Vanguard 'Figures'

[Ralphc]

Hi ....
Was looking to get a bit more info re: the excellent Vanguard. Read the comprehensive manual kindly provided by Fraser. I wanted to know what the correct climb rate is ( I was struggling with this leg ) of the flight. Anyway, found a good article in 'Flight international' (20-26 Nov 1996) It was an account of a 'real cargo flight' to Brussels: The figures outlined are:

Climb Rate: 1,800 fpm
Speed: 230 Knts
RPM: 12,500
TGT: 600c

I realise (I think) that these figures are subject to weight limitations....The Q is: are these roughly correct? The article also outlined the descent, approach and landing too. Really intersting to read. Can't understand that the Vanguard didn't seem to 'sell' that well.
Best Wishes
Ralphc
P.S. Got the link if anyone's interested...not sure if I can post it here

[DaveB]

Hi Ralph

The magazine has obviously got those figures from the crew so you can certainly use them as a reference but with the usual caveats.. not all of those figures would have happened at the same time 1996 would have been just prior to the Vanguard going out of service and so without seeing the article, that flight is probably from EMIDS to BRUS in the colours of Hunting Cargo. Brussels was a regular run and the schedules for that flight are still onboard APEP at Brooklands 12500LPRPM is the normal climb/cruise setting for the Vanguard and 230kts would be dependant on weight and altitude. 1800fpm climb rate isn't outrageous for initial/early climb and off the top of my head.. 600C for TGT sounds ok

Are you saying that the model doesn't quite conform to them Ralph?

The Vanguard didn't sell well for a number of reasons mate. There was nothing intrinsically wrong with the aircraft or design. It did everything it was designed to do being bigger, faster, travelling higher and further than it's predecessor, the Viscount. Unfortunately, it came into service bang on the time airlines were looking at jets and this as much as anything else was the cause for it's lack of success. BEA, the launch customer didn't believe jets would be as big as they became (in physical size as much as anything) and was looking for an aircraft of sufficient size to transport large numbers of pax. Even so, when the Vanguard went into service in '61, BEA also put the Comet 4B into service. A year later, the VC10 first flew and a year after that, the One-Eleven so you can see, the Vanguard had an uphill battle almost from the word go. Come the mid 60's BEA ended up with a fleet of aircraft nobody wanted to fly on.. the 'jet set' had been born. That said, it did sterling work as a cargo aircraft and in certain circumstances, was better than the jet cargo aircraft of the day.. where noise was important, a Vanguard could operate where a jet could not

ATB
DaveB

[Garry Russell]

One of the biggest problems was the thought process of the day.

BEA were talking to Vickers about a replacement for the Viscount even before the Viscount entered full service

The result was that Vickers designed it for BEA's needs for when BEA needed it, with TCA joining in on shaping the design

Perhaps if they could have got it out a bit earlier it might have helped but a large reliable engine was not around then and when the Vanguard did finally make it the Tynes let it down badly just at the wrong moment.

A few other airlines were keen but lack of finance or politics got in the way.

It might have helped if a combi version was offered, but so easy to say that now.

It was a very capable machine, allowed fares to be cut and it has been said that nothing could ever lift the loads it did form places like the CI at such a low cost. It was also very fast with block times similar to the 146 or even faster.

[Ralphc]

Hi Dave & Gary...

Firstly, thanks for the interesting and comprehensive replies Really informative...suspected that the aircraft was introduced at the wrong time. As for the "Politics" Gary...the Trident springs to mind on that one...just think how well the B727 sold

I Got the article from a the 1996 edition and it was from the crew....or the Reporter sitting in the 'Jump Seat' observing. In terms of performance. I actually tried it. Put 40% fuel on-board and used the default payload and the 951/953 from Fraser et al

Are you saying that the model doesn't quite conform to them Ralph?

On the contrary Dave ...it performed brilliantly. As I'd expect from the AC here ..however, didn't quite push it to 1,800fpm. I was using the TCA version on a flight (CYUL-CYOW) Really smooth flight. I do like this AC... in particular the ILS approaches....don't have a problem with them at all. (which is more than I can say for other AC!

