Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Aviation History and Nostalgia
Reload this Page >

BEA Trident London - Moscow 1971

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

BEA Trident London - Moscow 1971

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 15th Apr 2016, 13:32
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: by the seaside
Age: 74
Posts: 561
Received 17 Likes on 13 Posts
Minimum was apparently important - one on each extremity....rest is just dressing.

Considering we were once dispatched from base with one of the only two artificial horizons that I could see U/S you would proberly understand the uselessness of such a stupid question in our "real" world.
blind pew is online now  
Old 18th Apr 2016, 13:01
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 336
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bill these RAF pilots ex Vanguards and Comets who were such wonderful trainers...would they be the same ones whose genesis was a peacetime airforce that lost 200+ airframes in one year in the 60s..had some fleet loses (%) greater than the Starfighter and trained those that stalled a Comet,Vanguard and a Trident 1 with 100% loss of life?

Please answer a question for me - what was the point of knowing how many static wicks the Trident possessed or does your definition of training differ from mine?
Blind Pew does strain to the limit my resolution not to indulge in ad hominem.

However - my generation came onto the T3 around 1973 after about 15 years in the airline - most of that in the right hand seat.
So we too suffered under those that generated his massive chip.

Fortunately we were able to get over it - and believe it made us better trainers.

And - no - I never found the number of static wicks gave me any sleepless nights so his question, as usual, leaves me mystified.

.
scotbill is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2016, 13:14
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: by the seaside
Age: 74
Posts: 561
Received 17 Likes on 13 Posts
Bill I see that you ignore the facts of the appalling accident rate in BEA during the 60s and 70s until BOAC effectively took over the training and revert to judgement (chip!) and talking down by quoting Latin.
After the fiasco of the Staines inquiry I borrowed six months salary to obtain an instructors license as well as joining the BALPA technical committee because I thought I could make a difference to the dinosaurs.
I didn't have anything to get over as I didn't condone the pack of lies told to the inquiry.

As one of our colleagues on Icarus wrote "when did an inquiry ever publish the truth" or words to that effect. Purely about protecting the establishment.

I left to what in effect was the BOAC operation on the VC 10 and when that was supposedly being retired I quit rather than rejoin the Trident fleet and all of the petty mindedness.

My only regret was not going up to the highland and island division where the operation needed captains who could fly and didn't rely on the copilots positioning the aircraft so that they could land.

As you know BEA management and training took all of the cream and easy trips because they needed to and the great tradition continues today. Pity they didn't recruit trainers on ability - it might have saved 7 of the 8 aircraft loses in my six years flying for the Hounslow flying club.
blind pew is online now  
Old 19th Apr 2016, 22:27
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 336
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That is just so much horlicks that I can't be bothered to debate it.

I'm sure the Highlands and Islands division was profoundly grateful to be spared your patronage.
scotbill is offline  
Old 11th Jul 2016, 23:46
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by scotbill
That is just so much horlicks that I can't be bothered to debate it.

I'm sure the Highlands and Islands division was profoundly grateful to be spared your patronage.
On behalf of so many others, amen
Kritou is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2016, 10:07
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: England
Age: 76
Posts: 1,196
Likes: 0
Received 28 Likes on 16 Posts
BEA News 05/03/71
Discorde is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2016, 14:10
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,651
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by Discorde
Being one of the regulars on the BA St Petersburg daily flight, that Kruschev-era terminal building in the background was still in use by BA and other international flights until about 3 years ago, when a new building opened across the north runway. If the three airbridges were all in use then the BA A320 was parked in exactly the same spot on the remote stands.
WHBM is online now  
Old 12th Jul 2016, 15:20
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: East Angular - apparently!
Posts: 747
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Yes, I'm not too sure about 'Leningrad's busy airport.' The interior of that building used to remind me of an abandoned market hall or railway station, such was it's size, though I remember the KGB staff were a little more friendly than those in Moscow.
barry lloyd is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2016, 16:20
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,651
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes on 15 Posts
Just two years after that Trident visit the new domestic "Terminal 1" opened between the runways at Leningrad, separating domestic and international operations, the former had long predominated, and the older building dropped back to the limited number of international flights until replaced in the last few years. But at the time I'm sure that ramp was probably pretty busy. Wow, look at all those Tu104s in the background.

