina
5th Mar 2018, 08:54
ZeBedie,
According to BAC documentation from that era, the 1-11 water tank was in the pressurised hold so not subject to freezing.

ZeBedie
5th Mar 2018, 09:56
ZeBedie,
According to BAC documentation from that era, the 1-11 water tank was in the pressurised hold so not subject to freezing.

We had to purge the pipes - they'd have frozen!

dixi188
6th Mar 2018, 04:02
I think there was a mod available to have a heater in the water tank on the One Eleven.
The tank was at the front of the aft bag bay just aft of the landing gear cut out and near the skin. I don't think being pressurised means there will be heat around to stop it freezing.

WHBM
6th Mar 2018, 13:50
I was told years ago that every time a Convair 880 took off from Heathrow using water, they had to start taking RVR readings.
It would be good to know which operator of the 880 into Heathrow you are thinking of ...

The Paninternational 1-11 was doomed because it only had one water tank feeding two engines. I suppose if the 1-11 had two tanks the idiot would have still have put kerosene in both, but I thought it a strange design even so.
I don't believe it was whoever filled the tank was an idiot, but the one who, sometime beforehand, who had refilled demin-labelled water barrels with fuel, and then put them back on the line.

thegypsy
6th Mar 2018, 14:25
re Pan International

I was part of the HS125 crew that flew BAC personnel from Warton to Munich on 13th September to investigate this accident.

DaveReidUK
6th Mar 2018, 15:03
It would be good to know which operator of the 880 into Heathrow you are thinking of ...

Here's one possibility:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/69/JA8025_Convair_CV.880_Japan_A-l_LHR_02SEP63_%286794810645%29.jpg/640px-JA8025_Convair_CV.880_Japan_A-l_LHR_02SEP63_%286794810645%29.jpg

Those were the days ...

bcgallacher
6th Mar 2018, 15:23
The Gypsy - why did you fly to Munich? The accident happened in Hamburg,I was in Hamburg that night and the Fire engines passed our apartment. It took off over my fathers car as he was leaving the airport and he reckoned the engine noise was incredible.

thegypsy
6th Mar 2018, 15:42
We just go where we are told to go by the charterer but assume as the Airline was based in Munich that had something to do with it

I would guess at that time despite taking off from Hamburg nobody would have dreamed that someone at Hamburg had put kerosene in so I suspect they would first of all check maintenance records which were at Munich.

WHBM
6th Mar 2018, 15:48
why did you fly to Munich? The accident happened in Hamburg,
Paninternational HQ was in Munich, presumably it was more of a procedures than a wreckage investigating team. German holiday operators at the time commonly had one aircraft in each major city, all of which operated on the same day of the week out to each holiday destination in turn. The airline was shut down a month after the accident.

CV880
6th Mar 2018, 16:08
CV880 produced all that smoke without water injection. After a high power run up the ramp behind the engine would be covered in a layer of black soot.

bafanguy
6th Mar 2018, 18:32
CV880 produced all that smoke without water injection.

Here ya go:

http://www.socimage.com/media/1719298870629200471_5686655169

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/1/12/1357004/-Great-Might-Have-Beens-Convair-880

condor17
14th Mar 2018, 10:06
Gripper , was it 120 L or 120 Kgs 'ish , and gave 360kg ish ? increase in RTOW ? Memory faded and T2 manuals went to the Sim guys . Came on-line early '74 , and never used it .

rgds condor .

777fly
15th Mar 2018, 23:21
I was a FO on the Trident 2 when it was first introduced in the 70ís. I remember that the water injection system was only operational for a year or two before it was inerted and never used again. If memory serves this was due to limited performance gains and system unreliability. The system sometimes (embarrassingly) failed to work when selected due to pump failure and meant delays to empty the water tank, or early shutoff left water in the tank. I donít remember a way of jettisoning that water, it never happened to me. I experienced two takeoffs out of the old Nicosia airport in Cyprus in the 40C heat of summer using the injection system. The technique was a standing start, holding on the brakes, then opening up to full thrust. Three toggle switches below the relight switches started the water injection and proper operation was confirmed by three green lights coming on below the engine thrust percentage gauges. The increase in performance was noticeable and lasted for just a minute or so until the water tank ran dry. This left the aircraft wallowing at 1500 ft or so in ISA +25 air and it took up to 15 minutes of juggling speed and altitude before the leading edge slats could finally be retracted. I cannot remember the water tank figures or the takeoff weight benefit, unfortunately. Strangely, I can remember the fuel quantities even now: full wings 13680 kgs, full wings plus centre tank 21809kgs, wings plus centre plus fin tank 23040kgs. The T2 was a very nice aeroplane, but not as fast as the earlier T1.

