Hi! Hawker Siddeley HSA1011 ‘no boom’ supersonic airliner project.(Type 1011)
https://www.diomedia.com/stock-photo-hawker-siddeley-hsa1011-no-boom-supersonic-airliner-projec-image18095796.html

https://yooniqimages.com/images/detail/216317669/Creative/hawker-siddeley-supersonic-transport-aircraft-study

Tri engine version. Mach 1.15? Type 1023?
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2435.0;attach=579164
 

Attachments

  • 01ATG1HT.jpg
    01ATG1HT.jpg
    47.8 KB · Views: 324
  • 01ATG1HU.jpg
    01ATG1HU.jpg
    39.3 KB · Views: 237
  • 01ATG1HV.jpg
    01ATG1HV.jpg
    40 KB · Views: 204
  • 01ATG1HW.jpg
    01ATG1HW.jpg
    45 KB · Views: 238
  • YooniqImages_216317669.jpg
    YooniqImages_216317669.jpg
    73.8 KB · Views: 329
The English Electric P.30N.
 

Attachments

  • 2.png
    2.png
    162.7 KB · Views: 311
Hi,

here is a Shorts PD-22 SST Project.
 

Attachments

  • 19.png
    19.png
    246.1 KB · Views: 271
blackkite said:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,8536.msg75948.html#msg75948

Sorry for this double post,but I used search for PD-22 and find nothing ?.
 
...
 

Attachments

  • UK SST b.png
    UK SST b.png
    245 KB · Views: 306
  • UK SST a.png
    UK SST a.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 328
"I say, Captain - number 32's running a little rough."

"32? On which side?"

Remarkably, the dateline is around a decade before LSD meant something other than money in London. They did it all on G&Ts. Where did we get such men?
 
One should never allow engine manufacturers to design aircraft. It only leads to excessive use of their own products, rather than building something bigger and more useful. Just as you should never allow airframe manufacturers to design engines. It usually doesn't work out very well.
 
youROKer said:
Looking for additional information about this project. It seems to be UK VTOL SST.

What is the source for it ?.
 
youROKer said:
Looking for additional information about this project. It seems to be UK VTOL SST.

It's a 1957 Royal Aircraft Establishment concept for a one-man Mach 5 VTOL "Minimal Aircraft." Chris Gibson wrote about it in issue V3N5 of Aerospace Projects Review. It could be scaled up to transport 20 passengers.
 
Orionblamblam said:
It's a 1957 Royal Aircraft Establishment concept for a one-man Mach 5 VTOL "Minimal Aircraft." Chris Gibson wrote about it in issue V3N5 of Aerospace Projects Review. It could be scaled up to transport 20 passengers.

Thank you so much!
 
Orionblamblam said:
Chris Gibson wrote about it in issue V3N5 of Aerospace Projects Review.

V3N5 ??? When was that published? The last edition of APR I have is V3N4, as shown on your site, or would this be one of the print editions, which I don't have . . .


cheers,
Robin.
 
Earlier I think. Scott learned what 'pear-shaped' means.

To paraphrase Ken Campbell, not the maddest design study in the world, but 'king close.

It was a fur-covered, ramjet-powered, convertible wing, M=5, VTOL aircraft whose rotor hub combined starter motor and generator, had a flexible fuel tank/heat shield, clamshell fuselage and when it all went pear-shaped, it converted into a lifeboat with one clamshell as the hull and the other raised as a sail

I did think it was some chief designer's equivalent of sending an apprentice for a long stand/verbal consent form/bucket of steam/tartan paint. (Or the key to the V-door, Schneiderman)

I must look up the date. You never know!

Chris
 

Attachments

  • inside_dougals_head..png
    inside_dougals_head..png
    480.4 KB · Views: 703
Bazinga said:
Can anybody ID this Vickers design? The design was found by the grandson of the the Vickers VC-10 designer Maurice Wilmer. See the post https://www.facebook.com/groups/169302970269659/permalink/255000198366602/?comment_id=255099068356715&notif_id=1514510427289473&notif_t=group_comment_follow:

index.php
 
Higher res
 

Attachments

  • 26165915_525895877784649_1665017280853024472_n.jpg
    26165915_525895877784649_1665017280853024472_n.jpg
    59.6 KB · Views: 549
CJGibson said:
Earlier I think. Scott learned what 'pear-shaped' means.

To paraphrase Ken Campbell, not the maddest design study in the world, but 'king close.

It was a fur-covered, ramjet-powered, convertible wing, M=5, VTOL aircraft whose rotor hub combined starter motor and generator, had a flexible fuel tank/heat shield, clamshell fuselage and when it all went pear-shaped, it converted into a lifeboat with one clamshell as the hull and the other raised as a sail

I did think it was some chief designer's equivalent of sending an apprentice for a long stand/verbal consent form/bucket of steam/tartan paint. (Or the key to the V-door, Schneiderman)

I must look up the date. You never know!

Chris

I have to ask; 'fur covered'?
 
Yes. Fur-covered. Like a sea lion. Would I lie to you?

Chris
 

Attachments

  • Fur.png
    Fur.png
    563.3 KB · Views: 442
I think it was thought for the X-15 external tanks, but considered much too indecent for the small advantages it could bring.
Fastest_Aircraft_08-672x372.png
 
CJGibson said:
Earlier I think. Scott learned what 'pear-shaped' means.

To paraphrase Ken Campbell, not the maddest design study in the world, but 'king close.

It was a fur-covered, ramjet-powered, convertible wing, M=5, VTOL aircraft whose rotor hub combined starter motor and generator, had a flexible fuel tank/heat shield, clamshell fuselage and when it all went pear-shaped, it converted into a lifeboat with one clamshell as the hull and the other raised as a sail

I did think it was some chief designer's equivalent of sending an apprentice for a long stand/verbal consent form/bucket of steam/tartan paint. (Or the key to the V-door, Schneiderman)

I must look up the date. You never know!

Chris

as we say in French (quoting Jacques Prévert "inventory" poems" ... et un raton laveur (everything and the kitchen sink, plus a rackoon)
 
From Ali Nuove 9/1961,

I can't ID this Project.
 

Attachments

  • 2.png
    2.png
    465.2 KB · Views: 344
From L+K 17/1970,

here is a mystery,it was a supersonic transport Project,designed by
Miles company,and we know the number 116 was missing from the
designation series,so I maybe it was M-116 ?.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    125.9 KB · Views: 212
Last edited:
From Aeroplane Monthly 8/2019.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    114.2 KB · Views: 179
  • 2.png
    2.png
    64.7 KB · Views: 170
  • 3.png
    3.png
    20.6 KB · Views: 160
  • 4.png
    4.png
    295.3 KB · Views: 179
  • 5.png
    5.png
    79.5 KB · Views: 186
  • 6.png
    6.png
    405.2 KB · Views: 206
  • 7.png
    7.png
    244 KB · Views: 497
  • 8.png
    8.png
    208.8 KB · Views: 184
  • 9.png
    9.png
    212.1 KB · Views: 180
  • 10.png
    10.png
    63.1 KB · Views: 199
From L+K 7/1994,

in the second drawing,of course it was not Bristol-198,but what was it ?.
 

Attachments

  • 1  7-1994.png
    1 7-1994.png
    122.6 KB · Views: 114
  • 2  7-1994.png
    2 7-1994.png
    367 KB · Views: 116
From Aeroplane Monthly 2003/12.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    947.5 KB · Views: 89
  • 2.png
    2.png
    2.9 MB · Views: 129

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom