Background and original specification In 1953, as
British European Airways (BEA) introduced the world's first
turboprop-powered civil airliner – the
Vickers Viscount – into passenger service, the operator was already considering what would be required of a potential successor. Following the entry into service of jet airliners in 1952, many airline managers and economists remained sceptical, and advocated turboprop airliners as replacements of piston-engined airliners. In 1953, while several manufacturers across the world were investing in pure jet-powered aircraft, BEA chose to favour turboprops on the basis of their superior economics and produced a specification that called for an aircraft capable of seating 100 passengers and attaining a maximum speed of . As a result of the BEA specification, Vickers developed an enlarged derivative of the Viscount for BEA, the
Vickers Vanguard, which was ordered by the airline on 20 July 1956. By this point, however, the French-built
Sud Aviation Caravelle had conducted its
maiden flight during the previous year, and BEA was beginning to recognise that jet aircraft could soon be providing stiff competition. In April 1956, Anthony Milward, chief executive of BEA, stated that he "would rather do without [jet airliners]". Nevertheless, in December of that same year
Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, BEA's chairman, stated that a number of jet-powered short haul aircraft might need to be introduced while retaining turboprop aircraft as the mainstay of the company's inventory for the foreseeable future. According to aviation author Derek Woods, BEA "wanted something that was faster than the Caravelle which was threatening to be highly competitive". While they were not intended as an express requirement, commentators ever since have taken these figures to constitute a definite call to industry. By August 1957, the DH.121 proposal had been revised; differences included the adoption of the in-development
turbofan, the
Rolls-Royce Medway, and an expansion to accommodate a maximum of 98 passengers. The design initially included a
cruciform tail layout similar to that of the Caravelle. beneath the flight deck From the outset, the DH.121 was planned to employ
avionics that were very advanced for the period. Among other capabilities, they would offer automatic approach and landing within a few years of service entry. The avionics were also to have triplicated components for reliability and to allow "majority 2:1 voting" for aircraft guidance during automatic approach and landing. The physical dimensions of most avionics of the period required them to be housed in a large compartment beneath the Trident's flight deck; the compartment's size was among the factors dictating a distinctive nose
undercarriage design, with the nose landing gear offset by to the port side and retracting sideways to stow across the DH.121's longitudinal axis.
Industry consolidation and selection BEA soon selected the DH.121 as the basis for detailed negotiations, but these talks were protracted due to multiple factors, including wider policy decisions of the British government and indecision within BEA itself. Companies vigorously competed to be selected by BEA due to the lure of its £30 million contract (), as well as the likelihood of lucrative overseas export sales. On 4 February 1958, de Havilland, along with Hunting and Fairey, announced that they had agreed to form a partnership for the purpose of manufacturing and marketing the DH.121; the consortium adopted the corporate name of the defunct
Airco company, which had been
Geoffrey de Havilland's employer during the
First World War. Boeing had begun its studies into this sector of the market in 1956, and elected to launch its own trijet programme in 1959. Airco executives, who were at the time intensely exploring various alternatives and further partnerships with other aircraft companies, considered the possibility that Boeing might choose to drop the 727 project and instead co-manufacture the DH.121 in the USA; Lord Douglas was one of the proponents of this initiative. Woods remarked that "de Havilland solemnly handed all its research over to its rivals ... the crowning piece of stupidity". A further six months were needed for the government to approve a formal BEA order for the DH.121; the government had favoured the Bristol 200 for industrial policy reasons. Reportedly, BEA had a considerable interest in the Caravelle itself, but this would have been a politically unacceptable choice. BEA also favoured , and therefore the Trident submission, due to the firm's established experience with jet airliners with its prior development of the Comet. According to Woods, this enlarged version of the DH.121 was "on the verge of building the right aeroplane for the market and the success of the Viscount looked like being repeated". The airline's concerns reflected three factors - a short-lived airline recession in the late 1950s; the imminent arrival into service of a large fleet of turboprop
Vickers Vanguards, which duplicated the DH.121's general payload-range area; and the growing trend to higher-density seating. Although de Havilland stated that they generally concurred with BEA, its management also stated that they had worked "under terms more onerous than anything D.H. had previously undertaken". Industry observers at the time felt that the British aircraft industry had again stumbled "into the pitfall of having designed exclusively for one customer an aeroplane that has potentially a much wider scope": Downsizing the Trident involved substantial changes to the design being made, including a powerplant change from the Medway to a scaled-down derivative, the 40% less powerful 9,850 lbf (43.8 kN)
Rolls-Royce Spey 505. Woods summarised the BEA-mandated redesign as: "At one blow the 121 was emasculated in terms of size, power and range". It was this revised aircraft that BEA ultimately ordered on 24 August 1959, initially in 24 examples with 12 options. In September 1960, the future airliner's name, Trident, was announced at the
Farnborough Airshow; this name had been chosen as a reflection of its then-unique three-jet, triple-
hydraulic configuration.
