Bristol Brabazon

If the Axis had known of all the gargantua being developed by the Allies in 1943/44, just as the Bombing Campaigns were disrupting their own output, they might have decided to pack up and go home. Saro Princess did not become metalwork until 1946, but was consuming "draughtsmen's" efforts. T.167 was authorised for prototype construction in 11/44, 57 sleepers or 94 seats. UK did both because we perceived 2 things: Transatlantic has a Blue Riband, luxury market; and "Empire" has a steady business market, tied to the Motherland. Nobody in UK worried in their minds about economy, or competition. Picture the picture-promenades of pre-War flying boats, cruising gently with night stops, all passengers on expenses.

US 1940/41 embarked on Very Heavy Bombers, Very Heavy Transports, which were actually Very Long Range: US enemies were far away. So to reach Japan, Germany, from Alaska, Maine, Big was needed. US made no distinction between Transatlantic and Empire routes: everywhere was far away. So they started B-29, B-32 (deploying both), B-33, B-35, B-36, JRM Mars; and troop/cargo transports: L-89, CV104, C-74, C-97, C-99.

So, what went wrong? Only B-29 and C-97 were significant; B-36 was not deployed until technology had overtaken it. Yes, hostilities ended with benefit of smaller types, but why did so few Giants see production? Because those Wright and Pratt radials, on structure well-pressurised, with invisible, dull, efficient mechanical components ("rotables")...worked fabulously (after some teething!), economically, reliably. DC-6 and L-749 were simply unbeatable.

Biggest Brabazon Committee mistake during its rundown in 1946 was to be less than supportive of Bristol/Lockheed Centaurus/L-849.
 
Was there a proposal to fit a Centaurus to the Constellation?
 
R.Higham,Speedbird,Tauris,2014,P.85; R.Payne,Stuck on the Drawing Board,Tempus,2004,P.33; and Me. I have also seen L-649 and L-849 as for this.

Brabazon Type III had finally been made Definitive 4/46 with Avro 693 (Clyde, 11/46: Avon), but that had to be chopped 7/47 to admit (to be) Vulcan. BOAC's Medium Range Empire was out to Tender 12/46, to which Bristol intended to bid both indigenous T.175 (though alert to BOAC/BSAAC/MoS assertions of overload with parallel work on Centaurus/, then maybe Proteus/T.167 Brabazon), and Lockheed Project X: 5 new L-749 to be re-engined Centaurus by Bristol, then Bristol Project Y to licence-build it, for territories yet to be defined, Commonwealth and maybe more. MCA+BOAC put that to Cabinet, for FOREX sanction, 22/4/47: already much of US 7/46 Reconstruction Loan had gone up in Virginia baccy smoke; Minister of Housing wanted $-timber to rehouse the bombed...and...and...we all wanted $. Cabinet said No. Centaurus/T.175 was chosen 14/7/47 (12/50, all T.175 Britannia: Proteus).

Theseus turboprop had run 18/7/45; HP Hermes V would fly with it 23/8/49 and we now know it was even more canine than early Proteus...but we did not know that, then, and Lockheed would have kicked Bristol to fix it, for a US/UK turboprop Connie, c.1950. This was a profound missed opportunity.

It's no consolation that France did the same. Sud Avn, struggling to resurrect Armagnac, reached agreement in principle with Douglas to licence DC-6. That was killed, 2/48, in the politics of Red Unions in Nationalised Industries. TAI and UAT took DC-6, AF L-749, from California. (H.Chapman,State Capitalism & Working Class Radicalism in the French A/c Industry,U.Cal.P,1991,P282).
 
Last edited:

Attachments

  • b+2.jpg
    b+2.jpg
    395.8 KB · Views: 113
  • Bristol_Brabazon.jpg
    Bristol_Brabazon.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 141
These two big aircraft were the wrong answer to the question for BOAC.
This was the right one...
 

Attachments

  • boac.jpg
    boac.jpg
    60.8 KB · Views: 112
Nowhere near as lovely as Brabazon…that rivals the Super Connie for looks…right up there with the Bear.

Anyone do a computer morph of the three?
 
Opportunistic Minnow said:
Did either BOAC or BEA ever know what the hell they wanted?
Click to expand...
In a word NO!
VC.7, VC.10 - Input from BOAC for what they wanted, granted VC.7 did experience weight escalation issues due to combining civil and military requirements. VC.10 was to BOAC's exacting requirements, but then they continued with their "everything British is no good, everything American is marvellous".
DH.121 (Trident) was for a BEA specification, who then panicked when there was a drop in passenger carryings and insisted that it was made smaller, which resulted in it not being competitive with others in its originally intended class.
I'm sorry, but post-war British companies Management and Boards have made some HORRENDOUS decisions, and the indecisiveness of Governments has not helped either!!
 
Opportunistic Minnow said:
The Brabazon's contemporaries are the XC-99 & the R6O.
Click to expand...
You're exactly right, especially with the XC-99. Exactly the same power and wingspan, very similar weights and ranges. The two make an interesting comparison, with the Model 37 - the civil XC-99 - being a much more conventional airliner than the Brabazon.
 
The Brabazon and Princess would have been ideal for the pre World War 2 Imperial Airways routes to South Aftica, India and Australia.
They both featured as cutaways in the Eagle magazine for boys.
 

Attachments

  • 5c7436eeff3920369c34ed56b3578313.jpg
    5c7436eeff3920369c34ed56b3578313.jpg
    128.2 KB · Views: 87
  • 0db3f8259215135a1bab453b64b635cc--flying-boat-cutaway.jpg
    0db3f8259215135a1bab453b64b635cc--flying-boat-cutaway.jpg
    112.8 KB · Views: 91
In the above Pathe clip;- in wonderful 20:20 hindsight, the commentary is remarkably pessimistic about future prospects for commercial aviation at Barbazon size’s. As it’s turns out It’s weight is approx the same as a Boeing 757, and not too different to an Airbus A321, which seem small and somewhat numerous today.

Ah predicting the future is so difficult.
 
If the Axis had known of all the gargantua being developed by the Allies in 1943/44, just as the Bombing Campaigns were disrupting their own output, they might have decided to pack up and go home.
Click to expand...

18 000 B-24s
14 000 B-17s 32 000 American bombers

6200 Halifax
7600 Lancasters
2400 Stirlings 16000+ British bombers

And some thousands of B-29s.

That's nearly 50 000 heavy bombers in merely 4 years.
 
PMN1. A turbojet Brabazon is like the B-60 without swept wings. You have a real built in headwind with those wings you can all but stand up in. It would just use up fuel faster. And, from what I understand it was not meant for longish non stop flights like the Comet, but showing the flag at various imperial whistle stops along the way.
 
royabulgaf said:
PMN1. A turbojet Brabazon is like the B-60 without swept wings. You have a real built in headwind with those wings you can all but stand up in. It would just use up fuel faster. And, from what I understand it was not meant for longish non stop flights like the Comet, but showing the flag at various imperial whistle stops along the way.
Click to expand...
On the contrary it was designed specifically for the North Atlantic route, a 15hr journey. Heathrow was to be modified to be capable of handling the aircraft (hangars, runways and taxiways) but there were no obvious alternative landing sites should the flight need to be diverted, for example Prestwick was not acceptable without substantial improvements. There was concern at one point whether the runways at Idlewild would be acceptable for dealing with the weight and width, and as a consequence the project was delayed while the main undercarriage was redesigned. There was little prospect for using it on the old 'Empire' routes because of its size, and this was one of the primary reasons why BOAC were lukewarm about the whole project.
 
You know what was really a missed opportunity ? Brabazon II with Tynes. While Centaurus and coupled-Proteus were not good enough, that would have been something. Also T-56 wasn't too far in the future either.
And both turboprops had and still have very long careers.

In fact we need a TL where the last giant flying boats, plus the Brabazon, XC-99 and other "land based giants" are rescued by Tyne for the european types, and T-56 for the US types.

Laté 631 with Proteus or Tynes
Princess with Tynes
Brabazon II with Tynes
...
 
Yes it's is probably impossible to rehabilitate the Brabazon (it has been tried). Then, I'm of the mind that you just don't need to. It is glorious as is. You can stick keep the Mona Lisa.
 
Archibald said:
You know what was really a missed opportunity ? Brabazon II with Tynes. While Centaurus and coupled-Proteus were not good enough, that would have been something.

Laté 631 with Proteus or Tynes
Princess with Tynes
Brabazon II with Tynes
...
Click to expand...

Proteus was good engine but fundamentally flawed by its reverse flow compressor with a tendency to ice. The issue was solved technically, albeit with a project crippling 2.5year delay.

Interesting that I remember a talk by a very high time Britannia pilot;- when asked how well the Proteus compressor anti ice system worked, he replied “We tried very hard not to use it, it was much better to use the weather radar to divert around the icing weather” ……. The project suffered enormously to put that system in.
 
It looks like a hypothetical design for it ?.
 

Attachments

  • 15.png
    15.png
    5.2 MB · Views: 46
FunBricks1 said:
How on earth do you get into the upper private bedrooms
Click to expand...
What's not immediately obvious is that the forward passenger cabin is laid out like a traditional railway carriage, with private six-seat compartments on one side, and the corridor on the opposite side. The ladders run up between the seat backs.

That's also why those compartments have six day seats each, but convert to only four beds. The additional two passengers sleep in the two-bed compartments above.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom