All British Tridents gone by 1986
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: WILMSLOW
Age: 61
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All British Tridents gone by 1986
Could anybody shed more light on the withdrawal of the Trident fleet, partucularly the T.3's as, by todays standards, they had a very short life span and were all withdrawn by the end of 1985.
Was it to do with impending noise restrictions, or were there other factors ?
Regards
Mark
Was it to do with impending noise restrictions, or were there other factors ?
Regards
Mark
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ascot berks uk
Age: 93
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Economics [3 outdated engines] noise and the introduction of the B737-200 and the B757 far more fuel efficent . but it was a sad time for those of us who worked on them when they were in service when the last one went .
Chapter 2/Stage 2 noise regulations came in to force on 1st January 1986.
The Trident did not meet these new regulations and BA's last Trident operations were on 31st December 1985. They finished with simultaneous approaches to 27L and 27R at Heathrow - one was service flight and one was a charter. Certain people on both flights could then spend hours arguing that THEY were on the last Trident service!
The Trident did not meet these new regulations and BA's last Trident operations were on 31st December 1985. They finished with simultaneous approaches to 27L and 27R at Heathrow - one was service flight and one was a charter. Certain people on both flights could then spend hours arguing that THEY were on the last Trident service!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: WILMSLOW
Age: 61
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the replies.
Seems to me things didnt need to be SO 'rigid'.
Why couldnt the Trident be exempt from these noise regulations ? If only short term, exemptions had happened before as I'm thinking of BAC 1-11s well into the 1990's.
Would it have been so expensive to replace the engines on a reduced number of Tridents, in the light of the short life some of these aircraft had?
Seems to me things didnt need to be SO 'rigid'.
Why couldnt the Trident be exempt from these noise regulations ? If only short term, exemptions had happened before as I'm thinking of BAC 1-11s well into the 1990's.
Would it have been so expensive to replace the engines on a reduced number of Tridents, in the light of the short life some of these aircraft had?
Originally Posted by MARK9263
Would it have been so expensive to replace the engines on a reduced number of Tridents, in the light of the short life some of these aircraft had?
Also I think that the BAC 1-11 was able to conform to stage II regs. It was the stage III regulations that finally drove the 1-11 out of Europe.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ascot berks uk
Age: 93
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What engine could have been fitted? all the engine manufactures were developing the "big fan engines "ie RB211 etc and the Trident airframe was too small to accept those it would have sat on its tail and the BAC 111 modified exhaust system reduced the the power of the engine and the Trident was reluctant to take off until it got to a high takeoff speed it wasn't called the "Ground Gripper" for nothing and needed the 4th engine in hot climates to get airborn , though we were very sorry to see it go it went at the right time and I worked it from 1963 to 1986 so it was a big chunk of my life.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They developed an RB211 mount for testing on a VC10. Why wasn't that adapted to re-engine VC10s with 2 RB211s in place of 4 Conways?
I flew on G-AWZO on 31st Dec 1985 from Manchester on a 'Trident farewell' flight. We did a low pass at Liverpool and at Ronaldsway (it was a wet day, so we didn't see much!), then a go-around off 06 at MAN before a rather ropey full stop. That aeroplane that evening flew the last scheduled BA Trident flight as the Heathrow Shuttle. As it took off from Man, the controller's last words to it on handover was "and don't bring it back!"
Boy, were they noisy!
ZO was supposed to be going into preservation at Hatfield, but I saw her about 10 years ago when she was a hulk, having stood unloved at Hatfield since the mid 80s. She was broken up on site shortly afterwards.
I flew on G-AWZO on 31st Dec 1985 from Manchester on a 'Trident farewell' flight. We did a low pass at Liverpool and at Ronaldsway (it was a wet day, so we didn't see much!), then a go-around off 06 at MAN before a rather ropey full stop. That aeroplane that evening flew the last scheduled BA Trident flight as the Heathrow Shuttle. As it took off from Man, the controller's last words to it on handover was "and don't bring it back!"
