Handley Page "Laminar Airliner"

Jemiba

Jemiba

Moderator
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
11 March 2006
Messages
8,667
Reaction score
3,527
A HP design from 1954, MTOW 136.000 kg, 120 pax, four Conway 10 engines,
Mach 0,9 in 15.000 to 18.300m, range up to 25.000 km !
That's stated in an article in aero 1954, but without type designation or project number.
 

Attachments

  • HP_laminar_airliner.jpg
    HP_laminar_airliner.jpg
    36 KB · Views: 592
Did they honestly think they could get that kind of range out of it?

Is that similar to the "Comet 5" concept?


KJ
 
Dr.D.Kuchemann (Gottingen U, one of UK's Paperclip successes) had moved from RAE to HP: his concept was porous (leading edge, even entire wing) upper surface, with a buried turbine to suck in the draggy boundary layer. Trialled 1957-63 on Marshall MA.4 Auster with David Budworth turbine in cabin, and on an HP aerofoil upper mid-fuse mounted, first at Cranfield on Lancaster PA474 (Yes, that one), then on (Napier) Lincoln RF...Prob: bugs, gunging the holes. Manufacturing/maintenance nightmare. Big-fan powerplants provided range despite drag.
 
That looks quite large. Any dims on it? The wing makes me think of the B-52's for some reason.
 
Length 42,20 m,span 67,05 m, wingloading 293kg/m²
 
Hi,

and from Flightglobal;
http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1957/1957%20-%200910.html
 

Attachments

  • HP.JPG
    HP.JPG
    29.3 KB · Views: 532
200ft + wingspan, thats quite big....

Also interesting is the use of wing mounted engines rather than buried as in the HP97 and 111C are they on short pylons or directly on the wing?
 
The two artist impression seems to show different kind of engine attachements, I think. The one in
aero seems to have the engines slung directly under the wing, the other from Flight /thanks for this,
hesham !) quite clearly has podded engines. But between them are about 3 years of development,
so maybe we just see an early and a later design (And range has decreased significantly during this
time !).
 
Do Project Cancelled or Stuck on the Drawing Board mention this design?
 
I think not.
I was thinking of the HP.102, but this was a straight-wing design and it
was from 1955 ...
 
The L/D ratio on this plane was something like a glider at it's optimum speed.

Incredible
 
Hi,

1956 | 0785 | Flight Archive

FLIGHT, 15 June 1956 CIVIL 787 AVIATION The projected Handley Page transport, incorporating the principle of laminar flow, to which allusion is made on this page under the title "Laminar Liner." LAMIN
www.flightglobal.com
 

Attachments

  • HP.JPG
    HP.JPG
    25.8 KB · Views: 479
From a 1957 Handley Page brochure
 

Attachments

  • HP0011.jpg
    HP0011.jpg
    164.7 KB · Views: 338
  • HP0014.jpg
    HP0014.jpg
    472.3 KB · Views: 356
Three views of two Laminar Flow projects from the Autumn 1957 Handley Page Bulletin... Project A was designed to cruise at Mach 0.85, Project B (similar to the HP108) at Mach 0.9...

Zeb
 

Attachments

  • Project A.jpg
    Project A.jpg
    336.7 KB · Views: 133
  • Project B.jpg
    Project B.jpg
    334.6 KB · Views: 146
zebedee said:
Three views of two Laminar Flow projects from the Autumn 1957 Handley Page Bulletin... Project A was designed to cruise at Mach 0.85, Project B (similar to the HP108) at Mach 0.9...

Zeb
Click to expand...
Interesting that the design placed the engines in external pods - I thought that during this period, the British aero industry was still committed to wing-root installations. The plumbing necessary for the suction system would seem like another reason to bury the engines internally and the arrangements of the pods on this design doesn't seem to use them to resist wing twist.
 
I'd say it was an attempt to reduce maintenance & other operating costs as well as allowing for a wider range of engine choices.
 
taildragger said:
Interesting that the design placed the engines in external pods - I thought that during this period, the British aero industry was still committed to wing-root installations. The plumbing necessary for the suction system would seem like another reason to bury the engines internally and the arrangements of the pods on this design doesn't seem to use them to resist wing twist.
Click to expand...

Look at how thin the wing is. Burying the engines in the root may not have been an option.
 
The wings would be full of ducts and pipework.

Chris
 
Indeed, but all through the wing structure and under the skin, the pipes and ducts were for the suction system which was not conducive to access panels, so external engines would be helpful. See Vulcan's Hammer, Nimrod's Genesis and On Atlas' Shoulders.

Chris
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom