HOME | DD
Published: 2010-06-14 21:52:30 +0000 UTC; Views: 3571; Favourites: 15; Downloads: 51
Redirect to original
Description
Okay this is the next evolution of the Turboliner and Westminster planes I created earlier, a pure jet transportDesigns for the Duchess were begun in 1958, while work on the Westminster was already progressing. The Duchess was essentially a Westminster fuselage with low bypass fan jets and a revised wing instead of turboprops
Designs were finalised by 1962 and a prototype was comissioned. The tides of the British Aircraft industry were changing, and were changing for the worst for Saunders Roe. In 1960, they were forcibly merged merged with A.V. Roe, DeHavilland, and English Electric to form the Hawker-Siddley conglomerate. DeHavilland's project the HS 121 Trident had already been finalised and construction of a prototype was well underway when the merger occured. By the time Saunders Roe finished the Prototype Duchess in 1964, the HS Trident was already being flight tested.
The first Prototype AC for the Duchess was rolled out in the summer of 1964 onto the ramp at Saro's East Cowes facilities. The engines were run up and ground tests ensued. Taxi tests and braking tests were begun as well, by 1965, a flight test was certain.
The blow came rather abruptly when in February of 1965, HS management decided that having two large, technologically daring AC in production was going to dent their sales figures, and drive R &D budget over it's limits. Besides, the Duchess had no customers as of yet, while orders were already in place for the Trident from BEA. So HS demanded that all production worjk on the Duchess be terminated and the prototype be destroyed
So in March of 1965 the Duchess was taxied to a corner of the East Cowes ramp and a second unfinished structural test specimen was parked next to her. The next week, contractors were brought in to uncerimoniously demolish the two aircraft, the 10 RR Conway engines of the prototype being salvaged and returned to RR Derby for reconditioning for VC10 use
TECHNICAL: The Duchess shares the same dimensions of the Westminster, but with a sharper sweepback of the wings and tail. Power is supplied by 10 Rolls Royce Conway RCo. Mk.12's producing 35,000 pounds of thrust each. There are two engines installed in a "package" which is buried in the wing leading edges. The entire"package" of two engines, and accessory drives can be removed and lowered out of the wing for maintenance. Automatic shutters close off an engine intake if it has to be shut down.
A SNECMA Artouste gas turbine APU is located in the right wing fillet, to supply electricity AC and hydraulic power to the systems while the engines are down.
Hydraulics control every aspect of this aircraft from brakes and nosewheel steering, to the triple redundant control surfaces, as well as unique features like powered sliding passenger doors, that slide overhead to allow egress, and an oleo-pneumatic leveling system that transfers hydraulic pressure btween both main undercarriages and the nose undercarriage to reduce "roll" and bounce during taxiing. A Dunlop skid control system keeps the BF Goodrich multi disk brakes from locking up during deceleration.
The Duchess also benefited from an early version of a Category III Blind landing system, a device which would be commonplace on the HS Trident, and later the Lockheed Tristar. Duchess also benefited from a flux-gated compass system and an N1 high latitude gyrocompass which all predated Inertial navigation for at least another decade.
Related content
Comments: 31
Denodon [2010-06-24 01:17:47 +0000 UTC]
interesting airliner design. The imbedded engines remind me of what I consider still to be the greatest looking subsonic jet airliner; The comet.
I like how you included those detail drawings and included a written history, it helps make this design seem more feasible.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
NinjaPickle In reply to Denodon [2010-07-01 13:50:58 +0000 UTC]
Thanks
Yeah alot of the design is based around the Comet and the Bristol Brabazon And I like to do detail drawings to point out unique features of the aircraft
Thanks
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Denodon In reply to NinjaPickle [2010-07-01 23:46:41 +0000 UTC]
ah yes, the Brabazon, such a shame it never got past prototype form
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
NinjaPickle In reply to Denodon [2010-07-02 02:39:13 +0000 UTC]
I know The Mk.2 version would have been much better with Bristol Proteus turboprops instead of the prototype's coupled Centaurus piston engines
Ashame they never finished it. They scrapped the incomplete airframe
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Denodon In reply to NinjaPickle [2010-07-02 02:43:16 +0000 UTC]
yeah, I was reading a database file from the Aeroplane magazine about it, truly a fascinating piece of proper British engineering. In the end, only the Soviets really managed to make turboprops effective on long range routes...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
NinjaPickle In reply to Denodon [2010-07-05 18:24:10 +0000 UTC]
Ohh.....Do you have a link to that article? I'd love to give it a look over as well
Brabazon was way ahead of it's time. It anticipated passenger loads at least 2 decades ahead of the Jumbo Jet revolution It was also the first aircraft to benefit from full powered flight controls and modern manufacturing techniques, including the liberal use of plastics on the interior
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Denodon In reply to NinjaPickle [2010-07-05 23:46:11 +0000 UTC]
well I cant find the specific issue but it was a monthly database for an issue of [link] that I believe was 2008 for the Brabazon? not sure.
