Trident autothrust system and autoland
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's like trees on a golf course, the rotor and stator discs in the turbine are 75% air and when they line up you can see straight through. (Or on the golf course, in my case, hit the tree.)
Last edited by Hobo; 8th Jan 2011 at 15:38.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's like trees on a golf course, the rotor and stator discs in the turbine are 75% air and when they line up you can see straight through.
Shorly after starting up the 707's flames became invisible. Would this be because the flames themselves had reduced?
In hot/high conditions, the air being thinner, engine performance (as with car engines) becomes compromised therefore slowing the acceleration and extending the point where lift off speed is attained (take off distance required).
Even the VC10 made one hold one's breath on occasions
That's also one reason why you're starting to see electrically powered UAV's.
TC
Last edited by twochai; 9th Jan 2011 at 00:12.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Forest
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hot/High
An example of the difference altitude can make was demonstrated to us when we carried out a wet lease for Avianca in Bogota (8,455ft IIRC). Normal Vr would have been 120 -130 Kts. It still was as the Indicated Air Speed, but actual Ground Speed at rotate was, on average, something in the order of 195 Kts. Approach power (B757) is usually 1.16 EPR. At BOG it was 1.26.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In it's day, was the Trident economical compared to other machines?? Today, smaller Airbuses will struggle performance-wise and climb rate at high weights, but is economical once it gets into the cruise...
Cracking thread, keep it up!! Let's outdo the Concorde thread!!!
Cracking thread, keep it up!! Let's outdo the Concorde thread!!!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BN2A
I think some of us are reluctant to pursue the subject for too long, for fear of becoming boring.
The average 'Gripper' driver looks back, I suspect, with a degree of adoration for the old girl (I certainly do). However, in the 90's and 00's any talk of the Gripper would be met with the response, "Oh no, not another b*oody Trident story", from the 25 year old F/O.
We old farts soon learned to keep silent.
The average 'Gripper' driver looks back, I suspect, with a degree of adoration for the old girl (I certainly do). However, in the 90's and 00's any talk of the Gripper would be met with the response, "Oh no, not another b*oody Trident story", from the 25 year old F/O.
We old farts soon learned to keep silent.
Gripping as the Trident thread is, to those of us lucky to have flown in her, I doubt it will knock the Concorde thread of the top of the must read daily list, mearly due to the fact that Concorde was untenable to most mere mortals who could only dream of flying in her.
However please do not drop the Trident thread
However please do not drop the Trident thread
I am glad the thread is still running-as an 'aviation enthusiast' (I stopped actual spotting at 14) living right on top of LHR Tridents were the most common site or so it seemed.
Also the most common sound but they didnt stand out that much against the Caravelles (how could two Avons make more noise than 4 or so it seemed ) VC10s etc. The T3 was also easy to tell by ear because the boost engine made a very distinctive noise.
Re-reading this fascinating thread again today it brought back a question to my mind. Sometimes when Tridents lined up for take off ( and I remember this scene with them using the intersection on as it was 10R (block79?) as the engines spooled up a jet of white vapour shot out from below the engines-was this water injection or something else?
Wonderful and fascinating variety of sights and sounds in those days at Heathrow-no doubt why I am sitting here reading PPrune 40 years on.
PB
Also the most common sound but they didnt stand out that much against the Caravelles (how could two Avons make more noise than 4 or so it seemed ) VC10s etc. The T3 was also easy to tell by ear because the boost engine made a very distinctive noise.
Re-reading this fascinating thread again today it brought back a question to my mind. Sometimes when Tridents lined up for take off ( and I remember this scene with them using the intersection on as it was 10R (block79?) as the engines spooled up a jet of white vapour shot out from below the engines-was this water injection or something else?
Wonderful and fascinating variety of sights and sounds in those days at Heathrow-no doubt why I am sitting here reading PPrune 40 years on.
PB
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kiltrash
"Concorde was untenable to most mere mortals who could only dream of flying in her."
All you needed was lots of money.
So far as flight crew were concerned, the Concorde fleet was listed on the annual bid-list, but very few (IMO) pilots bid for the type because...
1. It was a 7 year freeze for an F/O.
2. It was a 'final type' for a captain - ie. you're on it for life.
3. The route network was remarkably limited.
4. There was very little 'hands-on' flying.
5. Every sector was (as a flight-engineer pal of mine said of his Concorde job) "like a flaming sim-check", with so many things going wrong!
6. Fuel was always a real worry. Remember the Flight Manager who flamed-out exiting the runway?
It was a wonderful icon, and I suspect that most of us would have killed to fly it ONCE.
