Pepe Rezende

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 3, 2006
Messages
96
Reaction score
4
Does anyone have a three view? There was one but the site, now, disapeared. I also need info about the butterfly tail version.

Thanks

Pepe
 

borovik

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
793
Reaction score
173
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2298.0/
and 2views from "Bristol Aircraft since1910"/Putnam
 

Attachments

  • Bristol project 100-ton bomber.jpg
    Bristol project 100-ton bomber.jpg
    61.8 KB · Views: 1,596

Antonio

Moderator
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,656
Reaction score
535
The Butterfly design looks more modern, probably was designed later than the conventional tail layout.
 

Antonio

Moderator
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,656
Reaction score
535
A Brabazon ancestor??

Yes, that's right.

Source: Giants of the Sky. Bill Gunston. PSL. Pg 212

In 1942, with USAAC handling the day bombing campaign against Germany, the Bristol Buckingham became redundant.
(the Mosquito also contributed [http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/bristol_buckingham.php])

This left a hole in the Bristol design office and, at the Ministry, they asked if Bristol would like a design study contract for a bomber to carry 80,000 lb to Berlin. (a B-36-class bomber). No type number was raed. This was at first a free exercice but later, 8xBristol radials buried in the wings made the wing very deep, and upper and lower four cannon turrets made the fuselage portly. The butterfly tail, November 1942 design was 225 ft span and 5,000 sq ft area. Rotol contra-rotating 6-blade propeller was 16 ft in diameter. The aircraft would have been unpressurized and defensive armament would have comprised 12x 20 mm cannon.

In 1946, a Bristol advertisement (I think hesham found it and it's here in the forum) appeared showing a direct civil version of the "100 ton bomber". Finally, although a different configuration was selected for Type Number 167 Brabazon, it retained technical solutions developed in the bomber design work.
 

Pepe Rezende

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 3, 2006
Messages
96
Reaction score
4
That's exactly what I was looking for. I download both but I lost them at a computer crash...
 

mz

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
676
Reaction score
20
I guess the pusher engines caused the engine mass to be far aft, and to balance the center of gravity, the fuselage was pushed forward. This caused there to be lots of area in front of the wings and little behind, meaning bad directional stability and a short tail arm, so the tail had to be humongous.

Compare to the more conventional (though a lot smaller) Vickers Windsor:

http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/england/vickers_windsor.gif
 

lark

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Messages
1,811
Reaction score
122
See also Maveric's reply #6 in the Bristol designations thread...
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,081
Reaction score
4,272
Hi!
http://www.airvectors.net/avbrtn.html

"The Brabazon was derived from proposals for a "100 Ton Bomber" submitted to the Air Ministry in early 1943 from Bristol and other British aircraft companies. The requirement was for a very heavy long-range bomber, comparable to the American Convair B-36 of the immediate postwar period. The Bristol submission for the 100 Ton Bomber featured four pusher contra-rotating propellers, each driven by twin 18-cylinder air-cooled 18-cylinder two-row Bristol Centaurus radials. In early concepts, the aircraft featured top, bottom, and tail turrets, each with four 20-millimeter cannon, and an internal bomb-bay; defensive armament was later dropped, altitude being used for defense"

Maveric-san's post is more large and clean.
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2298.0;attach=19148;image

Bristol Centaurus sleeve valve engine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Centaurus
 

Attachments

  • avbrtn_02.jpg
    avbrtn_02.jpg
    101.1 KB · Views: 646
  • Bristol Centaurus.JPG
    Bristol Centaurus.JPG
    95.8 KB · Views: 535
  • Bristol Centaurus pic2.jpg
    Bristol Centaurus pic2.jpg
    103.4 KB · Views: 539

airman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
1,301
Reaction score
153
Website
zeef.com
http://www.aviationarchive.org.uk/stories/pages.php?enum=GE121&pnum=4&maxp=9

and

http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/index.php?page=Thread&threadID=9779

Bristol B.1/42

I have seen on Bristol Designations that exist a Bristol Type 168 or a bomber version of Bristol Type 167 : is it connected with specific Bristol B.1/42 ?
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,081
Reaction score
4,272
Thanks a lot. Amazing design!! :eek:
 

Sherman Tank

I don't want to change my personal text
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
208
Reaction score
130
airman said:
http://www.aviationarchive.org.uk/stories/pages.php?enum=GE121&pnum=4&maxp=9

and

http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/index.php?page=Thread&threadID=9779

Bristol B.1/42

I have seen on Bristol Designations that exist a Bristol Type 168 or a bomber version of Bristol Type 167 : is it connected with specific Bristol B.1/42 ?

WesWorld is some guy's weird Alt-History thing, so anything pulled from there is probably fictional.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,688
Reaction score
3,240
As the author of that Wesworld entry I can safely say that its based on the real-world Giant Bomber designs as outlined in BSP Vol.3, but I've made some AU tweaks.

As I've said before in another thread, Wesworld is an AU so nothing there should be considered gospel even if the members there have used real world designs as a basis.
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,081
Reaction score
4,272
Hi!
http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/71176-what-is-your-favourite-concept-aircraft/

"the Bristol 100 Tonne Bomber designed in 1942, powered by 8 Bristol Centaurus engines driving pusher contra rotating props. Its wing span would have been 225 feet and 213 foot 6 inches nose to tail. The max fuel load would have been 48,800 lbs. Pretty epic for 1942."
 

Attachments

  • post-26298-0-61774500-1375443163.jpg
    post-26298-0-61774500-1375443163.jpg
    199.2 KB · Views: 394

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,081
Reaction score
4,272
There is a surprising and beautiful three side view drawing for following 100 ton bomber in the great Tony Buttler-san's BRITISH SECRET PROJECTS FIGHTERS & BOMBERS 1935-1950(Page 124).
 

Attachments

  • 51XVNTRJ8DL__SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
    51XVNTRJ8DL__SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
    25.9 KB · Views: 180
Last edited by a moderator:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,081
Reaction score
4,272
Hi!
http://theworldatwar70879.yuku.com/topic/835/RAF-Might-Have-Beens#.WcnzX7kUnIU
 

Attachments

  • Bristol_Brabazon_and_100_ton_bomber.jpg
    Bristol_Brabazon_and_100_ton_bomber.jpg
    33.7 KB · Views: 283

shock1

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
1
Reaction score
5
(forgive if posting in the wrong area/topic ) looking for identification help on this 4 engine aircraft . Possibly a Boeing , Martin ? or Convair 1950's era ?
Any assistance would be most helpful . dwg 2 ac r.jpg dwg 1 ac r.jpg
 
Last edited:

Jemiba

Moderator
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,361
Reaction score
1,599
Welcome shock !
The answer to your question should be here, it was some years earlier !
 

Similar threads

Top