Fairey Constellation??

…reckon Breda’s much more a likely culprit than Lockheed..witness the BZ 308.??

It would have been a quantum leap in airframe and engine technology from the Ensign…

Would the FC.1 (4x1000hp) have been much of an improvement over the A.W. Ensign(4x850hp in MkI).It could be argued that British pre-war airliners were crippled by lack of decent powerful engines….puzzling,too, that the Cyclone variant purchased to re-engine the Ensign was the 950hp version not the most powerful availble at 1200hp.

mike bb: based on a (Fairey) design, It’s a splendid line, but Brits must be cautious about such claims. RAE, NACA and (the French Establishment, later ONERA) circulated Tech.Memos freely, to benefit all-Aero, so same, same was only proper: who “invented” Bloch MB.161 (Sud Languedoc), Fw.200 (Condor), L-049, F.C.1? In L-049 it all came together – pressurisation, Big Power, flappery, pea-in-pod large structure fabrication – to be best practice-benchmark for a decade. Maybe Fairey could have matched that, but, quite properly, Govt. withdrew R&D funding, 10/39 so that Fairey could attend to helping win a War.

page01: why Tudor/Hermes, not F.C.1 in 1943/44? Nothing “shady”. Sir Richard had been seconded 8/40 to the Br.Purchasing Mission,NY, later to be DG, Br.Air Commission,DC. His absence contributed to Barracuda’s inadequacies threatening the Fleet, such that Minister Cripps was close to nationalising Fairey Avn., before turning instead to Short’s. Of course he funded transport variants of Halifax and Lancaster, as Brabazon’s “Interims”. Production might be of some scores, to be bolted on as some days’ output of the bombers lines. Fairey was building minnows, slowly.

Taylor’s Putnam has Sir Richard trying to resurrect F.C.1, 9/45. By then, superlative DC-4 and L-049, imminent DC-6 and L-749 rendered otiose any tarting of a 1937 scheme (France did just that, pointlessly). All UK’s hopes were invested in turbine biggies, to flow from biggies.

The F.C.1 in connection with FMA I.Ae 7 :confused:

“The FC.1 is the basis of the I.Ae.7 airliner.”
http://wesworld.jk-clan.de/print.php?threadid=7764&page=1&sid=8ad215a7b0815f91e672ee3afc3b64f0

FMA I.Ae 7
http://www.jk-clan.de/wbblite/print.php?threadid=4177&page=1&sid=34d694b444ddac085544d448b257f8fd

I would agree about Lockheed’s talent and lack of necessity to steal ideas, but wasn’t it the British Hudson order that saved Lockheed (and the L14 series) financially?

I don’t know, I haven’t found data on Lockheed’s financial status in the late 1930s. You could say the Japanese licence agreement was also important perhaps!

Certainly the 10, 12 and 14 were successful aircraft, but certainly were built in small numbers, even by the standards of the era. The British (and subsequent Australia, New Zealand and Canadian) military orders must’ve helped Lockheed balance books enormously; but the converse don’t mean they were close to failure otherwise.

Some detail of the Model 14s sales and performance. (It also states that the fixed slots were ‘optional’ later fitted to all. More info on that welcome.)

http://www.456fis.org/LOCKHEED_MODEL_14_SUPER_ELECTRA.htm

My guess is Lockheed would have been happy with the 14’s sales, but delighted to get – through a remarkable effort – the British Hudson order.

Anyone know more?

Cameroun 1942 had stamps with the F.C.1 on it
http://www.walter-kalt.ch/Katalog/Afrika/Scan/Kamerun/42aa.JPG
http://www.walter-kalt.ch/Katalog/Afrika/Scan/Kamerun/42ab.JPG

and some interesting photos of the full scale F.C.1 mock-up
http://crimso.msk.ru/Images6/AE/AE72-9/148-1.jpg
http://crimso.msk.ru/Images6/AE/AE72-9/148-2.jpg

March 16, 1939 – http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1939/1939%20-%200771.html
“British Airways’ fleet at present consists of five Lockheed 10As, seven Lockheed 14s, and three Junkers JU.52s. The
last are used only on the night mail run. Lockheed 14s will be used on the West African service. When they receive the
Fairey F C 1 transports British Airways will have a majority of British machines. The development of this type is being
handled by the Air Ministry. Two have previously been ordered and an order has recently been placed for twelve more
of them. The prototype should be flying in 1940 and the type will be used for European services and not for the
Atlantic.”

I would agree about Lockheed’s talent and lack of necessity to steal ideas, but wasn’t it the British Hudson order that saved Lockheed (and the L14 series) financially?

Quite possibly before the Lend Lease and the 1940 rearmament plan kicked in.
Mr Hilter’s actions saved a good many firms, I’d suspect.

Flight story from 1941. Features the same model as I posted earlier, photographed some 70 years later!

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1941/1941%20-%200455.html?search=fairey

The guide you had must have been an ex-Fairey man. What a talented company it was!!

Faireys certainly as an innovative company, not always rewarded for success (see the Fox and Faiery’s forced demise).

I would agree about Lockheed’s talent and lack of necessity to steal ideas, but wasn’t it the British Hudson order that saved Lockheed (and the L14 series) financially?

[QUOTE=J Boyle;1669334]Lockheed, with its talent and money wasn’t likely to steal from a smaller UK firm.

MTCA guides Heathrow

When I went on those spotters bus tours round the BOAC/BEA hangars at Heathrow around 1956 we used to give the MTCA guides a hard time when they mis-identified BOAC Hermes as Argonauts and vice versa. The guide you had must have been an ex-Fairey man. What a talented company it was!!
[QUOTE=mike bb;1669181]On one of the coach tours of Heathrow that used to be offered in the spacious days of the 1950s the tour guide said with great confidence that the Lockheed Constellation was based on a design by Fairey Aviation.

