Talk:Hawker Siddeley Trident/Archive 1

Archive 1

21" pitch?

I've found reference to 7-abreast seating and 'cramped' 31" pitch, but not 21". Seems a bit tight. Typo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.49.63.133 (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I added the following text. I found mention of a "trident aircraft" crash on the 1979 page. After some searching, I found some information on google that was 'not' simply a direct quote of the wikipedia entry, which I sourced.

On March 14, 1979, a Trident 2E crashed into a factory near Beijing, killing at least 200. According to another source, this crash was caused by an unqualified pilot who stole and flew the plane. That source mentions total fatalities of all 12 crew, 32 ground, and no passengers. (see discussion)

The wikipedia entry says over 200 were killed, but this source [1] implies that only 44 were killed. Hopefully somebody can corroborate the information.

RealGrouchy 18:49, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm, sort of interesting - but does it really belong in the article? Most aircraft pages don't mention all the crashes that a particular type has (in that case some pages would be full of lists of crashes) - the only reason that the Staines crash is mentioned here is that a) it's got a page of its own and b) it's notable for being the worst in the UK at that point in time. Graham 22:45, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In addition, wasn't the aircraft Lin Biao flew on his escape which crashed in Mongolia a Trident as well? --JNZ 12:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

727 commentary

I removed this speculative and somewhat NPOV text: Of course, the 727 was able to re-use the fuselage section of the 707 and thereby reduce development costs, and even if the Trident had been "perfect" it is unlikely that it would have had much success in the massive and very nationalistic US airline industry. -choster 22:21, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

A para describes TAA as wanting the Trident. I doubt it. It was the Australian government that wanted Tridents, and they owned TAA. Both airlines had inherited large fleets of cheap and new DC6s from the defunct ANA, and they would not last much longer than the mid 60s. Australia had six cities/hubs and they were a long way apart. Low capacity short haul airliners, such as the Caravelle, were not desirable. The huge delays of the Trident project forced the govt to relent, and B727s flew in early 1964. Qantas was strictly long-range international and so had the B707, plus three Electras.

580mph figure for cruise speed seems optimistic to me. That's an IAS of 350kn at 35k'. The airframe may have been built to cope with that speed, but I'll bet the Conways didn't ever push it that fast. The larger Tridents needed a fourth engine just for takeoff. The B727 did not. Someone is trying to prove that 1+1=3.220.240.251.52 (talk) 03:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The Trident was powered by Rolls-Royce Speys not Rolls-Royce Conways.

The Spey was a scaled-down Rolls-Royce Medway, which is what de Havilland originally designed the Trident for. BEA asked for the smaller Trident version and DH did what the customer wanted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.6 (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

At the time, the Fed Reserve of Australia did all the currency exchanges. They had a lot of English pounds to spend, but little in the way of greenbacks, nor francs. Thus the order for TAA to buy Viscounts and Tridents. Reg Ansett was a powerful figure and he wanted 727s (even his wife was American!). A wise move. Boeing promised deliveries to both Ansett and TAA within 1964 and it happened. The production list for Tridents meant no deliveries until 1969/70, barring major strikes by unions. The B727-100 was much more economical. 77t versus 53t, yet it had one less crew member. The b727 was rated to 33k feet and nearly always cruised at/near that altitude. The Trident's normal altitude was more like 25k feet. Most likely due to the engine's poor lapse rate. The Chinese bought Tridents because they hated Americans, and Russian planes were sh*t.14.203.207.166 (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The Chinese bought Tridents because they hated Americans.... Apparently some Chinese still do: See User:UK and China aga!nst America! - BilCat (talk) 02:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Change of article name

Apologies didnt do a very good job (now sorted thanks to admin) - all non-user page links now point to Hawker Siddeley Trident in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft). MilborneOne 08:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Boeing and the 727...

There is no mention in the development section about how the 727 almost exactly matches the HS.121 Trident's original specifications, of which a "US delegation including people from Boeing was given full access to the plans", David Maltby[2]. There is a brief reference later on in the article but it doesn't mention Boeing's involvement in the early life of the Trident.

Maybe someone would like to read up and write up on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.237.47.51 (talk) 03:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