Thanks again for your time in replying.
Ralph

[DaveB]

Thanks for that Ralph.. I'm glad you found it close

1800fpm all the way up is a lot to ask for any aircraft of the day but for sure, this is far from impossible early in the climb. I have to go at that rate low down on VA flights until it settles down and gains more altitude to stop busting 250kts below FL100

Pleased you're enjoying the old girl
ATB
DaveB

[Dev One]

My one & only flight in a Vanguard in the early 60's was a disappointment having worked on them at Weybridge!
I was up front in the rear facing seats & the high frequency vibration from the overlapping props was horrendous & all the fittings & screws jingled as well!
Not only that the tail corkscrewed quite badly, so the rear passengers could have had quite a bad ride!
Keith

[Garry Russell]

I read once that when they were testing the Vanguard and getting engine failures an inboard was shut down

When a crew member went aft he was surprised that the vibration was much more reduced that he would have expected.

So after a discussion they shut the other inboard was shut down and the vibration was virtually gone.

It then went on the say they realised then the wash was coming off the inboard props at just the right frequency to cayuse the most vibration the drumming all the way along the fuse.

It concluded that to eliminate it they would have to shift the engines and therefore redesigning the wing and undercarriage and make changes to the rear fuse and it was decided the changes were too big to be made and with agreement of both BEA and TCA it was left.

I only read that in on source so can't verify

One thing I have seen mentioned more than once was the vibration moving along the fuse with each strip lamp flickering off momentary in turn on the Invicta Vanguards.

What ever the reality it did get known as the Vickers Vibrator.

I wonder if the Orion version would have been better...on that score

The other aircraft designed to take the Orion but fitted with Tynes, the CL-44, suffered such bad vibration on it's first flight the instruments were at times difficult to read and an engine became loose

[Dev One]

Question, was the vibration as bad on the prototype I wonder - I think it had smaller props & less powerful engines.
I also believe that the Tynes gave problems too on the Rotodyne due to bad positioning of the engine mounts!
Keith

[Garry Russell]

The Rototdyne had Ellands, the larger production aircraft were to be Tyne powered but none were built.

Thre can be marked differencesfrom prototypes. The increase in power of the Dart caused Vickers to move the engines 18 inches outboard on the Viscount to try and get back the smoothness of the prototype but none were ever quite as good as the original. In the Vanguards case though the proptotype was pretty well the same as a V.951 with none of the size differences often found between protoypes and production models in previous types.

I don't read about pilots complaining about Vanguard vibration to any great extent, but if is was prop wash the problem would from the discs line rewards.

The vibration probably was not too bad when compared to piston aircraft and perhaps that helped make it acceptable to Vickers and the airlines,but when it was ready for service the comparisons were being made with jets that were starting to become more widespread in use and as such moved the goal posts.

Another example of shifting goalposts was the BAC One-Eleven which was not fitted with noise suppressors because the engines were not considered noisy compared to the contemporary turbo jets. A high degree of noise was accepted as the norm.

So perhaps a high degree of vibration was accepted at the time, but once in service opinions had moved on.

The Vanguard had a hard enough battle just because it had propellers and the vibration issue just gave ammo to the anti-prop brigade.

[DaveB]

From experience on the ground only, it's fair to say that the Vanguard 'moves around a bit' up to/at high ground beta. Sadly, I've no experience of actually flying in one I don't think the vibration was considered excessive though for sure, it was more than RR/Vickers had anticipated. Prop Sync proved ineffective and unreliable and was eventually disabled by BEA in service. I think one of the major disappointments was with noise.. the Vanguard cabin never enjoyed the same degree of quietness as the Viscount but again, it would have been par for the course.. better than some but not as good as others including jets.

This said, we've had and continue to have many guests on Superb at Brooklands who recall fond memories of flying in Vanguards. Pilots too generally enjoyed flying it.. the major bugbear I've heard being the monotony of the destinations it ran, especially from the mid/late 60's on when some of it's more exotic (for want of a better word) routes were being given to jets. How boring it must be going to work knowing you're doing the LHR-EDI/GLA/ALD shuttle and not flying to Munich or Venice or Nice!!

ATB
DaveB