For me, it always reminded me of a Soviet high school of the era. Actually I found it quite pleasant, although in recent years it could get overwhelmed by the likes of the Transaero 747 charter flights to Turkish resorts. The concessions for duty-free and restaurants were grossly overpriced, but these have been transferred lock, stock and barrel to the new terminal with the same branding and the same characteristics.

Initial trip through there I, too, anticipated stereotypical KGB (actually FSB by then) agent staff, so I was more than a little surprised to find most of them were under-25 women, chit-chatting away to one another as we were stamped through, with decidedly western make-up around their classic St Petersburg big blue eyes, their military-style uniforms and Russian oversized uniform flat hats looking quite out of place. Out in baggage reclaim, a Russian middle-aged woman had her suitcase opened on the customs inspection counter, and was giving a poor young customs chap what for, at full volume. He is cowering back from the counter somewhat, doesn't appear to know how to handle this invective from a lady who probably resembles his mama, and is decidedly getting the worse of the exchange.

First welcome to Russia
WHBM is online now  
Old 13th Jul 2016, 16:53
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: welwyn
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Planemike
Tridents only ever had three engines............
Not so. The 3B had three Rolls Royce Spey engines plus a supplementary RR RB162 boost engine mounted in the tail. That in my opinion makes four engines.
LynxDriver is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2016, 17:48
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The RB162 in the Trident 3B was put in place to boost take off performance and in the type's early time in service it was regularly used making the type probably the loudest civil type in the world.

The engine was only used for the initial climb and was shut down after a maximum of five minutes. As time went by the engine was used infrequently, hot/high/heavy departures were the times the boost was used but as a number of the type in BA service were dedicated to internal shuttle flights, the engines were decommissioned (were they actually removed?) and the decommissioning was reportedly completed across the fleet when the 757 took over the longer European routes.
philbky is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2016, 17:58
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,651
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by philbky
the engines were decommissioned (were they actually removed?)
Removing an engine, even one mounted on the centreline, would surely have given a weight and balance, not to mention certification, issue.
WHBM is online now  
Old 13th Jul 2016, 18:25
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: se england
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 48 Likes on 21 Posts
The Trident 3 was distinctively noisy with the boost engine generating a higher pitch more military sound on top of the already noisy Speys but I don't think it could touch the VC10 for sheer noise.

I also understood that as well as no controllable thrust there wasn't alot of engine monitoring going on for the booster having once heard a Trident pilot ask the company aircraft next to him at the holding point if he could see if the inlet doors were open for the forth engine.

As for the corporation rivalry at the time growing up in Stanwell it virtually decided who your childhood friends were if parents worked for 'the other lot' . Not many neutrals as back then Stanwell was virtually a company town for BEA BOAC , but I dont think it went as far as denying subload trips. In the early 70s I did a lot of these on my fathers BEA concessions often accompanied by a friend who was a BOAC FO and at times by others from the dark blue side.
pax britanica is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2016, 19:03
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Removing an engine, even one mounted on the centreline, would surely have given a weight and balance, not to mention certification, issue.
All very true but not insurmountable. The answer seems lost, the question is would the cost be recoupable in decreased redundant weight therefore reduced fuel burn, reduction in maintenance and scrap value? Perhaps on the airframes initially dedicated to the shuttles but on later engine decommissioning?
philbky is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2016, 22:26
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,818
Received 201 Likes on 93 Posts
Originally Posted by philbky
The answer seems lost, the question is would the cost be recoupable in decreased redundant weight
But the point is that it's not redundant weight if its removal puts the C of G outside limits and requires its replacement with a corresponding amount of ballast.

therefore reduced fuel burn, reduction in maintenance and scrap value?
The first two would more easily be achieved by leaving the engine installed and just not using it. As for scrap value, the engine was mostly made of plastic, so scrap value would be negligible, almost certainly less than the cost of removing them.

