This Passenger Plane Could Fly Straight Up! - The Hawker Siddeley V/STOL Jetliner
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 авг 2021
- Discord: / discord
New Channel: / @aviationstationyt
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @foundandexplained
the British Transport Aircraft Requirements Committee, or TARC, issued a design study ‘Outline Requirement’ in 1969 for a short-haul aircraft to be developed by a British aviation company.
The brief was for a 100-seat airliner with a minimum range of 450 miles or 725 km.
That would be range enough for flights like Glasgow to London or from London to cities like Dublin, Paris and Brussels, but not for cities like Rome and Berlin. So, short-range indeed.
The Hawker Siddeley threw their hat into the ring with jetliner called the HS.141 that had a radical new feature - it could take off vertically!
A central and unique facet of the ‘Outline Requirement’ issued by TARC in 1969 was that the aircraft had to be an S/VTOL airliner.
A vertical and/or short take-off and landing, or V/STOL aircraft, is a plane that can take-off or land vertically or do so on very short runways. Therefore, it’s obvious that a V/STOL aircraft has to be able to hover.
A subset of this unique class of aircraft is the vertical take-off and landing, or VTOL aircraft, that doesn’t require a runway at all.
the military had been especially keen on V/STOL technology in the post-war era since they could be fast jets operated from clearings in forests, very short runways or even small aircraft carriers,
unlike other military jets that required longer runways and clearance for lift-off.
Furthermore, V/STOL could go farther and use less fuel than most helicopters.
or civilian or commercial aviation, V/STOL airliners were known to cost more per flight than a conventional airliner.
However, these costs were offset by a V/STOL aircraft’s greater convenience and productivity.
Critically, they were also considered a lot safer, in that fan-lift engines could provide adequate control even in the event of failure of the aircraft’s main engines.
In fact, V/STOL aircraft were considered ten times safer than the standard provided by the UK’s Air Registration Board at the time.
It’s worth noting that only aeroplanes that achieve lift in forward flight by planing the air can be classified as V/STOL aircraft.
That means that helicopters are actually not considered to be V/STOL or even VTOL aircraft since they do not achieve forward motion in the same way.
It’s further worth noting that most V/STOL aircraft designs were abject failures from the 1950s into the 1970s.
he very few success stories were military aircraft, including the British Harrier Jump Jet, released in 1969 and developed by Hawker-Siddeley.
Another successful V/STOL military aircraft at that time was the Soviet Union’s Yak-38 Forger, released in 1971.
So, why was the British transport authority so insistent on it being a V/STOL aircraft? The reasoning was that a steep approach and departure profile would attain two things for air traffic in London at the time: 1. a reduction in noise in what was a heavily built-up and major metropolitan area 2. it would mean not having to build a third major airport in the London area. And so a V/STOL aircraft it had to be.
the project was done under the auspices of Hawker Siddeley’s Research & Future Projects Department at Hatfield in Hertfordshire, England.
The design team investigated various configurations of the aircraft, as well as different power plant and control systems.
It submitted a draft design to TARC in January 1970, mere months after the brief had first gone out.
Official details of the newly named HS.141 project were first issued by Hawker Siddeley at the German Aviation Show in Hanover in March 1970.
The HS.141 design had the following design characteristics: it was to be an all-metal construction with a T-tail and low-mounted swept wing with a quarter-chord sweep-back set at 28 degrees. It would be 29 feet and 10 inches or 9.09 metres in height and 120 feet or 36.63 metres in length,
which meant it would be similar in size to smaller commercial planes of that time, such as the Boeing 367-80, the Convair 880, the Lockheed L-1049 Super Constellation and the Tupolev Tu-134.
By comparison, that length would have made the HS.141 about 44% of the length of the contemporary Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 models.
Its wingspan was 75 feet or 22.86 metres, with a wing area of 1,060 square feet or 98 square metres. Its empty weight would be 110,300 pounds or just over 50,000 kilograms and 134,200 pounds or 60,872 kilograms and maximum take-off weight.
Inside, the plane was conventional, with a passenger cabin with rows of five or six seats each. It was slated to have a capacity of 102 to 119 passengers, depending on seat configuration.
