Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Aviation History and Nostalgia
Reload this Page >

BBC TU144 / Konkordski article - for interest

Aviation History and Nostalgia Whether working in aviation, retired, wannabee or just plain fascinated this forum welcomes all with a love of flight.

BBC TU144 / Konkordski article - for interest

Old 4th Jun 2016, 11:56
  #41 (permalink)  
Tabs please !
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Biffins Bridge
Posts: 790
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Thanks for that PDR, I guess we are still some way off airliners becoming interesting to look at again. Sadly we have just two types, the 747 (plus the A380 ugly sister) and everything else.
B Fraser is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2016, 13:24
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sadly we have just two types, the 747 (plus the A380 ugly sister) and everything else.
Nope:

In the puddle jumper market there is the BN2, the DHC6 and the Do228.

The 30 something seat market is lacking but apparently RUAG are thinking of reinventing the Do328, Saab are long out of the civilian aircraft market and god forbid that Short Bros might reenter the civilian aircraft market!

50 (ish) seats then solely the ATR42 but orders are lacking.

Stretched turboprop then ATR72 and DHC-400

Puddle jumper jets then EMB135/145 and CRJ's

Commuter Jets then the F28 family, the BAe146 and the EMB175/195 mob, apparently Bombardier are to have a crack at this market also.

The smaller jets then the A320 and B737 families.

The medium jets then the B757, B767, B787, A330, A350.

The big and/or 4 engine jets then the B777-200/300, A340, B747, A380.

Far more than merely: just two types, the 747 (plus the A380 ugly sister)
Phileas Fogg is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2016, 14:09
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Phileas Fogg View Post
god forbid that Short Bros might reenter the civilian aircraft market
Shorts, in Belfast, are as much in the civil airliner market as they long have been, just producing major subcomponents like fuselages instead of final assembly. The new Bombardier CSeries has a lot made at Shorts, just like the De Havilland Comet did 60 years ago.
WHBM is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2016, 14:38
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London UK
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Fascinating post PDR1, thanks. Why do the Rafale and Typhoon have Canards then?
Dr Jekyll is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2016, 15:33
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Mordor
Posts: 1,314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Stanwell View Post
Thanks for that post, PDR. Things are now a little clearer for me too.

I think I'd mentioned it a while back on another thread, but a former Chief Project Engineer with BAe, Roy Braybrook, was firmly of the opinion that ..
"The best place for a canard is on someone else's aircraft".
Note that my remarks only apply to canard airliners where cost per seat mile and low cost of ownership are the primary concerns. Canards have their place.

One example is the supersonic fast jet, where various permutations of operational requirements can drive the design towards a slender delta mainplane - the use of a canard allows a slander delta to have HLDs like flaps & slats to reduce take off and landing speeds, while running at zero lift in high speed flight for minimum drag.

Another example is where absolute peak Cl is not needed, but a pusher propeller (for low speed acceleration and visibility) makes it difficult to achieve the desired CG win a conventional layout - the BAe SABA (especially in the initial P1233-1 config) is just such an example:



In this case it also gave a long straight wing with nine pylons whose position allowed the stores CGs to be bang on the aircraft CG, so there were no CG restrictions on what could be hung on the pylons.

I've got a copy of the original SABA concept study & brochure because this aeroplane fascinated me; and aeroplane the size and weight of a Sea Fury with a 5,000-7,000shp unducted fan would have been the ultimate aerial sportscar! I've always felt some wry amusement at the way it shows that future military needs can never be predicted accurately. SABA was cancelled in 1990 in response to the fall of the Berlin Wall, as part of the "peace dividend". At the time they said:

"With the threat of soviet tanks rolling across western Europe a dedicated anti-tank force multiplier won't be needed. The UK won't find itself in any major tank battles for the foreseeable future".

Of course history loves to bowl the odd bouncer [that means "throw a curve ball" for the colonials], and it was only months after that statement that the British army was in the biggest tank battle since El Alamein...

PDR
PDR1 is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2016, 16:34
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 14,606
Likes: 0
Received 27 Likes on 12 Posts
Originally Posted by Phileas Fogg View Post
god forbid that Short Bros might reenter the civilian aircraft market!
Shorts did think about it, in the late 80s:

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightP...20-%202584.PDF

I remember the stunned expressions on the faces of the punters at Le Bourget.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2016, 00:07
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 78
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So, the A380 looks a lot like a 747 (but with an ugly fuselage)
Every time I recognise an A380 by thinking "Stubby looking thing, four engines" I realise that what is flying at the moment is the cut-down version, and it will look right if they ever stretch it to full length. No, I am not privy to Airbus secrets, but nobody could have designed something so abbreviated as the definitive aeroplane.
FlightlessParrot is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2016, 06:48
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,936
Likes: 0
Received 49 Likes on 24 Posts
Why do the Rafale and Typhoon have Canards then?
The benefit of canards on a fighter might be explained why some operators of the Mirage III fitted them. Here are the reasons given by the Swiss.

The requirement was for better handling with reduced pilot workload, better turn rate, increased angle-of-attack (AoA), reduced minimum airspeed.

