Ever thought about getting out more 😀

Photography is a hobby of mine, accordingly I have a good idea about what was used to create photographs (lens focal length, settings, sometimes even the film type) by lookign at the picture. Also I use photo editing software frequently so its pretty easy to see whats been done to these pics. Whats the problem with that?

Roy,

Subject to his approval, I may be able to put you in touch with an HS125 pilot who worked at Hatfield from the 1960s to the 1980s if that would help?

regards

Toby

In fact, if those shots are as old as 2001, which is not entirely impossible, then it could be this one:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0483543/L/

I must say I am concerned about the use of quite this much composite material in the 787. At the moment of course, Boeing seem to have the upper hand over Airbus in this market area but of course neither a 787 or an A350/A370 have been fully built or flown yet.

My main concerns are over the durability of the material and its joins over what we have now come to expect as the typical lifetime of a commercial aircraft which is 20-30 years of fairly intensive operation.

When I was stuyding engineering at university, one of my coursemates was doing a project on the fatigue life of [supposedly identical] carbon fibre samples and I remember him saying he was disappointed he couldnt find any pattern to his results. Achieving consistancy of manufacture is one of the greatest difficulties with composite materials, the presence of voids being somethign that is meant to be very tightly controlled for aerospace applications.

Of course people like something new (ok, except maybe on this particular part of the forum 😀 ) so aircraft like the Starship 10/15 years ago and the 787 now have great appeal, but to my mind composites raise as many questions (at the moment) as they provide answers. No doubt though some good work is being done by materials scientists around the world and these problems will be overcome.

Thanks, looks like I need to get my skates on!

“You were only supposed to blow the bl00dy gear off” 😀

I believe thats the story behind that pic isnt it? Macrihanish or somewhere wasnt it?

William / Scouse – its a commonly held misconception that the Valiant’s fatigue failures were waiting to happen. As I understand it, they occurred when the V force was re-tasked for low level. The Valiant ‘rode’ (smoothed out) the low level turbulence better than either of the other two, but it paid for this as the wings flexed a lot and consequently this initiated fatigue cracks.

The Valiant B.1 simply wasnt designed to fly at low altitude and of course no jet airliner of that size regularly would cruise at low altitude. The Valiant Mk.2 had solved this problem but although a prototype flew (The Black Bomber), no production models were ordered.

PMN1 – no the external diameter of the earliest turbofans isnt hugely different to the turbojets as the bypass ratios are typically < 1. However, I’d contend that any alteration to the outer diameter and mounting points of the engine would require substantial modifications to the internal wing structure and external panelling at a crucial location in the airframe. Just look at the fun & games BAe has had over the years updating Nimrods.

This said, of all of the designs, the V.1000 was the one that was closest to making it and to start off with, it would have certainly dented 707 and DC8 sales. What I quest, is whether it would have had the longevity that the American jets have enjoyed.

PMN1,

To answer your question, all are limited by the fact that the engines are buried in the wing roots. For first generation pure turbojets this was probably fine, especially in the military application, but for civilian use, for noise and vibration levels, safety, ease of maintenance and development potential (by which I am thinking of ‘future’ bypass engines) it was a mistake.

I’m not sure how closely related the V.1000 was to the Valiant – not that close I dont think, but of the three, that one got as far as an almost complete prototype before the plug was pulled. The other two didnt make it that far AFAIK and look (deservedly, sadly) more like something that belongs in a Gerry Anderson show!

Theres another one thats been omitted from this (not related to any bomber though), the de Havilland Comet 5, which although I have not seen a picture of it, I believe was not a straight development of the Comet 4, but more of an all new design. DH arguably had the most experience of any British company at that point to put into a design of this class. Both the exploratory DH design and the V.1000 (which would have first gone to the RAF as a transport) were of course killed by BOAC stating that the Britannia was quite adequate for the time being, only to then order 707s a year later.

Of course this is all part of the long and sad saga of BOAC and BEA requesting designs from British companies that were poorly specificied later disliked or cancelled when what they infact wanted was a Boeing. Had DH and Vickers designed from the world market from the outset and BOAC and BEA been forced to buy “off the shelf”, both groups might actually have been much better off. Hindsight is a marvellous thing though 😀