LAS1997
16th Mar 2018, 12:02
If you want any information on the Trident contact Kevin Bowen at the Heathrow Trident Collection. Email [email protected]

Gripper123
29th Mar 2018, 11:33
I'm astonished and uplifted by the astonishing amount of interest aroused by this potentially 'damp' topic. Since my original enquiry - a kind, erstwhile colleague has lent me his Trident manuals which; up until then, had been an integral part of his loft insulation.

Reading the manuals without the impending threat of a sim-check was 'quite' interesting. However they did not cover the whole story, or answer all my questions. That surprised me as I had always believed the gaps in my knowledge to be self inflicted.

Nevertheless here are the snippets of information, and for the truly anal; references of where they can be found.

Taxying checks item 15) Water injection master switch ... off (Ops manual Vol 1 Drills 2)
Weights MTOW ...65,320 Kg. MTOW injection water added...65,770 Kg i.e. 450 KG increase. (Ops Vol 1 Flight Management - Handling Limitations (a).
FAILURE OF UNUSED INJECTION WATER TO DRAIN. Symptom: Contents gauge not reading empty. Action: .1) Injection Water Master Switch....Drain. 2) If remaining water does not drain, reselect master switch to prime and open any throttle to TO posn switch for a short time. 3) f remaining water does not drain, revise flight plan and keep below freezing level. This seems to confirm that the H2O was demineralised water not water meth. (Ops F.M. Fuel 3&4)
All further references are from (Ops Technical)
(Fuel 10 & 14) Servicing points....Water injection filling point (pressure connection) adjacent to rear equipment bay door. Provides for pressure filling the injection water system at a rate of 50 gal/min. The capacity of the tank is 145 imp. gallons.
Ditto : Injection water drain valve test button...... Provides a test on the ground that the pump and drain valve are not frozen. When pressed the drain valve should open and a full flow of water should drain from the outlet.
(Engines 7) SPEY 512 TO perf. sea level dry......12,600 lb thrust until 23 degrees C. My copy of a R.R. book: "The Jet Engine" promises an extra 7 degrees of max thrust if water is used and this is the real benefit of water injection (if it works).
Lastly, (Loading 1) The TO weight can only exceed 65,320 Kg if the excess is in the form of injection water. The max quantity of injection water is 145 imp. gallons (658 Kg).

I hope that will either be of interest or help you travel to the land of nod.
Anyways it will help my quest for accuracy and authenticity in the book. So be warned your aircraft VC 10; Vanguard; Viscount; Comet; Concorde; Britannia; may be next.
Happy landings!

kenparry
29th Mar 2018, 16:30
So, you uplift 658 kg of water to give an increase of 450 kg in MTOW. It seems the solution is worse than the original problem. Or am I missing something?

DaveReidUK
29th Mar 2018, 16:34
So, you uplift 658 kg of water to give an increase of 450 kg in MTOW. It seems the solution is worse than the original problem. Or am I missing something?

It makes a WAT limitation less limiting.

Gripper123
29th Mar 2018, 22:31
Yes on the face of it the figures seem contradictory but remember that in very high ambient temperatures, on short or limiting runways and at high altitude airports the Trident was unlikely to be able to lift MTOW anyway. So the extra 4% or so of thrust was reflected by the increase of the limiting (wet) take off weight compared to the dry limiting take off weight.