Flight global again, JDK,
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1939/1939%20-%201037.html?search=lockheed 14 slots heston

and referring to ‘rough’ drawings for slots
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1939/1939%20-%201865.html

Have PM’d you….longshot

Longshot – thanks, I wasn’t aware of that.

Can you point to data with detail please?

Thanks, JDK for your well reasoned approach.

Lockheed, with its talent and money wasn’t likely to steal from a smaller UK firm. But why let logic get in the way of a good story? :rolleyes:
Seriously, it would be interesting to know how complete the design was…how much advanced detail design as opposed to the general shape and specifications?
(It’s easy to build a model and 3-view drawings, recall the Germans and their advanced warplanes that wouldn’t have seen service before 1948-50…hardlty the potential saviors they’re seen by enthuiasts today).
Fairey’s CV for advanced multi-engined types is very thin…and I don’t think we can call the Hendon “advanced”.
Whereas Lockheed, had a reputation of innovatuion and had been building successful all metal multi-engined types since the Model 10 in 1934.

It would be interesting to know more about it, like many UK airliner designs, it looks like it was designed an an “Empire” ship, designed for only the upper classes to travel in high style.

Longshot – thanks, I wasn’t aware of that.

Can you point to data with detail please?

FC1 design was shown to Lockheed execs

Your source please?

Was one of those ‘Execs’ TWA’s Howard Hughes who drove the Connie design to do what it did?

The big question for me is why the hell did the UK airlines/Brabazon committee not pick up and run with the FC.1 instead of going for the distinctly old fashioned Tudor etc?

I guess that Fairey’s design was cancelled, dead, while Avro had ‘large aircraft experience’. Maybe Sir Richard didn’t want to play.

Johnson was in England around 1938 working on the Hudson version of the L.14 so would have been aware of the FC.1

Again evidence of Johnson’s ‘awareness’ please. The Lockheed 14 wing and the Hudson wing are aerodynamically exactly the same, and when they developed the Lodestar etc, there’s no evidence of anything but developing that wing design. See above for the origin of the Connie’s wing.

I would have said the Constellation benefitted more from the great leap forward of the B-29 design.

One might guess at that, but there’s no suggestion of Boeing input. Lockheed had all the pieces themselves – the pressurised Lockheed 10; (XC-35) P-38 wing, high-performance engines, an idea (Excalibur) and cash and drive from Hughes.

Regards,

JDK…The Lockheed 14 wing was modified in service to improve low speed handling with permanent slots near the wingtips, and done posthaste by British Airways Ltd at Heston on theirs in advance of the Lockheed drawings…perhaps the FC.1 was a bit like the original DC-4E (but smaller)

An interesting project. But let’s not bet on for Lockheed spies under the bed. That was postwar bribery & corruption.

It took ages for the forum to nail the wind tunnel model in a previous thread I started here. The Pathe film would be interesting.

Is this another British aero industry ‘could’ve been a contender thread’? Haven’t we used the quota for this week?

Visual similarity is striking. Actual technical transmission? I don’t know. Lockheed used the Fowler Flap on the Lockheed 14 first, causing great angst among pilots not used to such an advance in technology. First flight of the Model 14 was 1937. The aerodynamic design (wing and flap) of the Model 14 never changed [Edit – but a Handley Page fixed slot was added to improve low speed handling pre-war – thanks Longshot.]. The FC.1 was a 1938 design. Lockheed were using the Fowler before the FC.1 hit the wind tunnel. Was the Fairey Youngmann flap better in an airliner? We don’t know. Certainly impressive as a manoeuvring / combat flap on the Firefly.

The wing. The FC.1 had a proposed wing loading of 32.5lb/ft, and the Connie’s was 87.7lb/ft. Very different wing performance and expectation. Just 1930s and 1940s expectations? Metalled US runways vs UK grass fields? The Connie’s wing was generally stated as ‘a big P-38 one’. I hope no one’s going to suggest the P-38 was copied from a UK design. 😉

Connie took 62 – 95 passengers – the FC.1 intended to take 30. Again 1930s vs 1940s expectations, or a performance difference of some note?

For me the killer is that tell tale triple tail. Obviously Kelly copied Sir Richard, right? Well no – the Connie’s initial design projects didn’t have it (Excalibur) and the triple tail came in because of ‘hangar heights’; the Connie having power-boosted controls. Why did the FC.1 have a triple tail? Not because of power-boosted controls. Hangar height?

The FC.1 is an interesting design, and may well have been a success in Imperial Airways ticket prices and numbers. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Aviation_Company#Fairey_FC1

Certainly the first time I saw it, I though ‘Connie!’ but on investigation, the visual similarity is, IMHO, just coincidental, as both in development, performance and achievement, they are utterly different airliners. The FC.1 was not going to compete with the Connie postwar in capability, and I’d be interested in actual evidence (rather than rumour) of any actual influence on the Connie by the FC.1.

Regards,

Old boy network James ??
It was always more difficult for the smaller firms to get the big contracts !

rgds baz

The similarity is certainly striking, also there is a common link with the aforementioned flap type as the Fairey Youngman patented system was similar to the Fowler type Lockheed used on the Connie and more recent types. Both extend by chord, but the FY system differs by lowering down in to the slipstream in parallel with the wing.

The big question for me is why the hell did the UK airlines/Brabazon committee not pick up and run with the FC.1 instead of going for the distinctly old fashioned Tudor etc?