Turbine Ambassador

VEGAS · Post by **VEGAS** » 23 Dec 2006, 10:45

Tks for the HU Garry. She flys well. Climbs like fighter jet!

Post by **Garry Russell** » 23 Dec 2006, 11:18

I'm not surprised Eddie

The Darts would have put here at the top of the performance for the type

Strapping a couple of Proteus or Tynes on her at almost twice the power would have made her quite lively :shock:

Garry

Post by **DaveB** » 23 Dec 2006, 11:54

Pity they didn't see service in this guise as I'm certain we have enough dosh in the kitty to purchase an airfield full for the VA

Tks for the HU Garry

ATB

DaveB :tab:

Post by **Garry Russell** » 23 Dec 2006, 12:00

Hi Dave

They were two unsold airframes used as testbeds before refurbishment and sale to BEA

It was not intended for production as that was already covered by the Viscount...........the Dart one would have been the only one and that was a very ugly adaption with the engines stuck up high.

But like the Dart DC3 and Dart Wellington...purely testbeds

Garry

hobby · Post by **hobby** » 23 Dec 2006, 13:04

In the book 'Fifty Glorious years' A Tribute to the DC3 by Arthur Pearcy there is a picture on p100 with the following caption:

"The two Dart Dakotas operated by British European Airways between 1951 and 1953 were the first turbine powered aircraft to be placed in revenue-earning service anywhere in the world. These were G-ALXN 'Sir Henry Royce' and G-AMDB 'Claude Johnson' both converted for BEA by Field Aircraft Services at tollerton to prove the rolls-Royce Dart engine in commercial use before the introduction of the Viscount in 1952.

The twin Wasp engines on the BEA aircraft were replaced by 1,400shp (plus 365lbs jet thrust) Dart R.Da 3/505 turboprop engines in 1951. The first scheduled cargo service was flown by G-ALXN on the Northolt to Hannover route on August 1st 1951. They cruised normally at a true speed of 207mph at 26,000ft on a total of 1,300shp([?]my question mark see foregoing vlue for individual Dart power) with a fuel consumption of 900lbs/hr. In all the two Dakotas flew some 5,139 hours in BEA service up to March 1953 when they were converted back to standard Pratt & Whitney Wasp aircraft."

So these two aircraft while being testbeds for the Darts certainly earned their living in by earning revenue by carrying cargo and giving aircrew experience at operating the engines while not placing any passengers at risk. This would also possibly have given aircrew who had not served during the war experience in high level weather and navigation.

The two aircraft were painted in the British European Airways scheme with the names in a streamer trailing from the 'three crowns' coat of arms with 'BEA Express Airfreight' at the top of the fin and rudder with the union flag on the fin above the registration.

Post by **Garry Russell** » 23 Dec 2006, 13:16

They we operated as you say by BEA in their full colours

It was though only to test the Dart in airline service and the intention was always to convert them back again.

They had no experience of turo props in service

Rolls Royce also had a Dart Dakota testbed separate to the two BEA Express examples.

They were happy to use the Dak as the airframe was well proven so it was only the engines that were on test. The best way to do the experience flight was to enter them into service.

Being Test aircraft they were on revenue flights but only as freighters.

Just did a check up on the Ambassadors

G-AKRD flew with Proteus then Tyne followed by Dart
G-ALFR was with Napier and test flew the Eland

Garry

simcaptain · Post by **simcaptain** » 25 Dec 2006, 10:41

Good morning everyone,

having followed this topic over the last couple of days, I guess it's time to let fly a little.

With all due reverence to the wealth of aviatic knowledge accumulated in this forum and therefore this thread, RTFM. Or is my English that unintellegible? For my part, I take history pretty seriously and I like to research properly before I throw some artifact, in this case a rather unusual aircraft, at you guys. The same holds true for the rest of the little design group I have the honour of being part of. Therefore, the essence of all the nice little posts above can be found in the manual. To the best of my knowledge the information given there is accurate and can be verified using fairly credible sources.

OK, so now you've had your share of my Christmas depression, on to the nicer bits. Regarding Garry's post on Dec 23rd at noon, one minor correction: the Ambassadors (two of them prototype airframes) became testbeds only after BEA had done flying them for money, that is after all the production airframes had been delivered. All the details can be found in Aeroplane April 2003. Also, alas, RTFM.

Garry, in the same post you mention that the test-Darts were mounted fairly high on the wing - you don't happen to have any photos, do you? Lack of the latter is the main reason why we couldn't include the Dart and Eland varieties in our Turbo Ambassador package. We'd be happy to get some help in the matter.

Anyway, I'm glad you all seem to like our little contribution to Christmas merryment - at least, no one has complained so far.

A somewhat belated Merry Christmas to all of you.

Cheers,
Georg

Post by **Garry Russell** » 25 Dec 2006, 10:57

There was an article years ago in Aircraft Illustrated on the Ambassador

I thinks there was a pic of the Dart powered one in there. That is the only pic I can recall seeing, whether or no it was in that article or not.

I've not seen a pic of the Elland one.

RTFM? I said it was there for download I didn't say I downloaded it and I haven't.

Being teset beds after BEA makes more sense even though the references I looked up said otherwise.

Garry

Chris Trott · Post by **Chris Trott** » 26 Dec 2006, 11:32

I would not be surprised if the Eland used the normal cowling. On the CV-540s and Canadair Convair's, the Napier Eland used the standard CV-440 cowling with the only possible difference being a lack of cooling flaps although they may have still been present. They even re-worked the internals of the nacelle to allow the turbine's exhaust to be routed out of the silencer in the rear like the piston (required larger exhaust piping and some modification to where they passed through the firewall). I guess that was one of the few benefits the Eland offered over other modifications since the modifications required were much less extensive (and thus expensive) than the 580 and 600/640 conversions.

Post by **Garry Russell** » 26 Dec 2006, 11:41

The Ambassador was on;y a tyest bed

It was never intended for production so the modofications would have been made for the benefit of the engine not the convienience of installation.

The Convair was a new leae of life concept for continued use of the airframe with turbine power, so the comparision is not really there.

There was a Dart Wellington but that was never intended as anythinbg other thatn teating...Same pricipal, a test bed not a turbine prototype.

Garry