In practice that was enough to lift the water and a bit more payload if the system worked. In practice it often didn't and in my book I want to describe how we had to return to stand, drain the unused water and; not only offload the few extra passengers we thought we could carry, but also a few more. Because the air temperature had increased whilst we'd been farting around with a system that wouldn't have been necessary, if BEA had let DeHavilland build the aircraft they designed in the first instance viz. the Airco 121 with Medway engines alias the Boeing 727 but that's another story!
PS The 658 Kg of water was soon dissipated (if the system worked) as was the resultant extra 4% of thrust. Then the fun really started.

blind pew
30th Mar 2018, 07:11
Always wondered about the truth of our performance calculations wrt the real world. At tel Aviv we had to cross the beach above 1,000ft which we often didn't make by quite a lot. Iirc the military had spotted aircraft flying along it. Our data was based on Stephenson screen readings ..no allowance for the air over hot concrete or tarmac and no soundings.
Did see one skipper descend to get the droop in. Once at Nicky suggested to another that we should firewall the throttles..P3 had a better view..he looked up..then in ..then at me and said don't worry ACE...but it was close.

rog747
30th Mar 2018, 08:27
correct me if i am wrong speys had de-min water and Darts had water-meth?

DaveReidUK
30th Mar 2018, 08:54
correct me if i am wrong speys had de-min water and Darts had water-meth?

Yes, as per post #10.

Georgeablelovehowindia
30th Mar 2018, 09:32
correct me if i am wrong speys had de-min water and Darts had water-meth?
As a sometime Dart Herald pilot, I can confirm that water meth is correct. I can also confirm it was de-min water for the Spey. On the One-Eleven, as operated by Monarch Airlines, it was wobble pumped out of blue barrels on turn round at outstations by one or other of the flightdeck crew. We used to view this interesting - and perspiring - procedure from our 737-200 Adv with JT8D-17 engines.

Came the day at Menorca when the company One-Eleven captain arrived on our aircraft and commanded me not to go anywhere soon as he had a problem. (As he happened to be the Deputy Flight Ops Director at the time, I thought I'd better do as commanded.) The water injection had failed out of Luton and now they couldn't get back without tech-stopping. How much of their baggage could we take, to help them out? Before I could stop him, my tourettes-prone first officer chimed in with "All of it, probably." (Ouch!) In the end, I think we took half - about 700 kg, which got them home without tech-stopping.

WHBM
30th Mar 2018, 09:57
it was wobble pumped out of blue barrels on turn round at outstations by one or other of the flightdeck crew.
Likely a procedure following the Paninternational accident, referred to above, where an outstation ground crew had got fuel in the demin-labelled barrels. There was presumably a test of the contents as well, first.

Surprising a One-Eleven could not get from Mahon to Luton without a takeoff aid. Freddie Laker used to run them from Gatwick to Tenerife and back, and I think his -300 variant did not have the water aid.

kenparry
30th Mar 2018, 10:25
Always wondered about the truth of our performance calculations wrt the real world.

In my long-gone B737-200 days, I sometimes flew with a colleague who had been on the Trident with BA. He said, with some feeling, that the Trident in hot weather could either turn or climb, but not both, with all 3 Speys working as advertised. It seems you are not the only one who had doubts about meeting the performance requirements.

Brookmans Park
30th Mar 2018, 11:09
In my1-11experience it was unusual to have to pump the water as most regular destinations had a little bowser towed by the fueler
If we had to pump it from drums we had pump which was powered from the pneumatic system

Discorde
30th Mar 2018, 14:43
In my long-gone B737-200 days, I sometimes flew with a colleague who had been on the Trident with BA. He said, with some feeling, that the Trident in hot weather could either turn or climb, but not both, with all 3 Speys working as advertised. It seems you are not the only one who had doubts about meeting the performance requirements.

Here's a comment I posted a few years ago on a thread about Trident performance:

The T3 was a 5-engined airliner of three different engine types . . . Spey (A RR device for turning kerosene directly into smoke and noise, with a bit of residual thrust), Boost & APU . . . so three different sets of limits to learn for the ARB.

We used the boost once every 8 or 10 take-offs. Its unreliability was notorious. I recall doing ATH to LHR in a T3 with a u/s boost on a hot summer's day (remember those?). Boostless, we couldn't lift the required fuel so had to tech stop GVA - highly embarrassing. And a winter OSL to LHR off a slushy runway. Full load of pax but no prob using the boost & contaminated runway perf. Fire up boost just before entering runway. It works! Blip switch from ground idle to flight idle - still working! Capt opens up Speys - and boost promptly dies. Back to the terminal. Eng sucks his teeth. 'Nah, can't do anything here, boys - you'll have to take it home boostless'. Rework contam rwy perf - we can take 40 pax. Luckily the cull had to be done by the ground staff rather than us. So we guiltily left behind approx 100 pissed-off pax.

Once shut down in flight the boost could not be relit . . . which led indirectly to the famous Malaga incident - the guys shut down the boost at 6k on climbout (SOP) after which one of the Speys gave up the ghost, so they diverted to MAD. Instructed by ATC to go around on short final the Tripod wouldn't climb with 1Ĺ of its 3Ĺ donks dead & flew a very low level cct before successfully landing off the next approach. Turned out they were operating outside the WAT limit, although there was no way they could have known that at the time.

Anonymous broadcast (apocryphal) from someone on LHR Tower freq as a T-bird lines up on 28R: 'You're about to witness De Havilland's attempt at the world ground speed record.'

dixi188
30th Mar 2018, 17:09
Basically the RR Dart power was augmented by the use of Water/Methanol. The Water cooled the air and the Methanol provided the extra power.

In the RR Spey the Demin Water cooled the air and the Fuel Flow Regulator (CASC) provided extra fuel to provide the extra power.

JW411
30th Mar 2018, 17:19
Well, I am getting a bit ancient but I thought the water provided the boost and the methanol stopped the water from freezing?

WHBM
30th Mar 2018, 17:47
The early Boeing 707-120 and Douglas DC8-10 (and USAF B52s and KC-135s) with P&W JT3C turbojets also had the feature, and were collectively known as "Water Wagons". Usage generated smoke far denser than anything from a Trident or One-Eleven.

Boeing 707-123 - American Airlines | Aviation Photo #0541868 | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/American-Airlines/Boeing-707-123/541868/L)

pax britanica
30th Mar 2018, 18:02
Re the CV 880

i wondered if these strange craft evr came to LHR because for many years my memory told me I saw a JAL 880 doing what would now be be done in a sim flying circuits to LHR while I was waiting for an infrequent bus in Hounslow High Street .

However I remembered the reg as JA8001 which was a DC8 although I always though ththe aircraft from the smoke and shape was a super rare 880.

CV 880 was hardly the ideal aircraft for LHr-Tokyo so did JAL really use them to LHR or not.

On the original topic quite a few of the early non fan 707s and DC8s used water meth and they certainly were smokey-as was the CV 990 with tits weird rear fan

PB

Bergerie1
30th Mar 2018, 18:53
WHBM,

It made flying the departure route dead easy - just follow the smoke!! Much better than a magenta line.

dixi188
30th Mar 2018, 19:17
JW411,

Methanol does act as an anti-freeze but also acts as additional fuel.
IIRC the Dart used 55/45 mix and the PT6-45 A & B on the SD3-30 used 60/40 mix.

Dixi.

WHBM
30th Mar 2018, 20:21
Re the CV 880

i wondered if these strange craft evr came to LHR because for many years my memory told me I saw a JAL 880 doing what would now be be done in a sim flying circuits to LHR while I was waiting for an infrequent bus in Hounslow High Street .

However I remembered the reg as JA8001 which was a DC8 although I always though ththe aircraft from the smoke and shape was a super rare 880.

CV 880 was hardly the ideal aircraft for LHr-Tokyo so did JAL really use them to LHR or not.
JAL by late 1961, when they started serving Europe, had just a handful of DC8s, reg JA8001 upwards, but these were used across the Pacific to the USA. The European flights were a string of medium hops, and there was likely little demand, so the smaller Cv880 was reasonable. They were reg JA8021 upwards, so you were nearly right. They only lasted a year or so before more DC8s replaced them and they moved to japanese regional, and domestic, routes.

