hesham said:Hi PMN1:
The Avro-740 was three engined airliner project,powered by 13540 1b Olympus 551s
and Bristol-200 was four engined design,powered by Orpheus later redesigned with
The VC11 began life as Type 1400, the design of which began in October 1959.Similar in design to a scaled down VC10 proposed for short to medium routes. All up weight: 170,000 lb and a range of 1500 nautical miles
PMN1 said:Does anyone have information on the designs that led to the HS Trident - the Bristol 200, Avro 740, Vickers VC11 and De Havilland DH121 (any more??).
The British industry has not been helped here over the years by its sales approach. One manufacturer recently made a prime mistake when one of its top executives made it plain to one operator here that any choice of a new aircraft was too important a decision to be made by anybody but the Government. I ask you
sealordlawrence said:The VC-11 seems to have drifted around for about 2 years through to 1961 with some considerable work done on the design. There was at least one commitment for aircraft (TCA) and based on reading flight global articles from the time it seems to have garnered significant interest, especially in Australia (ANA/TAA) and with Lufthansa. The nail in the coffin seems to have been the selection of the 727 by Lufthansa and the Australian airlines. VC11 was in roughly the same category as the original DH121 spec. u
just an expression of intent to order
BillRo said:Here is a better 3 view of the Bristol 200
This is an artists impression of a proposed medium jet passenger aircraft from around 1956. It would have used the Bristol Orpheus gas turbine but stayed on the drawing board. This and other rear engined aircraft were schemed by the Bristol project office for sub sonic short to medium range routes. These were in parallel with the companies supersonic transport studies.
And now some evolutions of the Trident*... from the June 1987 Hatfield Future Projects Newsletter, design studies for the Trident 4 & 5 projects.
Trident 5 is the most modified with its cabin section and nose based on HS146 and wing based on A300B and HS146 design principles.
"The following is a statement included in a departmental note of July 1975, which describes our participation in the development of this aircraft that led to both the Trident 4 and 5 projects.
Bearing in mind the size and design features of the Trident family, the twin engine developments are best suited to ratings of 24,000 lb and above. However, the possibilities with the CFM56 at its initial rating of 22,000 lb have merited serious consideration and means whereby a logical family development could be exploited, have been explored.
Derivatives have been examined with standard Trident wings, modified wings to give improved lift/drag characteristics, increased span and area and new wings based on developed A300 technology standards.
Capabilities with the standard wings are obviously limited. The Trident wing was designed for high speed capability, an attribute which pays off under certain operational conditions. The span (aspect ratio) however was matched for three low by-pass ratio engines and greater span is desirable for the twin configuration with high by-pass ratio propulsion. Consequently versions with the standard wing have been considered largely in the retrofit context and current proposals are based on the Trident 3B with or without the booster. If the booster is retained it will require hushing by some 6 - 7 PNdB.
Various modifications to the Trident wing have been considered. Some improvement in lift/drag characteristics is possible by adjustments to and cleaning up of the slat/flap configuration and this can be coupled with tip modifications or increased span.
For higher weight developments an increase in area is desirable and this can be achieved either by means of a centre section insert giving increased span and fuel capacity or by modification of the outer wing. Several schemes for the latter have been examines and involve a reduction of wing sweep from 35˚ to 27˚ on the outer panel, which in itself increases span.
Although such developments are feasible, study of the cost effectiveness in terms of the relationship between development costs, mission capability and economics, leads to the conclusion that a new wing, cashing in on all the advanced technology accumulated in the development of the A300 wing, is the best solution.
Such a new, reduced sweep, higher aspect ratio wing enables a progressive development of the derivative with development of engine thrust from 22,000 lb upwards. These developments with CFM56 and JT10D) engines are the basis of the present submissions for the Trident 4. "
*Apologies if this is the wrong thread but I can't find one for the Trident...!
It was the Trident and it wasn't by Handley Page but de Havilland (DH 121) By 1967 it wasn't a proposal but already being built for BEA. As originally proposed it was the same size as the similar Boeing 727, which was also being peddled in the late 60's. but DH were stuck with the British launch customer influence that earlier allowed BOAC to blight the Bristol Britannia. BEA insisted on 70-80 seats to the 727's 100. The 727 sold the Trident did not. BEA duly decided that they did want more seats and the final mark 3c Trident had 150. Naturally for the smaller aircraft smaller RR Spey engines had been chosen and the bigger RR Medway abandoned. For the 3c a fourth engine was fitted, an RB 162 lift engine used only for take off boost. Total Trident production was 117. Total 727 production was 1832. The Trident did have one distinction, it was fast. The cruise Mach number was 0.88, the highest for such an aircraft at that time. You can see a Trident at Duxford.
Do you remember a model of a proposed three jet UK airliner circa 1956/7 for BEA configured like a narrow body Tristar? I just can not remember who the design company was?
Yes I think it was the Trident, possibly by Handley Page.