Shorts Belfast

[CJGibson]

"The only aircraft considered for Skybolt other than Vulcan and Victor was the VC10."

I'd insert "seriously"

Belfast - Foiled by nasty northern European weather and lack of altitude performance (see AIR 2/10806 in Kew)
HP.117 - Foiled by, well, HMG etc. HP Brochure
B-36 and B-52 - Air Staff pondered these for a short time, maybe the time it took to write the memo at AVIA 65/1653 E36 in Kew
HS.776 - lacked power and endurance.

Chris

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Note the seeming lack of luggage space, seems to have been an issue with most of the double decked evolutions from transport aircraft and single deck airliners.

Well no one says you have to have seats all the way from the front to the back. When there is no under floor room for luggage then usually part of the rear fuselage is used for it like in many regional airliners.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Well no one says you have to have seats all the way from the front to the back. When there is no under floor room for luggage then usually part of the rear fuselage is used for it like in many regional airliners.

It was never suggested otherwise.

HP.117, now had HP had ever been able to rectify the issues with the boundary layer control it would have made for an awesome long endurance Skybolt patrol bomber.

How many Skybolts did the HP brochure suggest?

 

[CJGibson]

Eight, lauched out the back, see pic on Vulcan's Hammer thread.

Chris

 

[Caravellarella]

Re: Shorts SC-5 Britannic project......

Dear Boys and Girls; to get back on topic, here is a picture with part of an article in French of the (then) Shorts SC-5 Britannic "project" to illustrate a larger article about spending on military transport programmes......

The article comes from the 8th September 1961 issue of Les Ailes......

Terry (Caravellarella)

 

[Caravellarella]

Re: Shorts SC-5 Britannic 3 project......

Dear Boys and Girls; now that we are back on topic, here is an article in French about the Shorts SC-5 Britannic 3 "project"......

The article comes from the 16th May 1959 issue of Les Ailes......

Terry (Caravellarella)

 

[kaiserbill]

Just found this from British pathe.
The mockup up the double deck passenger Belfast.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGJtJw4gZIc

 

[swerve]

The cross sections were interesting. Does anyone know how the eventual Belfast compared? I'd like to know the cargo compartment width & height.

 

[hesham]

Hi,


to complete the work of my dear TinWing,here is the Belfast variants from
Flying Review 9/1964.

 

[LowObservable]

BOAC studies do not now seem likely to crystallize.

"I'll have what the gentleman on the floor is having."

 

[CJGibson]

'We will I hope be preserved from having to consider a Shorts contender to meet this AST.' Gp Cpt Ingle, DD Air Plans 1 Feb 1963 on AST.364.

'Nuff said.

Chris

 

[hesham]

From Ali Nuove 6/1959.

 

[hesham]

From Aviation magazine 1957.

 

[riggerrob]

Somewhat off topic, but the picture of the early Britannic raises question I've though of before?

What were the advantages of the tailboom design, it seems to add a lot of weight for no gain?

Regards

Twin booms were a step in the process of learning how to build cargo planes.

The primary advantage of twin tail booms is the ability to install a huge cargo door in the aft end of the central pod/nacelle/fuselage/gondolla.
The first twin-boom cargo plane was the WW2-vintage Gotha 242 cargo glider. The Gotha’s center pod tail split horizontally with the top hinging upwards and the bottom becoming a ramp to allow soldiers to ride a VW Kubelwagen out the back.
Most subsequent twin-boom cargo planes split their cargo doors vertically: Fairchild C-82, C-119, XC-120, Nordatlas, Arava, etc. The disadvantage was that cargo doors had to be removed and left at base if they wanted to drop heavy cargo (trucks, artillery, etc.). See the battles of Kap Yong Hill, Diem Ben Phu, etc. Omitting rear doors increased drag and shortened range.
The disadvantage is the extra weight and complexity of building three separate fuselages.

Eventually, they learned how to install cargo ramps under the tails of single fuselage planes and that is now the norm for military cargo planes.

 

[elmayerle]

Eventually, they learned how to install cargo ramps under the tails of single fuselage planes and that is now the norm for military cargo planes.

IIRC, Budd showed them the way with the RB-1 Conestoga and the C-123 developed the idea further.

 

[Grey Havoc]

gaz11h

Published on Feb 19, 2017
a look inside the Shorts Belfast at the RAF museum at RAF Cosford one of only 10 airframes built of which only 2 survive shot on the 7th of Feb 2017 on the 10th anniversary of the opening of the cold war Exhibition

 

[uk 75]

The Jet Belfast always reminded me of the IL76 even though it was a hybrid with the C141.

 

[Pioneer]

The Jet Belfast always reminded me of the IL76 even though it was a hybrid with the C141.

Yes, I see what you mean uk75.
Saying that, would I be right in assuming that like the IL-76, the "Jet Belfast" had a main wing box which was above and didn't impeach through the main cargohold??

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Hobbes]

The wing box of the standard Belfast did impinge on the cargo hold.

This video shows the wingbox during construction.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Shorts Jet Belfast thread.

 

[Hobbes]

Saying that, would I be right in assuming that like the IL-76, the "Jet Belfast" had a main wing box which was above and didn't impeach through the main cargohold??

Going by the 3-views, the lower surface of the wing is at about the same location as on the production Belfast, so the wing spars would go through the cargo hold. On the Il-76, the lower surface of the wing is above the fuselage cylinder.

 

[Pioneer]

The wing box of the standard Belfast did impinge on the cargo hold.

This video shows the wingbox during construction.

