Aviation History and Nostalgia Whether working in aviation, retired, wannabee or just plain fascinated this forum welcomes all with a love of flight.

Best 6-abreast trijet

Old 22nd May 2007, 15:47
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Estonia
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Best 6-abreast trijet

What is the best 6-abreast trijet?

The original, Hawker-Siddeley Trident?
Boeing 727?
Tupolev 154?
Yakovlev 42?
chornedsnorkack is offline  
Old 22nd May 2007, 18:09
  #2 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,567
Received 149 Likes on 59 Posts
VC10 with one engine out!

BEagle is offline  
Old 22nd May 2007, 19:14
  #3 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Age: 82
Posts: 3,782
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Now what a waste of the taxpayers money that was! After the RB211 trials, during which the two RR Conway engines on the left side of XR809 were replaced by a single RB211, it was flown by Rolls Royce into the MU at RAF Kemble.

Rolls Royce proceeded to winch the RB211 off the aircraft, put it on a truck and set off through the main gate.

"Wait a minute" said the RAF "The aircraft had four Conways on it when you borrowed it so can you please put the original engine beam back on and give it back to us exactly as you found it".

"Where does it say that in the contract that you signed with us?" said RR. It didn't and XR809 was scrapped with very little time on the airframe just because some pillock screwed up the terms of the contract and it was going to cost an arm and a leg to put things back to normal.

P.S. Sorry in advance for the thread creep.
JW411 is offline  
Old 22nd May 2007, 23:02
  #4 (permalink)  

A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I had a work colleague, a very frequent traveller, who swore blind that the Trident had the most comfortable, passenger-friendly pressurisation system in the sky.

Can't say I ever notived. I used to avoid the rearward facing seats, though. Didn't like them.

Every Tu-154 I've flown used the 'curvature of the earth' take off technique. Scary.
The SSK is offline  
Old 23rd May 2007, 08:13
  #5 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Just south of the Keevil gap.
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Further thread drift

Thats a good dit, but I thought that the reason that XR809 was grounded was because, during the trials of the RB211, with an early FADEC, it suffered a runaway, and the sudden application of assymetric thrust caused a buckle in the fuselage.
Happy to be corrected if my memory is wrong!

Cpt_Pugwash is offline  
Old 23rd May 2007, 12:10
  #6 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
On an early RB.211?


Hmmm, might be true, I suppose.
Having said this, the only 'FADEC' on the specific type I've noticed is the fuel control amplifier, which has been known to act up a time or three...or more.
411A is offline  
Old 23rd May 2007, 12:32
  #7 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Just south of the Keevil gap.
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Continuing the thread drift....

Memory does plays tricks .....

Text lifted from http://www.vc10.net/history/Individual/xr809.html

At that time no aircraft was available that could accommodate the large girth of the RB211 beneath the wing and still have some ground clearance left, the mounting on the side of the fuselage of the VC10 did provide this clearance. Also with the clean wing and relatively high fuselage mounting the RB211 was in clean air and therefore the test results would be universally acceptable. To be able to attach the RB211 the engine beam was strengthened to accommodate the higher weight and aerodynamic effects of the larger frontal area. Also as the RB211 was designed for a pylon mounting some other modifications were needed to adapt to the side-mounted VC10 pylon. All went well and on the first flight of the three-engined VC10 took place on 6th May 1970. On take-off, the two starboard Conways were marginally more powerful than the one RB211.

G-AXLR with RB211 at Hucknall, Nottinghamshire

Reregistered as G-AXLR the aircraft commenced on an extensive flight test programme. Initially it flew from Hucknall, but from May 1972 on the aircraft was based at Filton from which many more flights were made. One hair-raising flight was the test bed's 44th flight on 7th august 1974. The thrust reverser on the RB211 was not used at this point but for some reason the reverser sleeve was not positively locked in the forward position. With an expected flight time of six hours the aircraft took off laden with fuel. An incremental climb was carried out, pausing every so often for re-lights on the RB211. Following a re-light with the aircraft flying at 240 knots at 20,000 feet, the cold stream reverser of the RB211 slid back into the reverse position, sealing off the bypass duct. The effect of this was a reverse idle which produced a slight lurch on the aircraft. Shortly afterwards, a more violent lurch occurred, followed by aircraft buffet. There was adverse yaw and roll, and level flight could not be maintained with full power on the Conways. The aircraft began descending at 2,500 feet per minute and, as the crew had no control over the reverse selection, the RB211 was shut down. This slowed the rate of descent but the aircraft was still descending at about 1,500 feet per minute.

The RB211 test engine mounted on G-AXLR

Fuel jettison was initiated as the equation was quite clear to all on board - the aircraft would hit the ground in approximately twelve minutes unless the weight could be brought down to a value that the Conways could cope with. In such circumstances the time that the Conways can spend on take-off rating become academic. At 1,000 feet the aircraft weight equaled the thrust, and a safe landing was eventually made. After this modifications were carried out to the reverser to ensure a more positive locking system.

On 26th September 1975 the aircraft was delivered to RAF Kemble. Initially the aircraft would return to RAF service but it was found that the airframe was distorted, and repairs were deemed too costly. In the end the airframe was used for SAS training purposes and was left to decay at the site, eventually being scrapped.
When later on Rolls-Royce needed to flight test the RB211-535CF and RB211-535E variants the Boeing 'house' 747 had to be hired for two 30 hour demonstrations at a total cost that just fell short of $10 million.
Cpt_Pugwash is offline  
Old 23rd May 2007, 13:14
  #8 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Very interesting and excellent work by the crew, but I`m fairly sure that weight didn`t equal thrust even at 1000'.
wonderboysteve is offline  
Old 24th May 2007, 09:45
  #9 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: near an airplane
Posts: 2,540
Received 12 Likes on 12 Posts
but I`m fairly sure that weight didn`t equal thrust even at 1000'.
You are correct, and the text on the page has now been changed, see here: http://www.vc10.net/History/Individual/XR809.html

As far as I know the reason for scrapping the aircraft was airframe damage, but I wouldn't be surprised if the original engine beam and engines themselves were not immediately available upon completion of the tests. They won't have gone missing. No-one would throw away two serviceable Conways just like that, they were probably used as spares by the RAF.
Jhieminga is offline  
Old 24th May 2007, 14:26
  #10 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Wildest Surrey
Age: 74
Posts: 10,487
Received 56 Likes on 41 Posts
Getting back to the original question, undoubtedly the Trident. By the way SSK, only the 2E variant had a few rear facing seats as they were originally 'owned' by BKS and/or Channel Airways; as far as I know all original BEA ones were configured with forward facing seats.
It was faster and smoother than any other airliner of its day and we had great fun on our ATCO Cadet course when we went to Viking House and 'flew' the systems trainers.
chevvron is online now  
Old 24th May 2007, 19:17
  #11 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,828
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The BKS and Channel Tridents were 1Es - I seem to remember Channel dubbed theirs "1E-140" - because they were cramming in close on 140 PAX.

2Es were sold to BA, and I think CAAC.
ATNotts is online now  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.