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

De Havilland DH-117

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,352
Reaction score
4,157
Hi,

a well known fighter to Specification F.155T,the De Havilland DH-117.
http://prototypes.free.fr/fd2/fd2-3.htm
 

Attachments

  • dh117_01.jpg
    dh117_01.jpg
    41.3 KB · Views: 603

Hammer Birchgrove

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
583
Reaction score
8
It looks pretty good. A bit similar to the Hawker entries, only the respective Hawker planes had either one engine (DH Gyron, RR Thames, Iroqious (sp?)) or two (DH Gyron Jr), one on/under each wing.

I assume the DH.117 would have Gyron Jr.
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,227
Reaction score
541
:eek: :eek: :eek: For the life of me I can see no similitude between this and the X-3 !!! ??? ??? ???
 

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,271
Reaction score
1,120
If we don't care for the actual dimensions of both aircraft, but just for the shape,
well, then at least a similar layout could be seen, why not. The long pointed nose
replaced by the radom and the wings elongated ... perhaps a clue to a modeller, building
a 1/72 DH.117 from a 1/48 X-3 ? ;)
 

Attachments

  • comp.GIF
    comp.GIF
    43.4 KB · Views: 535

frank

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
617
Reaction score
16
I see as much (or as little) similarity to the X-3 as I do an F-104 or even a Lear Jet or........

Jemiba said:
If we don't care for the actual dimensions of both aircraft, but just for the shape,
well, then at least a similar layout could be seen, why not. The long pointed nose
replaced by the radom and the wings elongated ... perhaps a clue to a modeller, building
a 1/72 DH.117 from a 1/48 X-3 ? ;)
 

martinbayer

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
720
Reaction score
190
I think it's an interesting philosophical consideration to analyze and define what constitutes similarity in aircraft design. To me, basic layouts are mainly defined by fundamental features roughly at the level of definition used in patents, e.g. wing and stabilizer shape, arrangement and position, type, number and arrangement of engines, etc., rather than quantitative dimensions. Thus, if one design can be approximated by or morphed into another through geometrical distortions such as stretching or compressing of length, span, wing area and sweep, etc., they share the same basic configuration. In this case, the DH-117 and X-3 are compatible to me, while they are both set apart from the Starfighter and Learjet by the T-tails of the latter two as well as the number respectively position of engines. Perhaps it exists already, but it might be an interesting exercise to try to construct a truly comprehensive generic morphological box for aircraft designs that would branch down to cover successive levels of details - the logic would be somewhat analogous to the V/STOL wheel at http://vstol.org/wheel.htm or the twin-engine propeller-driven aircraft configuration survey shown on page 17 of http://www.mp.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/arbeiten/TextMuellerS.pdf, but it would include all types of aircraft and not just these particular subsets.

Martin
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,227
Reaction score
541
I may be wrong, but I see a lot more resemblance between the DH.117 and McDonnell's XF-88 Voodoo prototype (wings excepted)...
 

martinbayer

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
720
Reaction score
190
I agree as far as body proportions go, but once again, in my view the wing shape is a qualitative configuration discriminator, while the length of the fuselage forebody is not - note that there is a whole number of planes that had body modifications that notably changed the silhouettes while retaining the basic layout and most of the airframe, e.g. Mirage V vs. III, the Israeli Mirage IIICJs with long Tzniut noses, the Nimrod AEW3, the EC-135, the compressed B-747SP, etc. Also, while a Super Guppy looks like a 'super deformed' caricature of an airplane, it is the very same basic configuration as the C-97/B-377, or for that matter, even the B-29. So focusing on proportions while comparing basic configurations can in my opinion be misleading.

Martin
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,571
Reaction score
3,000
Hi!
http://warfiles.ru/show-66009-proekt-istrebitelya-perehvatchika-de-havilland-dh117.html

"Powerplant: 2 × Gyron Junior (moustache) + 1 × Spectre Spe. 5 (maximum thrust 2 × 12000 lbs (2 × 53.3 kN) + 1 × 10000 lbs (1 × 44.4 kN))
Dimensions:
wingspan 38.0 ft (11.6 m)
length of 66.8 ft (20.3 m)
wing area: 450 CFT ² (41.8 m ²)
the relative thickness of the profile of the wing 5%
Weight:
total flight 54775 lbs (24845 kg)
Flight characteristics:
maximum speed: Mach 2.35
Armament: 2 × Blue Jay MK. 4

Bottom picture source : AIR ENTHUSIAST 61.
Rocket engine located tail of the aircraft.
 

Attachments

  • DH.117.jpg
    DH.117.jpg
    403 KB · Views: 136
  • De_Havilland_D_H_117%20-%209.jpg
    De_Havilland_D_H_117%20-%209.jpg
    46.5 KB · Views: 79
  • De_Havilland_D.H.117 - 7.jpg
    De_Havilland_D.H.117 - 7.jpg
    135.1 KB · Views: 303
  • De_Havilland_D.H.117 - 2.jpg
    De_Havilland_D.H.117 - 2.jpg
    129.8 KB · Views: 327
  • De_Havilland_D_H_117-01-680x363.jpg
    De_Havilland_D_H_117-01-680x363.jpg
    18.4 KB · Views: 341

Petrus

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
615
Reaction score
287
More over here:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,23936.msg269288.html#msg269288
 

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
7,571
Reaction score
3,000
Thansk a lot. Excellent drawings!!
 

Hood

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
2,065
Reaction score
1,583
The windtunnel model shown in Blackite's earlier post still exists and is on display at the RAF Museum Hendon.
Apologies for the roughness of these pictures but its in a rather dark area and behind perspex.
 

Attachments

  • 100_6194 (2).JPG
    100_6194 (2).JPG
    357.6 KB · Views: 146
  • 100_6195 (2).JPG
    100_6195 (2).JPG
    509.1 KB · Views: 129
  • 100_6197 (2).JPG
    100_6197 (2).JPG
    795.2 KB · Views: 110

Similar threads

Top