Avro Canada C-102 Jetliner

[Apophenia]

A pair of early C.102 Jetliner studies from The Avro Canada C102 Jetliner, by Jim Floyd (ISBN 0-919783-66-X).

Both studies have twin Rolls-Royce AJ.65s (Avro Canada was denied access to the Avon engine for its civilian project, hence the later adoption of four Derwents).

The final AJ.65-powered C.102 concept had the engines slung beneath the wings. The original concept had a through-spar arrangement for the AJ.65s.

There was also a turboprop variation studied on behalf of Trans-Canada Airlines. This version was to be powered by four Armstrong-Siddeley Mamba turboprops. See Scale Modelling, CGI and Profiles for conjectual drawings of the Mamba-powered Jetliner.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5184.0.html

 

[Triton]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfPhIT7VLVg


Three-view drawing of Avro Canada C-102 Jetliner.

Photograph of Avro Canada C-102 Jetliner.

Another photograph of Avro Canada C-102 Jetliner.


Photograph of Avro Canada C-102 Jetliner.


Photograph of Avro Canada C-102 Jetliner.


Sources:
http://www.aviastar.org/air/canada/canada_c-102.php
http://airfixtributeforum.myfastforum.org/sutra176078.php
http://www.airventure.de/history6.html
http://www.flickr.com/photos/78215847@N00/3811649943/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eyeno/560821444/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/78215847@N00/3806158647/

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

I've been thinking if it had been possible* to equip it with stronger engines, possibly turbo fans later on, and to enlarge the aircraft. Or would it have been a one time wonder?

Sure looks like a nice bird.

*From both technological and economical viewpoints.

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

I didn't know it had actually been built and flown. Have only seen models before.

 

[Stargazer]

Re: Early Avro Canada C.102 Jetliner Studies

I found this Avro Jetliner project online and it's quite a different, later variant. I thought the Jetliner program had been abandoned earlier than this design suggests... Can anyone put a precise date on it?

 

[palg]

Re: Early Avro Canada C.102 Jetliner Studies

I found this Avro Jetliner project online and it's quite a different, later variant. I thought the Jetliner program had been abandoned earlier than this design suggests... Can anyone put a precise date on it?

Hi There


It looks like the 1956 concept depicted here in this related thread: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5182.0/all.html

 

[Stargazer]

Re: Early Avro Canada C.102 Jetliner Studies

It looks like the 1956 concept depicted here in this related thread: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5182.0/all.html

Well done! I think it's exactly that.


I'm linking the image here for comparison, but if a mod sees it fit to move my post to that topic it's perfectly fine by me:

 

[hesham]

Re: Early Avro Canada C.102 Jetliner Studies

Grear find Plag.

 

[Archibald]

Re: Early Avro Canada C.102 Jetliner Studies

beautiful design, looks like a modern bizjet...

 

[riggerrob]

The Jetliner was not economically viable with first-generation British jet engines.
The airframe might have been viable with later fan-jet engines.

 

[taildragger]

The economic viability of the C-102 is an unknown because no airline gave it a try. The costs of acquisition and operation were pretty predictable but the revenue side of operating a jetliner in the early 50s was and is unknown. How would load factors and ticket prices have changed?
Just a few years later airlines stocked up on DC-7s and L-1649s then placed tiny initial orders for 707s and DC-8s (their operating economics probably weren't that far ahead of the C-102's), undoubtedly because of skepticism regarding jetliners' economic viability. It shortly became clear that it was possible to sell more tickets at higher prices on flights served by jets. That realization began a race to convert over to all-jet fleets and the last generation of prop-liners got early starts as cargo carriers.
There's no way of knowing if the same factors would have kicked in had the C-102 been introduced into service, but it seems likely.

 

[Stargazer]

The costs of acquisition and operation were pretty predictable but the revenue side of operating a jetliner in the early 50s was and is unknown.

Er... what about the De Havilland Comet?

