Stuff That Never Made It - but why?

[jcf]

Airlines are constantly involved in R&D with the manufacturers, anyone who has ever worked in commercial aerospace can tell you that, and as I stated the majority of the innovations and changes are invisible to the public. But then that's the kind of reality that doesn't show up in flight-sims, video games and on web-boards. Also a  canard airliner would not be an 'innovation' as there is absolutely nothing new or innovative about canards simply because they've been around as long as aircraft.

Ooh the evil American anti-canard conspiracy, if only the Wright brothers had used the canard then everything would have one... wait a minute the Flyers were canard aircraft. Gee I wonder why that design didn't dominate for ever and ever. Ya and those lousy Deltas the USAF hateses them - hateses them evil bad F-102s, F-106s and B-58ses. Quash the Deltas quash the Deltas. Please document your statement that the Air Force 'take the axe to any design competitor with one', which competitions, which aircraft and what is your proof that a given design was rejected solely because it was a Delta? Again its the same old "well everybody knows that they don't like X".

BTW the XP-55 was an absolute dog and everyone involved saw that it would always be a dog.

[elmayerle]

Having used the XP-55 wind tunnel data for my graduate Stability and Control class, I can most affirmatively state that calling the XP-55 a "dog" is a compliment.  The bloody thing was exceedingly dangerous and unstable; my instructor was appalled when I showed him my data analysis and the raw data behind it.

[kitnut617]

The VC-10 was the only airliner to have rear facing seating, that I know of.

My wife's Dad was in the Army, she remembers way back then flying out to where ever they were getting posted like Singapore and Hong Kong in the VC-10 seated backwards

[kitnut617]

tumty tum, tum tum tum   

I know, coat, hat, stage left -------

Is that a "major airliner"? 

No.

I did say I'd get my coat -----

[kitnut617]

tumty tum, tum tum tum   

I know, coat, hat, stage left -------

One of my favourite aircraft and has been since I first read about it back in the '80s.
Of course technically the Avanti is a 'three-surface' design.

I saw the one one I photographed at a little airshow just outside Calgary this summer, got to poke me head in through the door too although wasn't allowed right inside it. All leather seating and mirrors all around the read end of the cabin, I guess to make it look bigger.

And you're right Jon, it's a three surface aircraft, I think they're really cool though.

[jcf]

. All leather seating and mirrors all around the read end of the cabin, I guess to make it look bigger.

Would that be the interior, the owners ego or ... 

[McColm]

If the AEW Nimrod had...and a all woman crew, like the Candians ...

what are you refering to?

Good question. All Air Forces trades have been open to women in the Canadian Forces since 1987. Mixed gender naval units have been operational since 1991 (and, yes, that includes submarines ... whenever they're actually operational  ).

The Nimrod isn't as wide as a Boeing 707. Its slender fuselageand graceful lines. The galley, the toilet and flight controls are the only remains of the Comet 4C. Whilst kitting out the Nimrod space has always been an issue. The AEW version would have used up all available space at expense of an operator station.

[elmayerle]

Sounds like the Nimrod's interior is as narrow as the one the P-3 Orion inherited from the Electra.  When you fully sutff the interior in the EP-3E, it gets very crowded in there.  I suspect that the AEW variant of the P-3 is just as densely packed.  It does make an arguement for using a larger and wider airframe for these purposes.

[McColm]

When I had a flight on the Canadian CP-140 during the September exercise in 1988, the interior looked spacious.  May be the Nimrod and the Orion need an interior design company or take a look at the inside of an Atlantic, less clutter.
I still reckon a four engined Atlantic, built under license by the Brits with the Nimrod 2000 package, would have been a better option than the Nimrod MK4.

[elmayerle]

The P-3/CP-140 interior is spacious, if you've just got the gear for a patrol aircraft in it.  If you've got it stuffed with the elint gear of an EP-3E, the interior gets much, much more crowded (in addition to several more bodies - 5-person flight crew plus another 18 or so handling the elint systems).  I suspect the Nimrod is much the same way.

[kitnut617]

If space is premium I'd have thought BAE would've gone the whole hog with the Nimrod Mk.4 and give it a bigger fuselage, how about the Nimrod Mk.4 wing mated to an Airbus A310 fuselage (comparing my two 1/72 kits of a Nimrod and A310 it looks doable)

[Hobbes]

So you end up with a new wing AND a new fuselage? How is that still a Nimrod? 

[McColm]

Call it retro?

[kitnut617]

So you end up with a new wing AND a new fuselage? How is that still a Nimrod? 

Apart from the larger specticule spars in the wing, what else is different with it Hobbes ? is it a totally new plan form or something ?  But then that was what I meant about going the whole hog with the project and get a new aircraft but do how the USAF used to, to get around the funding problem by calling it a Nimrod

[Hobbes]

Fair enough, there's still part of the wing to the old design, more or less. But I thought they built the entire wing from scratch for the MRA.4, ie with all new parts?