Trident autothrust system and autoland
Thank God, I never flew Ground Grippers. Iron Ducks were much better!
Couldn't agree more, loved the iron duck.
Missed one unique gripper feature - the undercarriage oleos had an extremely small movement - supposedly as it was believed that with a normal range of movement that the computers wouldn't be capable of performing an autoland.
There were a few brave souls who had a special landing technique - late flare and at the last moment stuff the stick fwd.
It worked wonders and used the technique later on the DC9-51 which was also difficult to grease on at 300M with a normal flare.(the earlier 9s weren't a problem).
If you manage to get hold of a copy of the corporations recruiting film made in the mid 60s you will see both the Gripper and the Duck.
Most entertaining - and enlightening-but showed a typical trident controlled crash.
It is available through the Hamble web site!
Missed one unique gripper feature - the undercarriage oleos had an extremely small movement - supposedly as it was believed that with a normal range of movement that the computers wouldn't be capable of performing an autoland.
There were a few brave souls who had a special landing technique - late flare and at the last moment stuff the stick fwd.
It worked wonders and used the technique later on the DC9-51 which was also difficult to grease on at 300M with a normal flare.(the earlier 9s weren't a problem).
If you manage to get hold of a copy of the corporations recruiting film made in the mid 60s you will see both the Gripper and the Duck.
Most entertaining - and enlightening-but showed a typical trident controlled crash.
It is available through the Hamble web site!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Forest
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Memory tricks
Indeed, one does forget! Yes, of course the A/T was used for most approaches as well as A/Land - not as I said earlier. Yes, there was a switch somewhere in the ceiling for engaging No2, but this was, to my knowledge, never used. And reverse was selected at the flair for all landings so far as I recall, with the final few seconds spent floating on a cushion of air. The main gear as an airbrake switch actually disconnected the nose wheel deployment and the incident mentioned suffered a "nose wheel fails to lower" when it came to the actual landing. The switch was then disconnected! I remember more difficulty at Gib on the Vanguard rather than the Trident, with the fire service knocking on the window at the end of one white knuckle arrival! The worst of that airfield was the (RAF) controllers telling you that you had just violated the other side's airspace, rather than telling you that you were about to and you could then have done something about it. Hey Ho! As to EDI, T1 and T2 ops were usually uneventful (on 13/31). The arrival of the T3 caused tire bursts on a regular basis, and the previously mentioned method of touchdown (nose forward), was developed by some intrepid pilots and it worked very well, but trg establishment would rap our knuckles. It was a delight to fly and I enjoyed most of my 7,000 odd hours both as P1 and P2/3.
Prober
Prober
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wingham NSW Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHBM asks about how BC 111 got on with two engines
Sure, the BAC 1-11 used only two Speys against the Tridents three, but it only weighed about two thirds the weight of the Trident 3 at MTOW.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Using thrust reverse at altitude and in the flare!!!!! 
Technologically speaking the Trident was probably the most advanced airliner in service at the time it was launched - most of the compromises that hobbled it were in fact demanded by BEA. This is borne out by the fact that Boeing took the original specification and design (minus the advanced avionics) and copied it almost verbatim in the form of the 727, which went on to become the best-selling aircraft in the world, holding the record for nearly two decades.
If only BEA hadn't meddled and Trident got the RR Medway engine originally specifed...
As I understand it, although the first Trident design had more substantial engines, it didn't have the high-lift devices of the 727 which lifted the first 727s off short runways because it was intended (by BEA) to operate from Heathrow to other major European airports, most of which were already handling 707s etc, whereas the 727 sold initially to US airlines to operate into many places where the DC6 was the biggest they had seen up to then. I doubt either Trident version could have operated out of the 6,000 foot runways that La Guardia had when the 727 came into service.
The first generation of "smaller" jets, 2 and 3 engined (of which the pioneer was the Caravelle), all went for rear-end, fuselage-mounted engnes, because that was more straightforward to control with an engine out, plus they were concerned about sucking up FOD on lesser runways. Only when the 737 came along had the research been fully done on how to handle wing-mounted engines. This configuration then came back into vogue more recently when all the the RJs came along, for different reasons which we need not dilute this discussion of the Trident era with.
twochai
The Iron Duck was the magnificent Vickers VC10. Our irreverent colleagues on 707s used to call it that because much of the structure was milled out of the solid - alumnium not iron! I spent many happy years flying VC10s.