A couple of carriers, Lufthansa was one, also used the medium haul Boeing 720B at the time on routes to the Far East.

blind pew
30th Mar 2018, 20:46
The guys should have checked the tables for Madrid before diversion but the skipper decided it would be better for repair as it was a major station.
The Madrid controllers were as useless as they were highly paid and would stick Iberia onto or across the landing runway and sod everyone else (wasn't just the Brits as happened to me a couple of times). Go around power was set but the bird kept descending..the skipper did a fantastic job realising what was happening..lowered the nose whilst flying over lower terrain, accelerated, got the droop in and as minimum drag was around 250 knots along with ram recovery factor got away with it.

Wodrick
30th Mar 2018, 22:09
Water-Meth was/is used for turboprop aircraft for more power.
Totally different is water injection as being discussed here. Jet aircraft do not tolerate water meth, bits melt.
Please differentiate between the two.

dixi188
31st Mar 2018, 11:36
Wodrick.

Sorry to cause you some confusion but I don't think they are totally different.

Water causes the air to be cooled and increase in density.

Then we want to increase the power by adding fuel. This can be done either by opening the jet fuel tap to add more or using Methanol mixed with the water to do the job.

Yes, as far as I know, Jets use Demin water and add more fuel and Turbo-Props use Water/Meth, but I'll bet there are examples of use the other way around.

Yes, if you put Water/Meth or Fuel in the water tank the engine will overheat and bits will melt, as with the PanInternational BAC 1-11 that I had worked on only a few days before the accident.

pax britanica
31st Mar 2018, 11:58
WHBM

Thnaks for your kind answer I certainly remember somewhat telling me it was JAL route proving and clearly was DC8 then CV880 and back to the Dc8s, not much difference in smoke from what i assume were DC8 -30 series

And back then of course London-Tokyo was not long hail just a series of short /medium haul sectors stitched together. used to love the timetables from those days like a bus timetable with all the city names it stopped or missed according to days of the week, very exotic to a ten year old .
thanks again

rogerg
31st Mar 2018, 13:07
PanInternational BAC 1-11 that I had worked on only a few days before the accident.

I was told that the reason the 1-11 crashed was that the fuel instead of water made the mixture too rich and put the flame out.

Allan Lupton
31st Mar 2018, 13:13
I was told that the reason the 1-11 crashed was that the fuel instead of water made the mixture too rich and put the flame out.
I wouldn't have thought that possible as gas turbines, like diesels, are not fuelled for stoichiometric combustion.

kenparry
31st Mar 2018, 14:05
I was told that the reason the 1-11 crashed was that the fuel instead of water made the mixture too rich and put the flame out.


Not so. The excess fuel resulted in a very overheated turbine, which melted within a few seconds.

dixi188
31st Mar 2018, 15:22
The Pan International crash was caused by fuel in the water tank. I believe that several (5 I think) containers were used to to to fill the water tank, 2 of which contained fuel that had been drained from another aircraft, but not marked as such. The fuel would have floated on the top of the water so that initially, during take off, all would be normal as the water was taken from the bottom of the tank, until the level got down to the fuel when there was a sudden over-temp of both engines. The water flow rate was higher than the fuel flow so the effect would be catastrophic on the hot end.

IIRC the luck and bad luck was the Autobahn they landed on had a bridge that they went under. It had no centre pillar so when a wing hit on one side the aircraft slewed sideways and broke apart. Had there been a centre pillar then both wings would have hit and the fuselage may have carried on in a straight line and remained intact.

Gripper123
31st Mar 2018, 17:16
Dependent on where the H2O is introduced into the engine and there are two options. 1) coolant spray into the compressor inlet - typical for a turboprop, as it evaporates the water cools the incoming air (latent heat of vaporisation etc etc) and increases its density.

Or 2) into the combustion chamber - more usual for axial flow turbo-jet engines!.... Thus mass flow through the turbine is increased in relation to the compressor and the turbine inlet temperature (TiT) is reduced allowing the fuel system to schedule an increased fuel flow. Vis more thrust because of a variety of effects, not least of which jet pipe pressure.

