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

Shorts Jet Belfast

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
818
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Artist's impression of Shorts Jet Belfast. The proposed Jet Belfast would carry two decks of palletised cargo across the Atlantic at 500 mph. A swing nose would facilitate loading and the aircraft would be powered by four Rolls Royce Conway turbofans.

Source: Flight International August 23, 1963
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1963/1963%20-%201545.html
 

Attachments

  • ShortsJetBelfast.JPG
    ShortsJetBelfast.JPG
    109 KB · Views: 1,238

Spark

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
361
Reaction score
43
Triton said:
Artist's impression of Shorts Jet Belfast. The proposed Jet Belfast would carry two decks of palletised cargo across the Atlantic at 500 mph. A swing nose would facilitate loading and the aircraft would be powered by four Rolls Royce Conway turbofans.

Source: Flight International August 23, 1963
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1963/1963%20-%201545.html

Was this the proposal with the Lockheed C141 wing?

This was almost ten years after the proposal for a large body Vickers V1000 type 1004 transport with similar swing nose and engines
.
From the UK perspective the Shorts proposal was a inferior more expensive re-invention
 

Jemiba

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
8,294
Reaction score
1,250
"Was this the proposal with the Lockheed C141 wing?"

It was indeed, designated AFAIK Belfast 5/41. 3-view from aero 1963.
 

Attachments

  • Short-SC-5-5.gif
    Short-SC-5-5.gif
    80.1 KB · Views: 1,213

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,142
Reaction score
270
Spark said:
Was this the proposal with the Lockheed C141 wing?

This was almost ten years after the proposal for a large body Vickers V1000 type 1004 transport with similar swing nose and engines
.
From the UK perspective the Shorts proposal was a inferior more expensive re-invention

I don't know how you can say that. The V1000 never flew, and even if it had a large body derivative would have required a lot of time and money to develop. It would have essentially been a new plane. The Belfast, on the other hand, was in development and had a large body already. As long as the Starlifter wings could be integrated with the Belfast fuselage without problems it would have been value for money.
 

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,587
Reaction score
1,022
Are there any pictures/images of the Vickers V1000 Type 1004 transport floating around anywhere?

Thank you in advance sealordlawrence.
 

Bailey

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 24, 2009
Messages
308
Reaction score
11
Another view of the SC.5/41 from Project Cancelled by Derek Wood.

Regards Bailey
 

Attachments

  • AST.364  SC5.41.jpg
    AST.364 SC5.41.jpg
    138.9 KB · Views: 1,256

TinWing

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
893
Reaction score
77
Bailey said:
Another view of the SC.5/41 from Project Cancelled by Derek Wood.

Sadly, both editions of "Project Canceled" contain the same typo regarding the SC.5/41. The text indicates that the wing area would have been "483 sq. ft." when the C-141 itself had a wing are of 3228 ft² (300 m²). It's a pity that such an obvious error wasn't corrected, despite nearly a decade between editions.
 

Spark

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
361
Reaction score
43
sealordlawrence said:
Are there any pictures/images of the Vickers V1000 Type 1004 transport floating around anywhere?

Thank you in advance sealordlawrence.
Hi sealordlawrence.
Sorry but I know of no illustration of the V1000 wide fuselage variant proposal released to the public.
Hi starviking
Both the large body V1000 and the original Shorts Britannic/Belfast were proposals for the same requirement to transport efficiently the UK/Commonwealth SLV and LRBM to Woomera for trials and operational launching of military satellites.
The original Shorts idea was to use the high speed Britannia wing with the four Bristol Orion turbo-props with scimitar bladed air screws. This would have created in some respects an aircraft not to dissimilar to that of the Airbus A300M but some fifty years earlier. With a two deck wide body fuselage civil version this could have been a winning formula. Instead MoS/Political pressure sought a cheaper comprise and more primitive Britannia with CL44 features wing was adopted.
The V1000 was as I understand it because of cost considerations a minimal change solution that I would suggest was similar to that proposed for the VC10 at a much later date and used to good effect by the CL44 and Guppy etc.

The V1000 was a very cheap cost effective transport solution(£1.03million (1955£)). The official estimates at the time give a better field performance and a purchase cost less than for the Britannia. This in conjunction with a widened larger diameter fuselage with swing nose section must have given potentially a much cheaper solution to the problem,
 

Thorvic

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
640
Reaction score
120
What about the Handley Page HP-111 based around the Victor wings, wasnt that the favoured option by the RAF ?

G
 

Spark

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
361
Reaction score
43
Thorvic said:
What about the Handley Page HP-111 based around the Victor wings, wasnt that the favoured option by the RAF ?

G

Hi Thorvic,
Yes agreed that is my understanding too the Handley Page HP-111 based around the Victor wings, was the favoured option by the RAF, as was the early proposal for the original similarly configured HP-97. It was according to documents at PRO Kew, the BOAC preference for the Vickers V1000 solution that swung the RAF contract in favour of Vickers, but the Handley Page aircraft was seen as the technically most advanced and superior solution by the RAF. This was ironic because BOAC never placed a contract for the Vickers civil variant and eventually disowned it in favour of the technically inferior and very expensive B707.
What does puzzle me is that as I understand it the HP-111 clear internal fuselage cross section was not large enough to take the Blue Streak SLV/Missile which begs the question was Handley Page given details of the requirement?
 

BillRo

ACCESS: Confidential
Senior Member
Joined
May 12, 2008
Messages
199
Reaction score
177
Here is a Handley Page transport based on Victor wings and something I never knew was a viable RAF transport solution at one time, the Whitworth-Gloster 681 from Flight March 1963
 

Attachments

  • HP Victor Transport.jpg
    HP Victor Transport.jpg
    132.2 KB · Views: 693
  • Whitworh Gloster 681.jpg
    Whitworh Gloster 681.jpg
    279.5 KB · Views: 690

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
14,490
Reaction score
4,231
Bailey said:
Another view of the SC.5/41 from Project Cancelled by Derek Wood.

Sadly, both editions of "Project Canceled" contain the same typo regarding the SC.5/41. The text indicates that the wing area would have been "483 sq. ft." when the C-141 itself had a wing are of 3228 ft² (300 m²). It's a pity that such an obvious error wasn't corrected, despite nearly a decade between editions.

Since the wings were to be manufactured under licence, was that actually an authorized change? Perhaps even based on work done within Lockheed on potential upgrades for the USAF?
 

CJGibson

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2011
Messages
1,518
Reaction score
837
from 2012 - 'I know of only one reference in print, published middle sixties Flying Review, no picture!!
spark'


It's covered in On Atlas' Shoulders.

Shorts claimed the wing was 'aerodynamically similar', not the same as the C-141. They would say that wouldn't they?

The /40 and /41 were civil, differing in their engines, the /45 was the military version.

Chris
 

Hobbes

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 9, 2008
Messages
959
Reaction score
399
My interpretation of the C-141 based version, based on Chris' drawings:
Jet%20Belfast%20f1.jpg


and the build thread
 

riggerrob

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
1,355
Reaction score
773
Pretty model dear Hobbes!

How does Belfast cabin size compare with Lockheed C-130 Hercules?
 

Similar threads

Top