 

[MaxLegroom]

I've read that at various times, TWA, National and Eastern were interested in buying the Jetliner. Supposedly, Hughes was interested enough in the Jetliner to try to have it built under license by Convair in San Diego. Probably, it would have been a matter of a lot of them being sold for a short period of time (think by 1955), and it would have had to rapidly evolve or people would lose interest. The question of operating the Jetliner would have been how it would have worked on short to medium haul flights, I think, not really a replacement for Constellations and other long range airliners, but planes like the Convairliners and the Viscount that it more closely resembled in carrying capacity. You'd have to think whether the added speed would result in enough additional passenger seat miles to overcome the likely added expenses, or whether fare increases could be obtained, which would not have been as easy as it is today, due to the Civil Aeronautics Board.

 

[taildragger]

The costs of acquisition and operation were pretty predictable but the revenue side of operating a jetliner in the early 50s was and is unknown.

Er... what about the De Havilland Comet?

Well , the DH Comet was a little bit different, wasn't it?
1. I believe that the Comet 1 was flown almost exclusively on international routes - an entirely different business than domestic, medium range travel, especially in the 50s.
2. The market appeal of the Comet was dampened by the crashes. I don't know that Avro showed the same disregard for fatigue or that the C-102 had any other fatal flaw.
To the extent that the DH Comet example is applicable, it refutes the statement that the C-102 was economically not viable. Before the grounding, DH had a full order book and a growing customer list, including at least a couple of US carriers.

 

[hesham]

Re: Early Avro Canada C.102 Jetliner Studies

From the report; Arrow Countdown,


here is the early Avro Canada C-102 Jetliner drawings.

 

[Stargazer]

Re: Early Avro Canada C.102 Jetliner Studies

here is the early Avro Canada C-102 Jetliner drawings.

Certainly not.

The first image shows a very late configuration with swept wings and tail a la 707.

The second image shows the proposed interior for that project (left) and the brochure for the original, straight wing design (right), for comparison purposes.

 

[blackkite]

Re: Early Avro Canada C.102 Jetliner Studies

Hi!
http://www.avromuseum.com/photos1.html

 

[Triton]

https://youtu.be/49ZMUBWLcPs

 

[Triton]

https://youtu.be/LWd-wtfX33c

 

[blackkite]

Hi!
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5183.msg247568.html#msg247568


Thanks for the clue !

 

[Triton]

Hi!
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5183.msg247568.html#msg247568

Sorry about that. Couldn't imagine that the aircraft would be designated C.102 rather than C-102. Wikipedia designates the aircraft as C102.

"Avro Canada C102 Jetliner"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_C102_Jetliner

 

[alertken]

ML/TD: UK in 1943 looked ahead to post-War civil, and could see little through the barrier of DC-3, DC-4, L-049. Superb. Cheap. But we had turbines.

Avro XXI 689 Tudor II/Merlin was funded 15/12/44, flew 10/3/46, by when Avro had numerous (propellor-)turbine schemes. Hawker Siddeley Group bought Victory A/c 1/12/1944 (Lancaster/York licensee) as Avro Canada: 1945, took a licence for Lincoln, then 4/46 for Tudor II for RCAF (TCA was wed to C-4M). C-102 was initiated from Tudor II with 2xRR AJ.65: TCA 9/4/46 gave a Letter of Intent (the first ever "order" for a civil turbine type - UK's funding for various Brabazon Committee Types was by Ministry, not by a market-driven Customer). 4xDerwent were substituted 10/47 (Avon did not then work: silly conspiracy theory has RR/UK blocking Avon/C-102 to favour Comet 2...which was not conceived until 1951, by when Avon did work, inseminated by ASM compressor data). TCA exited, on operating cost.

Ahistorically...TCA would have quit C-102 in 1948 when Tudors destroyed BSAAC . Best guesses of World total Medium Range demand were then in some scores. Malton sensibly attended to (to be 689) CF-100.

 

[Maveric]

A good 3view drawing.

