De Havilland DH-117

[hesham]

Hi,

a well known fighter to Specification F.155T,the De Havilland DH-117.
http://prototypes.free.fr/fd2/fd2-3.htm

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

It looks pretty good. A bit similar to the Hawker entries, only the respective Hawker planes had either one engine (DH Gyron, RR Thames, Iroqious (sp?)) or two (DH Gyron Jr), one on/under each wing.

I assume the DH.117 would have Gyron Jr.

 

[saturncanuck]

Kinda looks like a British Douglas X-3

 

[frank]

Hmm. Have you looked at an X-3? ???

Kinda looks like a British Douglas X-3

 

[saturncanuck]

Hmm. Have you looked at an X-3? ???

Kinda looks like a British Douglas X-3

Yes. The X-3 is at the USAF Museum. Seen her many times.

 

[Stargazer]

For the life of me I can see no similitude between this and the X-3 !!! ??? ??? ???

 

[Jemiba]

If we don't care for the actual dimensions of both aircraft, but just for the shape,
well, then at least a similar layout could be seen, why not. The long pointed nose
replaced by the radom and the wings elongated ... perhaps a clue to a modeller, building
a 1/72 DH.117 from a 1/48 X-3 ?

 

[frank]

I see as much (or as little) similarity to the X-3 as I do an F-104 or even a Lear Jet or........

If we don't care for the actual dimensions of both aircraft, but just for the shape,
well, then at least a similar layout could be seen, why not. The long pointed nose
replaced by the radom and the wings elongated ... perhaps a clue to a modeller, building
a 1/72 DH.117 from a 1/48 X-3 ?

 

[Barrington Bond]

From the wings back it looks like an X3 to me

Regards,
Barry

 

[martinbayer]

I think it's an interesting philosophical consideration to analyze and define what constitutes similarity in aircraft design. To me, basic layouts are mainly defined by fundamental features roughly at the level of definition used in patents, e.g. wing and stabilizer shape, arrangement and position, type, number and arrangement of engines, etc., rather than quantitative dimensions. Thus, if one design can be approximated by or morphed into another through geometrical distortions such as stretching or compressing of length, span, wing area and sweep, etc., they share the same basic configuration. In this case, the DH-117 and X-3 are compatible to me, while they are both set apart from the Starfighter and Learjet by the T-tails of the latter two as well as the number respectively position of engines. Perhaps it exists already, but it might be an interesting exercise to try to construct a truly comprehensive generic morphological box for aircraft designs that would branch down to cover successive levels of details - the logic would be somewhat analogous to the V/STOL wheel at http://vstol.org/wheel.htm or the twin-engine propeller-driven aircraft configuration survey shown on page 17 of http://www.mp.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/arbeiten/TextMuellerS.pdf, but it would include all types of aircraft and not just these particular subsets.

Martin

 

[Stargazer]

I may be wrong, but I see a lot more resemblance between the DH.117 and McDonnell's XF-88 Voodoo prototype (wings excepted)...

 

[martinbayer]

I agree as far as body proportions go, but once again, in my view the wing shape is a qualitative configuration discriminator, while the length of the fuselage forebody is not - note that there is a whole number of planes that had body modifications that notably changed the silhouettes while retaining the basic layout and most of the airframe, e.g. Mirage V vs. III, the Israeli Mirage IIICJs with long Tzniut noses, the Nimrod AEW3, the EC-135, the compressed B-747SP, etc. Also, while a Super Guppy looks like a 'super deformed' caricature of an airplane, it is the very same basic configuration as the C-97/B-377, or for that matter, even the B-29. So focusing on proportions while comparing basic configurations can in my opinion be misleading.

Martin

 

[blackkite]

Hi!
http://warfiles.ru/show-66009-proekt-istrebitelya-perehvatchika-de-havilland-dh117.html

"Powerplant: 2 × Gyron Junior (moustache) + 1 × Spectre Spe. 5 (maximum thrust 2 × 12000 lbs (2 × 53.3 kN) + 1 × 10000 lbs (1 × 44.4 kN))
Dimensions:
wingspan 38.0 ft (11.6 m)
length of 66.8 ft (20.3 m)
wing area: 450 CFT ² (41.8 m ²)
the relative thickness of the profile of the wing 5%
Weight:
total flight 54775 lbs (24845 kg)
Flight characteristics:
maximum speed: Mach 2.35
Armament: 2 × Blue Jay MK. 4

Bottom picture source : AIR ENTHUSIAST 61.
Rocket engine located tail of the aircraft.

 

[Petrus]

More over here:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,23936.msg269288.html

 

[blackkite]

Thansk a lot. Excellent drawings!!

 

[Hood]

The windtunnel model shown in Blackite's earlier post still exists and is on display at the RAF Museum Hendon.
Apologies for the roughness of these pictures but its in a rather dark area and behind perspex.

 

[blackkite]

Hi! D.H.117
Source : twitter and
https://144airbattle.blogspot.com/2018/11/scale-modelworld-2018-part-5-sig-144-3.html
http://aviadejavu.ru/Site/Crafts/Craft181451.htm

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

The windtunnel model shown in Blackite's earlier post still exists and is on display at the RAF Museum Hendon.
Apologies for the roughness of these pictures but its in a rather dark area and behind perspex.

Before the model was sent to Hendon it was at the RAF Museum Stores at Stafford where I was able to photograph it.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Brochure illustration.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

3 view from brochure at Kew.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

More.