How many engines on a Trident Three?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: It wasn't me, I wasn't there, wrong country ;-)
Age: 79
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ground Gripper
'twas named so by the crews
Also you may wonder why the 737 is called the "FLUFF"
Also you may wonder why the 737 is called the "FLUFF"
Last edited by merlinxx; 8th May 2009 at 15:36.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Essex
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHBM,
Off topic, but to correct something you wrote (post 37). You say that BA "never attempted" nonstops to California in 747-100s.
Yes they did! I flew P&W powered BA 747s nonstop between Heathrow and San Francisco in the late '70s.
I'll take that anorak off now......
Off topic, but to correct something you wrote (post 37). You say that BA "never attempted" nonstops to California in 747-100s.
Yes they did! I flew P&W powered BA 747s nonstop between Heathrow and San Francisco in the late '70s.
I'll take that anorak off now......
Well I'm surprised, because BA wisdom was the -100 did not have the range for California, hence the arrangement with Air New Zealand to use their DC-10s on Los Angeles in 1975-78, until the first 747-200Bs came along; LAX was the first route they were used on, they had been desperately short of capacity, BA had been hanging n for the first Rolls-Royce engined -200Bs. San Francisco then started as more -200Bs were delivered, if I recall correctly it was Spring 1978.
Only thing I can think is that maybe freight to San Francisco might have been much less in the initial days, and that gave scope for more fuel on the -100. It was a regular summer event for the DC-10 to go out from London at max weight, and for freight (and occasionally pax !) to have been offloaded. Because of the duration a fuel stop was not normally possible within FTLs, the only way to do it was to plan it a day ahead and send a crew up to Prestwick, and stop there.
I was a regular on these flights at the time as well, mainly LAX but some SFO as well (and, as you can guess from the above, saw PIK a couple of times as well, let alone a deserted Stansted during a handlers strike at Heathrow !). I know both Pan Am and TWA were using -100s to California, and once did a marathon LAX-Bangor (about a 2.5 hour stop)-London with TWA when they couldn't get a transoceanic clearence. The US must have had different FTLs.
Only thing I can think is that maybe freight to San Francisco might have been much less in the initial days, and that gave scope for more fuel on the -100. It was a regular summer event for the DC-10 to go out from London at max weight, and for freight (and occasionally pax !) to have been offloaded. Because of the duration a fuel stop was not normally possible within FTLs, the only way to do it was to plan it a day ahead and send a crew up to Prestwick, and stop there.
I was a regular on these flights at the time as well, mainly LAX but some SFO as well (and, as you can guess from the above, saw PIK a couple of times as well, let alone a deserted Stansted during a handlers strike at Heathrow !). I know both Pan Am and TWA were using -100s to California, and once did a marathon LAX-Bangor (about a 2.5 hour stop)-London with TWA when they couldn't get a transoceanic clearence. The US must have had different FTLs.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: North of Hadrian's Wall
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHBM your mention of Tridents on the "Old" 13/31 runway at Turnhouse reminds me of one very wet day when, sitting in my office next to the terminal (the old one), that a Trident landing on 31 came into view from behind one of the adjacent buildings, and almost abeam the terminal, still going like the clappers of hell when normally by that time they were down to near to taxying speed. Best bit of aquaplaning I've ever seen. Off the far end and onto the grass it went, stopping just short of the construction work on the new runway. Fortunately nothing damaged except the skipper's Y-fronts and as I recall it was flown back out the next day.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK-California
Sorry to drift back off topic again but some of you may be interested.
The 747-100s struggled westbound (against the prevailing winds) and getting the load and fuel right was quite an art especially on a hot day at LHR. Freight loads suffered last minute bumping on occasions. The PA ones, at least, often could only be legally dispatched part way (usually Edmonton or Winnipeg as far as I recall) and then, all going well, they could do an en route redispatch to LAX (US redispatch is a similar sort of process to the UK 'en route alternate' but relies on company ground based dispatchers' calculation and approval). Usually the crew could keep the fuel burn down enough across the N Atlantic/Canada to make the redispatch possible.
Westbound was almost never a problem except one day when someone (FE I think) misprogrammed the INS co-ordinates before leaving the ramp at LAX so by the time they hit the 49th parallel their INS was telling them they were somewhere else so an arctic and oceanic crossing could not be made accurately. An embarrassing landing had to be made at Winnipeg just for correct co-ordinates to be punched in and of course, for the extra fuel that the diversion had made necessary.
There was minimal holding fuel available, though, to deal with any delays eastbound into LHR and an early decision to divert needed to be made on marginal weather days.
When Laker started the LGW-LAX Skytrains in the mid 1970s they used DC-10-10s that had to tech stop Bangor (and slip flight deck crew but not the cabin crew I seem to recall) both ways until the -30s arrived (in late 79 or early 80). Bangor is quite a way off the Great Circle route (see Great Circle Mapper ) so this must have cost Laker dearly for extra fuel and crewing costs.
The 747-100s struggled westbound (against the prevailing winds) and getting the load and fuel right was quite an art especially on a hot day at LHR. Freight loads suffered last minute bumping on occasions. The PA ones, at least, often could only be legally dispatched part way (usually Edmonton or Winnipeg as far as I recall) and then, all going well, they could do an en route redispatch to LAX (US redispatch is a similar sort of process to the UK 'en route alternate' but relies on company ground based dispatchers' calculation and approval). Usually the crew could keep the fuel burn down enough across the N Atlantic/Canada to make the redispatch possible.
Westbound was almost never a problem except one day when someone (FE I think) misprogrammed the INS co-ordinates before leaving the ramp at LAX so by the time they hit the 49th parallel their INS was telling them they were somewhere else so an arctic and oceanic crossing could not be made accurately. An embarrassing landing had to be made at Winnipeg just for correct co-ordinates to be punched in and of course, for the extra fuel that the diversion had made necessary.
There was minimal holding fuel available, though, to deal with any delays eastbound into LHR and an early decision to divert needed to be made on marginal weather days.
When Laker started the LGW-LAX Skytrains in the mid 1970s they used DC-10-10s that had to tech stop Bangor (and slip flight deck crew but not the cabin crew I seem to recall) both ways until the -30s arrived (in late 79 or early 80). Bangor is quite a way off the Great Circle route (see Great Circle Mapper ) so this must have cost Laker dearly for extra fuel and crewing costs.
Curious as to why Laker would tech-stop at BGR which, as has been said, is quite a way off the UK-West Coast Great Circle. Surely a stop at YWG, YEG or even MSP would have been more economical.
1. The DC10-10 was marginal to get to Winnipeg anyway from London, and other intermediate points up in the Arctic had high fuel prices and crew accommodation difficulties.
2. Generally cheaper fuel in the US than in Canada.
3. Because you needed to recrew, good to have the stop for both UK-LAX and UK-MIA in the same place. For LAX Bangor is half way, for Miami a slipcrew can then do BGR-MIA-BGR in one duty.
4. The need to recrew was in part because Laker chose to stop several of their flights at Manchester or Prestwick. This went back to their charter-only days on these routes, when they did the same thing.
5. Bangor did a lot of promotion of themselves with minimal landing fees and cheap fuel.
6. Clearance of customs at Bangor was quick (because they were trying for the business) as compared to LAX, to such an extent that for pax this could more than cancel out the extra journey time.
7. Winnipeg is a poor weather place in winter and is a difficult place to find alternates for given that you have to recrew. Diverting to Minneapolis with unexpected US customs to do and the slip crew over the border in a snowstorm is a real pig to untie.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bangor DC-10 (cross thread)
5. Bangor did a lot of promotion of themselves with minimal landing fees and cheap fuel.
6. Clearance of customs at Bangor was quick (because they were trying for the business) as compared to LAX, to such an extent that for pax this could more than cancel out the extra journey time.
7. Winnipeg is a poor weather place in winter and is a difficult place to find alternates for given that you have to recrew. Diverting to Minneapolis with unexpected US customs to do and the slip crew over the border in a snowstorm is a real pig to untie.
6. Clearance of customs at Bangor was quick (because they were trying for the business) as compared to LAX, to such an extent that for pax this could more than cancel out the extra journey time.
7. Winnipeg is a poor weather place in winter and is a difficult place to find alternates for given that you have to recrew. Diverting to Minneapolis with unexpected US customs to do and the slip crew over the border in a snowstorm is a real pig to untie.
BGR was very popular due to the points mentioned and even airlines like PanAm with lots of facilities at nearby airports such as BOS chose to use BGR for tech stops on many charter flights. I imagine BGR is a much quieter place nowadays with not so many short range aircraft attempting long range operations.
Given its location, BGR must have had wx issues on occasions. Does anyone know where Laker diverted to and how they got round the crewing issues that diversions must have caused?
I can recall BA flights in the early 70s filing FPLs for Seattle with first div SFX; if they had enough fuel left approaching SEA they would 'divert'!!
