Ideas that didn' fly

[Rwy in Sight]

I was reading the MLS thread and I realized that over the years a number of ideas appeared very bright as they were launched only to be abandoned only few years later. Besides the MLS, what are the ideas you remember that appear and went out of sight some time later without any commercial application?

Thanks for the idea

[PDR1]

Supersonic airliners.

PDR

[megan]

Supersonic airlinersHe said with out commercial application PD. 27.5 years of passenger carrying on Concorde, though economics can be argued about.

[Groundloop]

Besides the MLS, what are the ideas you remember that appear and went out of sight some time later without any commercial application?

Bit of a strange wording. MLS has/had a commercial application - as mentioned in the thread.

[PDR1]

He said with out commercial application PD. 27.5 years of passenger carrying on Concorde, though economics can be argued about.
I stand by my statement. Concorde never had a commercial appl;ication, just a political one. If there had been a commercial application then others would have followed.

PDR

[PDR1]

But you could add FIDO to the list, and commercial fixed-wing VTOL/ASTOVL (HS140/141, Dornier Do31 developments etc). And of course there was nuclear-powered aircraft (NB-36/X-6/Tu-119 etc).

PDR

[safetypee]

Two segment noise abatement approach.
Aircraft would remain high over populated areas, descending at 5-6 deg to intercept a 3 deg GS at 1000 ft for landing.
Never progressed in commercial aviation as engine and airframe noise reduction gave similar benefits. However the idea was used by the space shuttle as a landing flare aid.

[Alan Baker]

The Fairey Rotodyne!

[DaveReidUK]

Two segment noise abatement approach.
Aircraft would remain high over populated areas, descending at 5-6 deg to intercept a 3 deg GS at 1000 ft for landing.
Never progressed in commercial aviation as engine and airframe noise reduction gave similar benefits. However the idea was used by the space shuttle as a landing flare aid.

BA have carried out two-segment approach trials at Heathrow in the last year or so, using both B777 and A380.

[Lou Scannon]

The Prone Meteor.
A Meteor 8 with what looked like a glider cockpit welded to the nose.
In it, a second pilot would lie flat on his stomach with his head supported by a chin rest clutching a mini control column and throttles.

Great when pulling "G" especially if you didn't like the seated pilot behind you.

I had it in the Colerne Museum and it was last seen in the Cosford collection.

[pulse1]

The Saunders Roe SR53 and SR177 rocket powered fighters. The Saunders Roe Princess flying boat and SR A/1 , in fact, anything built by Saunders Roe after WW2 that was meant to go more than a few inches above the surface.

[megan]

I stand by my statement. Concorde never had a commercial appl;icationSo what were all those passengers paying for, if not for commercial transportation?

Brabazon.

[Wander00]

Rotordyne - what a machine that was - remember seeing it, and hearing it, at White Waltham

[WHBM]

Hydrogen fuel (Lockheed Tristar was the lead type for this idea).

Ekranoplan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_Sea_Monster

Short Mayo Composite

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Mayo_Composite


Scheduled service city-to-city helicopters

[Offchocks]

Hughes H-4 Hercules, or more commonly known as the "Spruce Goose".

[PDR1]

So what were all those passengers paying for, if not for commercial transportation?


The passengers werer paying for flights, but the operatiopn was not a viable commercial proposition unless the development costs were written-off and funded by the government (ie the taxpayer). >99% of those who paid for it never got to use the product. Ergo it was a purely political, rather than commercial, venture.

PDR

[megan]

What might be termed commercial is perhaps tenuous, but the Short Mayo referred to by WHBM actually made the first east to west trans Atlantic commercial flight by a heavier than air machine, carrying 1,000 pound of mail/freight/newsreel. It performed other commercial flights as well, South Africa being one, prior to war breaking out.

PD, I wonder how many of the British airline manufacturing ventures made a profit? I'm guessing not too many based on the numbers sold. Viscount probably the only one.

[WHBM]

but the operation was not a viable commercial proposition unless the development costs were written-off and funded by the government (ie the taxpayer).
Doesn't that describe almost every military aircraft programme. And a fair few civil ones as well. Even the Boeing 707 would not have got going were it not for it's military-funded predecessor KC-135.

[ShyTorque]

Rotordyne - what a machine that was - remember seeing it, and hearing it, at White Waltham

Well before its time and it had an outstanding payload/empty weight ratio.

