DH Trident question?
Guest
Posts: n/a
The De-Havilland ( Ah De-Havilland!) DH-121 was originally designed as a large airplane and would have been powered with Rolls-Royce Medway engines. The "experts" at BEA said it was too large and the ground gripper was born. So after three tries they arrived at the final model which was almost the same size as the original DH design. In the meantime the Medway engines were not produced so it had no suitable engines which led to the fitting of the plastic boost engine.
Another good design screwed up by the BEA/BOAC "experts"! The latest VC_10 book shows what could have been without the "experts" and politicians!!
The Ambassador was another one, a beautiful airplane that also flew very well but it had a very small fuel capacity. The BEA "experts" only wanted it to go to Paris so it got very little fuel tankage.
Another good design screwed up by the BEA/BOAC "experts"! The latest VC_10 book shows what could have been without the "experts" and politicians!!
The Ambassador was another one, a beautiful airplane that also flew very well but it had a very small fuel capacity. The BEA "experts" only wanted it to go to Paris so it got very little fuel tankage.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think it's a bit facile to say the plane was the wrong size. Planes can be any size. The Embraer sells. So does the A380.
The question is why did the BAC 111 and Trident not succeed whilst the 727 and 737 did.
I suspect this was more to do with politics and national jealousies than merits of the planes themselves.
Just to correct this impression that the Trident was a dog - I remember it going up like a rocket on occasions.
The question is why did the BAC 111 and Trident not succeed whilst the 727 and 737 did.
I suspect this was more to do with politics and national jealousies than merits of the planes themselves.
Just to correct this impression that the Trident was a dog - I remember it going up like a rocket on occasions.
Guest
Posts: n/a
GotTheTshirt, the outer wing sections have been sawn off and the airframe has been used for towing/deicing training. I understand it is actually privately owned but lent to BA for said training. Although it is mostly all there (wings excepted), it hasn't been mothballed or maintained, so would be difficult, but not impossible I suppose, to fly it. The last time I looked at it the tyres were flat. Imagine the noise complaints if it flew!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Twistedenginestarter,
I'll disagree with your theory about national jealousy's, American, Braniff, and Mohawk flew 1-11's United flew Caravelles as well. I've seen comparisons between the DC-9 and 1-11's and Caravelle's and the operating economics were much better in the DC-9's case. Obviously having the opportunity to assess the competition was to the US builders advantage. The problem I see was that the English designs were tailored to the narrow specs of BEA BA etc and they suffered for it in the marketplace. So what was the cause of the VC-10's limited sales sucess, since Vickers could out-design the 707 and DC-8 with a newer, better design. I know she is a beautiful jet, saw many RAF models during the Gulf War.
I'll disagree with your theory about national jealousy's, American, Braniff, and Mohawk flew 1-11's United flew Caravelles as well. I've seen comparisons between the DC-9 and 1-11's and Caravelle's and the operating economics were much better in the DC-9's case. Obviously having the opportunity to assess the competition was to the US builders advantage. The problem I see was that the English designs were tailored to the narrow specs of BEA BA etc and they suffered for it in the marketplace. So what was the cause of the VC-10's limited sales sucess, since Vickers could out-design the 707 and DC-8 with a newer, better design. I know she is a beautiful jet, saw many RAF models during the Gulf War.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Roc- basically in the short term the operating costs of the '10 were higher than the 707 or DC8; BOAC/BA were obliged to buy them due to nationalistic jingoism rather than on pur economic grounds. But in the long term it needed less maintenance, being built like a brick $hithouse, and could have worked out cheaper overall! A proposed Super Super VC10 was still-born as the 747 came in with its superior seat-mile economics.
Glad that you like our dear old jet; still one of the prettiest shapes in the sky. But VERY NOISY, I'm afraid!!
Glad that you like our dear old jet; still one of the prettiest shapes in the sky. But VERY NOISY, I'm afraid!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have a question, Often I hear pilots saying the plane was built like a Brick Sh#@house. I understand the sentiment, but on what criteria are we basing this on? For ex, My airline flies alot of 727-100's built in the mid 60's thay never break!! and seem to be rugged, however we also fly DC-8's and they are said to have "No airframe time Limits" because Douglas had overbuilt them. The DC-8's are indeed built like tanks!! But what jets weren't? Is it just perceptions or are their hard facts to prove these claims? just a fun subject to talk about.