 

[Maveric]

two early studies

 

[zanenobbs]

The International Resin Modellers Association has a kit for this! It is IRMA Kit No. 8 Avro Canada C102 Jetliner in 1/72. Here is the history: Articles 21 Avro Canada C201 Jetliner (

International Resin Modellers Association ©SM®TM - Articles 21

), build Articles 22 Building the IRMA Kit No. 8 Avro Canaca C102 Jetliner (

International Resin Modellers Association ©SM®TM - Articles 22

), and it can be ordered from the IRMA On-Line Store (

International Resin Modellers Association ©SM®TM - IRMA On-Line Store

). My apologies on delays in the build, I'm working on interior lighting and navigation lights using LED fiber optics to show the full interior and cockpit details.

 

[hesham]

Also from the book; The Avro Canada C102 Jetliner

 

[zanenobbs]

Greetings All,

At this time I'm starting on the interior of my IRMA Kit No. 8 Avro Canada C102 Jetliner in 1/72 and I have the colors for the cockpit interior, however, for the passenger compartment, I know below the windows was green then wood above that, however, I cannot find any color photos or descriptions for the seat colors. Does anyone know or have sources on this?

 

[The Flying Moose]

The economic viability of the C-102 is an unknown because no airline gave it a try. The costs of acquisition and operation were pretty predictable but the revenue side of operating a jetliner in the early 50s was and is unknown. How would load factors and ticket prices have changed?
Just a few years later airlines stocked up on DC-7s and L-1649s then placed tiny initial orders for 707s and DC-8s (their operating economics probably weren't that far ahead of the C-102's), undoubtedly because of skepticism regarding jetliners' economic viability. It shortly became clear that it was possible to sell more tickets at higher prices on flights served by jets. That realization began a race to convert over to all-jet fleets and the last generation of prop-liners got early starts as cargo carriers.
There's no way of knowing if the same factors would have kicked in had the C-102 been introduced into service, but it seems likely.

Agreed - no aircraft came close to the Jetliner's capabilities, and certainly not in North America. Its range and speed suited the triangular route between Toronto-Montreal-New York, and the operating economics were also - supposedly - not horrible; the faster travel times allowed for more daily flights. With plenty of short trips on the East Coast and many interested airlines, it's not a stretch to imagine that the Jetliner would've seen decent success.

Like the Avro Arrow that followed, the Jetliner's cancellation seems a little dodgy from a political perspective. Perhaps sufficient demand would've forced the government's hand in keeping production going, even during the Korean War. The Jetliner's chief engineer (Jim Floyd) even stated that Avro had the resources to produce the Canuck fighter alongside the Jetliner.

Ultimately, I think the greatest shame was the eventual drain of Canada's talent to the US, where many engineers took up jobs with NASA or Boeing.

This story is way too much to cover in one post, but I wrote about all this a while back: How Canada (almost) beat Boeing - with a Jetliner you’ve never heard of. Hopefully I did it justice

 

[riggerrob]

With a ceiling of 40,300 feet, Jetliner could over-fly mountains separating Toronto from New York and New York to Montreal. Terrain between Montreal and Toronto is comparatively flat.
Jetliner could also over-fly most of the nasty weather on those routes. New England weather can get nasty over the White Mountains of Vermont and New Hampshire.
Meanwhile, many of the Martin, Douglas, Convair, etc. twin-engined prop planes struggled through thunderstorms and icing at lower levels.

 

[Apophenia]

... I wrote about all this a while back: How Canada (almost) beat Boeing - with a Jetliner you’ve never heard of. Hopefully I did it justice

Nice job!

One viewpoint is that Frost scored an own goal when, upon arrival at Malton, he tweaked the XC100 design. Moving the engines down slightly resulted in smoother lines but it also meant weaker wing spar connection points. Officialdom may have seen work on the C102 as a distraction from perfecting the CF-100 rather than being unable to imagine Avro Canada simultaneously producing CF-100s and C102s.

 

[Archibald]

James C.Floyd born in 1914 is still alive at the age of 107 (!!)

The trick to get Hughes onboard was bold and clever. Hughes was building the CF-100 MG-2 fire and control system... and Avro suggested to test it on the C-102 prototype. Sending it to Hughes in California. Damn smart idea that very nearly worked!

About production at Convair not being possible... are you f...cking kidding me ? what are CV-240 series then ??!! and the CV-880 project was started in spring 1956.

 

[riggerrob]

... I wrote about all this a while back: How Canada (almost) beat Boeing - with a Jetliner you’ve never heard of. Hopefully I did it justice

Nice job!

One viewpoint is that Frost scored an own goal when, upon arrival at Malton, he tweaked the XC100 design. Moving the engines down slightly resulted in smoother lines but it also meant weaker wing spar connection points. Officialdom may have seen work on the C102 as a distraction from perfecting the CF-100 rather than being unable to imagine Avro Canada simultaneously producing CF-100s and C102s.

Yes,
That problem with CF-100 wing spars is mentioned in James Floyd's book about the Avro Jetliner (pages 107 to 111). Moving the engines down required "dishing" the top of the main spars, reducing their cross-section and creating flexing problems. Excess flexing soon caused cracking. The final solution involved a pinned joint to reduce localized stresses where the outboard edge of the engine nacelle met the outer wing spar. I suspect that they were trying to carry some of the wing loads through the upper part of the ring bulkhead that surrounded the engine, but the difference in flexing characteristics between the ring frame and spar created wrinkles in wing skins and cracks in the ring frame.

 

[Archibald]

Part of that story seemingly involved Jim chamberlin of later NASA Gemini fame...

 

[Apophenia]

James C.Floyd born in 1914 is still alive at the age of 107 (!!) ...

About production at Convair not being possible... are you f...cking kidding me ? what are CV-240 series then ??!! and the CV-880 project was started in spring 1956.

I could have worded my last post better. My reference was to XC100 (CF-100) project engineer, John C.M. Frost. As you suggest, Jim Floyd was the design lead on the C102.

About production at Convair not being possible... are you f...cking kidding me ? what are CV-240 series then ??!! and the CV-880 project was started in spring 1956.

Not certain what your "production at Convair not being possible" comment refers to. Obviously, none of the technology behind the Jetliner would have provided great challenges for Convair. But Avro Canada wasn't an independent actor. Would Avro Canada's parent firm, HSA, have ever approved such a licensing deal? My guess is no.

Things get more complicated if you also regard British-owned Avro Canada and US-owned Canadair as direct competitors. Electric Boat owned Canadair. Once that all got amalgamated into General Dynamics, Canadair becomes a Convair subsidiary. So, even if Avro Canada were able to act independently, why would it favour a production deal with the parent of its Montréal rival?

 

[Hood]

Not certain what your "production at Convair not being possible" comment refers to. Obviously, none of the technology behind the Jetliner would have provided great challenges for Convair. But Avro Canada wasn't an independent actor. Would Avro Canada's parent firm, HSA, have ever approved such a licensing deal? My guess is no.

It has always puzzled me why Avro, or Hawker Siddeley as a whole, never offered the C-102 to British airlines. It would have leapfrogged the Vickers Nene Viking and Tay Viscount and might have given the Viscount some stiff opposition, excluding the high fuel cost of having jets rather than turboprops.

 

[Grey Havoc]

I suspect that the Ministry of Supply may have had something to do with that...

 

[Archibald]

@Apophenia
I meant this https://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/woe-canada-46801512/
Page 2 - Hughes asked Convair to build Jetliners for TWA since Avro wouldn't do and Convair said they couldn't either... too much military contracts. Except they build CV440 at the same time...

Hughes made a proposal for Convair to manufacture 20 or 50 Jetliners under license for TWA’s more prestigious routes. Convair completed detailed plans that summer to deliver the first airplane by May 1954. Some say Howe intervened to quash the deal, but historian Jonathan Vance isn’t so sure. “I suspect it was equal parts economic nationalism and a kind of tit-for-tat because the U.S. had put restrictions on out-of-country, defense-related manufacturing,” he says. The Convair license from Avro would certainly have qualified as “out-of-country” manufacturing. Floyd said the plan was killed when the U.S. government decided that its own military commitments must take priority in Convair’s plants.

This is completely misleading, for two reasons
- CV-240
- CV-880

I mean, had the US government followed that logic, then the above two airliners should have been erased from existence...

Gimme a break... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_CV-240_family

1181 build. One thousand, one hundred eighty one. From 1947 to, what, 1958?