Boy, were they noisy!
ZO was supposed to be going into preservation at Hatfield, but I saw her about 10 years ago when she was a hulk, having stood unloved at Hatfield since the mid 80s. She was broken up on site shortly afterwards.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ascot berks uk
Age: 93
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the RB211 mod on the VC 10 wasn't it an RAF one and after 1 was fitted in place of the 2 on one side, after the tests and after it was demodded it was returned to the RAF with an allegedly twisted fuselage and had to be "Reduced to Spares "? If this is wrong I Apologise. I believe the Spey as fitted to the Trident was to say the least an after thought as the original engine Rolls was going to build for the aircraft was never put into production as the Trident was made smaller at BEAs request and made it a non comercial aircraft to other airlines so wasn't worth it and the Spey was "plucked off the shelf".
Correct on both counts avionic-type.
The VC10 was modified to test the RB211 but with an engine mount that mimicked the Tristar installation. This was visible as the pylon-like bit above the engine. This installation was quite heavy and wouldn't have made the VC10 any more economic than it already was. As you mention, the fuselage turned out to be distorted at the end of the trials so G-AXLR/XR809 never flew again. More info and photos here: Histories - XR809
SSD: As I said before re-engining just isn't profitable for a small set of airframes. Also in those days ETOPS was something very new, a twin engined-VC10 would for a lot of operators have been a very unattractive proposition as it limited its routings. And getting such an airframe into ETOPS regulations then would have meant far more modifications!
As for the Trident, it was originally going to be a larger airframe with RR Medway engines. BEA wanted it scaled down and so they did. In the meantime Boeing had a look at the original specs, built the 727 to match them (approximately, the story is a bit longer of course) and the rest is history.
The VC10 was modified to test the RB211 but with an engine mount that mimicked the Tristar installation. This was visible as the pylon-like bit above the engine. This installation was quite heavy and wouldn't have made the VC10 any more economic than it already was. As you mention, the fuselage turned out to be distorted at the end of the trials so G-AXLR/XR809 never flew again. More info and photos here: Histories - XR809
SSD: As I said before re-engining just isn't profitable for a small set of airframes. Also in those days ETOPS was something very new, a twin engined-VC10 would for a lot of operators have been a very unattractive proposition as it limited its routings. And getting such an airframe into ETOPS regulations then would have meant far more modifications!
As for the Trident, it was originally going to be a larger airframe with RR Medway engines. BEA wanted it scaled down and so they did. In the meantime Boeing had a look at the original specs, built the 727 to match them (approximately, the story is a bit longer of course) and the rest is history.
The Trident 3B variant had a RB162 booster engine fitted above the No.2 Spey. This added 15% thrust for 5% more weight and was only used during take-off and climb out when needed. See here: Hawker Siddeley Trident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited by Jhieminga; 1st Jun 2011 at 08:29. Reason: Corrected the location of the RB162
The Trident 3 was fitted with a boost engine (above No 2 - not below - although it was below the intake for No 2) which could be fired up for T/O thereby permitting a higher MTOW.
It produced about 5000 pounds of thrust and had simple switch-operated power settings.
It produced about 5000 pounds of thrust and had simple switch-operated power settings.
Why couldnt the Trident be exempt from these noise regulations ? If only short term, exemptions had happened before as I'm thinking of BAC 1-11s well into the 1990's.
Also I think that the BAC 1-11 was able to conform to stage II regs. It was the stage III regulations that finally drove the 1-11 out of Europe.
There were simply not enought Tridents about to warrant even the development of a Stage II hush-kit.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: WILMSLOW
Age: 61
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why should it have been exempted? What is the point of noise limits if they are not applied?
Because it had had a relatively short career
There were simply not enought Tridents about to warrant even the development of a Stage II hush-kit.
Cost prohibitive, or no will to do it ?
Because it had had a relatively short career
There were simply not enought Tridents about to warrant even the development of a Stage II hush-kit.