Perhaps on the airframes initially dedicated to the shuttles but on later engine decommissioning?
In the days when I used to jumpseat on the EDI shuttle, it was not unknown to see "Lirttle Willie", as the boost engine was affectionately(?) nicknamed, being used on takeoff from LHR. So it was by no means restricted to hot/high/heavy takeoffs.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 13th Jul 2016, 23:04
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Question

But the point is that it's not redundant weight if its removal puts the C of G outside limits and requires its replacement with a corresponding amount of ballast.
IF being the important word.

The first two would more easily be achieved by leaving the engine installed and just not using it. As for scrap value, the engine was mostly made of plastic, so scrap value would be negligible, almost certainly less than the cost of removing them.
The compressor blades were the only plastic parts, the compressor case was fibreglass, the rest was metal.

In the days when I used to jumpseat on the EDI shuttle, it was not unknown to see "Lirttle Willie", as the boost engine was affectionately(?) nicknamed, being used on takeoff from LHR. So it was by no means restricted to hot/high/heavy takeoffs.
Dave, I think you are misconstruing my point. I'll try again. The RB162 was generally used for the first five minutes of a flight for take off and initial climb. As time went by it was used far less frequently, mainly for hot, or high, or heavy take offs or any mixture of the three. The decline in use, particularly on shuttle flights led to the decommissioning. When were you making your trips?

The use of particular Trident 3 aircraft dedicated to shuttle work seems to have started around 1978 when Trident 1s were being relegated to back up work. Certainly not all dedicated aircraft had their RB162s decommissioned at one go and there were rotations where non dedicated aircraft provided back ups once the Trident 1 withdrawal programme began.
philbky is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2016, 06:44
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,818
Received 201 Likes on 93 Posts
Originally Posted by philbky
The compressor blades were the only plastic parts, the compressor case was fibreglass, the rest was metal.
Point taken, but Mr Coley still wouldn't have paid much for them, and fairing over the hole in the back end would have been horrendously expensive, so I don't think removing the RB162 would ever have been a realistic option.

When were you making your trips?
Late 70s/early 80s.

The use of particular Trident 3 aircraft dedicated to shuttle work seems to have started around 1978 when Trident 1s were being relegated to back up work. Certainly not all dedicated aircraft had their RB162s decommissioned at one go and there were rotations where non dedicated aircraft provided back ups once the Trident 1 withdrawal programme began.
Certainly by the time I left BA there were a number of T3s (around half-a-dozen, I seem to recall) dedicated to Shuttle. The last one wasn't retired until 1986, several years after I left, so use of the RB162 may well have ceased prior to that.

And it certainly wasn't unusual to see several things placarded "Inop" on the Trident flight deck.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2016, 07:35
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I was a regular user of the MAN-LHRshuttle between 1979 and 1986 and through variousconnections had a number of jump seat rides. Thus my knowledge of the decommissioning. You are right about the inop placards! The last timre I remember hearing the fourth engine used was at GLA sometime around 1980 and I have no knowledge of use on the MAN shuttles from around 1979. Towards the end of Trident ops I had the luck to be on the last commercial flights of 2 Trident 3s.
philbky is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2016, 15:54
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: France
Posts: 527
Received 13 Likes on 7 Posts
Having been to boarding school under the path of Ringway between 1969 and 1974, might I ask if the Trident 3 was really the noisest ... in comparison with the BAC1-11, which I remember with fond delight, was capable of silencing even the most enthusiastic teacher?
Alsacienne is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2016, 16:49
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 76
Posts: 206
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Alsacienne
Having been to boarding school under the path of Ringway between 1969 and 1974, might I ask if the Trident 3 was really the noisest ... in comparison with the BAC1-11, which I remember with fond delight, was capable of silencing even the most enthusiastic teacher?
Having lived in MQ at RAF Turnhouse with the Edinburgh Airport runway at the bottom of my garden (before new airport opened), I would agree with the above. Seriously noisy, high-pitched scream.
Geordie_Expat is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.