When the Future is the Past

britishtourer · Post by **britishtourer** » 18 May 2006, 08:07

Garry,

By saying blatant copy, I meant that it is obvious where they got the design from. If there wasn't a Trident, I don't think the 727 wold have had the same engine configuration.

Garry you're reading too much into the VC 10/A 380 thing. I was simply saying that if I had both and offered you, Garry Russell, one or the other, that I guess that you'd take the VC 10 because it has style.

AndyG · Post by **AndyG** » 18 May 2006, 09:58

britishtourer wrote:Garry,

By saying blatant copy, I meant that it is obvious where they got the design from. If there wasn't a Trident, I don't think the 727 wold have had the same engine configuration.

Hmm, I don't think it was that blatant BT! Part of the reasoning behind De Havilland sharing information with Boeing was that they were already working on similar projects for similar purposes; as far as I am aware they were both three-engined projects from the start, but there were certainly other elements that were undoubtedly useful to Boeing.

To an extent there are always going to be a limited number of answers to any question, hence a lot of similarity between many designs. Look at instances like the DC-10 and Tristar, Concorde and the Tu144; at the point the 727 was designed they would have been constrained by the available engines - two was not enough, they already had four on the 707 which the 727 was designed to complement, so three had to be the answer.

AndyG

DispatchDragon · Post by **DispatchDragon** » 18 May 2006, 10:25

Andy G

You hit it on the head - Boeing needed a critter that would perform on the Western US routes where a twin jet did (and still does) require driftdown alternates for crossing the Rockies - the 727 negated that requirement AND offered better performance on hot and high airfields such as SLC,DEN,LAS etc etc - so Boeing was meeting a US requirement by adding 3 engines - much the same way that Douglas met the requirement
for crossing between LAX and ABQ with the DC1 - funnily enough the airlines wanted a 3 engined aircraft then as well - however by adding retractable gear and streamliningthey got the DC1 ....as far copying - I dont think there was major design plagerism whereas I am sure that Boeing benefited by DHs design work
(for the second time in 15 years.

Leif

britishtourer · Post by **britishtourer** » 18 May 2006, 11:59

OK, I understand. I do like the 727, but the Trident was so much better.

Post by **Garry Russell** » 18 May 2006, 12:24

Hi BT

You may already know this

There was an exchange because the two companies were working on similar designs.

Boeing were having problems with the centre engine design and at one time even considered the possibility of building the Trident under license.

Then the BEA fiasco kicked in the Trident was downsized into and that was the end of that.

Had the Trident remained as originally designed it could have been very successful.

As it was HS were left trying to make a Trident that was saleable. Fortunately the Chinese after buying the PIA machines wanted more so that saved it a bit.

Garry

petermcleland · Post by **petermcleland** » 18 May 2006, 12:39

britishtourer wrote:OK, I understand. I do like the 727, but the Trident was so much better.

Well to my mind the B727 and the Trident are as different as chalk and cheese...Their ONLY similarity is the 3 engines...NOTHING else is remotely similar...Look at the wing...The Trident wing is extremely smooth and efficient in all configurations and a thing of great beauty. The B727 wing just crudely "Dismantles" to get into low speed configuration.

The Trident has a full Triplex Autopilot and instrument system capable of CAT3b Automatic landings...The B727 has a very simple and rather crude autopilot that doesn't even have Height Acquire let alone Autoland.

The Trident has a design cruise speed of M0.88 and can fly at M0.91...Well the list goes on...To equate them is balmy...You might as well put them in with the Junkers 87 3m or the Ford Trimotor...They also have three engines :think:

AndyG · Post by **AndyG** » 18 May 2006, 13:15

To be fair Peter, the original DH-121 design brief was very close to the 727, so the comparison has some validity. The Trident we know and love was really an emasculated version of what could have been, as DH went all out for the BEA order and threw away terrific export potential. What we ended up with is, as you say, a thing of great beauty and superb engineering; what we lost was a large percentage of the 727 sales.

In many ways the VC10 was the same story, engineered to perfection, beautiful and stylish, and not what the world market wanted; Vickers overengineered and overpowered to capture a specific market, and then watched it evaporate as runways were lengthened etc.

The British products were superb, and certainly I remember the VC10 and Trident as being so much more luxurious than their Boeing counterparts; but Boeing caught the mood of the times and worked to that yardstick, in much the same way Airbus are doing today at the expense of Boeing!

AndyG