Further development and proposals By 1960, de Havilland had been acquired by the Hawker Siddeley group. After the de Havilland takeover, Airco was disbanded. Hunting was marshalled into the competing newly formed
British Aircraft Corporation (BAC); their departure removed any putative possibility of the Hunting 107 (later the
BAC One-Eleven) being marketed alongside the DH.121 as a complementary, smaller member of the same airliner family. Fairey Aviation, partially incorporated into
Westland Aircraft, also left the DH.121 project. With the move to Hawker Siddeley Aviation, the designation was eventually revised to the HS 121. The reorganisation of the industry had compounded upon the delays caused by BEA's changes to the specification, which had in turn harmed the Trident's competitiveness against the Boeing 727. The rival Boeing 727 had quickly established a lead over the Trident. The 727's early lead only strengthened it in subsequent competitions; one such example is
Trans Australia Airlines, which had determined the Trident to be superior to the Boeing 727 from an operational standpoint, but it was also viewed as having been commercially risky to choose a different fleet from rival airlines such as
Ansett Australia, which had already selected the 727. In 1972, its unit cost was US$7.8M. By 1975, only 117 Tridents had been sold against over 1,000 727s. According to Woods, a significant opportunity that may have enabled the Trident to catch up with the 727 was lost during the 1960s in the form of two competitions for a
maritime patrol aircraft; a
NATO design competition to replace the
Lockheed P-2 Neptune, and
Air Staff Requirement 381, which sought a replacement for the
Royal Air Force's piston-engined
Avro Shackleton. In addition to the maritime patrol requirement, Avro envisioned that the aircraft could be used in various military roles, including as a 103-seat troop transport and as being armed with up to four
GAM-87 Skybolt air-launched ballistic missiles as a
nuclear-armed bomber. In addition to Avro's proposals,
Armstrong Whitworth had also proposed their own military variants of the Trident.
Rolls-Royce Limited, having shelved development of the Medway following the Trident's redesign, was keen to develop an engine to slot between the 10,000 lb Spey engine and the 20,000 lb
Rolls-Royce Conway engine; if such an engine had been produced, it could have equipped new versions of the civil Trident, as well. Furnished with a more capable engine that could provide more thrust than the Spey could, an extended fuselage could also have been adopted and existing landing restrictions could have been discarded; overall, the Trident would have been a far closer match to the 727. Wood summarised the importance of this prospective development as: "For the Trident programme, the RB.177 would have been a God-send". At one point, the Avro 776 looked set to win the competition to be selected as the RAF's new maritime patrol aircraft. Due to a desire to cut costs, though, the RAF decided to issue an entirely new operational requirement, under which the demands for speed, endurance, and capacity had all been diminished. As a result of the changes, the design team was recalled and the Avro 776 was entirely sidelined for a new proposal. ==Design==