If methanol is in the mixture; that has a calorific value, as the alcohol CH3OH burns it plays the same role in the combustion chamber as the kerosene i.e. fuel!. But this does increase the TiT. Hope you keeping abreast of these explanations.

canberra97
31st Mar 2018, 21:38
WHBM

Thnaks for your kind answer I certainly remember somewhat telling me it was JAL route proving and clearly was DC8 then CV880 and back to the Dc8s, not much difference in smoke from what i assume were DC8 -30 series

And back then of course London-Tokyo was not long hail just a series of short /medium haul sectors stitched together. used to love the timetables from those days like a bus timetable with all the city names it stopped or missed according to days of the week, very exotic to a ten year old .
thanks again

Although I don't have a link there are some rare photos that I have seen on Flickr showing the JAL 880 at LHR, go to the Flickr site and do a simple search and hopefully your find the photos.

DaveReidUK
1st Apr 2018, 08:06
I wondered if these strange craft ever came to LHR

so did JAL really use them to LHR or not

I thought we had already established that?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/69/JA8025_Convair_CV.880_Japan_A-l_LHR_02SEP63_%286794810645%29.jpg/640px-JA8025_Convair_CV.880_Japan_A-l_LHR_02SEP63_%286794810645%29.jpg


File:JA8025 Convair CV.880 Japan A-l LHR 02SEP63 (6794810645).jpg (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JA8025_Convair_CV.880_Japan_A-l_LHR_02SEP63_(6794810645).jpg)

WHBM
1st Apr 2018, 09:26
I thought we had already established that?

I've been trying to locate a relevant old timetable for the 880 service to Europe, but no luck with the usual (and some less usual) sources. One thing I discovered was that JAL's first route to Europe was not round through Asia points (what they called "The Silk Road Route") but "The Polar Route" through Anchorage with a DC8. Twice a week through Heathrow at the end of 1961, through Paris passengers were served lunch on the ground while stopped - I wonder where. There is a mention on this page of the forthcoming 880 service in 1962.

http://www.timetableimages.com/ttimages/complete/jl61/jl61-05.jpg

Now, back to Tridents. Trying as ever for a link, did any Tridents ever operate routes to Japan ? :)

canberra97
2nd Apr 2018, 00:02
Regarding the Trident and Japan.

Unless they were the CAAC versions and used on some charter flights from China to Japan.

Have you done a search online to see if there are any photos showing a Trident in Japan?

ZeBedie
2nd Apr 2018, 18:26
'You're about to witness De Havilland's attempt at the world ground speed record.'

What were the highest Vr/V2 you'd see on a Trident?

SOPS
3rd Apr 2018, 12:26
JAL by late 1961, when they started serving Europe, had just a handful of DC8s, reg JA8001 upwards, but these were used across the Pacific to the USA. The European flights were a string of medium hops, and there was likely little demand, so the smaller Cv880 was reasonable. They were reg JA8021 upwards, so you were nearly right. They only lasted a year or so before more DC8s replaced them and they moved to japanese regional, and domestic, routes.

A couple of carriers, Lufthansa was one, also used the medium haul Boeing 720B at the time on routes to the Far East.
Sorry for the thread drift...but a question, what was the range difference between a 720B and a 707 ( of any type)?

WHBM
3rd Apr 2018, 12:51
Sorry for the thread drift...but a question, what was the range difference between a 720B and a 707 ( of any type)?
I believe the difference was actually in the tankage, to get a reduced MTOW; the engines were the same, these stepped forward from turbojets to fan jets on both types. The 720 had a lighter internal structure and landing gear because of the lighter weights. The 720B, with the engines off the 707-320B but lighter weights, was regarded as a real Pocket Rocket.

Aer Lingus used 720s (non-fan) on Shannon to New York, and sometimes could not make it and had to drop into Gander.