Of course, you are likely wondering how on earth it took off right into the sky.
8:02 I think we all know Ryanair would remove the lifting engines and add more seats into the pods on the sides of the fuselage, then charge for in-flight oxygen
They'll flip the lifting engines over to make more ''butter'' landings.
😂😂😂😂😂
ha ha
This is actually quite funny!
Everybody just like trolling Ryan Air. How about Wizz Air?
It reminds me of the Dornier Do 31 but on a bigger scale, and designed for passengers since it also used a hybrid engine system to help it take of vertically, with a separate engine layouts for vtol and forward flight
The Do 31 is a marvelous work of engineering, I wonder with composite materials and better and light engines if this kind of plane will make a comeback?
@@billtev9846 unfortunately, no one wants to make the investment
I think the aircraft you are searching is the Do 231
What happens if ironman goes through the engine? Will it be able to sustain a hover with only 3 working engines?
U
As always the British aviation got a history of excellent concepts that never get airborn. I think its time for America to employ most of the British aircraft designing engineers and give them a chance to fulfil their dreams benefitting the whole aviation industrie.
Jesus christ this design is just horribly inefficient.
@@carlosandleon My initials is J.C. but my names isnt Jesus Christ. Try again pls.
@@Homoprimatesapiens Stop lying, I know you're the Messiah
They tried that with the C-5's wings. They needed new wings a few years later!
Cobham accepts your challenge!
Any aircraft that relies on multiple engines to provide VTOL ability are always doomed to failure, it is simply too complex, too heavy and too maintenance heavy. That is why the Harrier was such a success, using only one engine for both lift and forward flight. The Yak fighters did work, but had very lacklustre performance because of all the engines it had to carry as dead weight except when landing or taking off. The same could also be said of the F-35B, that also has to carry around a separate lift fan and gearbox, both heavy and space consuming components..as well as highly complex systems to open and close various apertures. I can’t help but think the Harrier system to be intrinsically a better solution due to it’s simplicity.
You are absolutely right. The Harrier system is the one and only solution ...
@@victordigiorgi Unfortunately that system really only works for a craft of the Harrier's size, plus it was infamously unstable during both take-off and landing. Imagine the horrific crashes if airliners somehow made a VTOL jet work? No way would those monsters get certified.
@@mrbuttocks6772 The Harrier was unstable at the beginning of prototyping and production. It was then equipped with an efficient automatic stabilisation device ...
It's EXPENSIVE $$$$$
For fighters, F-35B design is actually better than Harrier as the lift-fan system drew power from the engine so no additional powerplant, have more lifting power efficiency compared to life jet, and provide cool air instead of hot air like Harrier which drastically increases stability and safety as sometimes hot air from life jet can deflect and enter the intake cause losing engine effectively that can resolve in a crash.
All those advantages won X-35B in contest against X-32 VTOL which based on Harrier base design.
Sometimes too simplistic isn't always a good idea in long run.
UK had such a magnificient design like Fairey Rotodyne that could be city hopper if technology was mature enough.
Today that design would work with micro jets or just power the main rotor and switch off in flight.
@@flybobbie1449 Bp
@@flybobbie1449 the Rotodyne was well developed but its noise levels in hover mode breached the noise limitations of New York City to name just one. Dead duck and your presentation is just a spoof. Try again on April 1st!!!
@@royfearn4345 Noise level was due to the crude tip jets. Modern micro turbos would be quieter, but why bother. Just power the main rotor and shut off in forward flight.
Not exactly "imaginative" in the design and placement of the vertical thrusters but, balls-a-plenty for being the one that actually attempted to create a true commercial VTOL. I mean, credit where it's due. The one and only "Hey Chess" 141. 🎩
12:57 No, Hawker did *NOT* build the Spitfire! That legendary aircraft was built by the Supermarine division of Vickers Aircraft Company. Research fail!
Or he got it confused with the Hurricane. These guys are working under a deadline after all.
Ya, something seemed wrong when he said that.
Alliteration the Supermarine Spitfire and Hawker Hurricane!
