Vickers V-1000

Last updated

V-1000
Role Airliner and cargo aircraft prototype
Manufacturer Vickers-Armstrongs
First flightNot flown
StatusProject cancelled
Number built1

The Vickers-Armstrongs V-1000 was a proposed jet-powered cargo aircraft that was designed to meet a requirement issued by the British Ministry of Supply which sought a strategic transport for the Royal Air Force (RAF) to support its strategic bomber fleet, particularly the V-bombers. The design bears many similarities to the Vickers Valiant, one of the V-bombers, but also featured substantial changes. In addition to its military application, both the Ministry and Vickers also intended to use the same basic design as the VC7, a six-abreast trans-Atlantic jet airliner for British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC).

Contents

In 1955, by which point the prototype was already largely complete, the Ministry of Supply decided to terminate the V-1000 project in mid-development. By that time, the design had garnered interest from airlines, and had led to re-designs being conducted by competing US manufacturers, influencing the design of the Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8. The V-1000 is one of the great "what-ifs" of British aviation, [1] and its cancellation was the topic of considerable debate in the House of Commons. [2]

We have handed to the Americans, without a struggle, the entire world market for big jet airliners.

—  George Edwards, Vickers managing director, [3]

History

Background

During the early 1950s, Britain's civil aircraft industry was releasing and manufacturing a number of competitive and innovative aircraft designs. They include the de Havilland Comet, the world's first jet-powered commercial transport aircraft, the Vickers Viscount, the world's first turboprop-powered commercial airliner, and the Bristol Britannia, a turboprop-powered aircraft capable of conducting routine transatlantic flights. All of those designs had their origins in the specifications laid out by the wartime Brabazon Committee. [4] With those aircraft, Britain appeared to be on track to capturing a large slice of the global demand for civil aircraft for the foreseeable future. [4]

Meanwhile, the Royal Air Force (RAF) had been pursuing development of a new generation of strategic bombers: the Vickers Valiant, the Avro Vulcan, and the Handley Page Victor. [4] Armed with nuclear weapons and powered by jet engines, those aircraft would be entering service during the 1950s as the V-bombers. The first of the V-bombers to enter service was the Valiant. Noting the favourable performance attributes of the Valiant, both the Ministry of Supply (MoS) and Vickers became interested in a prospective transport derivative, as a potential long-range successor to the smaller Comet. [4] The RAF had also noticed a demand for a suitable transport aircraft capable of accompanying the V-bombers on deployments to any part of the world, carrying a mix of personnel and cargo needed for such deployments, while having similar speed and range capabilities to the bomber force. [4]

Vickers received a request from the MoS for submissions of the Valiant transport derivative. [4] At the same time, the British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC) was also interested in a potential commercial airliner from Vickers; thus, the company was naturally excited that it would be possible to develop an aircraft that would serve as both a military transport, being procured for the RAF, and as a commercial airliner, that BOAC would be expected to order. Such a move would mean increased financial support for the program as well as improved access to development and testing resources. [5] According to aviation author Derek Wood, Sir George Edwards, who headed the design, viewed the military variant "as a stepping stone to the civil version", which was internally designated as the VC7. [6]

Working in direct cooperation with BOAC throughout the studies performed for the project, Vickers came to quickly recognise that producing a suitable aircraft would not be a straightforward matter of simply pairing the Valiant's wings onto a new fuselage suitable for transport duties. Amongst the changes required would be an entirely new structure, the adoption of roomy and pressurised cabin, and more powerful engines. [4] RAF requirements also provided some complications for the design, such as necessitating the use of double-slotted flaps to achieve the short field performance sought, along with the integration of a rear-mounted sizable hydraulic freight elevator for self-loading operations. [6] Crucially, it was recognised that, in order for the aircraft to be economically viable against competing aircraft powered by turboprop engines and traditional piston engines, an engine capable of more thrust and superior specific fuel consumption than the Valiant's Rolls-Royce Avon turbojet engine would be necessary. [5]

