Vanguard limiting speeds
The Vanguard was an amazing aircraft perfectly capable of equalling or beating jet block times on sectors up to 1.30. (Equalled but never beat my best Vanguard time on domestic flights on Tridents and 757s).
BEA were right to think there was no need for jets on domestics but the glamour of jets won the day. Difficult to fly well compared to Tridents until you got used to its constant change of trims with power or configuration alteration.
Despite its chunky looks and lack of hydraulic controls it was a very satisfying aeroplane at high speed with a Vne at low level of 331 knots. The closer to that speed the more precise the handling so it is easy to believe reports from Vickers test pilots that above 400 k IAS they preferred the Vanguard to the Valiant jet bomber, LATCC asked me once to deviate on a descent into LHR to allow a 737 to descend through my level because he was faster. My reply, "Well we're doing 320k, what's he doing?" Shortly afterwards a notice appeared in the Control Centre 'Please note that Vanguards descend at jet speeds'.
Heathrow controllers got used to Vanguards being infinitely flexible. I was once diverting to Birmingham over Central London at 10,000 feet when Approach said "28R RVR now 600 metres - are you interested?"
We got in.
For more read my book 'Flight from the Croft (Whittles) 5* on Amazon. Any royalties go to charity..
BEA were right to think there was no need for jets on domestics but the glamour of jets won the day. Difficult to fly well compared to Tridents until you got used to its constant change of trims with power or configuration alteration.
Despite its chunky looks and lack of hydraulic controls it was a very satisfying aeroplane at high speed with a Vne at low level of 331 knots. The closer to that speed the more precise the handling so it is easy to believe reports from Vickers test pilots that above 400 k IAS they preferred the Vanguard to the Valiant jet bomber, LATCC asked me once to deviate on a descent into LHR to allow a 737 to descend through my level because he was faster. My reply, "Well we're doing 320k, what's he doing?" Shortly afterwards a notice appeared in the Control Centre 'Please note that Vanguards descend at jet speeds'.
Heathrow controllers got used to Vanguards being infinitely flexible. I was once diverting to Birmingham over Central London at 10,000 feet when Approach said "28R RVR now 600 metres - are you interested?"
We got in.
For more read my book 'Flight from the Croft (Whittles) 5* on Amazon. Any royalties go to charity..
Thread Starter
The Vanguard was an amazing aircraft perfectly capable of equalling or beating jet block times on sectors up to 1.30. (Equalled but never beat my best Vanguard time on domestic flights on Tridents and 757s).
BEA were right to think there was no need for jets on domestics but the glamour of jets won the day. Difficult to fly well compared to Tridents until you got used to its constant change of trims with power or configuration alteration.
Despite its chunky looks and lack of hydraulic controls it was a very satisfying aeroplane at high speed with a Vne at low level of 331 knots. The closer to that speed the more precise the handling so it is easy to believe reports from Vickers test pilots that above 400 k IAS they preferred the Vanguard to the Valiant jet bomber, LATCC asked me once to deviate on a descent into LHR to allow a 737 to descend through my level because he was faster. My reply, "Well we're doing 320k, what's he doing?" Shortly afterwards a notice appeared in the Control Centre 'Please note that Vanguards descend at jet speeds'.
Heathrow controllers got used to Vanguards being infinitely flexible. I was once diverting to Birmingham over Central London at 10,000 feet when Approach said "28R RVR now 600 metres - are you interested?"
We got in.
For more read my book 'Flight from the Croft (Whittles) 5* on Amazon. Any royalties go to charity..
BEA were right to think there was no need for jets on domestics but the glamour of jets won the day. Difficult to fly well compared to Tridents until you got used to its constant change of trims with power or configuration alteration.
Despite its chunky looks and lack of hydraulic controls it was a very satisfying aeroplane at high speed with a Vne at low level of 331 knots. The closer to that speed the more precise the handling so it is easy to believe reports from Vickers test pilots that above 400 k IAS they preferred the Vanguard to the Valiant jet bomber, LATCC asked me once to deviate on a descent into LHR to allow a 737 to descend through my level because he was faster. My reply, "Well we're doing 320k, what's he doing?" Shortly afterwards a notice appeared in the Control Centre 'Please note that Vanguards descend at jet speeds'.
Heathrow controllers got used to Vanguards being infinitely flexible. I was once diverting to Birmingham over Central London at 10,000 feet when Approach said "28R RVR now 600 metres - are you interested?"
We got in.
For more read my book 'Flight from the Croft (Whittles) 5* on Amazon. Any royalties go to charity..
Megan,
Thanks for the Electra numbers. At least I remembered the M .615.
