I suspect that all the 'nose down approachers' mentioned (typically large prop liners from the pre jet/slat age) could indeed approach slower & more nose up if it wasn't for Vmca limitations stemming from the need to cater for a possible high power/low speed baulked landing & outer engine failure.

On the Vanguard normal procedure after touchdown was to throttle back to ground idle - effectively props in full fine pitch, which gave good deceleration. On returning from a Merchantman air test (empty aircraft) early in 1972 the Capt said we'd do a short landing on R28L 'for experience'. We touched down (intentionally) before the VASIs and the Capt applied full wheelbrakes and called for 'max reverse'. The Vibrator rapidly shuddered to a halt and we exited the runway onto R23. Very impressive!

WHBM,
If you compare the tailplane positions of the Hastings Mk 1 and Mk 2 you will see that Handley Page changed the position between marks. Perhaps they got this wrong with the Tudor too.

There was an awful lot wrony with the Hermes but even in the forties, it would never have been certified with pitch instability which would happen with too far aft CG

I once watched one doing a 3 engine ferry at Glasgow landing in a strong crosswind. I was u/t tower controller; all went well until the last couple of hundred feet when my instructor said 'watch out for this' then the nose suddenly pitched down and it looked like it was going in but at about 20ft, I saw a firm prolonged flare.
My instructor had already told me to put a 'full emergency' in place because as he said, the aircraft was landing with less than 100% power available .

That gave you about 3000ft. of runway.
When the last Merchantman landed at Weybridge they omly had about 2000 ft. to play with. If you see the video they touched down on the grass.

Wouldnt the Vanguard have made a decent Mil freighter or was the timing just wrong with the RAF having bought Britanias. It was pretty big wiht that big udrfloor hold and very powerful engines . It must have been hugely superior to the Hastings but not mil enough to use instead of the Hercules.

I apologise if I offend any Hastings fans but that aircraft always seemed to me to be a complete waste of time , why not just buy DC4s or Mil Spec Argonaughts, it looked so ungainly in the air and on the ground

Wouldn't the Vanguard have made a great maritime reconnaisance aircraft instead of developing the Nimrod?

The Hastings was nicer to fly than it looked and would have been even better if the Army had not wanted to strap vehicles or guns underneath it, which required a tailwheel.

And I think the Vanguards range was a bit lit limited for a militiary freighter.

Its contemporary, the Electra, managed the MR transition very successfully.

Vickers suggested it in 1961 offering three versions to the RAF. The first had a fuselage shortened by 7 metres and offered a seven hour patrol at 1,000 miles. Two later versions used the existing fuselage. All were fitted with radar and a bomb aiming window.. The latter versions were also able to carry 100+ troops so had an alternative use.

The RCAF did introduce an MR version of the Britannia with the Canadair Argus but inexplicably it had radial engines instead of tuboprops.

The Argus had R3350s which offered better fuel consumption at low level which is where it generally operated.

Stratocruiser Flaps
 

A number of airlines operating the B377 fitted a safety device (don't know it's proper name) to prevent the operating switch for the flaps to move uncommanded from the OFF position to UP.

Does anyone know if BOAC ever fitted this? My bet is they did not, but I'd love to have that confirmed by someone who knows!

Unfortunately, there is no mention of this device in the handbook, hence my question.

TIA.

Stratocruiser Landing Lights
 

I understand the landing lights extended from their wing housing on the Stratocruiser. I am interested to know the correct name of the part that extended the lamp. Rod? Arm? Hinge?

Were the hangars just too small to simply build a doghouse over the middle of the top of the doors?

and is it true that the reason the Constellation had three fins is to reduce the height so that it could fit inside the existing hangars?

It is according to Wiki

With the talk about folding fins, at Heathrow in the late Forties, G-ALSC Centaurus shows another unusual feature of the breed: a sideways-folding fin and rudder to facilitate hangarage


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....3e15fa8597.jpg

IF you can get the fuel for the wretched things! 😬

Are you sure that is Heathrow?
BOAC used to put aircraft sideways in 106 or 107 hangar at Hurn. There were still tracks in the ground for the trolleys when I worked there in the 1970s.
I've seen a photo of a Constellation like this at Hurn.
Dixi.