Nimrod

Post by **Garry Russell** » 18 Dec 2006, 11:30

Boeing were working on a similar size project

There was an exchange set up where HS told Boeing a lot about the Trident but Boeing told HS little about the 727

Boeing were having problems with the centre engione and so similar were the designs considered buiding the Trident under licence in an an Americanised form.

When the Trident was scaled down Boeing continued with their own using a lot of the knowledge learned from HS in an agreed exchange and built the far more sucessful 727

They did not "nick" the design or plans or anything else.

Garry

mayagrafix · Post by **mayagrafix** » 20 Dec 2006, 11:55

Thanks for the great Nimrod R.1, UKMIL. I was wondering however, about the views shown in the beginning of this thread which were not included in the download of the FSX version at your website.

Is there an update in the works?

ukmil · Post by **ukmil** » 20 Dec 2006, 13:04

they are in the FSX version, but the system does not support these views, as fs2004 does. we are working on a VC version for the futre

jonesey2k · Post by **jonesey2k** » 20 Dec 2006, 13:13

Surprised they didnt mess about with afterburners on the Nimrod

ukmil · Post by **ukmil** » 27 Dec 2006, 15:49

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xdH8Gcqqjc

DispatchDragon · Post by **DispatchDragon** » 27 Dec 2006, 19:17

Garry

Not sure if you (or others here) are aware as exactly the problem
with the middle engine Boeing was having - it had to do with the
S duct and the shape of the inlet - In the trident the inlet was
obviously triangular shaped allowing the air in the upper part of
the duct to travel as fast as the air in the lower part - so the likelyhood
of compressor stall was less - if you look at early 727s they have
perfectly circular intakes and later ones have slight triangluated intakes

So HS did teach them something.

Oh Yes and the shaker and push set up for stall protection

Leif

Post by **Garry Russell** » 27 Dec 2006, 19:50

Hi Leif

The inlet to the "S"was the main problem and Boeing were having difficulty and that indeed was the main thing they gleened from HS.

Boeing were seriously considering taking the basic design and building an American version under license such was the similarity.

They had their design but couldn't make it work properly

A lot of ordinary folk don't realise the centre enging is in the rear fuse and not on the fin base which is just the intake duct.

Garry :Christmas:

TobyV · Post by **TobyV** » 27 Dec 2006, 20:01

From my perspective, the two problems are firstly the S duct itself, the changing geometry can and will cause flow separations (essentially stall) inside the duct itself, thus presenting a messy and non uniform flow to the front compressor stage, not good news. The other point, about the shape of the inlet itself is, I think, related to the angle of the airflow at entry, for example when there is some yaw component. I think this is when the intake shapes featured on the Trident and Tu-154 would prove superior to the circular intake on the 727.

Post by **Garry Russell** » 27 Dec 2006, 20:09

Hi Toby

Was there not a different shape on the 727-100 to the 200 because the 200 was longer and they could have a circular intake instead of oval or the other way around

The fuse must surely form a wind shadow at high angle of attack which a takeoff is just when you want the air flowing fully into the intake.

Garry :Christmas:

ukmil · Post by **ukmil** » 30 Dec 2006, 13:31

ok, next out, prob this weekend is the MR1

Classic British Flight Sim

Nimrod

Missing CP views