Thanks Hobbes, my notion has been wrong then for so many decades then. Kudos to the Soviet's and OKB-39 then! Which now makes me beg the question - was it the Soviet military that stipulated that the wing-box / Main spar wasn't to pass through the main cargo hold or was it Ilyushin designers??? Either way it puts the IL-76 design in a higher category of respect in my opinion.


Regards
Pioneer

 

[Hobbes]

In both cases, the aircraft is designed to a requirement to carry cargo with specified dimensions. Ilyushin put the wing box above the fuselage to minimize the fuselage diameter. Shorts used a larger fuselage resulting in more volume. Both have merits.

The dimension requirement is usually specified as a rectangle: "has to be able to load cargo that's 12ft wide and 12ft high" was the spec for the Belfast. As long as the wing box clears that, you've met the spec.

 

[CJGibson]

Which was why the BAC.222 had a longitudinal insert in the fuselage.

Chris

 

[fightingirish]

SC.5/13
[...]

S.C.5 / 21B
Shorts coined the term “stractical” to describe the capability of its S.C.5/21B to meet OR.351. The Belfast variant was fitted with a dorsal engine pack to feed the boundary-layer control system for STOL operations. The removable dorsal pack incorporated three RB.176 compressors which would “blow” the control surfaces on the wings and tail. Note also the 12-wheel main undercarriage bogies for semi-prepared strips.

Chris Gibson helped out on this article "Shorts: The Perennial Thorn" by Professor Keith Hayward FRAeS by contributing also a 3-View drawing of the Short S.C.5 / 21B on page 36.
Source: The Aviation Historian Magazine, Issue No 32, page 34-41

 

[Archibald]

the term “stractical”

ROTFL "surely, you can't be serious !" "it is neither strategic nor tactic: an entirely different kind of flying, all together... pardon, altogether !"

 

[Deleted member 2278]

Drawing of a swing-nose Belfast.

Aviation Week and Space Technology 1961-05-15: Vol 74 Iss 20 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Aviation Week and Space Technology 1961-05-15: Volume 74, Issue 20.Digitized from IA1514330-05.Previous issue:...

archive.org

 

[hesham]

From Aeroplane magazine 1957,

the Shorts PD.18.

 

[hesham]

From Air Pictorial 1961.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

for the Air Ministry Specification ASR.371 for a transport aircraft,which
led to Shorts Belfast,the Avro-756 was also from its tenders,who know
more about the competitors ?.

From Avro Heritage site,the Avro-756.

The other tenders were, Hawker P.1131,Handley Page HP.111 and Vickers VC.10 Military Freighter.

 

[hesham]

From Air Pictorial 1964.

 

[Archibald]

Been curious about the Belfast / C-141 hybrid. I finally realized that a Belfast fuselage had one major advantage over the Starlifter: a 16 ft diameter, versus only 10 ft for the C-141 - perhaps of C-130 legacy, also 10 ft.

Why did Lockheed stuck with 10 ft, for the C-141 ?

Also, is just me or is the A400M fuselage diameter, less than the Belfast ?

At more than 4 m in diameter the Belfast had one of the widest fuselage before the An-22 and C-5A. Only for that it was a very impressive aircraft. A pity it never got 7000 hp or 8000 hp Tynes... or BS.100 turbofans.

A BS.100 / Starlifter / Belfast "medley" would have been a very impressive military cargo aircraft.

 

[robunos]

Why did Lockheed stuck with 10 ft, for the C-141 ?

Wasn't the original mission for the StarLifter to transport SAC missiles ? You don't need a large diameter fuselage for that . . .

A BS.100 / Starlifter / Belfast "medley" would have been a very impressive military cargo aircraft.

It would, but Shorts would have to sort out the rear fuselage drag problem, or you'd just have a jet powered 'Belslow' !

cheers,
Robin.

 

[TsrJoe]

'Jet Belfast' proposal with C.141 wing also had a revised rear fuselage

 

[hesham]

From Interavia 1958.

 

[BlackBat242]

Wasn't the original mission for the StarLifter to transport SAC missiles ? You don't need a large diameter fuselage for that . . .

It would, but Shorts would have to sort out the rear fuselage drag problem, or you'd just have a jet powered 'Belslow' !

cheers,
Robin.

It already had been... at least for the straight-wing version:

Following the type's entry into RAF service, it became apparent that a major drag problem was preventing the initial five aircraft from attaining Short's desired performance. Modifications and testing were subsequently carried out, particularly on aircraft SH1818 (which was at the time perfecting the RAF's requirement for CAT 3 automated landings at RAE Bedford), and a new rear fairing was developed, which had the result of raising the fleet's cruising speed by 40 mph.

However, even with that it was still the Belslow:

There was also the famous story of a Belfast crew missing their half hourly radio check whilst on a long overwater stage who when checked on replied 'All okay, steaming slowly south easterly, no sign of scurvy on board.'

 

[Kiltonge]

Following a two-month Shorts sales tour to Asia, Australia and America in late 1964, the RAAF requested a "requote and recap" for the "strategic / tactical" Belfast ( presumably S.C.5/21B ) as an alternative to additional C-130s.

 

[Pioneer]

Following a two-month Shorts sales tour to Asia, Australia and America in late 1964, the RAAF requested a "requote and recap" for the "strategic / tactical" Belfast ( presumably S.C.5/21B ) as an alternative to additional C-130s.

How interesting and thanks Kiltonge!
Can I ask what is the source?

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Kiltonge]

Oops that was from Flight, 17 Dec 1964

 

[Kiltonge]

Not often mentioned is the HUD fitted to the Belfast, manufactured by Rank Cintel and designated Pilots Display Unit Mk 6 by the RAF.