• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Bristol Brabazon

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,679
Reaction score
3,466
Hi,

the early concept for Bristol Brabazon in Flightglobal
shows it with pusher propellers and V-tail.
http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1949/1949%20-%201647.html?search=aircraft%201949
 

Attachments

  • Brabazon V-tail.JPG
    Brabazon V-tail.JPG
    14.5 KB · Views: 1,896

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,374
Reaction score
2,540
Hi!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxhbMZbh_O0
 

Schneiderman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,440
Reaction score
477
The early evolution of the Type 167 Brabazon design can be tracked from Bristol's advertisements.
1) The initial design, shown in the advert from July 1943 appears to be a simple civil derivative of the high-wing '100 ton' bomber project with a butterfly tail. Bristol were given the go-ahead to proceed with design around this time.
2) By March 1944 the adverts show a larger aircraft with low wing and butterfly tail
3) In October 1944 a new design is shown. The engines are now installed as tractors and there is a conventional tail. This is recognisable as the definitive Brabazon.
4) However from October through to December this design alternates in the adverts with the earlier pusher/butterfly version
 

Attachments

  • 167 July 43.jpg
    167 July 43.jpg
    41.9 KB · Views: 1,356
  • 167 Mar 44.jpg
    167 Mar 44.jpg
    65.5 KB · Views: 1,269
  • 167 Oct 44.jpg
    167 Oct 44.jpg
    38.1 KB · Views: 1,220
  • 167 Oct 44_2.jpg
    167 Oct 44_2.jpg
    36.9 KB · Views: 1,189
  • 167 Dec 44.jpg
    167 Dec 44.jpg
    42.7 KB · Views: 125

Schneiderman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,440
Reaction score
477
Front and rear cover of Aeroplane 7th January 1944
 

Attachments

  • 1944_1_7.jpg
    1944_1_7.jpg
    424.5 KB · Views: 231

taildragger

You can count on me - I won a contest
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
309
Reaction score
179
I've always wondered about the prototype's nose & windscreen configuration. It's one of the oddest looking features of the aircraft and was abandoned for a more conventional layout on the planned Mk. II. Does anyone have any insights into the reason for the prototypes's nose configuration?
 

Johnbr

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
749
Reaction score
153
;)
 

Attachments

  • Bristol Brabazon under construction.jpg
    Bristol Brabazon under construction.jpg
    523.5 KB · Views: 212
  • Mock up of the Bristol Brabazon.jpg
    Mock up of the Bristol Brabazon.jpg
    508.8 KB · Views: 213

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,679
Reaction score
3,466
Hi,

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1946/1946%20-%200197.html
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    656.7 KB · Views: 161

Schneiderman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,440
Reaction score
477
Interesting. Probably just a piece of conceptual artwork as it combines the pusher engines of Bristol's early thoughts for the Brabazon project and the tail of the final version. Curious arrangement of windows suggests two decks, but why the extra (3rd) set in the hold? As I say, probably just conceptual artwork for the advertisement and not part of Bristol's evolution of the Brabazon.
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,374
Reaction score
2,540
Hi!

http://www.bocheritagetrust.com/before-the-cars/

https://alchetron.com/Bristol-Brabazon-1976095-W

https://www.flickr.com/photos/x-ray_delta_one/5560408654

https://sobchak.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/cutaway-bristol-brabazon-i/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6psEAOaJeQ
 

Attachments

  • 20111104180235.jpg
    20111104180235.jpg
    444 KB · Views: 199
  • d5831207a.jpg
    d5831207a.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 224
  • 5560408654_8fdca57e4b_b.jpg
    5560408654_8fdca57e4b_b.jpg
    387.5 KB · Views: 224
  • bristonbrabazon1.gif
    bristonbrabazon1.gif
    779.1 KB · Views: 241

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,679
Reaction score
3,466
From Decollage 9/1946.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    567.4 KB · Views: 124
  • 2.png
    2.png
    746 KB · Views: 118
  • 3.png
    3.png
    771 KB · Views: 118

kitnut617

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
374
Reaction score
91
Some years ago I bought this book below, I don't see any mention of it in this thread. Loads of photos of it being built, the Mk.2 too. Plus some history which lead up to it and then some history of what happened after it was cancelled. A bit of the book has history of Filton too.
 