But as a full-time job - no way.
All you needed was lots of money.
So far as flight crew were concerned, the Concorde fleet was listed on the annual bid-list, but very few (IMO) pilots bid for the type because...
1. It was a 7 year freeze for an F/O.
2. It was a 'final type' for a captain - ie. you're on it for life.
3. The route network was remarkably limited.
4. There was very little 'hands-on' flying.
5. Every sector was (as a flight-engineer pal of mine said of his Concorde job) "like a flaming sim-check", with so many things going wrong!
6. Fuel was always a real worry. Remember the Flight Manager who flamed-out exiting the runway?
It was a wonderful icon, and I suspect that most of us would have killed to fly it ONCE.
But as a full-time job - no way.
As a bit of light relief, here's an slight indication of how it felt to be P3... actually of course the P3 wasn't a qualified F/E and switched with the RHS P2. But this is such a good bit of aviation insider video I thought some of you might not have seen it. Anyway, as our transatlantic friends say, "Enjoy....!"
YouTube - The FE's Lament 2010 HD
YouTube - The FE's Lament 2010 HD
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Deep South, UK
Age: 69
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PB
"....as the engines spooled up a jet of white vapour shot out from below the engines-was this water injection or something else?"
This was probably the oil/air mix being ejected from the engine's internal cooling/sealing outlet. Once the engines were running at power, the bearings would seal up and the oil content of the cooling air outlet would disappear. (if I remember correctly)
bizdev
This was probably the oil/air mix being ejected from the engine's internal cooling/sealing outlet. Once the engines were running at power, the bearings would seal up and the oil content of the cooling air outlet would disappear. (if I remember correctly)
bizdev
Bizdev
Many thanks-I do seem to recall this was transient event but a very noticeable on the Tridents,I don't seem to recall other planes doing similar. I suppose it is one of those nice quirks of the time that came from having so many different types of aircraft. Other favourite oddities of the time were the great noise Swissair CV 990 s made and the enormous moving silencer contraption on the back of Alitalia DC8-40 engines . Apologies for thread drift into general nostalgia for LHR in the late 60s Thanks again
PB
Many thanks-I do seem to recall this was transient event but a very noticeable on the Tridents,I don't seem to recall other planes doing similar. I suppose it is one of those nice quirks of the time that came from having so many different types of aircraft. Other favourite oddities of the time were the great noise Swissair CV 990 s made and the enormous moving silencer contraption on the back of Alitalia DC8-40 engines . Apologies for thread drift into general nostalgia for LHR in the late 60s Thanks again
PB
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 73
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In post 250, 777fly said:
The T1 had excellent high speed handling. I remember seeing over 0.95M during our high fly exercise (cb pulled) .......
I can guess which cb was probably pulled () but I presume you wouldnt get away with this now in the nanny state we now seem to live in.
However 0.95M seems pretty impressive and I would guess not matched by any other civilian aircraft apart from Concorde?
The T1 had excellent high speed handling. I remember seeing over 0.95M during our high fly exercise (cb pulled) .......
I can guess which cb was probably pulled (
) but I presume you wouldnt get away with this now in the nanny state we now seem to live in. However 0.95M seems pretty impressive and I would guess not matched by any other civilian aircraft apart from Concorde?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a copilot, I did a couple of air tests in Tridents, including several full stick pushes at various configurations. These were suprisingly 'gentle' with little or no negative g IIRC, presumably due to the low speeds at push (with the shakers going full blast of course).
We also had to do high speed runs, IIRC at .88, for 5 minutes.
Peter Hunt, IMHO the best tech manager ever, once told me that he had been involved in the flight test programme at Hatfield on the T3 with John Cunningham. This included a 'terminal velocity' dive, on each example prior to delivery, which involved winging over to a vertical dive with full power to see what the TV was.
We also had to do high speed runs, IIRC at .88, for 5 minutes.
Peter Hunt, IMHO the best tech manager ever, once told me that he had been involved in the flight test programme at Hatfield on the T3 with John Cunningham. This included a 'terminal velocity' dive, on each example prior to delivery, which involved winging over to a vertical dive with full power to see what the TV was.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 73
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Way back then when oil was a sensible price was there a tendency to exploit the Tridents remarkable speed to make up time after say a delayed departure? I remember some very rapid transits from LHR to NCL !!
Just a personal memory of the speed of the Trident.
Many moons ago when I was a 23 year old co-pilot on the Viscount I was due to position from the N.E. of England to LHR on a Trident. The Captain, who was one of life's characters, and excellent if ill-advised operator, asked me if I would like a little fun. Of course says I in youthful ignorance. "OK he says, you sit in the RHS, the F/O sits in the E/O's seat and the E/O on the jump seat".
After a briefing which could hardly scratch the surface of my lack of knowledge of a jet aircraft laying particular emphasis on the setting of power on the take off run, never having operated one before, we set off into the wild blue yonder at what seemed like breakneck speed. I was used to the leisurely speed of the Viscount - I remember the routing down A1 was POL - LIC - DTY - Garston each portion of which required a position report and normally took about 10 minutes in the Vimy. Of course they all took a little less than half this and I seemed to be constantly on the r/t. I really didn't know which way to look as we rocketed up to FL260 then down again.
Of course we survived and a great time was had by all except the E/O who was distinctly uncomfortable with proceedings and 2 years later I was flying the 1-11, I never again sat in an operating seat of the Trident. I might add in slight mitigation that I had previously been allowed to hand fly a Britannia 102 by the same Captain on an empty positioning flight in cruise, so I wasn't a totally unknown quantity to him. However apart from the size of the flight deck which was more akin to a ship's bridge, the speed and handling characteristics were much closer to what I was used to.
I feel safe in recounting the story now as I at least 2 of the 3 other players have left us and the statute of limitations must have run out after 43 years.
Happy, politically incorrect, technically dangerous and pre CRM days. I can't imagine anybody being foolish enough to try the same stunt nowadays, but I enjoyed it!
Many moons ago when I was a 23 year old co-pilot on the Viscount I was due to position from the N.E. of England to LHR on a Trident. The Captain, who was one of life's characters, and excellent if ill-advised operator, asked me if I would like a little fun. Of course says I in youthful ignorance. "OK he says, you sit in the RHS, the F/O sits in the E/O's seat and the E/O on the jump seat".
After a briefing which could hardly scratch the surface of my lack of knowledge of a jet aircraft laying particular emphasis on the setting of power on the take off run, never having operated one before, we set off into the wild blue yonder at what seemed like breakneck speed. I was used to the leisurely speed of the Viscount - I remember the routing down A1 was POL - LIC - DTY - Garston each portion of which required a position report and normally took about 10 minutes in the Vimy. Of course they all took a little less than half this and I seemed to be constantly on the r/t. I really didn't know which way to look as we rocketed up to FL260 then down again.
Of course we survived and a great time was had by all except the E/O who was distinctly uncomfortable with proceedings and 2 years later I was flying the 1-11, I never again sat in an operating seat of the Trident. I might add in slight mitigation that I had previously been allowed to hand fly a Britannia 102 by the same Captain on an empty positioning flight in cruise, so I wasn't a totally unknown quantity to him. However apart from the size of the flight deck which was more akin to a ship's bridge, the speed and handling characteristics were much closer to what I was used to.
I feel safe in recounting the story now as I at least 2 of the 3 other players have left us and the statute of limitations must have run out after 43 years.
Happy, politically incorrect, technically dangerous and pre CRM days. I can't imagine anybody being foolish enough to try the same stunt nowadays, but I enjoyed it!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prober, IIRC, I think special 'test flight' pitots were fitted, Pete said TV was 'very close' to M1.0 ..... he didn't say which side...
Regarding high speed sectors, my logbook tells me I once did Aldergove-LHR in 38 minutes (with 632 kts G/S at one stage IIRC), and LHR-CDG in 29 mins A/B-Landing.
Regarding high speed sectors, my logbook tells me I once did Aldergove-LHR in 38 minutes (with 632 kts G/S at one stage IIRC), and LHR-CDG in 29 mins A/B-Landing.
Last edited by Hobo; 28th Jan 2011 at 22:06.
MS Flight Simulator Trident
Peter McLeland,
I just bought MS Flight SimulatorX as a result of seeing your pictures etc, never having had any desire to do simulator work at home previously!
I downloaded the files but the Tridents don't seem to be available, and I'm wondering if that's because Dave Maultby's website refers to FS4 and 9, not X. The file structure for FSX doesn't seem to be quite the same as is described, e.g. there's no "Aircraft" folder but rather a "sim objects/airplanes" one, and I wonder whether that is what is wrong - any thoughts?
Steve
I just bought MS Flight SimulatorX as a result of seeing your pictures etc, never having had any desire to do simulator work at home previously!
I downloaded the files but the Tridents don't seem to be available, and I'm wondering if that's because Dave Maultby's website refers to FS4 and 9, not X. The file structure for FSX doesn't seem to be quite the same as is described, e.g. there's no "Aircraft" folder but rather a "sim objects/airplanes" one, and I wonder whether that is what is wrong - any thoughts?
Steve