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

Britannia High-Lo Flight Regime

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.

Britannia High-Lo Flight Regime

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 10th Apr 2022, 13:26
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,122
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 7 Posts
Britannia High-Lo Flight Regime

Just reading an article about the Bristol Britannia with the Proteus turboprop engine which turned out to have issues with engine icing flameouts. Unlike more modern issues we have seen on certain types leading to the requirement of increased lateral margins, the Britannia crews managed this with what was called a High-Lo flight regime. While one gets the general idea of what was done based on the name of the procedure, I am curious if anyone knows any of the details about this.
punkalouver is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2022, 10:37
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Down south
Posts: 670
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My understanding is initially flew around 8000ft or so, high fuel burn but decent speed then once weight reduced climbed to the high 20,s hopefully above the icing cloud!
I am sure some other posters will confirm or correct me.
bingofuel is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2022, 15:40
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: britain
Posts: 682
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
This probably should be in aviation and nostalgia.
Brakedwell (ex RAF Brit pilot) likely to reply
bean is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2022, 08:30
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 3 Posts
The critical temperature range for engine icing was between indicated temperatures of +2 and +12 deg C. So if significant cloud was forecast, we used to start at a height where we would be warmer than +12 - maybe 10000 ft in the tropics. When we had burnt enough fuel off we climbed straight up to where the temperature was colder than +2 - maybe 22000 ft.
WIDN62 is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2022, 12:53
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Derbyshire
Age: 72
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 6 Posts
Without referring to "Not Much of an Engineer" by Stanley Hooker I can't remember the exact figures, but I think he said something like with a marginal change in cruising altitude, there wasn't a problem, but BOAC milked it for all it was worth.
It didn't help that the Proteus was basically a dog of an engine, although less so with the later versions.
DHfan is offline  
Old 15th Apr 2022, 09:14
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Under the clouds now
Age: 86
Posts: 2,501
Received 13 Likes on 10 Posts
It was a long time ago, but I agree with WID62's settings for the RAF Brits. I think these engine ant-icing valves were called the Fore Skin Jets! However the civilian Brits were a bit different. IOAT was +12 to 0 degrees when the B Skin Jets had to be switched on. I seem to remember the engine ant-icing system worked a bit better on the Civil Britannias.
brakedwell is online now  
Old 15th Apr 2022, 14:41
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: britain
Posts: 682
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
I've downloaded the RAF and BOAC fliying manuals for the Brit. When i get a chance i'll take a look
bean is offline  
Old 24th Apr 2022, 21:17
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Nth Staffs, UK
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
+2c to +12c

In the RAF aircraft, the overall critical temps for the anti-icing to go on was between +2 to +12C. There was a further stricter restriction which applied if the temp was in the +2 to +6 range. My memory from 46 years ago must have offloaded some of the detail but it may have required a speed restriction or possibly another level of anti icing kit being switched on. Does any of this prod Brakedwells memory? As I recall we slowed down so that the kinetic heating reduced and the OAT then fell below the +2c critical figure. If it were then say, -1C you didn't need the anticing on. ....... so you took it off and promptly accelerated back into the +2 to +6C range......Catch 22.

Not much help I'm afraid, but nostalgic to recall a job I'd have had without pay. The saddest day of my life when they axed the aircraft.
Jetset 88 is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2022, 07:53
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: uk
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes on 3 Posts
Jetset 88.
Yes, your memory serves you well. The speed we slowed to was 200 kts, and yes that often took the temperature out of the critical range. Also, when it was a little warmer, say +7 deg, and you entered cloud, you put the icing on. This slowed you a little, the temperature dropped to +6 deg and you had to slow to 200 kts! It must be quite rare for a crew of any aircraft to be so reliant on a tiny needle movement on a small gauge.
WIDN62 is offline  
Old 25th Apr 2022, 11:37
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: South of the M4
Posts: 1,638
Received 15 Likes on 6 Posts
Engine icing flameouts were common when I was with 99 Sqn in the early 1960's.
I posted here on PPRuNe some photos I took when we flew out to Entebbe with replacement engines for a Brit that suffered a double engine failure over Africa.
See here: Britannia Freight Loading Platform (BFLP)
Warmtoast is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



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.