No nothing like say submissions to
OR.339
F.155 with Fairey
F.177 with Saro
OR.346
Nothing military at all.
Well I was taking the BEA Jetliner/GOR.339 bullying talk at Thames House (amalgamate or die) as the point of departure - so post-Sandys. And when Airco was forming up the Sandys cuts had been and gone - that means F.155 is already dead and so is the F.177.
DH's GOR.339 design was from Christchurch under Tamblin. The MoA was very sceptical about entrusting Christchurch to a project of this magnitude and relying on Hatfield to assist was felt to be a stretch given Hatfield was committed to Comet and Trident. Christchurch's flight test facilities were also graded as lower than Hatfield. Thus the MoA ruled it out both on technical, facilities and expertise grounds.
You have to wonder why, when the MoS/MoA made it clear 339 was do or die, that Hatfield palmed it off onto Christchurch - arguably Hatfield were simply spread too thin.
Fairey too had its canard delta design, though Fairey and Blackburn had a mutual inclusion in each other's project, and Fairey also it seems had some minor input into Christchurch's design via the Airco link. The MoA didn't rate this project highly either.
Arguably in this AU world with Vickers so loaded on airliners its open to bets who the MoA chooses EE to partner with or if 339 doesn't just go to Avro/HSA entirely.
OR.346 is slightly later, 1960-61, so by then Airco as a going partnership would have an entry with the DH.127. Vickers probably be more effort into 346 than anyone else. It couldn't pull off the VG demonstrator while working on VC.10, VC.11 and TSR.2 at the same time. Maybe if BAC doesn't get TSR.2 there would be scope for the Type 583? But OR.346 never really got anywhere.
You can't really deny that post twin-boom generation that DH dropped off the radar as far as military was concerned, they scored low in F.155, didn't figure in NA.39 and never really had any hope of catching up with the other larger companies.
And isn't there civil airliner versions of HP's Victor or at least reuse of various bits?
Yes, the HP.96 was competitor to the V.1000. It was runner up. It was considered second best in terms of direct operating costs with a faster cruising speed and good growth potential, but the cabin was not optimised for airline use and there was a lack of confidence in HP's estimates at that time as the HP.80 hadn't flown.
The wide HP.96 fuselage was a drawback; too wide for 4-abreast seating but could not accommodate 5-abreast in adequate comfort and had excessive cabin headroom. The mid-wing layout cost 4 seats and denied windows to another 16 passengers and a third of the seats were located behind the tailpipes, which caused cabin noise concerns.
In my view the RAF would have been better going for the HP.96 if they really wanted a heavy load lugger and then letting Vickers get on with an optimised VC.7 for BOAC.
If BAC had been created a dozen years earlier it's likely that the Firm's Board would think developing a variant of the Britannia would be a more sensible investment than the Vanguard.
Depends who was running the infant early BAC. I've heard some fairly blunt criticisms of Bristol's management and their effectiveness. The MoS idolised Edwards but once he got into high management he got bogged down in paperwork and red tape and was never as effective as he had been nearer the shop floor.
For my Britannia is too big for the Vanguard market - which in effect wanted a Viscount with more seats. Viscount probably couldn't be stretched any more.
But at this time jets were rapidly overtaking turboprops, Vickers and Lockheed gambled airlines would favour the economy of turboprops but customers wanted quieter cabins and voted with their feet (so the story goes). Perhaps in reality the marketing boys convinced the airline execs that in the White Hot Atomic Techno Space Ace any airline that was "with it" wanted the future - swooshing streamlined jets. 1973 was a long way off and fuel wasn't
that expensive compared to the attractions of 'swoosh factor'.
Or instead of BAC do De Havilland/HS Hatfield on steroids.
I like it. If you can save the Medway or save BEA from themselves it could happen.
A military oriented Weybridge might bring us TSR.2 and VG wings and missiles.
HSGroup jointly managed Avro Canada/Malton and DHC/Downsview,
Quite a grouping there.
It still mystifies me why more wasn't made of HSA's Canadian products. It was almost as if they feared competition with their own products.
The only thing they ever pushed was Chipmunk and Caribou for the RAF with some lukewarm interest in CF-105 and a handful of Beavers for the Army Air Corps.
Imagine Avro pitching the C102 to BEA?