Cost prohibitive, or no will to do it ?
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
ICAO rules are arrived at by consensus.
If BA had *really* wanted the Trident to fly on after 1985, the rules would have been redesigned, or the timeframe adapted, to fit. The various Chapters have never grounded viable aircraft to any significant degree.
If BA had *really* wanted the Trident to fly on after 1985, the rules would have been redesigned, or the timeframe adapted, to fit. The various Chapters have never grounded viable aircraft to any significant degree.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: WILMSLOW
Age: 61
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If BA had *really* wanted the Trident to fly on after 1985, the rules would have been redesigned, or the timeframe adapted, to fit.
I personally think you are bang on the money!
I personally think you are bang on the money!
Fuel cost was also a factor. Each RB211 on the B757 produced more thrust than all 3 Speys and both RB211s together used less fuel than the 3 Speys.
BA got the early 757s at a bargain price as one of the launch customers.
The really fascinating story is that Hawker Siddley produced a draft for a Trident successor in the mid-60s. It had twin engines under the wings and the dimensions were almost identical to the 757 (which started coming off the production lines in 1982). Even more interestingly it had a low horizontal tail as in the production 757 - which was originally planned to have the 727 high tail arrangement.
Did Hawker Siddeley designers end up in Seattle?
BA got the early 757s at a bargain price as one of the launch customers.
The really fascinating story is that Hawker Siddley produced a draft for a Trident successor in the mid-60s. It had twin engines under the wings and the dimensions were almost identical to the 757 (which started coming off the production lines in 1982). Even more interestingly it had a low horizontal tail as in the production 757 - which was originally planned to have the 727 high tail arrangement.
Did Hawker Siddeley designers end up in Seattle?
Those people who claim that if BA had REALLY wanted to keep Tridents flying then they could have got the noise regs changed are living in cloud cuckoo land. There had been years of discussion and argument before Stage II was agreed.
The only solution for BA would have been to develop a hush-kit. It was simply not economically viable - partly because of low market size and also because the Trident was getting expensive to operate anyway. Also if you look at the hush-kit for the Speys on the 111 it would have looked REALLY interesting on the Trident's number 2 engine!
Simply saying they had not been in service long is no argument whatsoever.
The only solution for BA would have been to develop a hush-kit. It was simply not economically viable - partly because of low market size and also because the Trident was getting expensive to operate anyway. Also if you look at the hush-kit for the Speys on the 111 it would have looked REALLY interesting on the Trident's number 2 engine!
Simply saying they had not been in service long is no argument whatsoever.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: london
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You must ask why:
JT8D outsold, well, everything else combined;
all the vendor items from various HamStans outsold Jenny & Piles, Mechanisms and the rest;
DC-9, in its multiple iterations, outsold 1-11s (and Sud Caravelle, Dassault Mercure, VFW-614);
727, in its constant Product Development, outsold Tridents, and BEAC extracted operating cost compensation, before being permitted to take 737/200ADV.
Clues: cents per available seat mile; JT8D-15 became cursed in Overhaul shops: >10,000hr. TBO in 1970s. And, a strange concept alien to UK/European (still, today, Russian) aero-industry: Product Support, someone who cares...after 1600hr. Friday, anytime in August.
JT8D outsold, well, everything else combined;
all the vendor items from various HamStans outsold Jenny & Piles, Mechanisms and the rest;
DC-9, in its multiple iterations, outsold 1-11s (and Sud Caravelle, Dassault Mercure, VFW-614);
727, in its constant Product Development, outsold Tridents, and BEAC extracted operating cost compensation, before being permitted to take 737/200ADV.
Clues: cents per available seat mile; JT8D-15 became cursed in Overhaul shops: >10,000hr. TBO in 1970s. And, a strange concept alien to UK/European (still, today, Russian) aero-industry: Product Support, someone who cares...after 1600hr. Friday, anytime in August.