Bristol strange big helicopter

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
28,540
Reaction score
6,266
Hi,

the Bristol company designed a very strange big helicopter in 1953,
I don't hear about it before !.
http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1953/1953%20-%200289.html
 

Attachments

  • Bristol helicopter.JPG
    Bristol helicopter.JPG
    43.1 KB · Views: 339

RP1

I see the truth in it.
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
480
Reaction score
373
Website
rp-one.net
This seems similar to a machine mentioned in "Stuck on the Drawing Board". I'll have a look-see this evening.
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,303
Reaction score
1,876
Bristol DIDN'T design it. Flight International artist HAVE DESIGNED it.

It could be his provisions based on information of 1955 33.800 lbs Bristol Type 194 (unbuilt VTOL based in unbuilt Type 192C), a compaund tandem helicopter, actually an stretched type 192 Belvedere with new fuselage, stub wings design and 4 de Havilland Gnomes powering two six-bladed 55 ft rotors. 48 passengers, dimensions 77 ft (L), 40 ft (WS) 24 ft (H)

All info is fron excellent Richard Payne's "Stuck on the Drawing Board".

Other sources say of 5-bladed rotors and 35 passengers.

From 'Flight...' http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1958/1958-1-%20-%200168.html

"Other offshoots of the Bristol twin-engined tandem-rotor family
are two studies for civil aircraft. The first is the Type 192C,
which could be built on the same jigs and with virtually the same
powerplant, transmission and rotors as the military version. A
seventeen-seater, it would have a still-air range of 390 n.m. with
2,180 lb payload or 200 n.m. with 4,000 lb payload. But Bristol
feel that the ideal specification for a passenger transport would
be a larger helicopter capable of carrying about 35 passengers over
a 150-mile stage. The cruising speed should be at least 160 m.p.h.,
and to achieve this speed a stub wing carrying about 40 per cent
of the gross weight is necessary. Bristol have prepared a design
study to this specification, designated Type 194. It would be
longer, but have the same rotors, power being provided by two
free turbines of about 2,400 rated s.h.p. each. Maximum gross
weight would be between 22,000 and 25,000 lb."
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
28,540
Reaction score
6,266
You are right dear flateric,

and here is a model- to Westland (Bristol) type-194,but notice the
different between the cockpit location.
http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1961/1961%20-%201313.html?search=delta%20wing%20aircraft%20project%201964
 

Attachments

  • Bristol-194.JPG
    Bristol-194.JPG
    30.4 KB · Views: 304

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
28,540
Reaction score
6,266
I think I get it,

maybe it was Bristol Type-181.

Bristol Aerospace since 1910.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    17.3 KB · Views: 72

Schneiderman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,603
Reaction score
926
But Hesham flateric explained this back in 2008.
The caption reads " This conception is intended to show the manner in which British helicopter thought is progressing". That means it is not an actual project but just the Flight artist's thoughts on what type of design may be under consideration in Britain. It then says "In this case Bristol might be the company". So not actually a Bristol design but his idea of how a project from that company could look, hence why he has drawn it with a Bristol Freighter-style fuselage.
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
28,540
Reaction score
6,266
My dear Schneiderman,

of course I know that,and my dear Flateric responded with logical answer,but if you observe a weird
note in Putnam's book about Bristol,they made a profile drawings to all of its helicopters,except the
Type-181,so I guess,maybe that concept was based on a real imagination of this beast ?!,or it was very
closely resemble it,that's my point.
 

Schneiderman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,603
Reaction score
926
But your point isn't valid. The caption makes it very clear that it is not based on any company design
 

Schneiderman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,603
Reaction score
926
However......We have two options as to the specs of the Type 181.

From the helicopter special issue of Flight in Jan 1953
BEA's comments
We do not consider that the 173 Mk 1 is economically attractive to us as an airline; but, on the other hand, the developed version—the Mk 3—shows distinct promise. Eventually we hope that it will be possible to operate a small fleet of such aircraft in regular B.E.A. service as a means of making a real start on direct inter-city air transport. The 173s are regarded by B.E.A. as interim aircraft to give experience of this important new field. They will lead to 'die eventual use of a much larger (and profitable) helicopter of upwards of 40 seats, which we hope to be seeing in the late 1950s and in full operation in the early 1960s. When this is achieved, for the first time air transport will really reach into the shortrange transport market, which up to now it has scarcely touched.
And Flight's summary
BRISTOL 181 • The Bristol Company's answer to the B.E.A. helicopter specification is known as the Type 181 and is a scaled-up development of the Type 173, intended to carry 40 passengers. Should it be accepted, B.E.A. would wish to start operation by 1958, which would mean that a C. of A. would have to be obtained by 1957 and test-flying would have to start in 1955.

And see comment #48 on this page

On the other hand, from the Putnam

2 x 3940 shp Bristol Proteus
Rotor 2 x 5 blade, 72ft diameter
Fuselage length 100ft
Height 28 ft 6 in
Empty 30,000lb
All-up 48,000lb
Cruise 226 mph
Range 300 miles
Accom 2 + 80

Whatever this is it does not appear to be the Type 181 but maybe something vaguely like the Flight artist's speculative image. A possible candidate here
[/URL]
 
Last edited:

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,681
Reaction score
3,232
Having rummaged around in British post-war helicopters it is clear that there are several unknowns around Bristol's work on civil tandem-rotor helicopters with re-use of designations and an a lot of variations on the 173 theme. Certainly more digging is required.

Sadly to say, Putnams are not infallible bibles. Although the authors were often connected, or had access too, company materials, there is a lot of information that is missing and in many cases the texts were written 50-55 years ago. The project numbering lists in some cases are not 100% accurate (we won't get into the fictional Gloster listings here) and some of these projects are probably now lost to the mists of time. Trying to match images to random lines of text is probably unproductive.

The Flight speculation is purely that, a speculative drawing on the trends of the time then evident; i.e. tandem rotors, stub-wings to off-load the rotors in forward flight, turboshaft-power (interestingly mounted above the cabin unlike the 173 series) and adding the neat touch of nose-doors for a worthwhile payload. In some ways they are illustrating what Rotodyne would have looked like had it been a conventional helicopter. But it's just Flight musing on the trends of the day and speculating Bristol was the only firm then capable of putting all those elements together.
Bristol of course did just that in the Type 194 that Schneiderman linked above, so Flight were not too far off the money on this guess - but its not true to say their sketch influenced one or the other.
 

Schneiderman

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
1,603
Reaction score
926
Sadly to say, Putnams are not infallible bibles. Although the authors were often connected, or had access too, company materials, there is a lot of information that is missing and in many cases the texts were written 50-55 years ago.
Barnes was one of the better authors but back in 1964, when the Bristol volume was written, company records were not all they could be (are they now?) and much was reliant on personal recollections. It is now very obvious that there are gaps, errors and anecdotal distortions in just about all of the series. They are good books and I would not be without them in my library, but in an ideal world they could all do with a thorough rewrite.
 

Similar threads

Top