pvsjetstar
Flight Lieutenant
email: rassie6@optusnet.com.au
Posts: 97
|
Post by pvsjetstar on Apr 18, 2016 16:54:29 GMT 12
I always understood that the main reason the BAC1-11 missed out, was its single engine performance northbound out of Wellington in the event of an engine shutdown, was insufficient for the aircraft to either climb above Newlands or to safely complete a harbour circuit. I know it was something to do with the T-tail configuration of the aircraft and maybe that was also the reason the DC9 wasn't considered either. From my point of view, the choice of the B737 was the right one and I spent 25 years as a flight attendant on that type - I always felt very safe when I was onboard one of those in the typical Wellington winds in particular!!
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Apr 18, 2016 21:25:40 GMT 12
I've done a bit of reading into the DH.118 choice and I've read that TEAL considered the Comet V proposal, but not come across too much reference to it in contemporary literature. The concept obviously looms large in BOAC, but I've not found much reference to it regarding TEAL's proposals. Ah, yes....the DH.118 Comet 5 proposal....it would have been quite a sleek looking beast with the swept-back tail and fin....
|
|
|
Post by isc on Apr 18, 2016 22:30:11 GMT 12
By mounting the engines in pods under the wing, these could be balanced so that a lighter, cleaner wing could be built, I believe that the idea came from German research during WW2. Dh were just unlucky that they went down the wrong path by staying with a heavy, ridged design, and the square cornered windows put the seal on the Comets fate.
I seem to remember something about a situation called deep stall with the aircraft with T tails. isc
|
|
|
Post by nuuumannn on Apr 19, 2016 17:42:46 GMT 12
I've heard similar things, but I can't find anything that supports that the BAC.1-11 was out of the running because of this; the decision went down to the wire and politics played a large part in the government's decision to root for the 1-11, but Doug Patterson was very keen on the 737 and was the driving force behind it, even after he had actually been flying in a 1-11. One of the stipulations behind selection of aircraft was to go with something tried and tested and at the time the 1-11 was a leader in that field and the 737 had not yet been tested, yet Patterson was convinced it'd be better than the British jet. The 1-11-400 model that came to New Zealand (G-ASYE) was at one stage considered too small and Boeing pushed the 737-200, which had a greater capacity and which was eventually purchased, so to counter BAC offered the 1-11-500 series to NAC and the government with greater capacity. So the whole thing was steeped in controversy and to-ing and fro-ing; it was certainly no simple decision. I agree though; the 737 was the right choice to make, but then again there was much going against it as it had not yet been proven and performance and capability were still very much on paper only when the choices were being discussed. I don't believe that if the BAC.1-11 was chosen that it would have been proven a dud as it was a very competent aircraft and held its own in the sales department - for a British jet, that is; it had a number of US customers, which was quite rare at the time for foreign airliner to interest US airlines, so it definitely had merit. The race was between a good jet that was in service and proving very reliable and capable versus a marginally better one that had not yet entered service and hadn't actually proven itself yet. It was a tough call.
Yes, a classy looking bird alright KTJ, the DH.118 was derived from the Comet 5 but was a different aircraft - in that it was to have the Conways slung in individual pods below the wings; this aircraft interested the head of BOAC, Miles Thomas very much, but the government was keen on the Conway 707s and those were bought before the DH.118 became anything more than a written proposal, so it and the Comet 5 proposals were dead in the water. I remember reading that Miles Thomas felt he should have done more to support the DH.118 as he believed it to be a winner.
|
|
|
Post by nuuumannn on Apr 19, 2016 17:58:10 GMT 12
There are advantages to a T tail and it is no less safe than a conventional tail. The BAC 1-11 prototype crashed as a result of the aircraft entering a stall, but this wasn't because of the T tail configuration; it was during CG trials that weaknesses in the elevators were encountered. Whilst flight testing the aircraft's aftermost CG limits, the elevator deflected upwards, but was arrested by the crew, but with the increased angle of incidence, the force on the elevators was too great and it reached its stop. With decreasing speed and increasing aoa the aircraft stalled and crashed. The CG was at the rearmost of its prescribed limit. The elevator was manually actuated by cable and used servo tabs for aerodynamic actuation, whereas in subsequent aircraft it was made powered. A stick shaker and stick pusher was also fitted to prevent this from occurring.
|
|
pvsjetstar
Flight Lieutenant
email: rassie6@optusnet.com.au
Posts: 97
|
Post by pvsjetstar on Apr 24, 2016 23:39:29 GMT 12
There's an extremely good chapter on 'The Battle for the Boeing" in Peter Aimer's excellent book, "Wings of the Nation" (The Bush Press, published in 2000. ISBN 0-908608-86-1) that details the whole story of the choice between the BAC 1-11 and the Boeing 737 for NAC. It makes for a great read if you can get your hands on a copy. He produced the book on behalf of The NAC Fiftieth Anniversary Committee - highly recommended.
|
|