I wonder if these figures were the original limits. I think some were changed after the "Whirl mode" crashes.
Sometime I'll look out my manuals if I still have them.
Dixi.
Thanks for the Electra numbers. At least I remembered the M .615.
I wonder if these figures were the original limits. I think some were changed after the "Whirl mode" crashes.
Sometime I'll look out my manuals if I still have them.
Dixi.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 60
Posts: 12,590
Received 272 Likes
on
150 Posts
Frustratingly, the day before the OP posted I was on board G-APEP at Brooklands with the grandkids. I noticed a pile of manuals on display, which may well have included a Flight Manual, though I was too busy chatting to the volunteers to pay much attention to the contents.
Another vote for 'Flight from the Croft' here.... actually, just click this link and select 'Buy now'!
At the risk of incurring more nostalgia pain, perhaps this is a useful place to ask the following question. Do the procedures on the photos below look like they are for a Vanguard? The booklet is from Vickers and is simply marked 'Drills' but apart from having concluded that it is for a four-engined turboprop I have not narrowed it down any further. It should be for either a Vanguard or a Viscount of course.
I'd say Viscount. It mentions fuel trimmers which the Dart had. The Tyne (or at least the ones I flew) had condition levers.
Also, doesn't mention the start in low ground idle, then the acceleration of the engine up to high ground idle. A feature if the Tyne.
And, wouldn't the Vanguard have had CSDs, hence "check generators charging" might not be quite right.
Also, doesn't mention the start in low ground idle, then the acceleration of the engine up to high ground idle. A feature if the Tyne.
And, wouldn't the Vanguard have had CSDs, hence "check generators charging" might not be quite right.
Perhaps Vne was variable on the Vibrator. Certainly Vno was. I recall from my 'How to Fly The Vanguard' Notes from 100 years ago: Vno = 303 minus altitude (in thousands of feet).
The alternators were 'frequency wild' - this was OK for e.g. anti-icing tail, props & engine intakes. Transformer/ rectifier units & inverters supplied controlled AC & DC.
Cruise speed was also variable - we set the LP RPMs to 12,500 and accepted whatever IAS it gave us. Other power settings: climb 12,500 (IAS 230 kt), max continuous 13,500, ops nec 13,000. In the cruise TAS was in the region of 330-340 kt.
On the approach the props were in the constant speed range so power setting was judged by fuel flow - approx 600 kg/hr/eng IIRC. Every change of power required rudder trim adjustment. If the slip needle was not centred the a/c would tend to pitch down - something to do with tailplane dihedral (contd. p94)
The alternators were 'frequency wild' - this was OK for e.g. anti-icing tail, props & engine intakes. Transformer/ rectifier units & inverters supplied controlled AC & DC.
Cruise speed was also variable - we set the LP RPMs to 12,500 and accepted whatever IAS it gave us. Other power settings: climb 12,500 (IAS 230 kt), max continuous 13,500, ops nec 13,000. In the cruise TAS was in the region of 330-340 kt.
On the approach the props were in the constant speed range so power setting was judged by fuel flow - approx 600 kg/hr/eng IIRC. Every change of power required rudder trim adjustment. If the slip needle was not centred the a/c would tend to pitch down - something to do with tailplane dihedral (contd. p94)
I wonder if these figures were the original limits
https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...3?OpenDocument
The Ferguson tractor engine in the Vanguard limited the speed drastically
Cedrik is probably on Planet Standard.
Surely the original Standard Vanguard had a TR2 engine?
0-60....eventually after 22+ seconds and it would stagger on to 80 mph. Awful thing!!
0-60....eventually after 22+ seconds and it would stagger on to 80 mph. Awful thing!!
I'd say Viscount. It mentions fuel trimmers which the Dart had. The Tyne (or at least the ones I flew) had condition levers.
Also, doesn't mention the start in low ground idle, then the acceleration of the engine up to high ground idle. A feature if the Tyne.
And, wouldn't the Vanguard have had CSDs, hence "check generators charging" might not be quite right.
Also, doesn't mention the start in low ground idle, then the acceleration of the engine up to high ground idle. A feature if the Tyne.
And, wouldn't the Vanguard have had CSDs, hence "check generators charging" might not be quite right.
Following the bifurcation of the thread into the realms of car & tractor engines: as a long ago owner of a TR3A, my understanding of the engines of the TR2-3-4 series is that they were derived from a Ferguson tractor engine. Whether the same engine went into the Vanguard, I don't know. But Triumph and Standard were not in the same group of engineering companies, were they?
(With apologies for continuing the drift!)
(With apologies for continuing the drift!)
But Triumph and Standard were not in the same group of engineering companies, were they