The Iron Duck was the magnificent Vickers VC10. Our irreverent colleagues on 707s used to call it that because much of the structure was milled out of the solid - alumnium not iron! I spent many happy years flying VC10s.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
British Airliners 'Nearly Get It Right' Shock! - Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums
You're right in that the Trident didn't have the same high-lift devices as the 727, but the first generation's droop and flap configuration was still pretty potent. It needed to be, because the wing was designed for high-speed cruise (I have it on good authority that despite being a bugger to get off the ground, the Gripper went like a scalded cat in cruise). Re-use of the 707's nose and fuselage section would always have been a no-brainer for Boeing, because they already had all the jigs and tooling in place.
While you're also right about the Caravelle, the Trident was the first design to use a triple engine configuration with an S-duct on number 2, which is the primary similarity with the 727. Had it had the Medway engine as specified, I don't think it would have found a 6,000 ft runway a problem. Purely speculation though.
IIRC the title sequence for the BBC series "Softly Softly Task Force" showed a BEA trident landing at GIB and you could see the reverse thrust smoke from the cascades before touchdown.
Main gear as airbrake event
Prober, "The main gear as an airbrake switch actually disconnected the nose wheel deployment and the incident mentioned suffered a "nose wheel fails to lower" when it came to the actual landing. The switch was then disconnected!!" ...... not quite the full story......... "I was that man"!! (Also can you point me to the post with the "incident mentioned").
We were doing LHR-GVA-LHR in about 1967 (EDIT: 16 December 1966) in a Trident 1 (EDIT: GARPM) , with a Very Senior Management Pilot (VSMP) in the LHS making his once a month recency flight, and as I recall he flew the approach. I was the junior F/O with one ring I think. Can't remember the SFO in the RHS at the moment (EDIT: SFO Chris Cross) and my logbooks aren't to hand. Strong NW tailwind and held up very high by French ATC all the way to the then Swiss border, as was their habit, before getting clearance to descend from GVA control. Anyway the very late TOD meant using everything to get down expeditiously approaching.
IIRC the layout was that the airbrake lever was on the left side of the console, and just to one side and behind its stowed position was a toggle switch which enabled you to drop the main gear only, as you said, at a max. speed of 320 kts (?) IAS. Alongside the switch was an amber warning light to tell you you'd used it. Retraction was limited to 280 (?) though.
VSMP deployed airbrake lever and then main gear while decelerating, cleaning up as the speed decreased and we got round and landed with no problems.
We turned around and took off again, and on selecting gear up the main wheels stayed firmly down: 2 reds and 2 greens. The main gear had an emergency free fall that was activated via a hatch in the centre cabin floor that actually opened into the cargo hold, and accessed a lever for a compressed air bottle that would blow the gear down.
VSMP says there has been an incident elsewhere on the network where a loader in the hold has grabbed this lever and discharged the bottle, causing the main gear to refuse to retract. Therefore that is what has happened. Declares an immediate return to GVA and we went back and landed. VSMP departs cockpit to investigate and deliver bollocking to ground staff.
SFO and I are discussing this in this his absence and doing the turnround checklist when we notice main gear airbrake switch is still in "extended" position although the warning light is out.
VSMP returns and red faces ensue. SFO and I got an informal bollocking from chief pilot for not being smart enough to know that VSMP needed watching like a hawk! and "lessons are duly learned".
Meanwhile VSMP takes up subject of failed warning lamps etc. with manufacturer (de Haviland). It transpired that on every other aircraft on the fleet there was a striker pin on the airbrake lever, such that when the airbrake was stowed after use, it would also return the "main gear airbrake" switch to the "up" position, if it hadn't already been done. It wasn't installed on this aircraft! More significantly, they were horrified to find that we were using this facility on a relatively routine basis, as it was only intended as an emergency facility for rapid decompressions etc. Hence came the removal of the ability to use it - I can't even remember if it was even actually installed on the T2 and T3.
Happy days!
Steve
We were doing LHR-GVA-LHR in about 1967 (EDIT: 16 December 1966) in a Trident 1 (EDIT: GARPM) , with a Very Senior Management Pilot (VSMP) in the LHS making his once a month recency flight, and as I recall he flew the approach. I was the junior F/O with one ring I think. Can't remember the SFO in the RHS at the moment (EDIT: SFO Chris Cross) and my logbooks aren't to hand. Strong NW tailwind and held up very high by French ATC all the way to the then Swiss border, as was their habit, before getting clearance to descend from GVA control. Anyway the very late TOD meant using everything to get down expeditiously approaching.
IIRC the layout was that the airbrake lever was on the left side of the console, and just to one side and behind its stowed position was a toggle switch which enabled you to drop the main gear only, as you said, at a max. speed of 320 kts (?) IAS. Alongside the switch was an amber warning light to tell you you'd used it. Retraction was limited to 280 (?) though.
VSMP deployed airbrake lever and then main gear while decelerating, cleaning up as the speed decreased and we got round and landed with no problems.
We turned around and took off again, and on selecting gear up the main wheels stayed firmly down: 2 reds and 2 greens. The main gear had an emergency free fall that was activated via a hatch in the centre cabin floor that actually opened into the cargo hold, and accessed a lever for a compressed air bottle that would blow the gear down.
VSMP says there has been an incident elsewhere on the network where a loader in the hold has grabbed this lever and discharged the bottle, causing the main gear to refuse to retract. Therefore that is what has happened. Declares an immediate return to GVA and we went back and landed. VSMP departs cockpit to investigate and deliver bollocking to ground staff.
SFO and I are discussing this in this his absence and doing the turnround checklist when we notice main gear airbrake switch is still in "extended" position although the warning light is out.
VSMP returns and red faces ensue. SFO and I got an informal bollocking from chief pilot for not being smart enough to know that VSMP needed watching like a hawk! and "lessons are duly learned".
Meanwhile VSMP takes up subject of failed warning lamps etc. with manufacturer (de Haviland). It transpired that on every other aircraft on the fleet there was a striker pin on the airbrake lever, such that when the airbrake was stowed after use, it would also return the "main gear airbrake" switch to the "up" position, if it hadn't already been done. It wasn't installed on this aircraft! More significantly, they were horrified to find that we were using this facility on a relatively routine basis, as it was only intended as an emergency facility for rapid decompressions etc. Hence came the removal of the ability to use it - I can't even remember if it was even actually installed on the T2 and T3.
Happy days!
Steve
Last edited by slast; 4th Dec 2010 at 17:04. Reason: To add log book data
As pointed out Vickers built the VC10 and supposedly used ship building techniques - I was told that the Iron duck came from the substantial titanium brackets that held the donks on!
Trident gear/airbrake limits. Lower retraction speed was if the grey matter is correct - due to the nose gear doors ( undercart was off set with one large door).
The main gear airbrake was still in use in 1972 when I come onto the gripper - I believe there was yet another incident at lhr before the function was inhibited.
Cruise speed - yes it was very fast but MMO had been reduced (think it was originally M.92)
It went very fast on one special flight with a couple of Very senior management extremely competent pilots (if you believed them) who,if P3 is to believed, pulled the CB and flew at M.design as tghe young lady down the back was late.
I think most of us heard about it as P3 made a point of telling all and sundry.
Trident gear/airbrake limits. Lower retraction speed was if the grey matter is correct - due to the nose gear doors ( undercart was off set with one large door).
The main gear airbrake was still in use in 1972 when I come onto the gripper - I believe there was yet another incident at lhr before the function was inhibited.
Cruise speed - yes it was very fast but MMO had been reduced (think it was originally M.92)
It went very fast on one special flight with a couple of Very senior management extremely competent pilots (if you believed them) who,if P3 is to believed, pulled the CB and flew at M.design as tghe young lady down the back was late.
I think most of us heard about it as P3 made a point of telling all and sundry.
ENTREPPRUNEUR
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The 60s
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noise
Can you expand on this idea of controlling noise? I can only think you are saying the centre engine was disconnected to cut down the noise when the autothrottle applied full power. This would suggest it was inclined to command wide power excursions. Was this an accepted shortcoming? Did leaving the centre engine at a fixed power mean the aircraft took longer to regain the glidepath?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Forest
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
n/gear
Marvellous after all these years to hear from the horse's mouth. Unlike Chinese Whispers, the story actually did not get too twisted in the telling, but it is wonderful to hear what actually happened. Thanks, Steve for that.