All you have is anecdotal evidence from a non-published source. If there is a reliable, published source with proof of the relationship, then we can include it, but without such sources, it's just unprovable speculation. Btw, the Tupolev Tu-154 is very similar to both design. Can we tell whether the Soviets stole the design from the British or the Americans? Or in the Soviet's case is it pure coincidence, as the Soviets never copied other designs, despite their similarities? You know, maybe the British stole it from the Russians first, then the Americans copied it. - BillCJ (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this is just speculation based on similarity, the aircraft would be based on the same specifications as these would be issued by the airlines. All three design teams had similar constraints the main one being engine power, you need three engines to meet the payload and range requirements where do you put them - not that many choices. Which is why the Trident and 727 have a similar configuration. By the time the Boeing 737 came around it was possible to get away with less engines and with the then deep stall problems with t-tails known the engines ended up under the wings. MilborneOne (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you dissing the wisdom of David Maltby? :-p I understand that source is not reason enough to include such information/speculation, call it what you will; that is why the phrase "read up" is mentioned in my original post. I am not trying to say that the 727 is a copy of the HS.121... it can't be because the original specification for the HS.121 was never built (which is probably why it didn't really sell). As for the mention of the Tu-154, sharing a layout is not the same as sharing a specification; the 154 is significantly different from any other jet out there.... we'll leave industrial espionage in the realm of the Tu-144 and Il-62... Boeing were more than welcome to have the original HS.121 specs, because HS weren't gonna build it. 150.237.47.51 (talk) 06:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. :) Sarcasm aside, all David Maltby is making there is an observation, and with it a veiled accusation, that Boeing used - or even needed to use - the original HS.121 specs. As Milb1 said, both were trying to meet the needs of the airlines, and there was only so many ways one could go in meeting them. The engines available were limited, as was thrust, which dictated 3 rather than 2 engines. Sizing the wings to fit the airframe and performance needs would result in similar dimensions. I don't know if fuselage diameter and cabin size were the same between the HS.121 and 727, but it's well-known that Boeing based the cabin size on the 707, which certainly pre-dates HS.121. But again, if we're going to imply that Boeing actually used the data on the HS.121 in designing the 727, we need something much more credible than circumstantial evidence. That type of conclusion is fine on a one-owner internet site, but we have to have reliable, verifiable sources here. We'd need one to state that "Boeing were more than welcome to have the original HS.121 specs, because HS weren't gonna build it", because we don't actually know that to be true - company designs are usually copyrighted or otherwise legally-protected in some way, and Boeing would have probably needed explicit permission to use the plans in any way. - BillCJ (talk) 06:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

British airlines (and governments, when they interfered with the aircraft companies), unerringly asked for the wrong thing when specifying new commercial aircraft designs. This unfailing capacity to ensure that the designs had few, if any, foreign orders (with a few notable exceptions) is what made the UK civil aircraft industry what it is today, i.e., defunct.

Looking at the feet-dragging and chopping-and-changing of requirements involved, one could be forgiven for thinking that it was all deliberate. I suspect however, that this was just due to the general managerial incompetence that was becoming a fact of life in Britain back then. To be fair though, BOAC had started it all, along with interference by the then-government, with their dismal handling of their requirement for what became the Avro Tudor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

For anyone who's interested, there's an illustrating interview with Reg Ansett of Ansett ANA in a 1964 Flight article that explains why he bought 727s rather than Tridents; [3]

Indeed. He noted that the B727 "was just as fast as anything else". He meant the Trident. The Trident projected performance figures were too optimistic. The performance data in the article needs to be taken from actual measurements, not what the designers thought it would achieve. It has long been rumoured that BEA/BOAC management went on secret world tours and told people like Reg not to buy British a/c. If a UK manufacturer got a lot of foreign orders then it meant that UK airlines were lumbered with another civil service-designed machine. They also wanted Boeings and DC8s.220.240.251.52 (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

One of the things that needs to be born in mind is the political climate in Britain in the post-war years right up to 1979, where the two political parties - Labour and Conservative - had two opposing philosophies. Both BOAC and BEA were publicly-owned, i.e., by the UK taxpayer, and under Labour were seen as providing a public service to the UK taxpayer and making a profit though desirable, was not the primary purpose. This also applied to all the other nationalised services, such as British Rail, Sealink, Seaspeed, etc. Under a Conservative government however profit came before everything else. Thus there was considerable working to crossed purposes when it came to designing for BOAC and BEA.

So every time the UK government changed, so did the requirements, and the designs had to be altered - sometimes to fit in with unduly specialised roles. THAT is what crippled the UK airliner industry.

BTW, Ansett went for 727s rather than Trident because they were still having to use Essendon Airport and there was some doubt if the Trident would be able to operate there until Tullamarine Airport was ready. In addition, Ansett were worried that too few Tridents would be built. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.156 (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Another fact about the 1979 accident

In this article "What happened on 3/14/1979", a witness, who lived near the Beijing west-suburban airbase, says that in the 1979 accident, the plane exploded on the sky, but not crashed on the ground before the explosion. If this is true, maybe the jet plane stolen was shot down by missiles. It is reasonable because a fueled empty plane with only one pilot, who stole the plane, threatened the city of Beijing.