@@fotolabman Lots of British aircraft got alliterative names: Gloster Gladiator, Fairey Fulmar, Avro Anson, Bristol Blenheim/Beaufighter, Handley-Page Halifax, Miles Magister, etc.
I came here to say that. Good catch.
"Of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these, 'It might have been." ― John Greenleaf
Totally not next: A giant passenger airliner that takes off by break dancing and doing a backflip
That's called an autobot...
@@GODtuber13 Or decepticon.
thats the most bonkers thing in existence
Yep
that's called graystillplays
City hopper flights became a reality with jet engines thanks to the Sud Caravelle. You should mention it as it was the first in 1955.
I would have loved to see a STOVL(Short Take-Off and Landing) or STORVL(Short Take-Off and Rolling Vertical Landing) variant taking off ski jumps at commercial airports.
It appears some military designers got some airliner designers drunk on the drawing board again…
LOL
That would explain the sheer dumb in this. It sounds better before you realize how expensive the engines would be to both acquire and maintain.
@@spartanonxy FACTS!
First, I'm writing this just as the clips starting, so please pardon if I'm just re-stating what it already does :P Anyway, I've always thought the problem with arguments AGAINST VSTOL aircraft is that people always push them off as less capable fixed wing aircraft rather than normally much more capable than helicopters. Now granted both have very unique purposes (I wouldn't want, for example, to try and land a Harrier jumpjet in the middle of a mountainous area, etc.) BUT with ranges usually still 1000+ and payloads that can literally be as large as you care to make it, even "classic" VTOL aircraft...ones that used heavy lift-jets and the inefficiencies that introduces...are head-and-ears still more capable than any helicopter.
Yup, they are right in the middle. The speed and range of fixed-wing aircraft with the vtol capability of a helicopter.
If Ryanair had a hold of the aIrcraft then all passengers would be standing and charged EXTRA for breathing.
So true. :) And charged for each pound over 150 lbs body weight.
Developed by the German factory DORNIER in the 1960th. there was a VTOL-Transporter called DO-31, which had the vertcal jets in 2 gondolas at the wingtips!
Result: It is standing in Ottobrunn near Munich, where the chapter of air-history of the German Museum is located! Who has forbidden to build more of these
airplanes???
And it actually flew.... An amazing piece of engineering.
I imagine this would a better transport and re supply craft than the regular fixed wing. Also imagine V/STOL AWAKS for small/helicopter carriers giving small navies the ability to punch way above their weight.
It still amazes me how fuel comsumption was not much of an issue before 1973. It was a totally okay to just shove 18 engines in a plane prototype just to save a few hundred meters of runway.
It costed less money back then, but then the fuel crisis of 1973-75 hit. :)
It was about more than just saving a few hundred feet of runway. When you have to build those two-to-four thousands meter runways miles from major city centers, the overall picture of transportation efficiency goes down the tube.
If, for example, local transportation authorities in lots of cities had been able to consistently pair outlying airports with high density light rail to get people transported the "last mile", that would've made the hub-based airline system a lot more reasonable. Or if airlines had embraced city-center-to-center aircraft like this one or the Rotodyne, people could avoid inefficient hubs altogether. (And yes, that's a big ask to have an airline commit to an aircraft that carries so many engines as dead weight for the majority of its flight, plus the fuel to power those engines.)
But as it is, since no one's innovating on the hub system to force airlines to compete against a new paradigm, they have no incentive to take on the burden of making the entire air transportation picture more efficient. They get people from airport to airport, how those people get to and from those airports is their problem.
@@fletchbg sounds more like a north american infrastructure problem than an aircraft problem. At least we went away from hubs and connect smaller airports directly nowadays.
@@HappyBeezerStudios it's absolutely an infrastructure problem.
Geez! With so many great airplane/jet designs shelved for the mere economic down turn reasons, you think that the design concepts could be brought back up and reconsidered, since they didn't fail on merit of bad design, but instead, bad economic luck.
The same safety issues would remain.
I guess most of those technologies are adopted into other projects and designs... If they're promising enough.
With real estate it's all about location location location. With a new innovation, idea, nvention or new product such as this airplane, it's all about timing timing timing.
This in reality was a design that sounds amazing on paper but those lift engines are insane amounts of dead weight in level flight and way to expensive to justify their vtol. You don't build a plane out of gold and you don't use several extra engines if you don't have to.
You are forgetting the golden rule of Aviation design,Weight is everything
The airlines felt the additional weight needed for VTOL would be better used for carrying more passengers or cargo which would mean more revenue for the airline
6:00 I had to smile when you pronounced Hertfordshire as hit-ford-shy-er ! We would say heart-fud-sheer
Ok Brit
The Yakovlelv OKB who build the V/STOL fighters Yak-36, Yak-38 and Yak-141 brought also up a V/STOL version of its two Trijets passenger Aircrafts the Yak-40 and Yak-42. But it never left the dravingboard.
Thank you for this informative video. Never heard about it. Its a shame that it didn't get the go ahead. Must have been a game changer. Its good to know what the most ingenious brilliant mind can do for the good.
Everything in ur videos are just.. getting better, thanks for all ur efforts in this channel, now is absolutely fantastic
dat drunk concorde reversing at @9:13
Excellent video as always - I'm also enjoying the fact that you have so many weird models now that I see Iranian Concordes sedately taxiing about behind the subject
I worked in the Future Projects Office at Hatfield when we were developing this design. It would have used the derelict docklands in many European cities, and would scarcely have been heard by the nearby traffic. Extensive traveller modelling and costings showed that it had a ready market. It used RR 202 engines that used carbon fibre blades - which unfortunately (as it turned out) would have been ingested into neighbouring engines if shed. This probably killed the project, and of course the dockland areas have all now be redeveloped. I also worked on a proposed modified version of the (military) Dornier Do31 to be used as a civil demonstrator. I designed and tested ejectors and multilobe nozzles to reduce noise and increase the thrust of its RB162 (pure jet) engines. We did this alongside some great guys at Dornier.
All it needed was a single tube purpulstion chamber on adjacent body & base wings, where top an bottom exposed a diangle multiple sliced engine barrel shape cylinders, pivitiing multi VToL tray ducted fans *or* single longe cruise mode tube jets.(rear as afterburners).
It’s beautiful! This is the first time I’ve ever seen it. Amazing!
This reminds me of aircraft-design from the view of a youngster- _need VTOL? Add vertical engines. Fluid-plumbing, mechanical/electrical/control connections? What name so?_
If this was space and weight-efficient enough (like electric multi-copters), I could easily appreciate the safe redundancy of so many lift engines allowing steeper takeoff/landing paths. As of now, I'd be more inclined to design a midair multi-copter 'tug' to take the aircraft up/down to avoid noise and space restrictions.
This was actually a concept for the harrier before it became the harrier
Avro was finally absorbed into Hawker Siddeley Aviation Limited in July 1962
Like so, so many British planes of that time, it suffered from the BAE politics, pre-computerized flight control systems, and the oil crisis. In this case especially, Hawker-Siddeley eventually figured out that nozzles are much, much better at recirculating exhaust gases from the engine for VTOL compared to putting a shitload of engines or tilting wings like every other VTOL project out there. RR does have the engine for it, thus giving birth to the Harrier, which is still notorious to be incredibly difficult to fly.
If this went into a similar treatment to a Harrier, it would’ve been a tri-jet with a swivelling exhaust nozzle for the no. 2 engine (located in the tail and has an s-duct) like the F-35, and two massive turbofans powering another set of independent nozzles for horizontal axis rotation in mid-air, which then all three can be rotated forward for normal flight. It reduces complexity (I mean, it’s still a fucking tri-jet with Harrier nozzles but beats having 16 dwarf engines HAH) and operating costs. Years before the Yak-141 or the F-35.
Love your videos.
And I loved Iran Air Concorde in the background in this one!
Excellent stuff bro
Awesome video. Amazing job.
Really slick video 👍
This aircraft would be perfect for Berlin Tempelhof Central Airport!
Don't forget the BAe146, developed by BAe for basically the same requirements.
Right you are. Don't forget Dash 7 and 8 too.
As always, well done! You are a RUclips Jewel.
Love the videos. Especially at 13:52 with the Concorde in the background. nice touch. Did you create the videos yourself? What a shame. Wonder if something similar couldn't be done now?
First I've ever heard of this....Good job
Hi This is Abhijeet Deshpande and...
Another point were they went wrong was in the design of the vtol rotors and their numbers.
16 in all.
If they had incorporated lightweight aluminium and other malleable alloy composite materials into the rotor eblades and engines, then the weight would have recuced to less than 5 to 8 percent of the aircraft.
Similarly, the height of the rotor engines should have been reduced to a large extent.
i.e. just only twice of thrice or the height of the wings.
--------
||||
--------
This would have ensured a lightweight maximum distributed thrust lift force enough for the lane to VTOL from anywhere.....😎👍
Interesting video. I am glad someone covered this
The De Havilland museum has a model of this aircraft to see. it's about 3 foot long.
Just a tip, Hertforshire is pronounced 'Hartfordshire'
Gotta loved the chrome lit tyres!
Fantastic video my dear friend ✈️🙏🏼👍🏼
For what it's worth. Seems VTOL/STOL jet airplanes need omnidirectional engines for better efficiency of power to weight. That design has lift engines becoming cargo once forward flight is needed.
And I wonder if noise pollution is the same or worse especially with sixteen engines pointing straight downward.
Makes me think about supersonic aircraft being restricted over populated areas
This idea was crazy, straight up!
Very good tiknolige safe travels
Thats cool as hell! It would save alot of room for small runway airports. and it just looks cool. Maint. would be hell though. More parts to tend to. I likes it!!!!
It's quite graceful looking compared to most VSTOL concepts, which is an achievement in itself since the idea of a vertical takeoff airliner is batshit banana pills
What a beautiful beautiful plane
Ah yes the harrier 747
Lol true
lmao
9:15 Concorde: *full reverse thrust*
I can't help thinking that a simple tarmac runway would be cheaper, more efficient and safer.
Imagine a Boeing aircraft carrier, for these civil vtol aircrafts
Boeing did design one! Check out my submarine video :)
Excellent, I honestly thought this was clickbait but given the channel I felt that odd :)
A game-changer. ❤️
Yey you did my suggestion on discord legend!
I think Soviet Navy may have disagreement with your assessment that the Yak-38 was "successful". It couldn't even take off with a full fuel load and weapons. It was one or the other. It had very poor avionics and was rushed into service in anticipation of something better replacing it very quickly.
Hey, at least the Yak-41 project was useful… to Lockheed’s X-35 development!
Britain was once the worlds envy with inventions and manufacture. Britain will lead again in the world thanks to planes like this and the harrier jump jets.
Dam looks sick
I saw this plane when I 🍄 hunting in the woods by a airport it was awesome!!!
Awesome!!!
Passenger: My name is Giovanni gorgio, but people call me, gorgio.
This plane: *Starts flying vertically*
Tickets would be more than a trip on the old Concord. Economically this could not get off the ground.
7:38 I like what i see in the background
Could be useful for some airports. But not the big ones. Since more moving parts would mean more likely for something to break. Like that runway near an edge of a cliff this would be perfect for it.
A lot of work was done at Hatfield on a 100 seat feeder liner. DH/HS136
This looks like a vstol version of this.
After years of pulled government funding. It emerged as the. HS 146
Probably the most successful British airliner ever.
This is what I want and expected for a long time now I am going to see what I want thank god.
Yes that is what i really want to see
Perfect for remote area such as Greenland, Canadian North where maintenance of air strip would be expensive
i think we can now refute the claim VTOL is safer if we look at the operational history of the very few military VTOLS in service
To make this plane now I am sure it would work nicely 👌. If the could use the main engines as a lift or cut the fans to 6 from 8. Plus updated computers and stuff it could work
They need to design one where a false roof ejects and deploys a giant parachute.. It's doable!
Interestingly, the DHC-7 DeHavilland -7 STOL was also produced because of the noise abatement problems of huge inter city airports.
Right you are, DH7 was a great aircraft, flew one into Vail once. A very steep, tricky approach. A real shame all it's tooling destroyed in flood and that was it's end.
This concept needs to be revisited
What’s cool is that I study aerospace engineering in Hatfield
never heard of a passenger VTOL project, interesting though
I like watching your channel when I wait for mustard to upload
Hope you enjoy
Noise levels killed the Fairey Rotodyne, while it would also have killed this project - the answer given me when I asked John Farley, Harrier test pilot, when I asked him about the HS141.
I suspect that much of the design work was incorporated into the later, more conventional HS146
A wrong map at 2:18. Next to the Czech Republic is Slovakia, not Slovenia. Good video though :-)
I very much doubt the safer claim and would like to see a failures mode study of lift and it's control system. Look at accident record of both British and US Harriers. While a great aircraft, was a real handful in transition to/from vertical mode. As for inner-city airports: Can't both BA146 and Dash 7/8 fly into London City short runways, sure there are more modern ones too. Airport mostly limited by noise level of aircraft anyway.
0:44
Nice music
That was not the last attempt at a short range city jet by Hawker Siddeley. The HS 146 had a successful career years later and some are still in use today.
Why was such a successful plane discontinued ?
@@rogerbeck1293 A mystery to me too, as there is still a niche demand. For example, in Canada they are being bought to transport miners to remote mines and can be certified to operate on unpaved/ gravel runways.
That critical take off would be great for island hopper and take people from airport to cruise ship
If done right (mabye even low orbit or super sonic for long flights) and efficient cost effective fuel/design with high safety something like this could really take off...no pun intended lol
Great point!
You should check out the Thunderbird No 2 VTOL freight carrier, it can travel at 5,000 mph, lift a 100 tons, and can go to heights of 30km, its also set to revolutionise cargo air travel.
A digital design / animation does not make it a reality or even possible. It makes it as "real" as an X-Wing fighter. You should rather re-title the video
"The designers flight of fancy Passenger Plane that could fly straight Up - The fantasy world of the Hawker Siddeley V/STOL Jetliner"
And how much fuel did it take to lift the VTOL from a standstill? Likely much more than a standard jet.
So.............passenger harrier?
Interesting concept...more VTOL aircraft. If we properly train our pilots, it would make takeoffs and landings so much easier.
Heck, if the pilot was good enough, they could just set it down at the gate...no more taxing.
They should make make it with every airplane and get rid of the massive spacious runways
The HS.141 Jump Jetliner!
Heart-fud-sheer
This would be neat. If I could fly something like this (I’m a certified flight instructor) I would.
How do you know if someone is a pilot?
They’ll tell you! 😜
@@gpaull2 wut
@@gpaull2 Yeah I would probably brag about it aswell lmao
8:46 something funny happened at the studio lol
Great video! I'd love to see something about aircraft with alternative fuels whether future or past.
Same here. E-fuels, waste vegetable oil, ethanol, ethanol fuel cell, hydrogen fuel cell, or battery electric would be interesting to cover. :)
"Fancy 3D Renders, that have yet to see the light of day." excellent quote.
This thing is nuts, it's such a shame it was never built!
You know what ? I think the rotating engine model might work.
Two engines on each side. They rotate upward. So the plane takes off vertically.
Maybe add two more engines in the back near the tail.
So then once in the air , they rotate forward and naturally the air gets pushed rearward
Moving the plane forward
Then opposote effect when landing. I think
It's possible , and the osprey uses this method
Today.
An enlarged Fairey Rotodyne would have ticked most of these specification boxes, albeit using technology from 10 years before.
Where do you put cargo compartment doors there, if there's any? I guess only hand carry luggage is allowed for that aircraft.
I prefer the Japanese design 737 size Rutan design forward canard wings with 3-4 fans along side main body. With the Rutan main wing design at the 3/4 point to the rear area.
Military: share a few V/STOL aircraft
Airliners: NOTE THAT DOWN! NOTE THAT DOWN!
This plane could be comfortable and cool school bus for remotely school students 😂 👌