Fast? Yes it was. Normal cruise was M.88 (on the T1). (I recall a charter from SNN to VIE in which we managed an average of 660 kts G/S - but not quite the same on the way back!) M.92 was the max during base training and recovery from that proved just as frightening an experience as deploying airbrake on the T7 Hunter at M1.1, or landing an Auster on a carrier. The T2 was .8 for no other reason than IIRC wear and tear. Then came the 1974 fuel crisis which, apart from producing the national speed limit of 70 mph (it was nothing to do with road safety), made everyone thing seriously about fuel. Up till then, fuel was not much more than an incidental in one's costings and consequently the cruise speed for all Tridents was reduced to M.8 or maybe .78 (I cannot remember).
As to noise, the Gripper was far preferable to the B1-11 with A/T engaged. The 1-11 had to do it all with 2 engines whilst the Gripper had the modifying influence of the steady No 2. Positioning on the 1-11 was not a pleasant experience, especially down the back.
Prober (Mike)
Fast? Yes it was. Normal cruise was M.88 (on the T1). (I recall a charter from SNN to VIE in which we managed an average of 660 kts G/S - but not quite the same on the way back!) M.92 was the max during base training and recovery from that proved just as frightening an experience as deploying airbrake on the T7 Hunter at M1.1, or landing an Auster on a carrier. The T2 was .8 for no other reason than IIRC wear and tear. Then came the 1974 fuel crisis which, apart from producing the national speed limit of 70 mph (it was nothing to do with road safety), made everyone thing seriously about fuel. Up till then, fuel was not much more than an incidental in one's costings and consequently the cruise speed for all Tridents was reduced to M.8 or maybe .78 (I cannot remember).
As to noise, the Gripper was far preferable to the B1-11 with A/T engaged. The 1-11 had to do it all with 2 engines whilst the Gripper had the modifying influence of the steady No 2. Positioning on the 1-11 was not a pleasant experience, especially down the back.
Prober (Mike)
Then came the 1974 fuel crisis which, apart from producing the national speed limit of 70 mph (it was nothing to do with road safety)
Anyway, please forgive the digression, and many thanks for all the Trident stuff.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
corporations recruiting film made in the mid 60s you will see both the Gripper and the Duck.
Do you mean this film?
You can at one point clearly see the Throttle's 1&3 moving with 2 being in the roughly 12 o'clock position.
Wanted to post the same question about the auto throttle when I first saw these movies, but forgot.
Thank you everybody for the great stories...Really like the trident
Good night
Micky
Ps Really like the kick off drift writing in the RA...
What a great fim! I love the bit with the test pilot nonchalantly talking to the camera over his shoulder as the aircraft descends through two hundred feet. Talk about confidence in the autoland system.
Forty years later I am not sure how much things have improved. I certainly would not feel comfortable doing that on my 737....not after the autopilots tripped out in the flare a few weeks ago! Certainly got my attention.
Forty years later I am not sure how much things have improved. I certainly would not feel comfortable doing that on my 737....not after the autopilots tripped out in the flare a few weeks ago! Certainly got my attention.
Hi Prober,
I'll have to dig out the old logbook I guess, Blindpew says we were still using main gear airbrake in '72 so it looks like I may have compressed the timescale from our event to it eventually being removed as a facility. As a junior F/O I wasn't privy to any of the management discussions! I seem to remember it was Peter Harper, with whom I later worked a lot on BALPA's technical committee, who said DH weren't happy about it, but it's a bit hazy in the mists of time!!
I'll have to dig out the old logbook I guess, Blindpew says we were still using main gear airbrake in '72 so it looks like I may have compressed the timescale from our event to it eventually being removed as a facility. As a junior F/O I wasn't privy to any of the management discussions! I seem to remember it was Peter Harper, with whom I later worked a lot on BALPA's technical committee, who said DH weren't happy about it, but it's a bit hazy in the mists of time!!
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Forest
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A/LAND - No ILS!
All this reminiscing brings another snippet to mind. As F/O I went to FBU with Capt Ormonroyd (Snr) who was one of the A/Land boffins and aces. FBU closed, so we had to go to Gardemoen which, in those days, was a minor satellite, semi mil, used for diversions (by BEA). We were given an NDB Approach and Capt O said that now we had a chance to prove the A/Land system. We two minions looked at each other slightly aghast, but Capt O just asked us to cast our minds back to how the system worked. All very well for him - he was a semi boffin - but we were mystified. "Remember", he said "at 133ft the aircraft system disengages from the ILS and flies the final bit on memory. We will fly a steady approach and fool it into thinking it was doing an ILS!"
We held our breath and after touchdown (hands off - nearly) I swear he smirked.
We held our breath and after touchdown (hands off - nearly) I swear he smirked.