Bristol Siddeley "Flying Pig" V/STOL 1960

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Found some brief specs on this one in an Air Pictorial.

• VTOL transport, partly replacing cancelled H.S.681, designed for minimum structure weight, sized around payload with smallest wings possible to support weight during cruise. In low speed flight relies on partial deflected thrust.
• Designed by a team under Sir Stanley Hooker.
• Powered by 4 uprated Pegasus engines, rated at 24,000lb each.
• MTOW: 70,000lb
• Payload: 20,000lb
• Cruise speed: 330mph
• Dimensions: 80ft length, 41ft span, 32ft height.

 

[Jemiba]

But it still had wings. Totally unnecessary, as can be seen by
this concept, described as "slow flying, wingless aircraft" in
FlugWelt-60-I !

 

[Barrington Bond]

Early 60's Interavia - sorry don't know issue!

 

[robunos]

here's the version i found...

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2504.msg33446.html#msg33446

cheers,
Robin.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Crosslink to topic dealing with a 1959 NASA Technical Note on wind tunnel studies on a model of a Wingless jet VSTOL Transport: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7142.0.html

 

[CJGibson]

I've knocked up a GA of the Bristol 'Flying Pig'.

Any idea what its real designation was?

Chris

 

[boxkite]

I've knocked up a GA of the Bristol 'Flying Pig'.

Any idea what its real designation was?

Chris

Maybe it's a proposal by Bristol ENGINES, not by the aircraft manufacturer Bristol?

 

[CJGibson]

Ah...very true.

Back to the bookcase.

Thanks

Chris

 

[CNH]

How was it going to get lift in forward flight?

 

[Kevin Renner]

1) The first design shown. Can you imagine how loud it would be
2) The wingless designs. Flight time in minutes due to the incredibly high fuel consumption

 

[Jemiba]

How was it going to get lift in forward flight?

Jet lift only ! The Harrier can, or better, has to do the same at very low forward speed.

1) The first design shown. Can you imagine how loud it would be
2) The wingless designs. Flight time in minutes due to the incredibly high fuel consumption

1) Dependening on the task, that may mot matter !
2) Judging the sketch, it was intended as a kind of roadable flying crane. Refulleing during attaching the
sling load may have been a suitable scenario, I think.

 

[CJGibson]

My reading of the sketch is:

Vectored thrust with rotating nozzles.
Pegasus installed backwards with intake at rear
Directional control by puffers shown at nose, tail and sides (the side ones might/might not rotate) I might 'fix' the side ones.
Driven front wheels as there appears to be a drive shaft and a transmission under the froward fuselage.
Flying crane for moving underslung loads short distances (20km?), but could be driven/manoeuvred on the ground.
Wheels/tyres look a bit beefy for mere landing gear.

I've found another sketch showing it in 3/4 view from below so have amended the drawing. This sketch shows bulged windows for better downward view and the shaft drives for the wheels.

Also used the payload shown to estimate the lifting capacity - 12 x 45 UK Gal drums (54 US Gal) - assume 6.08lb/US Gal for gasoline = 12 x 54 x 6.08 = 3940lb (1787kg)

Add in the odds and sods for slinging etc - looks like 4000lb at least.

Chris

 

[Stargazer]

Forgot to congratulate on the GA drawing, Chris, great work, thanks!

 

[Jemiba]

Sorry for not having reacted correctly at once, although I have the source about the
Pegasus engine at hand, "Pegasus, The Heart Of The Harrier" by Andrew Dow:
About the "Flying Pig", he says, that it was conceived by Stanley Hooker as a means
of providing vertical lift for battlefield materials. The vehicle was designed with front and
back halves, allowing easy installation of the Pegasus engine, which was mounted back-
wards. Hot and cold nozzles were controllable independently to allow for propulsion by
the cold nozzles at the rear providing some forward thrust. Flight controll was achieved
by four puffer jets, the pilot was provided with a Martin-Baker ejection seat and the
road wheels were driven by a 100 shp turbine located below and behind the pilot.
Length was to be 22 ft and, with the puffer jets extended, 11 ft 4 in wide.
The twin engined version, with the engines side-by-side was designed by David Maxwell.

 

[Grey Havoc]

My reading of the sketch is:

Vectored thrust with rotating nozzles.
Pegasus installed backwards with intake at rear
Directional control by puffers shown at nose, tail and sides (the side ones might/might not rotate) I might 'fix' the side ones.
Driven front wheels as there appears to be a drive shaft and a transmission under the froward fuselage.
Flying crane for moving underslung loads short distances (20km?), but could be driven/manoeuvred on the ground.
Wheels/tyres look a bit beefy for mere landing gear.

I've found another sketch showing it in 3/4 view from below so have amended the drawing. This sketch shows bulged windows for better downward view and the shaft drives for the wheels.

Also used the payload shown to estimate the lifting capacity - 12 x 45 UK Gal drums (54 US Gal) - assume 6.08lb/US Gal for gasoline = 12 x 54 x 6.08 = 3940lb (1787kg)

Add in the odds and sods for slinging etc - looks like 4000lb at least.

Chris

Incidentally, I suspect that the searchlight shown in the 3/4 view is an IR one. Would make sense for a battlefield supply vehicle.

 

[hesham]

Hi,


the Bristol Flying Big; Early VTOL Aircraft
(before 1967)
Published by Dennis Hawkes at Smashwords

 

[Barrington Bond]

From Bristol Siddeley Magazine.

 

[hesham]

Nice Find Barrington.

 

[Stargazer]

Splendid stuff guys, thanks.

 

[Mike Pryce]

Great find, thanks for sharing BB.


A cautionary tale showing why engine designers should not stray into aircraft design perhaps - just imagine the beating the slung payload would get from the exhaust, with the cable whipping around as the load is buffeted about etc.

 

[hole in the ground]

Not to mention the cooking they'd get too!

 

[Avimimus]

Any idea why the cruise speed was limited to 330 mph? A VTOL platform should have a power to weight ratio that would allow it to go faster (other considerations aside).

 

[CJGibson]

Probably rip the undercarriage off!

Chris

 

[DWG]

Possibly reaching the limits of control authority of the puffer ports? With a conventional design you get more airflow over the control surfaces the faster you go, with this design your ability to counteract pitch or yaw forces is pretty much constant and doesn't scale with speed.

 

[TsrJoe]

An image from the Transport Archive

An image from the Transport Archive

An image from the Transport Archive

 

[hesham]

From L+K 5/1968,

the length 25m height 10m and span 12m.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Would have been interesting to see this in police service.

 

[hesham]

From Air Pictorial 1967.