Attachments

  • Brabazon Book (3).JPG
    Brabazon Book (3).JPG
    133.6 KB · Views: 101
  • Brabazon Book (2).JPG
    Brabazon Book (2).JPG
    135.8 KB · Views: 108
  • Brabazon Book (1).JPG
    Brabazon Book (1).JPG
    151.5 KB · Views: 132

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,679
Reaction score
3,466
From Letectvi 4/1948.
 

Attachments

  • 1  4-1948.png
    1 4-1948.png
    204.5 KB · Views: 112

alertken

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
598
Reaction score
167
#4 #18. There are similar conceptual ads, 1944/45 for Saro's (to be) Princess Transatlantic boat. Why? Then, as now, firms' spend on marketing is excluded from recovery across Ministry cost-plus contract prices, so this spend comes straight off bottom line profit. Why bother? Who in 1944 was inspired to place a deposit to secure a delivery position?

So: ?propaganda? "Look here, Axis, we are so confident of Victory that we can doodle this stuff". "Look here, USA, when this unpleasantness is over we will be coming for you, C-54, C-69 &tc, with these splendid competitors". #18, 7/43, was whistling in the dark: Churchill said 12/42's halting of the thrusts, Alamein and Stalingrad, onto ME oil, was "not the beginning of the end, but maybe the end of the beginning", but when this ad was drawn we were still in dire straits in the Battles of the Atlantic and Arctic.
Or disinformation for the enemies? "If you think the current Heavy Bomber Offensives are bad, just think what's onway disguised behind these high payload civil schemes".

Bristol, and others had presented 100ton Bomber schemes, 10/42, just as Stafford Cripps was sent to the Ministry of Aircraft Production to break the delays in delivering Stirling/Halifax/Lancaster Heavies. He Nationalised Shorts, 23/3/43 and displaced them, with AWA, in management of Stirling production (outside Belfast); other firms were displaced from their own Works by his imposition of Authorised Controllers, to get product out the door. Cripps was in no mood to divert firms with distant pipe dreams, so chopped the 100ton Bomber.

But Bristol's Experimental Dept. was merely messing with feeble also-rans to Mosquito and he was a Bristol MP. He obtained Cabinet Approval to fund 11/3/43 Study of Brabazon Committee's 9/2/43 Type I, using their butterfly 100ton as baseline. Bristol's ignorance of large, pressurised structure was a positive advantage because proper firms, dilatory on Heavies, could not be spared. This ad was a way of telling Avro/HP/Short/Vickers to get their houses in order if you, too, would like such work in Peace.
 
Last edited:

taildragger

You can count on me - I won a contest
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
309
Reaction score
179
It's corporate brand building. Bristol had no interest in "telling Avro/HP/Short/Vickers to get their houses in order", it had an interest in broadcasting to the world what an industry leader it was. Boeing does lots of advertising today, including on TV, but not because they're counting on it being seen by an airline fleet management executive who thinks "Say, perhaps I should consider purchasing some of those fine-looking products - how is that spelled again, B-o-i-n-g?" And not as a way of warning Airbus to straighten up.
A strong brand is of great value to any business. It makes it easier to recruit talent, raise money, get along with regulators and sell product.
 

Schneiderman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,440
Reaction score
477
It's corporate brand building. ….
Pretty much, yes. Aircraft magazines of the period (and after) were full of similar civil project adverts by the major and some minor players. Blackburn got their Clydesman 'boat on the cover of Flight several times in '44 and '45 and there was never any real prospect of building it, just branding.
Lots of period adverts to scroll through here
 

RLBH

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
321
Reaction score
150
It's corporate brand building. Bristol had no interest in "telling Avro/HP/Short/Vickers to get their houses in order", it had an interest in broadcasting to the world what an industry leader it was. Boeing does lots of advertising today, including on TV, but not because they're counting on it being seen by an airline fleet management executive who thinks "Say, perhaps I should consider purchasing some of those fine-looking products - how is that spelled again, B-o-i-n-g?" And not as a way of warning Airbus to straighten up.
A strong brand is of great value to any business. It makes it easier to recruit talent, raise money, get along with regulators and sell product.
And of course because they want to be seen by the engineering student, or midranking sales executive, as a good place to go and work. A campaign saying 'Work for us, we need test records filled out in triplicate by Thursday morning!' doesn't really achieve that. One saying 'Look at all this cutting edge stuff we do!' does.
 