(But there's only on "r" in its name - it was the Rotodyne).

[VX275]

in fact, anything built by Saunders Roe after WW2 that was meant to go more than a few inches above the surface.


Oh I don't know the Scout and Wasp seemed to have done a good job.
Even the Skeeter taught the army what you could do with a helicopter (admittedly the Skeeter did on occasions struggle to get more than a few inches off the ground)

[PDR1]

Doesn't that describe almost every military aircraft programme. And a fair few civil ones as well. Even the Boeing 707 would not have got going were it not for it's military-funded predecessor KC-135.

I'm not trying to make some anti-concorde point, I'm just observing that no one has ever succeeded in designingv & developing a supersonic airliner as a viable commercial proposition. Plenty of airliners have been designed and developed and have recovered their investment from sales, and military aircraft are commercial proposition almost by definoition (because it's almost universally true that the intended customer pays up-front for the development).

But the original question was looking for tgings which have been developed and then discovered to have no commercial application. I would suggest that the inability to recover development costs from sales (historic and future, IMHO) puts the concept of supersonic airliners firmly in this category.

PDR

[Planemike]

The Tarrant Tabor..............

[pax britanica]

How about Prop fans -got trialed on DC9s/MD80 test beds but went no further.

Offset nose gear, OK they did fly commercially on Tridents but no-one else adopted them. Giant aerodynamic shock bodies a la CV 990 come into this category too.

Nuclear power -I think there was nuclear powered B36 but only one and the idea was never revived.

Composite -not in the carbon fibre sense-aircraft .ie one carrying another. Short Mayo flying boat/seaplane combo and B36 (again) carrying a couple of miniature jet fighters along with it

Many weird Brit innovations from the 1950s as already alluded to in earlier posts

[Herod]

Going right back, the Wright Flyer..warping wings.

[noflynomore]

Scheduled service city-to-city helicopters

The Heathrow/Gatwick helilink was a highly successful operation that ran for many years.

Personal rocket backpacks fit the OP's criteria pretty well.

[joy ride]

The Fairey Rotodyne, Saunders Roe Princess and the TSR2 were the stuff of dreams and endless fascination when I was young. They were about the most exiting things around and "The Future" according to "Look and Learn", "Ranger" and other publications. Later Concorde entered my consciousness, then became reality, unlike the Rotodyne and Princess. Those three did fly.

The Tarrant Tabor most certainly did not, and is thus a fine contender if you literally follow the title of this thread.

Another fine contender is the Piasecki Helistat, though it did just manage to crawl briefly into the air before disintegrating!

[India Four Two]

Any aircraft that billed itself as "the DC-3 replacement", although to be fair, the F-27 did quite well.

[pax britanica]

WHBM
Apologies for repeating the composite concept -I didn't see your mention of the Short Mayo on first reading.

I dont think 'verti planes 'took off' either other than as military prototype . A convair somethign i thing with immense contra rotating props and a very short fuselarge it sat on its tail for a vetical take off-that worked but reversing the process to land...... well apparently thatwas even more difficult than it sounds
PB

[Mark 1]

AMK anti-misting Kerosene.

I was going to mention prop fans and also Allen Poulson's idea of adding a fan behind the Spey engined Gulfstream. Noise was the biggest killer of the prop-fan closely followed by weight and extra maintenance.

[oxenos]

Percival P.74

[CNH]

"anything built by Saunders Roe after WW2 that was meant to go more than a few inches above the surface."

A touch unfair.
They were asked to build various aircraft by the Government. They did, and they all fulfilled the specification. It's not their fault if the specification was bonkers or out of date.

You've also forgotten the Black Knight research rocket and the Black Arrow satellite launcher. Both very successful All got more than an inch off the ground.,

[megan]

I would suggest that the inability to recover development costs from sales (historic and future, IMHO) puts the concept of supersonic airliners firmly in this category.Read the "Sporty Game" by John Newhouse PD. Even those we might consider successful never recovered development costs. Among others he quotes the DC-9, DC-8 and L-1011 ($2.5 billion in the hole). So the Concorde is no different, except in the former it was shareholders who paid, and taxpayers in the latter.

[FlightlessParrot]

Read the "Sporty Game" by John Newhouse PD. Even those we might consider successful never recovered development costs. Among others he quotes the DC-9, DC-8 and L-1011 ($2.5 billion in the hole). So the Concorde is no different, except in the former it was shareholders who paid, and taxpayers in the latter.
@megan, I'm sure you're reporting Newhouse accurately, but I find this astonishing. Is it really the case that Douglas's two most successful jet airliners were loss makers? Is this by the real books, or is it Hollywood accounting? And if this was the real case, why on earth did they go on with airliners?

[innuendo]

L-1011 ($2.5 billion in the hole).

If I am remembering correctly a lot of Lockheed's troubles with the 1011 arose when the RB-211 did not work with the composite materials that were planned for the fan blades.

I believe that problem cost RR a bundle, (and perhaps the UK taxpayers ??) and gave Lockheed a big problem.

I spent some time on the L-1011, primarily the -500 and I thought it was probably the aircraft I enjoyed the most in my time. Not just for the flight crew but the cabin layout we had was something I have not seen since. F/C at least.

[TCU]

Edgley Optica - could it ever have been better than a heli for observation?

Large turboprop civil transports - The order books for the Britannia, Vanguard and Electra did not justify their development, albeit of course the Britannia and Electra were splendid airliners. The planform has not emerged again. On the other side of the wall, I accept the Il-18 was built in good numbers, but only 32 Tu-114's emerged from the shed.

To take a slight left turn from PDR1's Concorde line, maybe we can add "fast civil transports", the original failed attempt to establish this brand being the CV880 and CV990. Post SSC, Boeings subsequent paper Sonic Cruiser ended up in the waste paper basket

[onetrack]

There's a few here, in the video below, that didn't quite make it to "commercial success". :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wwovm1FJ_Bo

[Wander00]

At Marshalls we were making bits for the carbon fan RB211 - there was huge disappointment it did not work, and many were so keen to see RR get out of the hole we bought shares - which ended up worthless, but RR rose from the ashes...

[lotus1]

The rotodyne my late father remembers this landing either at Westminster embankment on the old land where the festival hall is or the large platform at Westland heliport battersea there is a photo of this I have seen and I beleive it was at the heliport can any one help

[Captain Dart]

Re Post 23, the B-36 in question was not nuclear powered; it carried an operative reactor for research purposes, with very heavy shielding for the crew, but the aircraft was powered by its conventional engines.

However, an eventual nuclear powered iteration of the B-70 was envisaged as opposed to its 'chemically powered' predecessor (XB-70 and eventual B-70). Alternative History can be fascinating. But it was all killed off by the XB's problems, costs, and ICBM technology.

Also, the command and control network of which the B-70 would be part was the forerunner of the Internet. But I guess you could add the beautiful but flawed XB-70 to the list engendered by this thread.

[Groundloop]

The order books for the Britannia, Vanguard and Electra did not justify their development, albeit of course the Britannia and Electra were splendid airliners.

What was wrong with the Vanguard then? It was BEA's most economical airliner throughout the 60's and early 70's.

[washoutt]

Looking at the funny U-tube, one understands that a degree in aeronautical engeneering takes at least some 5 years!

[pax britanica]

Re Post 39 captain dart thanks for thr clarification about the B36 and reactors, amazing what peopel would try in the 50s. Even the B36 itself with its ten engines split between prop and pure jet power almost qualifies but I think there were other hybrid engine aircraft (not counting rocket take offs and the like)

A fantastic amazing machine though even if pretty useless by the time it entered service, single wheel main gear ona plane that size awesome.

While writing this another contender comes to mind, take off only boost engines a la Trident 3 , any other airliners ever enter service with sucha configuration?

A nice interestign thread and yes as someone pointed out it is abit harsh to blame UK manufacturers when they were only allowed to build what was specified leading to such disasters as Tudors, Brabazons etc. More fun to be aircraft afficiando in tho e days though when you consider that a trip to LHR might see ten A320s in succesion landing

[Captain Dart]

An amazing time, pax, all mainly achieved by engineers with slide rules. Only the prototype B-36 had the huge single main wheels, operational ones had 4 wheel bogies. The type was actually quite successful in service and lived up to its name 'Peacemaker' or 'The Big Stick' and was the mainstay of SAC until the B-47 came along.

However they did trial a B-36 with 'caterpillar' landing gear. Unsurprisingly, it was not a success!