The canard produces two additional vortices which combine with the vortices on the delta wing. This gives an extension of controlled airflow up to a higher AoA and an unshielded fin and rudder. The vortex lift starts earlier, which results in reduced drag at a given lift. At a given AoA, the canard configuration gives more lift and less drag than the canardless delta configuration. The improved yaw stability permits higher AoA, and therefore lift and drag are approximately doubled with the canards. Overall manoeuvrability at low speeds is much improved. Minimum speed in 1g flight is down from 150kt IAS to less than 107kt.

Article here will give a primer.

https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarch...0-%200309.html

Last edited by megan; 5th Jun 2016 at 07:07.
megan is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2016, 08:39
  #49 (permalink)  
Tabs please !
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Biffins Bridge
Posts: 790
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
The Swedes came up with the Viggen. I was looking for a photo and stumbled on this one which will be a familiar sight to many.







In response to Mr Fogg - the small turboprops do have a certain element of individuality and I would add the Twin Otter. However, to me the E-195, 737, A-320 family and larger twins are all very similar, apart from their size of course. There will be excellent engineering and economic reasons for this but to the inner youth in all of us, the same overall shape does appear rather dull. I had forgotten about the A-340 ..... as have much of the industry.


I guess that most of us grew up in that magical age where we had Concorde, VC-10's, Harriers, Vulcans and Americans tootling off the moon. Happy days but now we have the accountants in charge.
B Fraser is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2016, 09:23
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Mordor
Posts: 1,314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by B Fraser View Post
I guess that most of us grew up in that magical age where we had Concorde, VC-10's, Harriers, Vulcans and Americans tootling off the moon.
Don't talk about the Vulcans going to the moon in public, for cripes sake, it's classified! If you start talking about that they'll realise how they were used mask the demolition of the WTC...

PDR
PDR1 is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2016, 09:28
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: NI
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Shorts did think about it, in the late 80s:
And also the FJ-X project for a 50-seat regional jet powered by CF34s.

Sounds ahead of its time? Fokker were keen to proceed with the project ( would have slotted nicely between the F50 and F100 ) but their bid for Shorts was passed-over in favour of Bombardier who promptly shut-down the FJ-X work in order to protect their concept for an RJ based on a stretched Challenger...
El Bunto is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2016, 17:46
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 14,606
Likes: 0
Received 27 Likes on 12 Posts
Originally Posted by El Bunto View Post
And also the FJ-X project for a 50-seat regional jet powered by CF34s.
I don't think the project got as far as selecting an engine supplier (Shorts was looking for a risk-sharing partner, rather than just an OEM), though it could well have ended up with the CF34, had it gone ahead.

Sounds ahead of its time?
Not according to one wizened Air Canada exec, who sat through the presentation on the FJX and then went to his filing cabinet and pulled out a dusty brochure from 1949 ...


DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2016, 10:56
  #53 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: London
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wow - I don't think ANY thread started by me on any forum has EVER had this many responses.

Thanks a lot, guys - very educational.

Feenics
Phoenix1969 is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2016, 01:46
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: eastcoastoz
Age: 75
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Feenics,
Once Dave Reid's attention is drawn to such a thread, no stone shall be left unturned.
Stanwell is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2016, 01:35
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
During the mid 90's I recall working with a Mr Norman whose father, Desmond, was then working on something that he best described as a 3 engined Shed360 type aircraft.

Clark-Norman Triloader proposal for a 3 engined transport aircraft With an engine configuration almost identical to that of the Trislander but with three 45kW(600 hp) turboprops. Preliminary performance figures indicated a take-off run at sea level of just 740 ft (225m); long-range cruise speed of 155kt (290 km/h); and a range of 580 km (315 nm) with a payload of 3,000 kg. The large hold could have accommodated up to five LD3 containers. Side doors were proposed for palletised cargo and a front-loading door for containers and bulky goods. Wingspan was 24.4m and length 19.05m.
Phileas Fogg is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2016, 06:47
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 73
Posts: 1,748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
PF. I think that was the "Mainlander".
Haraka is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2016, 14:24
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Near LOACH intersection
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Haraka, don't think so, the Mainlander (BN-4) was a 4 engine design, all wing mounted.

You can see a conceptual drawing here.

http://www.ivanberrymandirect.com/BN...ember_2012.pdf
ferrydude is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2016, 15:45
  #58 (permalink)  
Gnome de PPRuNe
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 58
Posts: 10,927
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Triloader
treadigraph is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2016, 07:32
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: South East of Penge
Age: 73
Posts: 1,748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Some pictures of the Mainlander visioned in BAF scheme with a 3-View can be found on Google:
Fairey Britten Norman Mainlander:
Fairey Britten-Norman proposes a Hercules-size Bristol Freighter replacement with a Trislander-type layout:
"The aircraft was designed to carry 100 passengers or ten tons of freight or vehicles over 250 miles, 400 km at 200kt, 370 km/hr. At the maximum take-off weight of 62,5001b, 28,500 kg and sea level, ISA plus 20 °C, the unfactored take-off distance to 35 ft is 2,250 ft, 685m. It was to be powered by three Rolls-Royce Dart RDa7s rated at 2,280 t.e.h.p.(wet) arranged in a layout similar to that of the company's Trislander design."

