Aircraft Identification V

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

This tactical military transport, possibly the first ever with modern style rear loading ramp+doors, was supposed to be in production when reported in Flight, it wasn't, but was was it called?

 
Waynos said:
This tactical military transport, possibly the first ever with modern style rear loading ramp+doors, was supposed to be in production when reported in Flight, it wasn't, but was was it called?
Click to expand...

Hmmm..I smell a trick here Wayne. It just looks too obvious as the Ambassador. If it was designed to be a "tactical military transport" then it flew as one, but it didn't look like this?

Then this must rule out the Ambassador as it was always intended (from what I've read) to be a post-war civil airliner with double the capacity (passengers) of the DC-3.

Avro (early York design?) Blackburn (there were twin engine designs for the Beverly?) Or should I just start wiping the egg off my face now?...
 
Airframes and Graeme, I suppose I'll have to end it now. Yes, it does look like the Ambassador, because it was based on the same core design at the same time, 1944. The Ambassador was Arthur Hagg's Brabazon airliner offering, this, with a different, fatter, fuselage and rear loading ramp but the same wings, engines and tail (Avro York fashion) was his intended replacemenr for the RAF's Dakota's, the Ayrshire.

Reported in Flight in 1945 as 'now in production for the RAF', this was wishful thinking as it never progressed beyond mock up stage as the end of the war saw the contract terminated and Airspeed pressed on at full speed with the Ambassador instead.
 
Thanks for that. I hadn't realised it started as a military requirement. The Ambassador is close to my heart, as they were the main type at Newcastle Airport when I was a young 'spotter', doing anything to get near to aircraft. They were the ex BEA 'Elizabethan' class aircraft, operated by BKS and, of course, always refered to as the 'Lizzie'. Very nice looking aeroplane.
 
Maybe I'm blinded by the egg but isn't it the other way round? It was always designed to be an airliner with the Ayrshire as an afterthought? Or do the sequential design numbers not necessarily follow chronologically?

From a John Stroud article...

 
Yes, the numbers do follow chronologically, Graeme. What I probably didn't write very clearly was that the Ambassador and Ayrshire were deliberately designed at the same time from a common root airframe design (hence the identical wings tail, engines etc).

Hagg drew his brabazon airliner first but he had both models in mind from the start, which is why the Ambassadors shape is so suited to a rough field military transport with its high wing and low floor. Alternative schemes with piston and turboprop power, both with 2 and 4 engines, were created for both models while still at the design stage too, hence the numbering. The Ambassador 2 with 2 RR Darts and a stretch for 8 more passengers came out of these studies but the only turbine powered model to fly was the Eland powered development prototype.



The AS.66 and 67 were not military transports, as in the article, they were civil freighter versions of the Ayrshire. The final scheme was a larger 4x Proteus stretched Ambassador designed as the AS.68. Another curiosity was a 'mini-Ambassaor', the AS.64, which was intended to be competitive with the DH Dove for the Brabazon 5b requirement.
 
Thanks Wayne, for the detailed summary.

Here's how my confusion and doubts arose...

I managed to find the article with the photo you posted. The date is listed as September 12 1946. At this stage the Ayrshire is described only as a model and a "militarised version of the Ambassador"...

armstrong whitworth | 1946 | 1785 | Flight Archive

...and since the first flight of the Ambassador was only 10 months away I guessed that Airspeed must have already been in the process of construction. This is backed up by an advertisement appearing in Janes 45/46 (which some doubt!) with the line.."Designed and now under construction". Therefore I concluded, incorrectly, that the AS.60 couldn't have been a concurrent design as...
A) the Brabazon Type IIA request did not involve military transports, and
B) was still in the model phase by end of 1946.

Brabazon Committee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



It obviously went through a lot of design changes, as you mentioned, before reaching a 47/49 passenger format. I've read that Airspeeds' slow production rate and failure to develop the turboprop version saved the Vickers Viscount from obscurity.

 
Good stuff Graeme, thanks. Yes, by that time the Ambassador was well known (those ads had appeared in Flight too) and although the Air Ministry had dropped its interest in the Ayrshire already (as opposed to the claim) Airspeed were hoping to attract foreign sales (and fund the civil models of it too) hence the displaying of the model at Radlett in '46 (this was the forerunner of the Farnborough Show, which began in 1948).
 
Looks reminiscent of a Tsybin design, but I can't remeber which one I'm thinking of, duh!

I'll come back, unless I'm completely wrong when I do find it, lol
 
Waynos said:
Looks reminiscent of a Tsybin design, but I can't remeber which one I'm thinking of, duh!

I'll come back, unless I'm completely wrong when I do find it, lol
Click to expand...

That's good enough for me Wayne. Yep, a Tsybin it is. The Tsybin RSR R-020 with wing tip R-11F jet engines. Three were completed but never flown?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

G
Looking for a WWII aircraft prop
Replies
0
Views
2K
Grounded
G
B
a very simple render
Replies
0
Views
4K
blobs
B
Aircraft Identification
Replies
7
Views
3K
Waynos
W
Aircraft Recognition - Fun Quiz, Part 1.
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
Airframes
R
Aircraft Silhouettes
Replies
1
Views
7K
Micdrow
Menu
Log in
Register