alertken

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
598
Reaction score
167
Yes, td, but DORA was not then an Explorer: (8/8/1914: Defence of the Realm Act.) 24/8/39: Emergency Powers (Defence) Act gave the Ministry of Labour Powers to direct all labour. If you failed your military medical you could be assigned to non-uniform work, as the Tribunal saw fit. The mines, if they chose, or off to Bristol to design 100 ton Bombers: you did what you were told. And if you were granted Reserved Occupation status, you could not respond to a brand-puff and ask nicely to be sent to Bristol. They might send you to Twatt.

Maybe these pointless, expensive ads. were for domestic morale-boosting: "I know you are being bombed some nights, but soon you will be able to fly on these magnificents, off to Hollywood." But in 1944 Pres./United A/L testified to Congress that “23 a/c would be able to carry all the N.Atlantic traffic in 1955 ” R.E.G.Davies,Airlines of US,Put,72,P.365.
 

taildragger

You can count on me - I won a contest
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
309
Reaction score
179
Corporate brand building is a long-term enterprise. The strongest brands in the world (CocaCola, Apple, Boeing, Nike, Sony, Honda, even Amazon, etc.) have decades of history and advertising behind them.
This ad is clearly focused on the postwar world, where the Emergency Powers (Defense) Act could be assumed to be a thing of the past. By 1944, an Allied victory was inevitable and widely recognized as such and airframers' managers were all looking beyond the war, which was their proper role. If management wanted the "Bristol" brand to have value in 1950, advertising in 1944 was essential.
Commercial firms shouldn't and generally don't expend shareholder resources on public goods such as "domestic morale-boosting", they should and generally do seek a return on the shareholders investment. This breaks down a little during wartime but, again, the ad is focused on the postwar world. If this ad were motivated by anything but corporate brand building it wouldn't feature a hypothetical airplane (unavailable for purchase) or the corporate logo.
 

Schneiderman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,440
Reaction score
477
Emergency Powers (Defence) Act gave the Ministry of Labour Powers to direct all labour. …..you could be assigned to non-uniform work, as the Tribunal saw fit.....you did what you were told.
True, in the letter of the law, but not necessarily as stark as you suggest in practice. The government found that they were unable to prevent Bristol firing Fedden, or of Gouge quitting Short when they 'nationalised' it. Even for the lesser fry there was reasonable flexibility, for instance...…….
 

Attachments

  • Folland.jpg
    Folland.jpg
    224.3 KB · Views: 110

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,882
Reaction score
1,175
Emergency Powers (Defence) Act gave the Ministry of Labour Powers to direct all labour. …..you could be assigned to non-uniform work, as the Tribunal saw fit.....you did what you were told.
True, in the letter of the law, but not necessarily as stark as you suggest in practice. The government found that they were unable to prevent Bristol firing Fedden, or of Gouge quitting Short when they 'nationalised' it. Even for the lesser fry there was reasonable flexibility, for instance...…….

From that quote it wasn't just the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act that was flexible, seems like the Careless Talk campaign didn't register either if people were telling people they had just visited an aircraft company to anyone who happened to be standing next to them in the pub!

I don't think we should read too much into advertising, publishing adverts did not stop simply because there was a war on. Many companies and products were still advertised in newspapers and magazines.
 

Michel Van

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
4,647
Reaction score
664

Attachments

  • The-Bristol-Brabazon-The-First-Wide-Bodied-Airliner-2.jpg
    The-Bristol-Brabazon-The-First-Wide-Bodied-Airliner-2.jpg
    168.8 KB · Views: 88
  • IMG_0981.jpg
    IMG_0981.jpg
    271.5 KB · Views: 87
  • IMG_0987.jpg
    IMG_0987.jpg
    790.2 KB · Views: 78
  • IMG_0988.jpg
    IMG_0988.jpg
    837.5 KB · Views: 75
  • IMG_0984.jpg
    IMG_0984.jpg
    684.3 KB · Views: 75
  • IMG_0986.jpg
    IMG_0986.jpg
    708.1 KB · Views: 74
  • IMG_0989.jpg
    IMG_0989.jpg
    735.8 KB · Views: 97

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
26,679
Reaction score
3,466
In The Aviation Historian - 33 magazine,

they spoke about Brabazon Committee,and I hope to continue knowing the all tenders in this
amazing contest in next issues.
 