"3 月14日，记不清午后还是清晨，但我永远记得住那一幕，或者说那一幕记住了它唯一的证人。一架飞机在半空中突然变成了一个大火球，无声无息的大火球，很美很耀眼。几秒钟后，只是几秒钟，坠下一缕清烟，淡淡的一缕，火球象幽灵一样消逝了，天空蓝得吓人，干净得吓人。几秒钟，又是几秒钟，一朵大大的蘑菇云从地平线升起，白白的，同长崎和广岛的模样，蘑菇云如播放慢动作一般，从翻滚到消散，我静静地看着，如同看二十年代的无声电影，又过了不知多久，一阵嘈杂打破了我的凝思，父亲单位里跑出一群人，提着铁锹和水桶。"

"March 14th, I don't remember it was whether morning or afternoon, but I can never forget the consequent scene forever, in other words, the scene remembers me as its only witness. A plane became a big fireball , a big and silent fireball. It was beautiful and dazzling. Seconds after, just seconds, there was smoke falling down, very light, and the fireball disappeared like a ghost. The sky was so blue terribly. Yet after seconds , a mushroom cloud arose from the horizon. It was pure white, just like the ones arose in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The mushroom cloud was rolling and vanishing in a slow motion. I watched it quietly as watching a 1920's silent movie. Time past unconsciously until a noise jumped into my ears. It was people running out my father's unit, with barrels and spades." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.11.66.250 (talk) 12:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents are only summarised in this article, if you have factual and verifiable sources then you should consider creating an article for the particular accident that can be linked from here. MilborneOne (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Another survivor?

Nic-2.jpg Does anyone know if the Trident at Nicosia International Airport is still there? If so it could be added to the list of surviving aircraft. -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Worth a mention it has been there for a long time (early 1970s) I would be surprised if has been moved. Although not a reliable source it still appears on google maps satellite views and this image [4] is from 2009. MilborneOne (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done Added to list of survivors, with an "as of" qualifier. Mjroots (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Appears to have disapeared! cant see any reason to remove it as it is clearly notable for surviving in no-mans land for so long. MilborneOne (talk) 17:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Bzuk removed it in this edit. I've asked him about it on his talk page and am awaiting a reply. Mjroots (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, just an edit error on my part, now rectified by re-adding the original edit. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC).

This website has details of fuselages and cockpits that have been preserved, plus details on some of the Chinese aircraft. Is it reliable enough to use? Mjroots (talk) 06:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

That's 5B-DAB sorted, however, I did also add a statement that BEA548 was still the worst accident to have occurred on British soil. Pan Am 103 was not an accident, it was terrorism. Should that statement be re-added or is it too controversial? Mjroots (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope, sounds fine, and the original edit on the surviving airframe is there now. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

Re-added in slightly different form to original. Mjroots (talk) 07:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's a picture of the Trident in Nicosia - it's still there. [5] -ProhibitOnions ^(T) 11:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Duct edit

I think the original text was trying to say that the centre engine of the initial design was mounted some way forward and exhausted through a long jetpipe (a more correct word than duct in this case) as used in the Comet, not that the layout was the same. I'm having trouble with the current cite No.9, it won't load for me? Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly confusing about the long jet pipe of the Comet, as I certainly didn't read it that way. I fixed the Cite #9 by changing to a new location. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC).

Unfortunately to me now it reads like the 727 has a forward mounted centre engine with a long duct! Maybe the 727 layout comparison should move to the end of the next sentence? Cite is working now thanks. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

"Survivors" section revamped

Hi wikipedians, I've merged the section "Aircraft on display" into "Survivors", as both are related and in this way the information is shown in a more cohesive way. I think that the sub-sections need to be changed, e.g. by country; will reorganize in the next couple days. Regards, DPdH (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Source(s) of the details describing the different variants?

Dear wikipedians, I find difficult to determine which sources have been used to support the description of the different variants for the HS Trident. Can any of the contributors to this interesting article please help adding relevant citations? Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

In which version were the droops replaced by slats?

There is a contradiction in this article, as of which version introduced slats instead of droops. In "Operational service" says it was the Trident 2E, whether in "Variants" says it was the Trident 1E. Which is the correct statement, according to a verifiable source? Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hawker Siddeley Trident/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Rated as start because it hase some good content but need some work: Sources according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content history can be divided into development, varients etc specifications need to be placed in {{Aircraft specs}} trivia section should be deleted/merged into other text areas needs {{Aircontent}}

Substituted at 18:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

another surviving trident

Sorry I don't have a clue how to edit the main page. But there is another Trident airframe, more or less complete, on display in Beijing at the Civil Aviation Museum near the airport.

It's B-2207. You can see a few pics at this scale modeling website: http://s3.zetaboards.com/readersforum/single/?p=10002954&t=9019676

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hawker Siddeley Trident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130408184002/http://classic-aircraft.net/ to http://www.classic-aircraft.net/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:39, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hawker Siddeley Trident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091215142425/http://www.ringwayreports.co.uk/G-AWZK.htm to http://www.ringwayreports.co.uk/G-AWZK.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)