Avro C102 Jetliner

[Peter Skelton]

This was the second jet airliiner to fly, 13 days after the
Comet's first short trial. The prototype flew for several years
without serious incident before being scrapped.

There's a copy of a 1950 ASME lecture about the design at

http://www.avroarrow.org/Jetliner/Jetliner.html

it's well worth a look

Peter Skelton

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
Peter Skelton > wrote:
>This was the second jet airliiner to fly, 13 days after the
>Comet's first short trial. The prototype flew for several years
>without serious incident before being scrapped.
>
>There's a copy of a 1950 ASME lecture about the design at
>
>http://www.avroarrow.org/Jetliner/Jetliner.html

There's also an (excellent) article in this month's Aeroplane
Monthly magazine (UK). Recommended.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

[Kristan Roberge]

The problem with the jetliner was that while lots of airlines WANTED it,
the bloody government basically
shutdown the programme because they didn't want Avro to fall behind on
development and delivery work for
the canucks.

Peter Skelton wrote:

> This was the second jet airliiner to fly, 13 days after the
> Comet's first short trial. The prototype flew for several years
> without serious incident before being scrapped.
>
> There's a copy of a 1950 ASME lecture about the design at
>
> http://www.avroarrow.org/Jetliner/Jetliner.html
>
> it's well worth a look
>
> Peter Skelton

[Avro Canada Archives]

Yes, it had "flight restrictions" for the entire seven years - they just
got weirder as time went on.


Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Peter Skelton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
>>It had ordinary ones for a plane in its stage of development. In
>>the last 4 years they were weird.
>>
>
>
> In other words, it had flight restrictions for it's entire seven years of
> existence.
>
>

[Brett]

"Steven _Pee Brain_ McNicoll" > wrote:
> "Brett Moron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Steven _Pee Brain_ McNicoll" > wrote:
> > >
> > > So what have I written that you're disputing? Did the Jetliner have
no
> > > flight restrictions between 1949 and 1952?
> > >
> >
> > were they "odd"
> >
>
> Were they ever!

In the last four years they were. For the first 2 years whatever
restrictions existed on the airframe didn't prevent it from creating
"records" on nearly every flight.

> So, it appears my questions stumped you. I suggest you work on your
> capitalization and punctuation, as well as your arithmetic.

And I suggest you actually look up the word odd.

[Peter Stickney]

In article et>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:
>
> "Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Uhm - the Jetliner ended up getting chopped as well. After about 4
>> years of some of the oddest restrictions on flying it.
>>
>
> The Jetliner made it's last flight on November 23, 1956, more than seven
> years after it's first.

Yep. amd for the last four of those years, it could, by order of the
Canadian Government, only be flown in support of integrating the
Hughes radar fire control system into the CF-100. Now, they'd already
canned the idea of producing it, and, if nothing else, they could have
used it to stand in for the RCAF's Comet Is, when they were grounded
in '54, until they were rebuilt. Now, the Jetliner wasn't really
needed for test work - Hughes and the USAF used B-25s, and, in fact,
the RCAF picked up some of the Hughes-modified TB-25s to use as system
trainers. So it does raise a few eyebrows. It appears that flailing
around to cover controversial decisions wasn't limited to the
Diefenbaker government. Howard Hughes had flown the Jetliner, and was
interested in buying it as his personal Go-Kart, replacing his B-23.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Kristan Roberge]

Brett wrote:

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> > "Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Uhm - the Jetliner ended up getting chopped as well. After about 4
> > > years of some of the oddest restrictions on flying it.
> > >
> >
> > The Jetliner made it's last flight on November 23, 1956, more than seven
> > years after it's first.
>
> I believe if you look at page 62 of Aeroplane Monthly for February 2004:
> "The Jetliner returned to Malton in September 1952. Authorised to be flown
> only as an observation and photographic platform for the CF-100 flight
> tests, it flew for the last time on November 23, 1956."
> Just over four years "of some of the oddest restrictions on flying it".

But its first flight was in 1949 is the point.

[Brian Allardice]

In article >, says...

>Yep. amd for the last four of those years, it could, by order of the
>Canadian Government,..... &c

One way or the other, we shot ourselves in the foot; not once, but twice....
Bloody hell.... mere conspiracy theories do not come near to explaining total
stupidity..... No one would believe it.....