Schneiderman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,440
Reaction score
477
Also in the November issue of Aeroplane (out now) and the December issue too
 

Wyvern

ACCESS: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
388
Reaction score
333
Was the original Brabazon design a direct descendant of the 100-ton bomber, or was it merely a variation of the type?

Wasn't there also a proposal for a jet powered Brabazon?
 

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
609
Reaction score
97
Looking at the photo's of post #8, I believe it shows the mock up of the Mk II, but it has tractor propeller rather than the pusher of the Mk I, was this the version with Proteus Gas Turbines and was the rearrangement necessary because of the Turboporps.
 

Nik

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
394
Reaction score
21
FWIW, having 'plausible' (*) stuff like that 100 ton bomber-become-airliner appear in UK press must have sent ruddy goose-bumps up the Germans' Intel evaluators' piles...

IIRC, they had a few precious Condors left after eg the HurriCats' mid-Atlantic cull, plus a couple of prototypes of other 4~6 engined aircraft. Yet here were the Brits finding time to design a vast, multi-engined air-fleet...

*) As opposed to the utterly outrageous hyperbole of eg 'Modern Mechanix' and its kin. Though you must wonder how much was 'planted' and/or 'spun' to sow doubt and confusion...
 

royabulgaf

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
482
Reaction score
52
Well, they had to come up with something quick. It's my understanding that the US agreed to supply the RAF all the cargo aircraft they needed through lend-lease, leaving the British aircraft industry free to crank out needed combat aircraft. That means that post-war the airlines would have to make do with such stellar aircraft as the York and Lancastrian, or pay retail for worn out C-47s that the US was selling from its own stocks for pennies on the dollar. Meanwhile, the US was cranking out DC-3s, DC-4s, Constellations, and Commandos for those who wanted and could afford new airliners.
 

EwenS

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
126
Reaction score
181
Also in the November issue of Aeroplane (out now) and the December issue too

These may also interest everyone

 

PMN1

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
740
Reaction score
82
Also in the November issue of Aeroplane (out now) and the December issue too

These may also interest everyone



The first book is very interesting, haven't seen the second.
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
2,631
Reaction score
1,240
The Brabazon like the Princess flying boat harked back to the Imperial.Airways flying boats of the 30s linking the Empire. Even the much later VC10 met a requirement to operate the old imperial routes.
BOAC were obliged to buy Boeing, Douglas and Lockheed planes to compete on the lucrative transatlantic route. The postwar world belonged to the USA.
For any Brit who grew up in this period, cutaway drawings of these planes evoke that era.
 

Attachments

  • DS55m-3WkAAityk.jpg
    DS55m-3WkAAityk.jpg
    104.3 KB · Views: 49
  • Princess-Flying-Boat-Section.jpg
    Princess-Flying-Boat-Section.jpg
    335.3 KB · Views: 50
  • Saunders-Roe-Princess.jpg
    Saunders-Roe-Princess.jpg
    58.4 KB · Views: 47
  • A19900623000cp04.jpg
    A19900623000cp04.jpg
    1.7 MB · Views: 47

kitnut617

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Dec 15, 2006
Messages
374
Reaction score
91
Looking at the photo's of post #8, I believe it shows the mock up of the Mk II, but it has tractor propeller rather than the pusher of the Mk I, was this the version with Proteus Gas Turbines and was the rearrangement necessary because of the Turboporps.

The Bristol Brabazon was always a tractor propeller aircraft, even with the eight Centaurus engines. Those pics in post #8 show the Mk.I. In the book that I have (Brabazon, The World's First Jumbo Airliner by Robert Wall; ISBN 1-900178-47-8) it shows photos that the Mk.II never got to the stage of having the forward part of the wing installed before both aircraft were scrapped.
 

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
609
Reaction score
97
My Bad, I was sure that I had seen a version with pusher propellers, I must have mixed it up with one of the bomber projects.
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,882
Reaction score
1,175
There was early concept art with the pusher propellers in early 1944, as shown in this month's Aeroplane Monthly article by our very own Schneiderman.
 
Top