[DaveReidUK]

What was wrong with the Vanguard then? It was BEA's most economical airliner throughout the 60's and early 70's.

You mean apart from the fact that with only 43 sold and two customers it never got close to breaking even, and that by the early 70's practically everyone else was flying jets ?

Personally, I loved the Vanguard, but in common with most British airliners, it could never be described as a commercial success.

[pax britanica]

Capt Dart
I never got to see a B36 but like the B52 and Vulcan it just looks awesome .

I find it very hard to scale aircraft from the 50s because you so seldom see a piston prop say alongside a jet and when you do it is a shock that what was a once might DC6 say is not much bigger if at all than an ATR.

PB

[VX275]

but I think there were other hybrid engine aircraft (not counting rocket take offs and the like)



Or even hybrid aircraft engines such as the Napier Nomad (piston/jet compound) which incidentally is my favourite exhibit at the Museum of Flight, East Fortune.

[PPRuNeUser0139]

I was at a meeting yesterday and someone passed me this.. and asked me what it was. I was stumped - to me it resembled something built in the immediate post-war years..
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d36/Sidevalve64/AW27_zpslzx16hys.jpg (http://s32.photobucket.com/user/Sidevalve64/media/AW27_zpslzx16hys.jpg.html)
After a minute or two's googling, I found the answer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong_Whitworth_Ensign). This airframe had an interesting history (http://captured-wings.wikia.com/wiki/F-BAHD)..

[megan]

Is it really the case that Douglas's two most successful jet airliners were loss makers? Is this by the real books, or is it Hollywood accountingFlightlessParrot, according to the book you might say perhaps Hollywood accounting. When Douglas management was taken over by Douglas Jr., after the Sr. retired, he introduced the policy of not showing development costs as current expenditure, to be written off gradually and in harmony with receipts. Rolls Royce and Lockheed did the same. Boeing on the other hand absorbed developmental costs as they arose. The result for Douglas was they were facing bankruptcy within a year had McDonnell not pulled them out of the mire by taking Douglas over.

Adding to Douglas cost was the production of too many models of the -8 and -9, which resulted in confusion and production delays, the 9 was selling faster than they could build them, with delivery schedules falling apart as a result, airlines sued successfully for the late deliveries, and to top it all off, the Vietnam war created a shortage of parts and skilled labour. All the time they were struggling financially and the large cash flow created by the 9 did not cover the cost of building them.

[Groundloop]

You mean apart from the fact that with only 43 sold and two customers it never got close to breaking even, and that by the early 70's practically everyone else was flying jets ?

I know that - but my comment was really that exactly the same could be said about the Electra and Britannia - except that the Electra made commercial sense after it morphed into the P-3 Orion!

[Planemike]

Thurston Tawny Owl .....

[Wander00]

Ensign always look pretty advanced for when it was built. That one certainly moved around a bit

[TCU]

David

Thank you for the verdict on the Vanguard...I'd left that hanging for a bit of fun! I also loved the sight and sound of the old bird, particularly in its BEA/BA hey day.

However, the late, great, Mr Trubshaw summed it up well. "The Vanguard, like most Vickers products, had many attributes but the timing of the aircraft was wrong as far as a number of airlines were concerned, who saw it in the minds of the travelling public as somewhat unfashionable and slow turbo-prop when compared to jetliners like the Caravelle"

[WHBM]

The Vanguard's only appeal was to extremely academic bean counters who only looked at seat-mile costs. And there were even less of them around at the time than nowadays. A 140-seat short haul aircraft was just too large in 1960, and all 140 of those seats just could not be consistently sold at sensible prices all day long. Of course, those were the days of fixed and regulated fares, so no cheaper offerings (apart from night flights) to encourage demand, so they did a lot of either flying half empty or sitting around between peaks. It was another 10 years before BEA got jets of even the same capacity.

Quite a bit of an aircraft operating cost is crew, of course, and if they are paid by the flying hour (as someone on an x hr/month contract effectively is) then an aircraft which is notably slower will end up with greater crew costs, to an extent that offsets other operating costs.

It was also a thoroughly uncomfortable aircraft, not only seated high density but well known for vibration, inside and out, and was a very bad noise neighbour. You could hear them taxying miles away (someone wrote that taxying at Ringway was audible in the centre of Stockport), and having lived at the time at the midpoint on their London-Belfast run, they were plainly audible from the ground. I believe the key noise issue was with the propellers. I don't know how De Havilland (who made the props) could have got it so wrong while Dowty (who made the Britannia props, which must have needed to absorb around the same horsepower) managed to get it right at the same time.

