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

Handley Page "Laminar Airliner"

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,002
Reaction score
172
A HP design from 1954, MTOW 136.000 kg, 120 pax, four Conway 10 engines,
Mach 0,9 in 15.000 to 18.300m, range up to 25.000 km !
That's stated in an article in aero 1954, but without type designation or project number.
 

Attachments

KJ_Lesnick

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,021
Reaction score
6
Did they honestly think they could get that kind of range out of it?

Is that similar to the "Comet 5" concept?


KJ
 

alertken

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
529
Reaction score
29
Dr.D.Kuchemann (Gottingen U, one of UK's Paperclip successes) had moved from RAE to HP: his concept was porous (leading edge, even entire wing) upper surface, with a buried turbine to suck in the draggy boundary layer. Trialled 1957-63 on Marshall MA.4 Auster with David Budworth turbine in cabin, and on an HP aerofoil upper mid-fuse mounted, first at Cranfield on Lancaster PA474 (Yes, that one), then on (Napier) Lincoln RF...Prob: bugs, gunging the holes. Manufacturing/maintenance nightmare. Big-fan powerplants provided range despite drag.
 

frank

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
617
Reaction score
4
That looks quite large. Any dims on it? The wing makes me think of the B-52's for some reason.
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,002
Reaction score
172
Length 42,20 m,span 67,05 m, wingloading 293kg/m²
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,879
Reaction score
922
Hi,

and from Flightglobal;
http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1957/1957%20-%200910.html
 

Attachments

PMN1

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
678
Reaction score
8
200ft + wingspan, thats quite big....

Also interesting is the use of wing mounted engines rather than buried as in the HP97 and 111C are they on short pylons or directly on the wing?
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,002
Reaction score
172
The two artist impression seems to show different kind of engine attachements, I think. The one in
aero seems to have the engines slung directly under the wing, the other from Flight /thanks for this,
hesham !) quite clearly has podded engines. But between them are about 3 years of development,
so maybe we just see an early and a later design (And range has decreased significantly during this
time !).
 

PMN1

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
678
Reaction score
8
Do Project Cancelled or Stuck on the Drawing Board mention this design?
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,002
Reaction score
172
I think not.
I was thinking of the HP.102, but this was a straight-wing design and it
was from 1955 ...
 

KJ_Lesnick

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
1,021
Reaction score
6
The L/D ratio on this plane was something like a glider at it's optimum speed.

Incredible
 

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,879
Reaction score
922
Hi,

 

Attachments

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,879
Reaction score
922
Nice find Schneiderman.
 

taildragger

You can count on me - I won a contest
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
203
Reaction score
27
Three views of two Laminar Flow projects from the Autumn 1957 Handley Page Bulletin... Project A was designed to cruise at Mach 0.85, Project B (similar to the HP108) at Mach 0.9...

Zeb
Interesting that the design placed the engines in external pods - I thought that during this period, the British aero industry was still committed to wing-root installations. The plumbing necessary for the suction system would seem like another reason to bury the engines internally and the arrangements of the pods on this design doesn't seem to use them to resist wing twist.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,990
Reaction score
194
I'd say it was an attempt to reduce maintenance & other operating costs as well as allowing for a wider range of engine choices.
 

sienar

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2009
Messages
567
Reaction score
79
Interesting that the design placed the engines in external pods - I thought that during this period, the British aero industry was still committed to wing-root installations. The plumbing necessary for the suction system would seem like another reason to bury the engines internally and the arrangements of the pods on this design doesn't seem to use them to resist wing twist.
Look at how thin the wing is. Burying the engines in the root may not have been an option.
 

CJGibson

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
87
The wings would be full of ducts and pipework.

Chris
 
  • Like
Reactions: zen

CJGibson

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
1,205
Reaction score
87
Indeed, but all through the wing structure and under the skin, the pipes and ducts were for the suction system which was not conducive to access panels, so external engines would be helpful. See Vulcan's Hammer, Nimrod's Genesis and On Atlas' Shoulders.

Chris
 
Top