In October 1952, the MoS formally released Air Specification C.132D for the jet-powered transport. Various firms responded with their own submissions to meet the requirement Handley Page offered the HP.97, which featured a two-level layout that moved the passenger seating above the wing of a design otherwise almost identical to the Victor. BOAC rejected the design, which led to the more highly modified HP.111, which was similar in layout but had a modern six-abreast single-deck fuselage. Avro started with their Vulcan design, keeping its tailless delta wing and mating it with a new fuselage, producing the Avro Atlantic (Avro Type 722). As the name implies, the design was specifically intended to offer trans-Atlantic range. Avro boasted that the delta wing offered good takeoff performance without the need for flaps or slats that conventional wings would require, while also offering a high cruising speed. Various versions were offered with 2+2 to 3+3 seating, with the added oddity that the seats faced to the rear of the aircraft. [7]

The initial submission made by Vickers was designated as the VC5, which was essentially a slightly-stretched Valiant bomber with windows. It retained the Valiant's shoulder-mounted wing, which would have left many rows windowless, and also meant that it had long landing gear that BOAC considered unsuitable. Originally designed in the late 1940s, the VC5 attracted little interest and was soon dropped in favour of a more advanced submission by Vickers. Amongst the differences between the VC5 and the VC7 were a larger 12 ft 6 in (3.81 m) fuselage with six-abreast seating for 131 passengers, the wings having been relocated to a low-mounted position, the addition of slotted flaps, and the overall size of the wing being considerably larger. As envisioned, the VC7 would not only be capable of flying the traditional Empire routes but also the increasingly prestigious North Atlantic market. [6]

Selection and refinement

In January 1953, Vickers received an order for the production of a flight-capable prototype, later given the serial number XD662, along with a structural test frame. [8] in March 1953, it was revealed that the Vickers design had been selected as the winner of the MoS competition. [9] In June 1954, the Secretary of State for Air William Sidney, 1st Viscount De L'Isle announced that a production order for the military variant, designated as the V-1000, was to be placed for the RAF. [8] Detailed development work on the project started following the issuing of the Specification in October 1952, however it was soon recognised that the V-1000 would be substantially more difficult to develop that any previous transport aircraft that had been operated by the RAF as neither the ministry nor industry were experienced in the development of jet aircraft of this scale before. [8]

As a concept, the aircraft was more complex than the Comet, as well as being physically far larger as an aircraft. The strict and detailed requirements of the specification required extensive testing, such as the heavy use of wind tunnels to cover short-field operations in addition to high-speed cruising flight, while structural and system demands took Vickers into uncharted territories and new entirely new fields. [8] While much of the knowhow had been derived from the Valiant and there were elements of the design, such as the engines' internal mounting inside the wings, showed this ancestry, areas such as the structure had dramatic differences, the integrity of the cabin and engine bay conforming to fail-safe principles, unlike the preceding Comet. [10] The finalised design for the V-1000 was enlarged beyond that which the RAF had expected; this was so that commonality could be maximised between the VC7 and V-1000; accordingly, the same airframe was to be used for both the civil and military variants. [6]

A key innovation of the V-1000 was its intended use of the Rolls-Royce Conway, which was the first production bypass engine, offering both increased range and improved fuel economy. [6] Rolls-Royce Limited was already developing the Conway engine, having performed its first running in 1950, and had demonstrated the improved fuel consumption of the engine; by 1951, the Conway was being developed for a thrust output of 13,000 lb; enough to serve as the powerplant for the V-1000. [6] However, as the V-1000 design was enlarged beyond its original dimensions, the development of a more powerful model of the Conway was necessitated, contributing to delays on the overall project. [11]

Construction of the prototype was performed at Vickers' facility at Wisley Airfield, Surrey; flight trials would have also been based there. [11] By November 1956, over £4 million had been spent on the V-1000 project; the first prototype had also reached 80 per cent completion. [12] It had been estimated that the VC7 would have been in operational service as early as 1959, the same year in which the first V-1000s were projected to be delivered to the RAF. If it had entered commercial service as envisioned, it would have been the first turbofan-equipped airliner to serve long-haul routes. [13]

The VC7 proved to be of concern to aircraft manufacturers in the United States, where both Boeing and Douglas were in the process of designing their own jet transports to a very similar requirement from Strategic Air Command. Both companies had responded with designs sized for 2+3 seating (the original 707 design was 2+2), providing more limited passenger capabilities than the VC7.[ citation needed ] Additionally, the VC7's wing design offered a number of advanced features and increased wing area that greatly reduced take-off run and allowed it to operate from a wider selection of airports, while at the same time offering longer ranges. When the US companies approached airlines with their plans, they found that they were constantly rejected as the VC7 was more interesting. Both companies undertook expensive re-designs of their projects to compete, enlarging the fuselage to match the VC7's 3+3 layout and increasing the overall size and weight of their aircraft.[ citation needed ] When they were re-introduced to the markets in this larger form, the US firms fared considerably better; after an initial order from Pan American Airways, orders started rolling in from around the world. The better range that the VC7 offered took longer to address, and at one point was solved by incorporating the Conway into those designs.[ citation needed ]