Plus it was propellers, not jets. When all the European competitors started moving to jets, starting with the Caravelle (introduced before the Vanguard), it was just commercially uncompetitive. Sure the Vanguard had a lesser seat mile cost, but overall aircraft cost for the smaller Caravelle would be around the same. And it was faster, and A JET. This was the jet age.

[India Four Two]

Going back a few posts, I feel this picture sums up the B-36:

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c309/india42/B498D717-6205-42BF-B894-4478D597C060_zpsq9utkaxu.jpeg

Note there are two FE seats!

[treadigraph]

With 10 engines I'm not surprised! Haven't managed to see one yet, must go State-side again.... Love to have seen one flying.

[DaveReidUK]

With 10 engines I'm not surprised!

Interesting that the F/E(s) only appear to have instrumentation for the six R-4360s, whereas that for the four J47s is on the pilots' panel.

Great 360° view of the B-36 cockpit here: Cockpit360 (http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/VirtualTour/Cockpit360.aspx)

[India Four Two]

"You want us to add controls and instruments for four more engines? Really? There's no room. Stick 'em in the pilot's panel!"

It's hard to comprehend how big the B-36 was until you see a comparison:

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c309/india42/54F5FE26-9D2A-4A98-9BC6-2BBF29D6A01C_zpsip48d8mh.jpeg

[pax britanica]

Sorry for dragging off topic with the B36 comments- I love the two FE seats -do you think one was a Chief Engineer in best B Movie/Star trek tradition telling the captain-'the engines will never take it-Sir'

And that picture alongside the B29 is the same scale jump that you see in the pics of 707 and 747s together on the Boeing ramp. It really was a big beast especially for the time.

[treadigraph]

One wing of the B-36 looks roughly the same as the entire span of the -29.

[megan]

B-36 - span 230 feet, B-29 - 141.25 feet

[FlightlessParrot]

DC-9 as loss-maker

Adding to Douglas cost was the production of too many models of the -8 and -9, which resulted in confusion and production delays, the 9 was selling faster than they could build them, with delivery schedules falling apart as a result, airlines sued successfully for the late deliveries, and to top it all off, the Vietnam war created a shortage of parts and skilled labour. All the time they were struggling financially and the large cash flow created by the 9 did not cover the cost of building them.

Thank you, megan. So it might be fair to say that Douglas managed to lose money while making a fantastically successful aeroplane? (Note cunning pun in "managed".)

[Fareastdriver]

The B36's early career was with only six pushers as par the picture. The four jets, two B47 pods, were added to increase the performance over the target; not to get airborne or fly, this it could do with just the pistons.

The jet intakes had irises on them so that the engine could be sealed off against the airflow and prevent it windmilling all the time.
In the cruise a pair of engines would be shut down in rotation to save fuel and wear.
There were only a few runways that could take the B36, Fairford for the UK. A B36 from there landed just off Boscombes runway and had to be towed across country to get it on the airfield.
One B36 took off from the USA for Fairford, found it socked in, turned right for Wheelus in Libya, where there was a sandstorm so it flew back to the States.
The Offut 'museum' in the early sixties had an apparently serviceable B36. General Le May only would only authorise it if it had a war target. "There are no free lunches in SAC." Presumably if WW III broke out a load of staff officers would man it and charge off to Vladivostok or somewhere.

[Herod]

Looking at the B36 pictures, I can see instrumentation for the jets, but no controls. If they were intended just for over the target, were they "on" or "off" engines, with no throttles?

[eckhard]

I believe the jet throttles were in the overhead panel.

[ian16th]

Ramjets since Leduc's experiments.

http://aerostories.free.fr/constructeurs/leduc/page8.html

[megan]

Douglas managed to lose money while making a fantastically successful aeroplaneOf the 22 jet airliners put into production, beginning with the Comet, as of 1982 only two had made a profit for the manufacturer, the 707 and 727.

[Herod]

I believe the jet throttles were in the overhead panel

Found them; you're right.

[Fareastdriver]

The XC99, the passenger/cargo version of the B36 flew successfully and could carry 400 troops or 100,000lbs of cargo in its double decker fuselage. Pan Am looked at operating a civil version as did Hawaiian Airlines for shuttling tourists between the West Coast and Hawaii.

