Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Plane Designs That (thankfully) Never Were...  
User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7801 posts, RR: 16
Posted (13 years 6 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 2507 times:

I was just thinking about all of the proposed planes that never made it beyond clay mock-ups and the prototype stage. Some of these planes may have been successful, others were ill-conceived. What I want y'all to do is post info about planes that never were for one reason or another. Here is my contribution:

In the mid-1960's Piper Aircraft Company was looking to build a new mid-sized light twin based on the Cherokee Six, sized between the Twin Comanche and the Aztec. This plane would later become the Seneca, but before it came out Piper did something rather odd. The original plane was a tri-motor. The first prototype flew with the Cherokee Six's 250hp Lycoming O-540 in the nose with two 115hp Lycoming O-235s on the wings. This design was horribly flawed, with the center engine out the 235s could not keep the plane flying. Still bent on the tri-motor design Piper decided to use the 150hp Lycoming IO-320, which had been successfully used in the Twin Comanche. Again not enough power with an engine out and windmilling. In order to reduce costs Piper fitted the tri-motor with fixed pitch props, which furthered the problems of an engine out. In 1972 Piper finally released the Seneca I, this time powered by two Lycoming IO-360s producing 200hp, and later the Seneca II and on were fitted with two Continental TSIO-360s. Nobody really knows why Piper toyed with the tri-motor for so long... the last tri-motors that were in people's minds was the Ford Trimotor and the Junkers Ju-52, the extruded aluminum machines probably would not have left a desirable past on a Piper tri-motor.

Anymore?


Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
6 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineWilcharl From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1168 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (13 years 6 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 2403 times:

how about the RB-211 powered 2 engine trident or the super stretched BAC-111

User currently offlineBoeing757/767 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 2282 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (13 years 6 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 2393 times:

The four-engine DC-9 (yes, that was considered).


Free-thinking, left-leaning secularist
User currently offlineVC-10 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 1999, 3702 posts, RR: 34
Reply 3, posted (13 years 6 months 1 week ago) and read 2350 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The VC11 was the Vickers solution to the 1-11 specification. It was to be a scaled down VC10 with 4 Spey's. Imagine the noise

User currently offlineFanofjets From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 2000 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (13 years 6 months 1 week ago) and read 2339 times:

Vickers had also proposed several scaled-up VC-10 designs, the most noteworthy being one consisting of three (yes, 3) standard VC-10 fuselages arranged in a V pattern, the center one (with the cockpit) jutting out ahead of the other two. The two outboard fuselages retained their T tails, with six or eight Speys strapped between them. The original VC-10 (Standard and Super) was one of the most beautiful designs to have graced our skies, but I am glad this oddball never made it beyond scale drawings....


The aeroplane has unveiled for us the true face of the earth. -Antoine de Saint-Exupery
User currently offlineKUGN From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 615 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (13 years 6 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2330 times:

Yuck! Imagine someone had to submit those bluprints to the superior.

I'm glad flying wing didn't get thru in the past. At least in future if they make it, they can put PTVs linked with outside camera, but flying those in '60s without ptv would have been awfully dull.


User currently offlinePhilB From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (13 years 6 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2279 times:

Re the original post, I wonder if Britten Norman looked that one over before producing the bigger, more powerful, Trislander.

As to the question, the most tragic "kill off" of all time for the British industry and an aircraft that would have offered B707-320 range, in service, 4-5 years ahead of time was the Vickers V1000. Too much political and BOAC interference killed it shortly before the prototype was due to be rolled out.

In retrospect killing off the aircraft, which had a great deal of commonality with the Valiant bomber may have been a lucky stroke as the Valiants all suffered wing corrosion and were withdrawn from service long before their planned life was over.

P.S.

Apart from the Valiant nose at Bruntingthorpe, does anyone know of any other significant Valiant "bits" in existence?


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Airliners That Never Were posted Fri Mar 17 2006 23:47:42 by StarGoldLHR
Models Of A/c That Never Were? posted Fri Mar 17 2006 16:31:17 by CalAir
Experimental C/s That Never Were...... posted Mon Apr 12 2004 02:50:26 by UK_Dispatcher
2 Plane Crashes That Were Not Mentioned posted Sun Mar 26 2000 21:41:13 by Teahan
Old Airlines That Have Never Gone Boeing? posted Mon Mar 6 2006 22:22:04 by RootsAir
Airlines That Have Never Had A Crash .... posted Tue Feb 22 2005 03:46:11 by Stealthpilot
"Great Swamp Airport In NJ That Was Never Built posted Wed Dec 10 2003 03:04:03 by Tommy767
LCCs That We Never Flew 2000-2003 posted Mon Nov 10 2003 06:16:23 by GalvanAir777
What The Heck Kind Of Plane Was That? Ksea posted Thu Nov 14 2002 00:29:35 by Timbotch
United Airlines Ramp Agents? That Re Or Were. posted Sat Dec 29 2001 05:28:53 by Flyboy80