Because of the lightweight structure and reduced MTOW the 720 was never suitable for conversion to a freighter.

rog747
3rd Apr 2018, 16:14
re range i am puzzled how channel airways (CW) did STN - Las Palmas in 3hr 15 mins - apparently a record still held today

they used the Trident one E-140's with 139Y pax config
no idea of pax load the day of the record flight

Northeast (NO) had same type of a/c with 123Y and I think they struggled with LHR to Malaga on a hot day

My travel company chartered NO Tridents for several years for a large programme of summer and winter ski series charters from LHR (Swans Tours Oxford St)

the furthest we went from LHR was to Malaga but I flew from LGW to Dubrovnik on one subbing for a BCAL 1-11 in Aug 1972 - full load seemed to manage it OK

anyon concur?

WHBM
3rd Apr 2018, 16:54
re range i am puzzled how Channel Airways (CW) did STN - Las Palmas in 3hr 15 mins - apparently a record still held today?
Channel never got any mainstream IT series from the UK with their Tridents, and just picked up oddball individual flights and subcharters. So quite possibly it was an empty positioning flight for a return load.

The only major series from the UK they ever landed for jets was with Lyons Holidays, and that was the contract the old Olympic Airways Comet 4B fleet was bought for. They got a major contract for one Trident out of West Berlin for a couple of the Trident's years with them, but while this was in progress the second Trident spent one whole summer season AOG at Stansted being robbed for parts to support it due to some issue with their Hawker Siddeley account.


Did the 1E-140 have water injection ?

Krakatoa
4th Apr 2018, 05:03
BEA Operated an ex Channel Airways Trident 1E YE out of Glasgow for 17 Months 1972 to 1973.
I know YE did not have Water Injection.

rog747
4th Apr 2018, 07:27
Channel never got any mainstream IT series from the UK with their Tridents, and just picked up oddball individual flights and subcharters. So quite possibly it was an empty positioning flight for a return load.

The only major series from the UK they ever landed for jets was with Lyons Holidays, and that was the contract the old Olympic Airways Comet 4B fleet was bought for. They got a major contract for one Trident out of West Berlin for a couple of the Trident's years with them, but while this was in progress the second Trident spent one whole summer season AOG at Stansted being robbed for parts to support it due to some issue with their Hawker Siddeley account.


Did the 1E-140 have water injection ?

well CW had their own Mediterranean Holidays brand which offered Canary islands so maybe it was one of their flights?

WHBM
4th Apr 2018, 07:57
Canary Islands on a Trident from ... Southend ! Now that would have been an interesting takeoff.

Did Channel actually check pax in at Southend and then coach them over to Stansted ? Did once hear this.

rog747
4th Apr 2018, 09:54
Canary Islands on a Trident from ... Southend ! Now that would have been an interesting takeoff.

Did Channel actually check pax in at Southend and then coach them over to Stansted ? Did once hear this.

No, i dont think so,

channel had planned their 1-11 and trident IT jet ops from the start to go from SEN BUT very quickly the level of local noise complaints saw them having to move most of their jet ops PDQ to STN
maybe they did some coaching to STN for the SEN already booked pax?

ad hoc jet ops were also from LTN and MME to PMI with a trident at weekends
BUA leased one of the new 1-11's for all of the summer 1969

yes in 1971 they got a Berlin IT contract to see a 1-11 (or 2) and one Trident based there with the other trident used for spares backup
the comets doing most of the UK IT work - yes Lyons and Leroy tours were customers
1972 they were gone for good

Spooky 2
8th Apr 2018, 13:47
I believe the difference was actually in the tankage, to get a reduced MTOW; the engines were the same, these stepped forward from turbojets to fan jets on both types. The 720 had a lighter internal structure and landing gear because of the lighter weights. The 720B, with the engines off the 707-320B but lighter weights, was regarded as a real Pocket Rocket.

Aer Lingus used 720s (non-fan) on Shannon to New York, and sometimes could not make it and had to drop into Gander.

Because of the lightweight structure and reduced MTOW the 720 was never suitable for conversion to a freighter.



The 720B had 17000# thrust JT3D engines where as the 707-320B/C had 18000# engines. Still a rocket ship.