High Julien/Discorde. Vanguards were frequent Jersey visitors im the mid 60s and i always remember the start sequence being 4321
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.

I remember the BEA Vanguard going down after the rear pressure bulkhead blowout as I was flying an RAF Britannia above and behind it. I can’t remember whether it was over France or Belgium when we on our way from Akrotiri to Brize Norton. We saw it go down, but didn’t realise what had happened at the time.

The TCA manual is dated 1968 and lists a max operating altitude of 25,000, so before the bulkhead failure, but manual does provide cruise control charts to 29,000.

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'.

Was near to ghent..my wife’s home city.

Diff was restricted to 2.5 psi
Did one memorable LHR-EDI at FL070 in daylight - very scenic!!

That is the sort of height we used fly our Ansons from Bovingdon to Edinburgh.

Indeed! But I don't think the Anson would have done 360 kts!!!

Lucky if we got 130 kts with a full load of 8 pax!

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!

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

"Hey, they work well in the Vanguard; let's try them on the Belfast...oh"

What was the problem with the Tyne on the Belfast Herod?

I'm no expert on the Belfast, but my understanding is that it has more or less the same engine power, but is considerably heavier, and much more "Draggy". A useful load-carrier.

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.

Former colleagues who flew it called it the "BELSLOW"

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...

I suspect a clue is in the name.

Agreed about the "Belslow". On the C-130 we regularly passed them. 10,000' higher and 40 kts or so faster.

Wasn't the Belfast built to carry the Blue Streak missile?