Bristol Britannia

A logical answer is that 221 DC-7B/C, 235 civil L-1049C-H, and 44 L-1649A were sold. So Brabazon’s Committee was right to identify Type III (Medium Range Empire) and Type I (Transatlantic) as targets, right to fear US scale on big piston C-54/C-69 variants, right to try to put a Unique Selling Proposition – turbines – on our entrants. Bristol was awarded both Types, due a) to one-stop-shop (airframe/engine/prop), b) to the true Heavy firms’ assignment to Medium Bombers, and c) to their local MP being very senior (ex-MAP, Pres. Board of Trade, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, paying for it all). If Type I had been based on a firm experienced in big structure (say, HP), or Type III on a firm which had integrated a new big engine in a new big airframe (say, er…), L-1649, even DC-7C may never have flown. Convair did a licence deal (which petered out as Canadair/Argus) while we could all still hope for Britannia, in 1952, and despite H.Hughes involvement with Lockheed, TWA was there with sharp pen, before launching L-1649.

3 Bristol seniors (Sir R.Fedden, Sir P.Masefield, Sir A.Russell ) have written that Filton’s shortfalls were due to meddling by the tramway owners.

If the Britannia hadn’t had the problems it historically did with the Proteus engine, what size market is there for a long range turboprop at this time?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_R6V

I know its wikipedia but it does give a good picie……..

PMN1 refers to USN Lockheed XR6O-1 Constitution gigantosaurus. Mock-up seen by MAP before funding metal-cutting on T.167 Brabazon I. Taken together with Convair XC-99 and the first schemes, 6 engines, for (to be) Douglas XC-74 Globemaster(I) and the B-29 variant that became 377 Stratocruiser, MAP, so Brabazon, presumed a civil market for, er, jumbos. Remember in 1944, though the sticker “BOAC” sat on Stockholm/Lisbon scurries, UK did not possess an economically literate operator. P.Masefield has a chapter in Flight Path on running his slide rule over Hermes and Tudor, proving them to be incapable of breakeven. That was after MAP had bought them for (whoever might emerge in Peace).

When the Brabazon was being designed, were any noises coming out from anywhere about the lack of airline intrest in the Lockheed R6V?

Unable to find Lockheed R6V, Was it a typing error? I have the Lockheed Constellation R70-1 which the US Navy bought in 1945 from the US Army line.
This was the civilian Model 749. In the early fifties the US Navy requested Lockheed to fit the complex new Wright Turbo-Compound engine in to the L-1049B which became the R7V-1 and ordered 57. Four Model 1249 , US Navy R7V-2 were fitted with P&W turboprops driving broad paddle- blade propellors to evalulate turboprop propulsion, the airframe was restressed for high speeds(437 mph) this in the mid fifties.
I dont think the Brabazon commitee would have had any knowledge of the later devlopment of the basic Constellation and as been pointed out Dollars were hard to come by at the time.

When the Brabazon was being designed, were any noises coming out from anywhere about the lack of airline intrest in the Lockheed R6V?

Early 1947. BOAC had L-049/B.377 and wanted more thereof, not the oddities Brabazon’s Committee had come up with. Medium Range Empire Type III was to be a turboprop Avro. Between being deported from Montreal and moving onto Heathrow, its American Aircraft Engineering base was Filton, where the locals, defeated by Buckingham, could yearn and maybe learn. The Heavy firms were taken up for Medium Bombers and the Avro transport deferred, so that let Bristol in, though they were proving on T.167 Brabazon I that they had zero knowledge of big structure or pressurisation. They bid Theseus/L-849. Linger on that…it would be tramping in Africa today. But UK was broke, no $. So they bid T.175, seen as better than sketches from Blackburn and Shorts. One-stop-shop prop+power appealed. BOAC did not in 1947/48 believe that turbines could earn money on Empire routes, so were willing to be given Centaurus/T.175 – MCA bought everything, then, and it must be better than Tudor or Hermes. Proteus was confirmed for the whole fleet by early 1950 after Bristol persuaded them that would not delay delivery.
We sort of saw Centaurus/Britannia, as Wright/Canadair Argus, which did good work until (Lockheed’s Britannia) P-3 took all market.

What were the specifications for the Britannia at the time the Centaurus engine possibility was dropped and how would it have compared to the Constellation, DC4/6 etc?

In order to fill an BOAC requirement of Dec. 1946 Bristol suggested using a licence built Lockheed Constellation powered by Centaurus engines. But this was not to be, dollar expenditure was not allowed!
Specification 2/47 was issued calling for a new design. Bristol’s Type 175 looked best but a 32 seater with four Centaurus was thought overpowered so it was enlarged to 103,300 lb with 1,775 sq. ft. of wing and up to 48 seats.BOAC said no to a production order but the Ministry of Supply on 5 July 1948 ordered 3 prototypes. The Napier Nomad compound -diesel and turboprop Bristol Proteus were at this time viewed as possible later alternatives to the Centaurus. Later in 1948 BOAC began to show interest in the turboprop.
The prototype Brittania made its maiden flight on 16 August 1952 with the Proteus fitted. I have not found any details about its Centaurus spec. but expect it to be no worse than the original ‘Connie’ and due to it having cabin pressurisation better to be a passenger in than the DC-4.
Ray

Come on people’s, give the man some reply’s please.

This is a ligit question, and could be debated about from many a different angle, from both side’s of the Pond……. 😉

Com On!!

Many sites discussing the Brabazon say the upgrades to Filton proved useful for later projects.

However, to allow the Proteus to be used on the Brabazon and the Princess, the engine’s design introduced problems which delayed its introduction.

If the Brabazon and the Princess had been cancelled before the Proteus was considered, how soon could that engine have been introduced assuming it no longer has the cooling problems associated with it neededing to be fitted to the Brabazon and Princess.

Would the Filton site have been upgraded to the extent it was with an early Brabazon cancellation?

If it had been the Britannia that had been developed in place of the Brabazon with the Britannia’s first flight in 1949, what would that have done for the sales of the Britannia?