It flew with Air Material Command for several years before being retired.

[DHfan]

If I am remembering correctly a lot of Lockheed's troubles with the 1011 arose when the RB-211 did not work with the composite materials that were planned for the fan blades.

I believe that problem cost RR a bundle, (and perhaps the UK taxpayers ??) and gave Lockheed a big problem.

I spent some time on the L-1011, primarily the -500 and I thought it was probably the aircraft I enjoyed the most in my time. Not just for the flight crew but the cabin layout we had was something I have not seen since. F/C at least.

To be fair, the composite (Hyfil?) blades worked perfectly, right up until the bird-strike test. That did go extremely badly and, being one of the final tests, was enough to financially break Rolls-Royce.

According to Sir Stanley Hooker, the engine was nothing to write home about anyway. I believe the current RR range of ginormous engines can still be traced back to the replacement RB-211 designed by him and other recalled retirees.

[Planemike]

Taylor Experimental ( G-AEPY )........... just made it into the air.

HAC Halcyon ( G-ARIO )......... It didn't make into the air.

[dixi188]

Lockspeiser LDA-01. G-AVOR.
I never saw it fly but remember it in pieces in the flight shed at Hurn about 1973.

[megan]

One idea that didn't fly lead to an aircraft that did fly, and the one that didn't fly had immeasurable influence on the design of the one that did.

The boss of a certain airline had his eyes on an aircraft that was in the preliminary stages, and wanted another aircraft as an interim fill in before the other made it to service. As the interim aircraft was to be just that, he wanted it to be able to be used as freighter following its interim use as a passenger aircraft. So the aircraft projected role as a freighter dictated its design, specifically an ability to handle 8'X8'X40 shipping containers.

You may have guessed by this stage.
Boss. Juan Trippe
Airline. Pan Am
Preliminary design. SST
Interim. 747

[ICT_SLB]

dixi188,
I can remember seeing the Lockspeiser there still in one piece - think it had only just arrived with its owner/pilot. I, too, never saw it flying.

[lotus1]

With regards to the rotodyne I have just seen an old video on YouTube and its was Westland heliport on the pier which it landed the cause mainly for cancellation was the noise of the rotor so loud there was a plan to fit jet engines but yet again cost and politics there was talk of orders from Canada and Australia

[Harry Wayfarers]

Ideas that didn' fly

BAC 3-11 ...

[dixi188]

Quote:
Ideas that didn' fly
BAC 3-11 ...

Also BAC 2-11, X-11, 1-11 srs.700 and 800, VC-10 with two RB211s for China.
All would have been built at Hurn.

[TURIN]

TU-444

http://avia.pro/sites/default/files/images/167243.jpg

[clunckdriver]

Supermarine Swift, a truly dreadful aircraft!

[DaveReidUK]

Quote:
Ideas that didn' fly
BAC 3-11 ...

Also BAC 2-11, X-11, 1-11 srs.700 and 800, VC-10 with two RB211s for China.
All would have been built at Hurn.

The list of UK (or US or French or Russian, come to that) manufacturers' projects that never got further than the drawing board is endless.

But that's the point, sense prevailed before any metal was cut, which rather puts that category beyond the scope of the OP's proposition.

a number of ideas appeared very bright as they were launched only to be abandoned only few years later

[malcolm380]

I saw G-AVOR flying just once, near Crewkerne in South Somerset UK in the late 70's maybe 1979. I recall I was quite surprised and delighted to see it at the time. I even managed to get a photgraph but not sure I still have it. Is there anyone on here who knows its flying history around that time? I'd be interested to know.

[CoodaShooda]

Martin Baker M.B.5 and CAC CA-15 were two fighters I would have liked to see more of.

[TCU]

If cutting metal is the definition, the daddy of them all has to be the VC-7/V.1000, whose prototype was apparently nearly complete in the sheds at Wisley when the project was cancelled

[washoutt]

Fokker F-29, MDF 100 and F-130.

[DaveReidUK]

If cutting metal is the definition, the daddy of them all has to be the VC-7/V.1000, whose prototype was apparently nearly complete in the sheds at Wisley when the project was cancelled

http://aviadejavu.ru/Images6/AI/AI68-11/35-2.jpg

Interestingly, much of the construction of the V1000 took place at Vickers' shadowy Foxwarren site (where the prototype Viscount and Valiant were built), with final assembly at Wisley.