First flight	March 16, 1947
Introduction	February 29, 1948 with American Airlines

Convair 340/440 Metropolitan - passenger

www.aviastar.org

The 440 was a development of the 340 with modifications to increase speed by about 8km/h and to reduce the noise level in the cabin. Special kits were also made available to convert 340 to 440 standard. Accommodation was provided for between 44 and 52 passengers. The prototype first flew on 6 October 1955 and 162 were built before production was phased out in the spring of 1958.

And then Hughes and Convair started the CV-880 project in April 1956.

So the argument that Convair had no time or capacity for airliner production in the 50's, I call it BOLLOCKS.

 

[kitnut617]

Not certain what your "production at Convair not being possible" comment refers to. Obviously, none of the technology behind the Jetliner would have provided great challenges for Convair. But Avro Canada wasn't an independent actor. Would Avro Canada's parent firm, HSA, have ever approved such a licensing deal? My guess is no.

It has always puzzled me why Avro, or Hawker Siddeley as a whole, never offered the C-102 to British airlines. It would have leapfrogged the Vickers Nene Viking and Tay Viscount and might have given the Viscount some stiff opposition, excluding the high fuel cost of having jets rather than turboprops.

I would say it was because at the same time (about), Avro had the Tudor Mk.8 which is almost a dead ringer (I did say almost)

 

[Hood]

I would say it was because at the same time (about), Avro had the Tudor Mk.8 which is almost a dead ringer (I did say almost)

That is very true, though the Ashton was, like the Vickers projects, more about testing than waters than creating an actual commercial proposition.

 

[alertken]

(This story is complex).
Canada's Minister for Everything, C.D.Howe in 1945 "owned" as Crown Corpns. Trans Canada Airlines and Victory A/c, licensee of Avro Lancaster, Lincoln, York. He had licenced DC-4 airframe and DC-6 pressurisation, 2/44, assigned 3/44 to (Canadian Vickers, which he bought 10/44 as Canadair) and ordered 50, 12/44, for TCA, RCAF and maybe export. Victory 7/45 added Avro 689 Tudor IIF to their Avro licence, 5 to be redefined from the Lincoln line for RCAF as freighters.

UK HS Group bought Victory, effective 1/12/45, rewarded with ITP mid-46 for CF-100. By then Howe had removed Canada from notions of a Round-the-World British route (BOAC/Qantas/TEAL/(to be) Air India), had signed an Air Transport Agreement with US and had exercised bilateral Rights to fly to ANZ in competition with (UK/Oz/NZ) BCPA. He was breaking with links made with UK's (Minister for Lots-of-Things, Canadian-businessman) Lord Beaverbrook, who had been instrumental in funding Avro 687, the Howe-Balfour {UK Air Minister} Aeroplane, 13/10/43, which evolved as Tudors for the Brit. RTW route.

UK funded Avro 693 as Definitive Empire Type, 4/46 (4xRR Clyde turboprop). TCA Agreed 9/4/46 to buy Avro Canada C-102 Jetliner (2xRR AJ65, to be Avon). Avro 693, 10/46 became 4xRR AJ65. BOAC+BSAAC 27/1/47 ordered Comet (1). Everybody, except BSAAC, dumped Tudors, all and any, 11/4/47. UK 28/7/47 chose an Avro delta scheme as its AW Medium Bomber. BOAC indicated no problem in planning for 1, not 2 turbojet Types, so UK chopped Avro 693. RR then told Avro Canada that Avon might not be available to Jetliner's schedule (at that time it did not work). 4xDerwents was not an economic solution.

Tudor 8 and 9 (Avro 706 Ashton) with turbojets were merely cheap lift for engine R&D, using unwanted Tudor 2 airframes.

Canadians need not wail of Brit perfidity thwarting a bonanza. TWA/Howard Hughes was no luscious, missed opportunity. Comet 1 launch order was 7 each Corpn, and neither was overjoyed at their imposition. Reliability was what was wanted, only just emerging on Big Pistons. All we knew in 1947/49 about turbojets was that they were expensive to buy and run to an overhaul which no-one could price.