Cheers,
dba

[Brett]

"Kristan Roberge" > wrote:
> Brett wrote:
>
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> > > "Peter Stickney" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Uhm - the Jetliner ended up getting chopped as well. After about 4
> > > > years of some of the oddest restrictions on flying it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The Jetliner made it's last flight on November 23, 1956, more than
seven
> > > years after it's first.
> >
> > I believe if you look at page 62 of Aeroplane Monthly for February 2004:
> > "The Jetliner returned to Malton in September 1952. Authorised to be
flown
> > only as an observation and photographic platform for the CF-100 flight
> > tests, it flew for the last time on November 23, 1956."
> > Just over four years "of some of the oddest restrictions on flying it".
>
> But its first flight was in 1949 is the point.

No the point in the original post was that 4 years of the airframes life
after program cancellation were essentially wasted. The XB-51 first flight
was in October 1949, it lost out in the Air Force competition that resulted
in a large Canberra (B-57) buy in March 1951 and the XB-51 program was
cancelled in November 1951. However, the first XB-51 airframe was utilized
in a large number of other test programs, generating "useful" data (and a
movie career, "Toward the Unknown", 1956), until it finally crashed in 1956.
The XB-51 program was terminated but the original investment in building it
wasn't wasted.

[WaltBJ]

Looking at my picture of the airliner I can see a standard piston
engine design airframe with four small Derwent centrifugal engines. I
would posit that the thick airfoils would limit its speed to say .75
max (if that) and probably about 300 IAS just like the Convair 240 it
resembles. The four low-pressure centrifugals guzzle fuel hungrily.
With the Comet all ready to go the bird was a non-starter despite the
PR advantage of offering 'jet service'. The Canadian Gov did their
airlines a service - or they would have been in a fix just like
Eastern was when Eddie Rickenbacker eschewed true jets for the
turboprop Electra and very shortly AA and National ate his lunch.
Walt BJ

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Looking at my picture of the airliner I can see a standard piston
> engine design airframe with four small Derwent centrifugal engines. I
> would posit that the thick airfoils would limit its speed to say .75
> max (if that) and probably about 300 IAS just like the Convair 240 it
> resembles. The four low-pressure centrifugals guzzle fuel hungrily.
> With the Comet all ready to go the bird was a non-starter despite the
> PR advantage of offering 'jet service'. The Canadian Gov did their
> airlines a service - or they would have been in a fix just like
> Eastern was when Eddie Rickenbacker eschewed true jets for the
> turboprop Electra and very shortly AA and National ate his lunch.
>

The Jetliner was designed to a TCA requirement of 400 mph cruise, the
prototype achieved cruise speeds of 450 mph. That's almost 200 mph over
Convair 240 cruise speeds.

[WaltBJ]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message et>...
> SNIP:>
> The Jetliner was designed to a TCA requirement of 400 mph cruise, the
> prototype achieved cruise speeds of 450 mph. That's almost 200 mph over
> Convair 240 cruise speeds.

Nevertheless the wings and horizontal stabilizer are visibly thicker
in proportion to chord than on present-day jet transports. The 602
might 'cruise' at 400 mph (almost 350 knots) but certainly not at
lower altitudes because it would soon run out of fuel, consumption
being about 2 1/2 times greater down low. At altitude (30000) that 400
mph would give about .6Mach with an indicated airspeed around 150
plus. BTW when did the Canadians hang the Eland on the 440? I got a
ride in a T29(440)(ex-AF2) with Allison 501s and it could cruise (!)
at Vne. Very nice airplane - Washington ANG had it back then.
Walt BJ

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"WaltBJ" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Nevertheless the wings and horizontal stabilizer are visibly thicker
> in proportion to chord than on present-day jet transports.
>

So what?


>
> The 602 might 'cruise' at 400 mph (almost 350 knots) but certainly
> not at lower altitudes because it would soon run out of fuel, consumption
> being about 2 1/2 times greater down low.
>

It demonstrated cruise speeds of 450 mph, about 390 knots. Cruise altitude
was in the 30,000' region, where fuel consumption was lower and the air was
smoother.


>
> At altitude (30000) that 400 mph would give about .6 Mach with an
> indicated airspeed around 150 plus.
>

I gotta assume that's a typo. The IAS would be about 250 under those
conditions.

But at altitude (30000) 450 mph TAS would give about .66 Mach with an
indicated airspeed around 280 mph. Significantly faster than a Convair 240.