Changing requirements and cancellation

In mid-1955, it was acknowledged that the V-1000 would have a higher all-up weight of 248,000lb, instead of the 230,000lb figure that had been originally forecast, negatively impacting the aircraft's performance. [11] By this time, political support for the project was receding; according to Wood, the RAF were having second thoughts about the project. The Air Staff, seeking to reduce expenditure due to pressure from HM Treasury, noted the V-1000 to be one of the most expensive ongoing projects, and thus came to favour its cancellation. [11] By reallocating the budget that had assigned to the V-1000 to other projects, it would have the effect of avoiding their cancellation instead. [9]

Around the same time, the Air Staff declared that the requirement for the transport to be capable of the same speed and altitude performance as the V-bombers was unnecessary. They also questioned the need to support the V bomber fleet at long distances, given the ever-shrinking state of the British Empire. [9] These changes in attitude may have also been due to government pressure for the RAF to procure the turboprop-powered Bristol Britannia to equip Transport Command. [11] During late 1955, the MoS declared that the demand for strategic airlift was immediate, and chose to purchase several Britannias to fill this role. [9] This selection had coincided with political pressure to bolster employment in Northern Ireland, where much of the production of the Comet 2 was to have been conducted under licence by Short Brothers. The Comet 2's cancellation, along with the aborted Supermarine Swift fighter, had left Short's with a bleak future; an order for Britannias, to be built in the same factory, was seen as providing a neat solution for all concerned. [14]

By November 1955, press rumours regarding the major shifts in RAF transport policy and the fate of the V-1000 were prolific and of a negative tone. On 11 November 1955, the cancellation of the V-1000 order was announced at a press conference held by the MoS. [15] During the conference, a MoS spokesperson spoke in-depth on the V-1000 and its termination, observing that the programme had taken "long than was hoped to overcome some of the programs of meeting the specification", as well as highlighting the role played by the Britannia in substituting for the intended V-1000 fleet. [15] It was also noted that the civil version was also not intended to be developed due to BOAC having no requirement for it. [16]

In addition to the design's military prospects having turned sour, civil opportunities for the type in the form of the VC-7 had also become clouded. According to Wood, Reginald Maudling, the Minister of Supply, believed in the VC7 and of its value to BOAC. [11] In addition, beyond BOAC, other airlines were interested in operating the VC7. Gordon McGregor, the President of Trans-Canada Air Lines, travelled to Britain to lobby in favour of the project's continuation. [17] However, BOAC Chairman Miles Thomas was not as keen on the VC7; the airline had suffered considerable financial hardship due to the crashes of multiple de Havilland Comets, which it had invested heavily in, and BOAC had already committed itself to the improved Comet 4 and had secured permission to procure several Britannias as well. [17]

Upon hearing of the V-1000's termination, Thomas called for an up-to-date specification for the VC7 to be made available, including forecasts of its unit price and delivery dates. [18] After reviewing this information, Thomas announced that he would not purchase the VC7 due to its weight increases impacting its performance; according to Woods, the real reason was BOAC wanting to avoid having to support another British aircraft programme in addition to its existing commitments. [19] Many of BOAC's objections to the VC7 were influenced by the Conway engine, which was still in development at that time. Amongst the detracting claims made where that the enclosed engines in the wing would be unable to accept higher powered fan engines; Woods notes that the successful application of such improvements to the military Victor proves that this was entirely possible. [20] Following the cancellation announcement, Mauldling stated to the press that the decision had been made due to both BOAC and the RAF being unwilling to order the type, leaving him without any alternative. [21]

BOAC declared that they were perfectly happy with the Britannia for their trans-Atlantic routes, and would remain so until an enlarged de Havilland Comet 4 arrived in a few years. In the end, BOAC's decision would quickly be reversed when it became clear that their competitors were going to enter the jet age before them. The VC7 had been cancelled by this point, and a study demonstrated it would be too costly to restart the line. Instead, BOAC ordered the Boeing 707 in October 1956, ironically in a special model to be powered by the Conway. [13] Contrary to BOAC's worries, the Conway proved to have an almost flawless development cycle, and on several occasions outstripped the development of the models it was meant to power.

As had been pointed out at the time, the VC7's performance from limited airfields was considerably better than that of the Boeing 707, which required long runways and extensive ground support. This limited the BOAC 707s to high-volume routes between larger well-equipped airports in Europe and North America. BOAC was also under strong political pressure to offer jet service on a number of limited-capacity "Empire routes" that the Boeing could not service, and turned to Vickers for a solution. The result was the Vickers VC10, with additional power and a smaller fuselage that dramatically improved "hot and high" performance. Although the VC10 was successful in this role, most of the airports for which it had been designed were soon improved sufficiently for the Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8 to be able to serve them comfortably after all. The VC10 lost its competitive edge, and sold only in limited numbers.

Parliamentary debate

The cancellation led to a lengthy series of questions in the House that went on for weeks. John Peyton characterised it as "this disappointing and retrograde decision". [9] Deputy Leader of the Labour Party George Brown asked "does not this decision mean that the American companies, the Douglas and the Boeing, will, in effect, be so far ahead of us in the next development of the pure jet that we shall have 10 or 20 years to make up at some stage afterwards?", [9] a prediction that proved astonishingly accurate. Air Commodore Arthur Vere Harvey expressed concerns of the industry in general, while William Robson Brown questioned the wisdom of cancelling at such a late date given that £2.3 million had been invested in the project. [9]

In response, the Minister of Supply, Reginald Maudling, noted that it was extremely unlikely that other airlines would order the VC7, as "everyone concerned accepts that we cannot launch an aircraft of this category into the markets of the world unless we first have a home purchaser who will buy and operate it, which is not so in this case." [9] He declined to offer continued financial support to Vickers for the civilian model for this reason; he also claimed that development had been lagging and weight had increased to offset performance.

These later claims were attacked several weeks later in a lengthy statement by Paul Williams, who pointed out that weight had indeed increased, but Rolls-Royce had addressed this by increasing power to offset this effect. He also noted that the aircraft had a built-in margin of safety due to its larger wing. He described the entire issue as "one of the most disgraceful, most disheartening and most unfortunate decisions that has been taken in relation to the British aircraft industry in recent years." [2]

Woods attributes the cancellation as being the result of a lack of understanding of the air transport industry within the British government of the era. [22] Debate on the issue continued, and the V-1000 continued to come up in debate as late as 1957. [23]

Design

The V-1000 was an all-metal jet-powered aircraft, having adopted a conventional monoplane configuration and broadly resembling a scaled-up version of the de Havilland Comet. The wing differed considerably from the Comet; the outer wing, which housed integral fuel tanks on the VC7 and flexible fuel bags on the V-1000, was swept at 28 degrees, while the leading edge of the inner wing, where the engines and air intake were located, was more highly swept at 38 degrees. [24] The engines, buried within the wings, were placed further outboard than the preceding Comet to reduce cabin noise and avoid the rear fuselage encountering the jet blast. Finally, while the fuselage section looks similar to other "narrow body" airliners, albeit featuring a more rounded ogive-shaped nose similar to the Comet's (a design feature also copied on the Sud Aviation Caravelle), the V-1000 and VC7 were both designed for a six-abreast layout, and thus had a much larger diameter than the Comet. [24]

One of the then-innovative features to be used by the V-1000 was its adoption of the Rolls-Royce Conway engine, the world's first turbofan engine. During takeoff, the Conway's power was to have been boosted by water-methanol injection, of which the aircraft was to carry 550 gallons within the inner wing root. [24] Additionally, uprated versions of the Conway engine were under development, which would have been available for use on the V-1000. [25] The flying controls of the wing consisted of multiple flaps, the inner set of which being single-slotted and the outer pair being double-slotted, two-section independently operated ailerons, and multi-section dive brakes set across various locations of the upper and lower wing surfaces. [24] The tail surfaces were conventional and adopted a similar shape to that used for the wing; the tailplanes had a pronounced dihedral to keep them clear of the jet exhaust. The elevators were split into four separate sections while the rudder was divided into three separately-controlled pieces. [24]

The fuselage consisted of a stringer-skin structure supported by large numbers of light section frames; these frames were attached to Z-section stringers which were in turn rivetted to the skin. [24] A semi-circular spine-like reinforcing beam was to traverse the full length of the fuselage for strength and to stiffen the structure. The entirety of the fuselage was to be pressurised, including its two underfloor cargo holds; the only exceptions being far end of the tail and the landing gear bays. [24] A total of eighteen semi-circular windows, similar to those used on the earlier Vickers Viscount, were to be set into the fuselage along with front and rear entrance doors and a total of six emergency exits. The floor of the main cabin was to be constructed so that it could withstand up to 75lb/sq ft in the center sections while the outer sections were to support up to 150lb/sq ft. [24]

On the military version, a total of five positions were to be provided in the cockpit; the intended crew would have been a pair of pilots, a flight engineer, navigator, and signaller. [24] The main cabin would have been furnished with rear-facing seats in a six-abreast configuration for up to 120 equipped troops. [26] Some of the design features of the VC7 would go on to influence the Vickers VC10. In particular, the wing arrangement with the various high-lift devices, such as the curved Kuchemann-style wingtips adopted, proved useful in the "hot and high" roles the VC10 would later fill. [24] Additionally, the VC10 was powered by the Conway, albeit in a higher-powered version with much greater bypass ratio.

Specifications (VC7)

Data from Vickers Aircraft since 1908 [27]

General characteristics

Performance

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Airliner</span> Aircraft designed for commercial transportation of passengers and cargo

An airliner is a type of aircraft for transporting passengers and air cargo. Such aircraft are most often operated by airlines. Although the definition of an airliner can vary from country to country, an airliner is typically defined as an airplane intended for carrying multiple passengers or cargo in commercial service. The largest of them are wide-body jets which are also called twin-aisle because they generally have two separate aisles running from the front to the back of the passenger cabin. These are usually used for long-haul flights between airline hubs and major cities. A smaller, more common class of airliners is the narrow-body or single-aisle. These are generally used for short to medium-distance flights with fewer passengers than their wide-body counterparts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Boeing 707</span> Narrow-body jet airliner family

The Boeing 707 is an American, long-range, narrow-body airliner, the first jetliner developed and produced by Boeing Commercial Airplanes. Developed from the Boeing 367-80 prototype first flown in 1954, the initial 707-120 first flew on December 20, 1957. Pan Am began regular 707 service on October 26, 1958. With versions produced until 1979, the 707 was a swept wing, quadjet with podded engines. Its larger fuselage cross-section allowed six-abreast economy seating, retained in the later 720, 727, 737, and 757 models.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">British Aircraft Corporation</span> British aircraft manufactuer

The British Aircraft Corporation (BAC) was a British aircraft manufacturer formed from the government-pressured merger of English Electric Aviation Ltd., Vickers-Armstrongs (Aircraft), the Bristol Aeroplane Company and Hunting Aircraft in 1960. Bristol, English Electric and Vickers became "parents" of BAC with shareholdings of 20%, 40% and 40% respectively. BAC in turn acquired the share capital of their aviation interests and 70% of Hunting Aircraft several months later.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vickers Valiant</span> British four-jet high-altitude bomber

The Vickers Valiant was a British high-altitude jet bomber designed to carry nuclear weapons, and in the 1950s and 1960s was part of the Royal Air Force's "V bomber" strategic deterrent force. It was developed by Vickers-Armstrongs in response to Specification B.35/46 issued by the Air Ministry for a nuclear-armed jet-powered bomber. The Valiant was the first of the V bombers to become operational, and was followed by the Handley Page Victor and the Avro Vulcan. The Valiant is the only V bomber to have dropped live nuclear weapons.

de Havilland Comet First commercial jet airliner

The de Havilland DH.106 Comet was the world's first commercial jet airliner. Developed and manufactured by de Havilland in the United Kingdom, the Comet 1 prototype first flew in 1949. It featured an aerodynamically clean design with four de Havilland Ghost turbojet engines buried in the wing roots, a pressurised cabin, and large windows. For the era, it offered a relatively quiet, comfortable passenger cabin and was commercially promising at its debut in 1952.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Douglas DC-8</span> Jet airliner family

The Douglas DC-8 is an early long-range narrow-body jetliner designed and produced by the American Douglas Aircraft Company. Work began in 1952 towards the United States Air Force's (USAF) requirement for a jet-powered aerial refueling tanker. After losing the USAF's tanker competition to the rival Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker in May 1954, Douglas announced in June 1955 its derived jetliner project marketed to civil operators. In October 1955, Pan Am made the first order along with the competing Boeing 707, and many other airlines soon followed. The first DC-8 was rolled out in Long Beach Airport on April 9, 1958, and flew for the first time on May 30. Following Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certification in August 1959, the DC-8 entered service with Delta Air Lines on September 18.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jet airliner</span> Passenger aircraft powered by jet engines

A jet airliner or jetliner is an airliner powered by jet engines. Airliners usually have two or four jet engines; three-engined designs were popular in the 1970s but are less common today. Airliners are commonly classified as either the large wide-body aircraft, medium narrow-body aircraft and smaller regional jet.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bristol Britannia</span> British four-engined turboprop airliner, 1952

The Bristol Type 175 Britannia is a retired British medium-to-long-range airliner built by the Bristol Aeroplane Company in 1952 to fly across the Commonwealth. During development two prototypes were lost and the turboprop engines proved susceptible to inlet icing, which delayed entry into service while solutions were sought.

The Brabazon Committee was a committee set up by the British government in 1942 to investigate the future needs of the British Empire's civilian airliner market following World War II. The study was an attempt at defining, in broad overview, the impact of projected advances in aviation technology and to forecast the global needs of the post war British Empire and Commonwealth in the area of air transport, for passengers, mail, and cargo.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vickers VC10</span> British narrow-body airliner

The Vickers VC10 is a mid-sized, narrow-body long-range British jet airliner designed and built by Vickers-Armstrongs (Aircraft) Ltd and first flown at Brooklands, Surrey, in 1962. The VC10 is often compared to the larger Soviet Ilyushin Il-62, the two types being the only airliners to use a rear-engined quad layout, while the smaller business jet Lockheed JetStar also has this engine arrangement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Handley Page Victor</span> British strategic bomber and tanker aircraft

The Handley Page Victor is a British jet-powered strategic bomber developed and produced by Handley Page during the Cold War. It was the third and final V bomber to be operated by the Royal Air Force (RAF), the other two being the Vickers Valiant and the Avro Vulcan. Entering service in 1958, the Victor was initially developed as part of the United Kingdom's airborne nuclear deterrent, but it was retired from the nuclear mission in 1968, following the discovery of fatigue cracks which had been exacerbated by the RAF's adoption of a low-altitude flight profile to avoid interception, and due to the pending introduction of the Royal Navy's submarine-launched Polaris missiles in 1969.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rolls-Royce Conway</span> 1950s British turbofan aircraft engine family

The Rolls-Royce RB.80 Conway was the first turbofan jet engine to enter service. Development started at Rolls-Royce in the 1940s, but the design was used only briefly, in the late 1950s and early 1960s, before other turbofan designs replaced it. The Conway engine was used on versions of the Handley Page Victor, Vickers VC10, Boeing 707-420 and Douglas DC-8-40.

The BAC Two-Eleven and BAC Three-Eleven were pair of proposals for British airliners that were produced by the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC) during the late 1960s. The projects had emerged from design studies which had been aimed at competing first with the Boeing 727-200 and then with the proposed European Airbus.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Short Sperrin</span> Type of aircraft

The Short SA.4 Sperrin was a British jet bomber design of the early 1950s, built by Short Brothers and Harland of Belfast. It first flew in 1951. From the onset, the design had been viewed as a fall-back option in case the more advanced strategic bomber aircraft, then in development to equip the Royal Air Force's nuclear-armed V bomber force, experienced delays; the Sperrin was not put into production because these swept-wing designs, such as the Vickers Valiant, were by then available.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Avro 730</span> Type of aircraft

The Avro 730 was a planned Mach 3 reconnaissance aircraft and strategic bomber that was being developed by Avro Aircraft for the Royal Air Force (RAF). It had been originally envisioned as a very high-speed aircraft to perform aerial reconnaissance missions, conforming with the requirements of Air Ministry Specification OR.330. Avro subsequently decided to modify the design of the proposed 730 in order to accommodate its arming with nuclear weapons; this change therefore meant that the type would be able to perform the nuclear weapons delivery mission as well, which had been called for under Air Ministry Specification RB.156T which sought a high speed reconnaissance-bomber aircraft.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hawker Siddeley Trident</span> British Trijet T-tail airliner

The Hawker Siddeley HS-121 Trident is a British airliner produced by Hawker Siddeley. In 1957, de Havilland proposed its DH.121 trijet design to a British European Airways (BEA) request. By 1960, de Havilland had been acquired by Hawker Siddeley. The Trident's maiden flight happened on 9 January 1962, and it was introduced on 1 April 1964, two months after its main competitor, the Boeing 727. By the end of the programme in 1978, 117 Tridents had been produced. The Trident was withdrawn from service in 1995.

The Avro Atlantic was a proposed civilian airliner version of the British Avro Vulcan strategic bomber. It was a response to a 1952 UK Ministry of Supply requirement for a new aircraft suitable for both military and civilian long-range roles. Civilian models of the Vickers Valiant and Handley Page Victor V-bombers were also planned for the same contract. The Vickers V-1000 won the contest over the Atlantic, but ultimately none of these designs would be built.

John Cochrane was a British test pilot for the Anglo-French supersonic airliner, Concorde.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">British Overseas Airways Corporation</span> Defunct state-owned airline of the United Kingdom (1939—1974)

British Overseas Airways Corporation (BOAC) was the British state-owned airline created in 1939 by the merger of Imperial Airways and British Airways Ltd. It continued operating overseas services throughout World War II. After the passing of the Civil Aviation Act 1946, European and South American services passed to two further state-owned airlines, British European Airways (BEA) and British South American Airways (BSAA). BOAC absorbed BSAA in 1949, but BEA continued to operate British domestic and European routes for the next quarter century. The Civil Aviation Act 1971 merged BOAC and BEA, effective 31 March 1974, forming today's British Airways.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vickers Swallow</span>

The Vickers Swallow was a supersonic aircraft project headed by Barnes Wallis, working at the British aircraft company Vickers-Armstrongs. It was a wing controlled aerodyne, controlled in flight by movement of the entire wing, and was the supersonic successor to the Wild Goose project.

References

Citations

  1. ↑ Barry Jones, "Opportunity Lost", Aeroplane, May 2008.
  2. 1 2 "Hansard 8 December 1955, Vickers V-1000 Aircraft, Motion made, and Question proposed", Hansard, 8 December 1955, question tabled by Mr. Paul Williams
  3. ↑ Lance 2000, p. 28.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Wood 1975, p. 89.
  5. 1 2 Wood 1975, pp. 89-90.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Wood 1975, p. 90.
  7. ↑ "The Avro Atlantic: An Airliner that Never Was"
  8. 1 2 3 4 Wood 1975, p. 91.
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 "Hansard 28 November 1955, Aircraft , Vickers V-1000", Hansard, 28 November 1955, question tabled by Mr. Paul Williams
  10. ↑ Wood 1975, pp. 91–92.
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Wood 1975, p. 93.
  12. ↑ Wood 1975, pp. 98–99.
  13. 1 2 Wood 1975, p. 99.
  14. ↑ Wood 1975, pp. 93, 96-97.
  15. 1 2 Wood 1975, p. 96.
  16. ↑ Wood 1975, pp. 96-97.
  17. 1 2 Wood 1975, p. 94.
  18. ↑ Wood 1975, pp. 93-94.
  19. ↑ Wood 1975, pp. 94-95.
  20. ↑ Wood 1975, p. 95.
  21. ↑ Wood 1975, p. 97.
  22. ↑ Wood 1975, p. 98.
  23. ↑ "Hansard 6 February 1957, North Atlantic Services (Medium-Range Aircraft)", Hansard, 6 February 1957, question tabled by Mr. John Rankin
  24. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Wood 1975, p. 92.
  25. ↑ Wood 1975, pp. 93, 96.
  26. ↑ Wood 1975, pp. 92-93.
  27. ↑ Andrews and Morgan 1988, pp. 570–571.

Bibliography

  • Andrews, C.F. and E.B. Morgan. Vickers Aircraft since 1908. London: Putnam, 1988. ISBN   0-85177-815-1.
  • Cole, Lance. Vickers VC10. Crowood, 2000. ISBN   1-86126-231-0.
  • Wood, Derek. Project Cancelled. Macdonald and Jane's Publishers, 1975. ISBN   0-356-08109-5.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.