Whether the aircraft would ever have been a commercial success is debatable, with the V1000 suffering from the same obsession with short-field performance that doomed the VC-10.

[TCU]

Dave

I have never seen that particular photo, so thanks for sharing.

She would have certainly been a looker with that swept tail, which would have made the Comet 4 look instantly dated.

[chevvron]

Lockspeiser LDA-01. G-AVOR.
I never saw it fly but remember it in pieces in the flight shed at Hurn about 1973.
It first flew (from Wisley I think) in about '73. Displayed at several Farnborough airshows. David Lockspieser latterly used it to commute to Farnborough when he had business in the vicinity (well before we started 'officially' accepting civil aircraft in 1989).
He would park near the old tower on what is now called 'East Apron' (then called 'A' Shed tarmac), remove his collapsible bike from the capacious hold behind the cockpit, then pedal off.
I believe it was destroyed in the hangar fire at Old Sarum on 16/1/87 which also destroyed several production Opticas.

[chevvron]

Supermarine Swift, a truly dreadful aircraft!
Doesn't count because it DID fly, and in quite large numbers, even setting a new air speed record.

[clunckdriver]

So did the majority of aircraft on this list, {I don't think the "Didn't Fly" was to be taken literally }Rather just lousy flyers, a category which the Swift certainly qualified for!

[Rosevidney1]

For the fighter version that is true but the Mark 5 worked well down in the weeds and I understand the Mark 7 was a good trials workhorse.

[Mechta]

Herod wrote:
[QUOTE]Going right back, the Wright Flyer..warping wings./QUOTE]

Herod, A good few First World War Aircraft also used warping wings, including the Etrich Taube, Morane Saulnier N and the Focker Eindecker; the last of which gave its name to the 'Fokker Scourge'.

These days, wing warping is found on weight-shift microlights and hang gliders in the form of 'billow shift'. Paragliders also have use lines to change the wing shape.

A wing warping renaissance could be looming for larger aircraft too:

TfHUZ2C3HyA

[noflynomore]

I was reading the MLS thread and I realized that over the years a number of ideas appeared very bright as they were launched only to be abandoned only few years later. Besides the MLS, what are the ideas you remember that appear and went out of sight some time later without any commercial application?

I rather think that the OP was asking about "ideas" or "concepts" that didn't work out or catch on, eg piggy-back, wheel-less deck landings or prone plots rather than merely a list of aircraft types that didn't sell, a category that must be way longer than the list of those that did...

[joy ride]

Wheel-less/Rubber Deck Landings were actually done successfully by Eric Winkle Brown on HMS Warrior; the idea was to use aircraft without undercarriage to save weight. The idea was reasonable (in theory) but more powerful jet engines made it unnecessary. My dad was part of the UK team which later sold Warrior to Argentina, re-named ARA Independencia.

[noflynomore]

Perhaps the biggest of all was Project Orion, a 1960s concept for nuclear-lofted space launch that could put up to 8 Million tons into space and at up to 10% lightspeed.

It was deemed practical, feasible and more importantly doable at the time and nothing has changed that view. It was allegedly not followed up as no one could figure out any application for multi-million ton spacecraft.
Just like the rubber deck it turned out not to have a practical use/need. At the time.
Maybe its time will come?

[Warmtoast]

A bit of thread drift, but re The B-36 earlier -

A couple of screenshots from one of the best (IMHO) aviation films i.e. 'Strategic Air Command' from the 1950's.


http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/thawes/Strategic%20Air%20Command%20Film/B-36FlightEngineer2.jpg


http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/thawes/Strategic%20Air%20Command%20Film/StrategicAirComand12.jpg
Six turning and four burning


http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/thawes/Strategic%20Air%20Command%20Film/StrategicAirComand19.jpg
..and contrailing into the sunset

[WHBM]

If cutting metal is the definition, the daddy of them all has to be the VC-7/V.1000, whose prototype was apparently nearly complete in the sheds at Wisley when the project was cancelledThe Comet 2 and Comet 3 had a LOT of metal cut, as I understand it, before their projects was terminated. I believe many of the fuselages were subcontracted to Shorts in Belfast, then shipped over to the Chester plant. Eventually they went for scrap.