>
> BTW when did the Canadians hang the Eland on the 440?
>

Did the Canadians hang Elands on actual Convair 440s? Canadair bought the
design and the jigs from Convair and built an Eland-engined aircraft as the
Canadair 540. I believe the first one flew in 1960. Of course, the deal
probably included a fair amount of Convair parts and assemblies, perhaps the
first one actually was a reengined Convair. Allegheny operated a small
fleet of Eland-engined 340s briefly in the early 60s, they were designated
Convair 540s. When Eland production ceased they were converted back to the
R-2800.


>
> I got a ride in a T29 (440) (ex-AF2) with Allison 501s and it could
> cruise (!) at Vne. Very nice airplane - Washington ANG had it back then.
>

I believe T-29s were all Convair 240s. I also believe the USAF acquired a
few Convair 440s that had been converted to Allison-engined 580s and
designated them VC-131D, but can't confirm.

[[email protected]]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>>
>
>Did the Canadians hang Elands on actual Convair 440s? Canadair bought the
>design and the jigs from Convair and built an Eland-engined aircraft as the
>Canadair 540. I believe the first one flew in 1960. Of course, the deal
>probably included a fair amount of Convair parts and assemblies, perhaps the
>first one actually was a reengined Convair. Allegheny operated a small
>fleet of Eland-engined 340s briefly in the early 60s, they were designated
>Convair 540s. When Eland production ceased they were converted back to the
>R-2800.
>
As well, the RCAF operated about 6 or 7 Napier Eland 540's. Known
as the 'Cosmopolitan'. They were a very quiet comfortable
aircraft (if you didn't know about the reliability of the Eland).

If you did then it was 'white knuckle time' (that engine was a
horror to keep trimmed and keep operating) I have quite a bit of
time on them as Flight Engineer. (1963 till 69 - probably lost 8
or 10 engines inflight in only 2 or 3 years) They re-engined them
with the Allison 501-D36-A7A sometime in the mid-sixties (my
logbooks are in the bedroom and my wife's sleeping). Beautiful
aircraft then!...Hot rod for sure.

We (foolishly) took one to 45,000 feet once (to beat another crew
who had one to 40,000 the day before. (Took full power for the
last 1,000 feet)

>
>>
>> I got a ride in a T29 (440) (ex-AF2) with Allison 501s and it could
>> cruise (!) at Vne. Very nice airplane - Washington ANG had it back then.
>>
>

Yes and you were never 'committed to land' ever, just pork on
METO power and pull up and away you go (even in the middle of the
flare!) Hot aircraft. We used to take off at METO (Climb power)
until the manufacturer heard about it...he slapped our wrists
because it violated the warranty (or somesuch foolishness)


>I believe T-29s were all Convair 240s. I also believe the USAF acquired a
>few Convair 440s that had been converted to Allison-engined 580s and
>designated them VC-131D, but can't confirm.
>

Ours were 540 when engined with the Napier Eland and 580 with the
Allison.

We called them CC-109 Cosmopolitans. I have something like 2500
hours logged on them.
--

-Gord.

[Peter Stickney]

In article et>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:
> I believe T-29s were all Convair 240s. I also believe the USAF acquired a
> few Convair 440s that had been converted to Allison-engined 580s and
> designated them VC-131D, but can't confirm.

There were a whole slew of Convair 240/340/440s in U.S. Service.
Here's the breakdown I've got:
46 Model 240-17 as T-29A (14 Nav Stations, unpressurized)
105 Model 240-27 as T-29B (10 Nav Stations, 4 Radar Nav,
pressurized)
119 Model 240-27 as T-29C
93 Model 240-52 as T-29D (K-System Bombardier trainer)
26 Model 240-53 as C-131A Medivac transports
36 Model 340-70 as C-131B Most were used as test platforms
2 Model 340-36 as YC-131C turboprop testbeds. Flown by the
1707th ATW at Kelly AFB, along with
a pair or turboprop C-97s, a pair
of turboprop C-121s, and a
turboprop C-124.
16 Model 340-67 as VC-131D Staff Transports
1 Model 340-68 as VC-131D (Ordered by Lufthansa)
16 Model 340-79 as C-131D
15 Model 440-72 as C-131E ECM trainers.

3 C-131Ds adn 1 C-131E were converted by Pacific Airmotive to
C-131Hs, which were basicaly Model 580s, with T56 turboprops.
They went to the USN in 1979.
Oh, yeah, I almost forget! One C-131B was converted to C-131H
standards, then further modified as the Total In-FLight
Simulator, flown by Calspan. Basically you could dial in a
set of stability definitions, and control laws, and ruin a
Test Pilot's day in a controlled manner.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster