g-rhop at akl

[ARU]

G-rhop has recently turned up at Auckland airport, its a Britten-Normal Trislander a long way from home.
it is currently being parked in the light aircraft area with the great barrier aircraft, a new acquisition perhaps?.

I wonder how many fuel stops it had to make if it flew all the way here from the UK.


a very poor photo from wikipedia.

commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:G-rhop-esh.jpg

[nzompilot]

It is indeed a new acquisition for Great Barrier Airlines
Has been discussion about it on various other boards and sites.
A better photo and routing details can be found here on Mike's blog mrcaviation.blogspot.com/

[flyjoe180]

Now that is ugly!

[Bruce]

I have actually had the priveledge to fly a Trislander briefly a few years ago. When I was working at Aeromotive we overhauled T3-ATE for Air Tungaru. I was involved in sorting out the paperwork as it was signed out on UKCAA certification. Part of that required a flight test at max all up weight, however it is actually very difficult to get a Trislander to that figure! It had the long range ferry kit installed for the return flight to Kiribati, and this consisted of 8x 200 Litre drums mounted crosswise in the cabin - we filled every availble tank to the top, still underweight. Borrowing a number of bags of cement from a friendly building supply company (I know about doing that...) we than added 15 or so bags sitting on top of the ferry tanks. Still underweight we filled a number of 20 litre containers with water and stowed them in the long nose locker. The ferry pilot was to carry out the test flight, but becuase the UKCAA flight schedule is quite complex, I was sent along as observer. The first attempt to take off was aborted when the nose showed no sign of rotating, so we taxied in and removed most of the water containers from the nose. After aquick circuit to prove it would fly, we returned and collected the conatiners again, however they were re-stowed with a little better attention to the Cof G position! Finally we departed on the test flight and carried out a number of tests at 6000ft near lake Karapiro. this included shutting down and restarting an engine etc. the vibration and noise inside was chronic. the engines were supposedly synchonised, but that just increased the amplitude of the throbbing! I was given a few minutes to play with the aircraft, and found it to trim out nicely in pitch and respond quite positively, however in a turn the ailerons seemed to be the equivilent of a 4 spring chest expander! very heavy, and at that weight it took a fair bit of input before anything happened. I would have to say I wouldnt rush to a job flying one!. The tail mounted engine is quite innovative - until you have to service it, when large quantities of scaffolding is required. As Soundsair found out operating some in the early 1990s, they do make money - they are neverless weird aeroplanes!

[Kereru]

Yes it is for the Great Barrier run.
Check Mike's blog for details.

www.mrcaviation.blogspot.com/

[Peter Lewis]

Good to see another one.
Anyone know what happened/is happening to Trislander VH-NKW which arrived in NZ in 2003 scheduled to become ZK-LGC but seems to have been stored at Dairy Flat ever since.
It still seems to be currently registered.

[haughtney1]

I saw this particular Trislander up close and personal on a couple of occasions..it even has a kiwi connection as a good kiwi mate of mine flew it for Blue Islands based at Bournemouth

[Peter Lewis]

Press Release just in . . .

Britten-Norman BN2 XL

By a well-known ‘Flight magazine’.

Undaunted by technical realities, the design team at Pilatus Britten - Norman has announced plans for the BN2-XL, promising more noise, reduced payload, a lower cruise speed, and increased pilot workload.

We spoke to Mr. Fred Gribble, former British Rail boilermaker, and now Chief Project Engineer. Fred was responsible for developing many original and creative design flaws in the service of his former employer, and will be incorporating these in the new BN2-XL technology under a licensing agreement. Fred reassured BN-2 pilots, however, that all fundamental design flaws of the original model had been retained. Further good news is that the XL version is available as a retrofit.

Among the new measures is that of locking the ailerons in the central position, following airborne and simulator tests which showed that whilst pilots of average strength were able to achieve up to 30 degrees of control wheel deflection, this produced no appreciable variation in the net flight of the aircraft. Thus the removal of costly and unnecessary linkages has been possible, and the rudder has been nominated as the primary directional control. In keeping with this new philosophy, but to retain commonality for crews’ transitioning to the XL, additional resistance to foot pressure has been built in to the rudder pedals to prevent over-controlling in gusty conditions (defined as those in which wind velocity exceeds 3 knots).

An outstanding feature of Islander technology has always been the adaptation of the O-540 engine which, when mounted in any other aircraft in the free world (except the Trislander) is known for its low vibration levels. The Islander adaptations cause it to shake and batter the airframe, gradually crystallise the main spar, desynchronise the accompanying engine, and simulate the sound of fifty skeletons fornicating in an aluminium dustbin. PBN will not disclose the technology they applied in preserving this effect in the XL but Mr. Gribble assures us it will be perpetrated in later models and sees it as a strong selling point. "After all, the Concorde makes a lot of noise" he said, "and look how fast that goes."

However design documents clandestinely recovered from the PBN shredder have solved a question that has puzzled aerodynamicists and pilots for many years, disclosing that it is actually noise which causes the BN2 to fly. The vibration set up by the engines, and amplified by the airframe, in turn causes the air molecules above the wing to oscillate at atomic frequency, reducing their density and creating lift. This can be demonstrated by sudden closure of the throttles, which causes the aircraft to fall from the sky. As a result, lift is proportional to noise, rather than speed, explaining amongst other things the aircraft's remarkable takeoff performance.

In the driver's cab (as Gribble describes it) ergonomic measures will ensure that long-term PBN pilots' deafness does not cause in-flight dozing. Orthopaedic surgeons have designed a cockpit layout and seat to maximise backache, en-route insomnia, chronic irritability, and terminal (post-flight) lethargy. Redesigned "bullworker" elastic aileron cables, now disconnected from the control surfaces, increase pilot workload and fitness. Special noise retention cabin lining is an innovation on the XL, and it is hoped in later models to develop cabin noise to a level which will enable pilots to relate ear-pain directly to engine power, eliminating the need for engine instruments altogether.

We were offered an opportunity to fly the XL at Britten-Norman's development facility, adjacent to the British Rail tearooms at Little Chortling. (The flight was originally to have been conducted at the Pilatus plant but aircraft of BN design are now prohibited from operating in Swiss airspace during avalanche season). For our mission profile, the XL was loaded with coal for a standard 100 N.M. trip with British Rail reserves, carrying one pilot and nine passengers to maximise discomfort. Passenger loading is unchanged, the normal under-wing protrusions inflicting serious lacerations on 71% of boarding passengers, and there was the usual confusion in selecting a door appropriate to the allocated seat. The facility for the clothing of embarking passengers to remove oil slicks from engine cowls during loading has been thoughtfully retained.

Start-up is standard, and taxiing, as in the BN2 is accomplished by brute force. Takeoff calculations called for a 250-decibel power setting, and the rotation force for the (neutral) C of G was calculated at 180 ft/lbs. of backpressure.

Initial warning of an engine failure during takeoff is provided by a reduction in vibration of the flight instrument panel. Complete seizure of one engine is indicated by the momentary illusion that the engines have suddenly and inexplicably become synchronised. Otherwise, identification of the failed engine is achieved by comparing the vibration levels of the windows on either side of the cabin. (Relative passenger pallor has been found to be an unreliable guide on many BN2 routes because of ethnic consideration).

Shortly after takeoff the XL's chief test pilot, Capt. Mike "Muscles" Mulligan demonstrated the extent to which modern aeronautical design has left the BN2 untouched; he simulated pilot incapacitation by slumping forward onto the control column, simultaneously applying full right rudder and bleeding from the ears. The XL, like its predecessor, demonstrated total control rigidity and continued undisturbed. Power was then reduced to 249 decibels for cruise, and we carried out some comparisons of actual flight performance with graph predictions. At 5000 ft and ISA, we achieved a vibration amplitude of 500 CPS and 240 decibels, for a fuel flow of 210 lb/hr, making the BN2-XL the most efficient converter of fuel to noise after the Titan rocket.

Exploring the Constant noise/Variable noise concepts, we found that in a VNE dive, vibration reached its design maximum at 1000 CPS, at which point the limiting factor is the emulsification of human tissue. The catatonic condition of long-term BN2 pilots is attributed to this syndrome, which commences in the cerebral cortex and spreads outwards. We asked Capt. Mulligan what he considered the outstanding features of the XL. He cupped his hand behind his ear and shouted "Whazzat?"

We returned to Britten-Norman convinced that the XL model retains the marque's most memorable features, whilst showing some significant and worthwhile regressions.
PBN are not, however, resting on their laurels. Plans are already advanced for the Trislander XL and noise tunnel testing has commenced. The basis of preliminary design and performance specifications is that lift increases as the square of the noise, and as the principle of acoustic lift is further developed, a later five-engined vertical take-off model is also a possibility."

All in all, a wonderful aeroplane.

[stu]

I was sitting at the holding point for runway 21 at North Shore today waiting my turn to line up and watching this aircraft (G-RHOP) turn onto final and land.

I'm still trying to decide if it's just plain ugly or so ugly it's cool. My wife was waiting for me at the Aero Club and when I returned, asked what the "ugly thing that looked like a Bic pen was" ;D

Cheers,
Stu.

[FlyingKiwi]

I'm of the opinion that they fall into the "so ugly it's cool" category. I see them quite often over the Gulf, and despite the extra engines they never seem to be moving any faster than my 172...

Leo P.

[FlyNavy]

flyernzl, Press release is wonderful. Thanks for the guffaws. ;D

[b10m]

Me as well. I've seen it before but it is still funny,

[sniff]

I just want to know what happens to the back engine if you:

a. Have a heavy landing.
b. Run into something.
c. Heavy turbulence.
d. any other scary scenario you can think of!

It just seems like a dumb place to hang an engine!

[Bruce]

what happens if you want to change the oil?
Yup, its odd alright....
BTW there is actually a little mirror on the outside of the pilots door pillar - looks just like someone flogged it off an Austin Allegro - so that the pilot can tell if the rear engine is going or not....

[sniff]

I like the comparison with an Allegro!
All name, no style and performance!

[flyjoe180]

DC10's and Tristars had tail mounted engines. Would they not have had the same problems, despite being a larger scale?