We could also pick up the Soviet Buran space shuttle project, they built as many orbiters as the comparable US project did, 5 real orbiters and 8 full-scale engineering prototypes, but I understand they never did an actual mission, just one (unmanned) orbit by one of the ships.

[chevvron]

Wheel-less/Rubber Deck Landings were actually done successfully by Eric Winkle Brown on HMS Warrior; the idea was to use aircraft without undercarriage to save weight. The idea was reasonable (in theory) but more powerful jet engines made it unnecessary. My dad was part of the UK team which later sold Warrior to Argentina, re-named ARA Independencia.
The concrete base for the rubber landing deck still exists at Farnborough about 200yds in front of the present control tower. One of the old radio operators (working as an Experimental Flying Control Assistant after his job was allocated to air traffic controllers) told me Winkle made several approaches to it before eventually taking the plunge.
I was told the trials were a complete success until someone asked how they were going to get the aircraft off the rubber landing 'mat' so that the next aircraft could land. Someone else then suggested attaching a set of wheels to the aircraft!!!

[chevvron]

The Comet 2 and Comet 3 had a LOT of metal cut, as I understand it, before their projects was terminated. I believe many of the fuselages were subcontracted to Shorts in Belfast, then shipped over to the Chester plant. Eventually they went for scrap.
.
Only 1 Comet 3 was actually finished which I believe, was allocated to RAE Bedford, whilst the Comet 2 went into production for the RAF serving as a transport (until replaced by the C4) and on 'other' duties not connected with transport.
Some Comet 1 or 2 fuselages were still on the fire burning ground at Farnborough until about 1990.

[joy ride]

Thanks chevvron, might have to visit sometime!
From Wiki :

An idea tested, but never put into service, was the "flexible" or "rubber deck." In the early jet age it was seen that by eliminating the landing gear for carrier borne aircraft, the flight performance and range would be improved, since the space taken by the landing gear could be used to hold additional fuel tanks. This led to the concept of a deck that would absorb the energy of landing.[21] With the introduction of jet aircraft the risk of damaging propellers was no longer an issue, though take off would require some sort of launching cradle.[22] Tests were carried out with a de Havilland Sea Vampire flown by test pilot Eric "Winkle" Brown onto the rubber deck fitted to HMS Warrior,[23] and Supermarine designed its Type 508 for rubber deck landings. The flexible deck idea was found to be technically feasible but was abandoned, as the weight of carrier aircraft increased and there were always doubts about the ability of an average pilot to land in this way. The Type 508 was subsequently developed into a conventional carrier aircraft, the Supermarine Scimitar.

[pax britanica]

Re Post 83, I like the idea of an MDF 100 , a B&Q Aerospace project maybe? (For non Brits B&Q is very large DIY chain selling timber and mdf board)

[India Four Two]

For non Brits B&Q is very large DIY chain selling timber and mdf board)

This side of the Atlantic, most people would not be familiar with MDF, where the term 'particle board' is the normal usage. Interestingly though, I see MDF is used in the Home Depot catalog.

[604guy]

This side of the Atlantic, most people would not be familiar with MDF

It's certainly of common usage on the east Coast. The nomenclature and the product. Particle board would be considered a different product around here (less dense)

Back to the topic :)

[VX275]

This talk of MDF and Particle board reminds me that there was an experiment to build a spitfire from phenol resin bonded fabric.

[megan]

The fabric was flax, and they only built two Spitfire fuselages with what was called Aerolite, no wings. They did fit a number of Beaufighters in the Middle and Far East with Aerolite panels aft of the wing spar. The rear fuselage of a Magister and 30 Magister tailplanes were constructed, also the main spar of a Blenheim for test, which failed at 80% load.

[noflynomore]

phenol resin bonded fabric.

Isn't that called Tufnol?

[DHfan]

I thought Paxolin but I'm prepared to be proved wrong.
I think my elderly long unused motorbike has a Tufnol block between the carb and head.

[Kieron Kirk]

What is Tufnol? (http://ahistoryoftufnol.org/whatistufnol/index.html)

Chiarain.

[VX275]

I was trained not to use Trade names such as Tufnol or Paxolin but Synthetic resin bonded fabric (SRBF) was OK, then you could have an argument as to why Nylon (a DuPont trade name) was acceptable.