Vanguard limiting speeds
Thread Starter
you are right
Another VC9 quirk - there were many: the available flap settings were UP, CLIMB, TAKE OFF, APPROACH and LAND (not degrees as in the TCA aircraft). The CLIMB setting was a mod introduced by Vickers when test flying showed that below 200 kt with flaps UP wake turbulence from the wing impacted the tailplane, causing airframe buffet. The CLIMB setting directed the wing downwash further down enough to remove the buffeting. The oddity was that this setting could not be selected when extending the flaps, only during retraction. So, if required to hold the procedure was:
- speed reducing below 200 kt, select flap lever to TAKE OFF
- when the flap gauge showed them travelling beyond CLIMB, select the lever back to CLIMB and check that that's the setting they achieved
- reduce to holding speed (175 kt IIRC).
Hi Meikleour
The flight levels for BEA ops were possibly standardised at 190 (eastbound) and 180 (westbound) prior to the accident to 'EC, which was cruising at FL190 when the bulkhead failed. IIRC the BEA max was FL270.
- speed reducing below 200 kt, select flap lever to TAKE OFF
- when the flap gauge showed them travelling beyond CLIMB, select the lever back to CLIMB and check that that's the setting they achieved
- reduce to holding speed (175 kt IIRC).
The flight levels for BEA ops were possibly standardised at 190 (eastbound) and 180 (westbound) prior to the accident to 'EC, which was cruising at FL190 when the bulkhead failed. IIRC the BEA max was FL270.
bean: I flew 2,000 hrs on Vanguard/Merchantmen but alas the VNE escapes the old grey cells now but what I do remember clearly is we used to climb clean at 290 kts ind. and descend at 300 kts ind. I am also pushed to ever remember flying much above 25,000 ft. Probably as a result of concerns after the rear pressure bulkhead blowout in 1971. Thus Mach was never ever considered.
A cruising TAS of 360 kts was normal so I guess IAS of 280 - 285 ish
A cruising TAS of 360 kts was normal so I guess IAS of 280 - 285 ish
Originally Posted by Meikleour View Post
I am also pushed to ever remember flying much above 25,000 ft.
I am also pushed to ever remember flying much above 25,000 ft.
After 'EC the fleet was restricted to max FL100 and limited cabin diff (don't remember the exact figure) until all the rear bulkheads had been checked. Ops over the Alps and Pyrenees had to be rerouted. Later, when normal pressurisation settings were restored, the normal FL180/190 levels were used, although some Capts elected to reduce cabin diff 'just to be sure'.
One of the Vanguard quirks I haven't seen mentioned is that X-winds from the right were easier than those from the left.
It was customary to initiate the flare with power on giving better flow over the elevator. When the throttles closed there was a yaw to the left which was helpful in a right x-wind but aggravated the effect from the left. I assumed this was gyroscopic effect of those huge props in the flare.
If you wanted a short landing you could close the throttles before the flare - provided you were ready for the necessary heave!
It was customary to initiate the flare with power on giving better flow over the elevator. When the throttles closed there was a yaw to the left which was helpful in a right x-wind but aggravated the effect from the left. I assumed this was gyroscopic effect of those huge props in the flare.
If you wanted a short landing you could close the throttles before the flare - provided you were ready for the necessary heave!
Growing up next to LHR BEA Vanguards were always in evidence as the flew all three shuttle routes almost hourly plus a lot of other busy routes. Although I flew in Viscount , F27, Herald I never flew on a Vanguard
Compared to the other props still around it was quite a big beast with that double bubble fuselage so having enjoyed this thread I am curious to know why the Vanguard was so fast as everyone seems to agree it was . Aerodynamics or the sheer power of those mighty Tynes?
PB
Compared to the other props still around it was quite a big beast with that double bubble fuselage so having enjoyed this thread I am curious to know why the Vanguard was so fast as everyone seems to agree it was . Aerodynamics or the sheer power of those mighty Tynes?
PB
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
What was the problem with the Tyne on the Belfast Herod?
I remember there was a problem with the Tynes on the Belfast initially. In the mid to late sixties I flew an RAF Britannia from Lyneham to Bahrain direct with two replacement Tynes for two Belfasts which needed engine changes. Belfasts were also suffering from too much drag at that time, which I believe was partially cured by fast back strakes added to the the rear end.
One has to wonder what on earth possessed the Govt and RAF to build the Belfast in the first place. By then the admitted smaller c130 was well establshed and used by virtually all the worlds airforces outside the Warsaw pact . I know the Belfast was a lot bigger but...
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
One has to wonder what on earth possessed the Govt and RAF to build the Belfast in the first place.
Agreed about the "Belslow". On the C-130 we regularly passed them. 10,000' higher and 40 kts or so faster.