Agreed, too fat ahead of its time though, just like the Great Eastern
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
NinjaPickle In reply to Mr-Uhrig [2010-06-21 21:47:56 +0000 UTC]
*nods* Yup! thaaaaaats mee! And thanks man!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
NinjaPickle In reply to concordexlover [2010-06-16 20:38:16 +0000 UTC]
Thanks, and was a long time coming too I realized my lack of aviation material lately
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
NinjaPickle In reply to TomCatDriver [2010-06-16 20:39:48 +0000 UTC]
Yeah! A sad story indeed, and one which could be repeated many times for REAL aircraft projects too I'm thinking TSR2 and the Boeing SST
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
TomCatDriver In reply to NinjaPickle [2010-06-16 20:52:17 +0000 UTC]
Avro Arrow,Martin SeaMaster and XB-51,Saunders-Roe SR-177.....i could go on and on....remember the God Damn Defence White Paper of 1957? it dealt the British aviation industry a blow from which is yet to recover....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
NinjaPickle In reply to TomCatDriver [2010-06-23 23:32:10 +0000 UTC]
Mmm, yeah I heard about that. Duncan Sandy needed a good swift kick in the lower extremeties for what chaos he ensued Ruined alot of good aircraft projects. Some were so intriguingly close to production
Wonder how different the military would be like if the XB-70 entered production ?
Politics..politics...politics...Screwing the world, one country at a time, since Ancient Greece
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
TomCatDriver In reply to NinjaPickle [2010-06-24 15:30:48 +0000 UTC]
and we,re in for a good screwing next!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
NinjaPickle In reply to TomCatDriver [2010-06-28 20:52:47 +0000 UTC]
I think were already crotch deep in the screw ups from the Chimp still
O's got too much on his plate right now
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
TomCatDriver In reply to NinjaPickle [2010-06-29 11:09:26 +0000 UTC]
deeper,really. like up to our lower lips in slime...if it gets stirred up,we,ll drown. i hate the Chimp and his cronies...by the Eternal Almighty,i do hate them. i,m praying for Judgement Day to see them all get a full measure of the comeuppance that they truly deserve.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
AeroDog [2010-06-15 09:37:57 +0000 UTC]
I wish it was real, I would have loved to fly on it
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
NinjaPickle In reply to AeroDog [2010-06-16 20:38:55 +0000 UTC]
Same here I wish airplanes had that futuristic look to them like they used to
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
AeroDog In reply to NinjaPickle [2010-06-16 20:49:35 +0000 UTC]
back then, designs looked very different to eachother, nowadays you just get a tube with wings
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
NinjaPickle In reply to AeroDog [2010-06-16 23:35:37 +0000 UTC]
Agreed! back when design was much more daring and bold
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
NinjaPickle In reply to TheDragonLiner [2010-06-16 20:40:07 +0000 UTC]
Thanks Been a while since I did a plane drawing :/
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
NinjaPickle In reply to sharkplane77 [2010-06-16 20:40:40 +0000 UTC]
Thanks I like the whole "retro- future" look of it
Like a 1950's car
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
sharkplane77 In reply to NinjaPickle [2010-06-18 04:12:52 +0000 UTC]
yeah, and that paint job really brings that out too
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
TankaaKumawani [2010-06-15 00:37:46 +0000 UTC]
Looking good.
Hmm, looks like eight engines to me. Is there some sort of ventral scab for the other two?
I'd fret about engine failures to no end in a plane without podded engines, especially at that point in time when the tech was young.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
NinjaPickle In reply to TankaaKumawani [2010-06-15 02:48:23 +0000 UTC]
Hehe it's actually 8. I made a typo Although you could technically say 9 if you included the small APU auxiliary engine for generating electricity
I also was a bit suprised at how commonplace buried engine installations were at the time. The DH Comet, Saunders Roe Princess, YB49 flying wing bomber, the Bristol Brabazon, and B36 Peacemaker all come to mind I think most of these designs had armour plating installed inside the engine compartments to protect vital components from flying fragments caused by engine failures
👍: 0 ⏩: 0

