This is not to say of course that the 4 engined version of the Islander as illustrated in ferrydude's reference wasn't also included in a study under the same title. ( The BN4 looks like being inspired by "Dove to Heron" and bears no resemblance to the three turboprop scheme ).
Treadigraphs Triloader is a much later design from 1991 ( and new to me), indeed looking a lot like a cross between a big Skyvan and a Trislander.
All interesting concepts.

Last edited by Haraka; 9th Jun 2016 at 08:06.
Haraka is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2016, 15:06
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 77
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by John Farley View Post
I was very disappointed with the programme because it did not include all the reasons behind my comments. But there we go, I am grown up and should have expected that.

Was it a copy of Concorde? Of course not. As anybody in the business knows it was a bigger machine had a different wing plan form (double delta) and a different engine layout. Was there spying? Yes. But this was to give both sides a better understanding of the opposition’s strengths and weaknesses when it came to the sales bit. (Just as we wanted to know all about the Alpha Jet when doing the Hawk – only newspapers would suggest it was to copy. There is more to the engineering and aerodynamics of any aircraft than a few drawings)



I had met Valezi Moltchnov, one of the pilots who was flying it at Paris, at the Hanover show a year earlier when I was displaying the first development Harrier and Valezi had one of the Tu-144 prototypes minus the very important canards that appeared later at Paris. He had come up to me as I was nosing around under his aircraft and finished up giving me the complete tour. We had got on like a house on fire and his English was probably better than mine. As a result, we later talked aeroplanes for several days as we wandered around the show. He was as sharp as a tack as evidenced when I asked whether he had any hobbies and he replied “Reading Flight and Aviation Week”. However, one probably had to have lived through the height of the Cold War to appreciate just how meaningful that was coming from a Russian in 1972. One night Valezi and I went to a shooting club in Hanover with his boss, Tupolev CTP Edward Elyan and German WWII fighter ace Adolf Galland. Not surprisingly, Galland thrashed me at shooting. I would have liked a return match in a hovering vehicle but life is not always that fair.

Back to Paris 1973. On the Sunday and last day of the show, fellow Dunsfold pilot Andy Jones and I were watching the Tu-144 display with considerable interest. We had been amazed earlier in the week at how much slower the aircraft could land now it was fitted with the canards. These retractable mini wings, when extended during takeoff and landing, generated so much nose up force that on the approach the wing trailing edge control surfaces were now deflected downwards giving in effect a delta with flaps down. At Hanover, without the canards, the aircraft had been like Concorde, the HP115 and the T221 and needed the trailing edge controls to be up for the approach and landing flare. This meant these three aircraft were in effect fitted with flaps working the wrong way round and so reducing lift. The lower approach speed possible with this new ‘flapped delta’ allowed the Tu-144 to land on the display runway 03 and exit at the second turn-off, which was a distance of some 1,200 metres.

Their display sequence included a touch and go on 03, followed by an initial steep climb then an immediate turn onto the downwind for the final landing, a manoeuvre almost amounting to a wingover given the cloud base during the week was below 2,000 ft. On the Sunday however, there was not a cloud in the sky and their initial steep climb after the touch and go was continued straight ahead to perhaps 4,000 ft. Then suddenly the aircraft violently bunted to level flight. Both Andy and I gasped at seeing such a push in that class of aircraft. As we looked at the retreating aeroplane flying away level, we had time to say to each other that it looked as if they were going home and we were going to be denied watching another full stop landing. Then down went the nose and the aircraft made as if to descend and turn back to the downwind leg. When it was about half way to the ground and having rolled left through 90o, so giving us a side view of the dive, something made me say to Andy “He’s going in”.

Even though it was still a long way up, that something which suggested to me that the crew had lost it was a mixture of height, unchanging steep nose down attitude and rate of descent. Suddenly the picture looked wrong. I have seen many aeroplanes come to grief at air displays and, if you are a display pilot yourself, you develop a feel for when the picture is wrong. Just as I said that to Andy, the aircraft started to pull out of the dive and for a moment we both felt it might just miss the ground but it broke up at about 1,000 ft.

My belief is that whatever caused the bunt caused the accident because I don’t believe the engines could have swallowed the appalling flow into the intakes produced by that much negative alpha without surging. Some people noticed an orbiting Mirage above them as they climbed but I did not. (The mirage actually can be seen very briefly on the BBC programme video of the accident). However, if the crew had unexpectedly seen another aircraft not far above them, then the sudden push we saw would have been instinctive. If the engines did all surge, then this would have necessitated a shut down and relight which would have required a pretty determined dive to obtain the necessary windmilling rpm. My guess is that, as they were busy trying to get some engines restarted, they suddenly saw the ground coming up and overcooked the pull, possibly due to the very nasty view of some 230ft electricity pylons that were right across their flight path.
Watched the BBC4 Witness Programme, where John Farley mentions the crash. This kind submission really supplies interesting detail. If you read this John, thank you again. Michael.
cyclic35 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.