Different T.O & LNDG xwind components for H.S. Trident
l'aeroplanino
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Italy
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Different T.O & LNDG xwind components for H.S. Trident
Hi everybody,
I have this question following a story by a Trident pilot during the 80s...he declared that the Trident had different cross wind components for take off and landing due to the offset position of the nosewheel gear.
As I can't figure out this behavior and after I made a lot of researches on the net, this will be my last attempt on this issue: anybody has any information?
Thank you very much for attention.
Happy New Year to everybody!
I have this question following a story by a Trident pilot during the 80s...he declared that the Trident had different cross wind components for take off and landing due to the offset position of the nosewheel gear.
As I can't figure out this behavior and after I made a lot of researches on the net, this will be my last attempt on this issue: anybody has any information?
Thank you very much for attention.
Happy New Year to everybody!
I think what you are referring to was the Trident 3B which did have a different crosswind limit on each side due to the placing of the boost engine and the APU. I believe the other marks ie. 1 & 2 did not have this "quirk". I am sure more knowledgeable posters will confirm this.
l'aeroplanino
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Italy
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you very much for your comment, Meikleour!
Actually I was caught by this "quirk" from that great plane, never heard something similar in my long career...about 40 years...
Can you remember any detail on that particular "geometry" affecting the different response on crosswind components?
Thank you again.
Have a great New Year.
Actually I was caught by this "quirk" from that great plane, never heard something similar in my long career...about 40 years...
Can you remember any detail on that particular "geometry" affecting the different response on crosswind components?
Thank you again.
Have a great New Year.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Too Far North
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does the OP mean a different x-wind from the left or right or the same from left and right but different for T/O and landing?
I have it in my mind that the 146 had a different for T/O than landing but I can't find my manuals. I last flew it in 1998 but I seem to recall 31kts for T/O and 35kts for landing.
I have it in my mind that the 146 had a different for T/O than landing but I can't find my manuals. I last flew it in 1998 but I seem to recall 31kts for T/O and 35kts for landing.
l'aeroplanino
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Italy
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi, Flap40,
What I recall of the story it's just a difference between left and right crosswind components on that particular model for T.O. & LNDG.
Thank you for your interest.
Happy New Year to you!
What I recall of the story it's just a difference between left and right crosswind components on that particular model for T.O. & LNDG.
Thank you for your interest.
Happy New Year to you!
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: hampshire
Age: 79
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you'll find the crosswind limitations on Trident 3 were only for take-off. We used to take them to 'wrong' end at Heathrow, wait for a batch- stop the 28L deps & launch the batch of T3 from 10R.
dH used to take a plane back to Hatfield in winter & never actually resolved the problem. One thought was the nosewheel door on the longer fuselage was creating the problem.
dH used to take a plane back to Hatfield in winter & never actually resolved the problem. One thought was the nosewheel door on the longer fuselage was creating the problem.
One thought was the nosewheel door on the longer fuselage was creating the problem.
The suggestion that it was related to the boost engine and/or APU position on the T3 is a bit more difficult to understand, given that both were on the centreline, but maybe there's more to that than meets the eye.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 73
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The NW door that stayed open on the Trident when the gear was down was the port one, so that could account for a lower limit when the x-wind was from the left.
I was also wondering what the skimming technique was.
Whether that's enough to account for the asymmetry in the x-wind limits, I'll leave for you to judge.
Alternative explanations welcomed, needless to say.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: hampshire
Age: 79
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am SO impressed that Discorde has kept his manuals - just in case they restore a T3.
There was a slightly different nose-wheel door arrangement on various marks of HS21. After the loss of Turkair Dc10, other aircraft often reported that the Trident doors were not closed. This occurred when say a T1 & T3 were at the hold - we used to have to send a vehicle out to inspect.
There was a slightly different nose-wheel door arrangement on various marks of HS21. After the loss of Turkair Dc10, other aircraft often reported that the Trident doors were not closed. This occurred when say a T1 & T3 were at the hold - we used to have to send a vehicle out to inspect.
DavidReidUK: The fact that the limits are only different for the take-off case suggests that it is the effect of the operating boost engine that is at play here. (boost always off for landing ) Perhaps the air intake for the boost engine affected the airflow around the fin and rudder?
Hi Meikleour
The boost had intake doors on both sides of the fin, mechanically interconnected, suggesting symmetrical airflow patterns. The APU air inlet was on the left side of the fin and its exhaust gases exited vertically above the centre engine intake. But the T/O limits applied regardless of APU and or boost operation.
I can't remember what the 'skimming technique' was or actually using it and thus far have been unable to find any reference to it in the manuals. [/NERD]
The boost had intake doors on both sides of the fin, mechanically interconnected, suggesting symmetrical airflow patterns. The APU air inlet was on the left side of the fin and its exhaust gases exited vertically above the centre engine intake. But the T/O limits applied regardless of APU and or boost operation.
I can't remember what the 'skimming technique' was or actually using it and thus far have been unable to find any reference to it in the manuals. [/NERD]
Perhaps the air intake for the boost engine affected the airflow around the fin and rudder?
Edit: Discorde beat me to it.
Skimming technique: a very faint bell rings: it might be the technique of prematurely lifting the nose wheel off the runway prior to rotation proper - on contaminated runways to avoid spray ingestion into the engines? Obviously this procedure would reduce yaw control through loss of nosewheel traction.
Great thread, by the way, brings back happy memories.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: hampshire
Age: 79
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And when there were 20+ Tridents taxying at night - the only one to be recognisable was the T1E, because it had two anti-coll lights on the top of the tail. otherwise we were all guessing!