Bristol 167 Brabazon

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

johnbr

johnbr

2nd Lieutenant
5,591
5,171
Jun 23, 2006
London Ontario Canada
Bristol Brabazon.jpg
Bristol 167 Brabazon 1.jpg
S
Bristol 167 Brabazon.jpg
View attachment 498895
Bristol 197 Brabazon.jpg
Specification
Powerplants 8 coupled 2,500 hp Bristol Centaurus XX engines
Span 230 ft 0 in
Maximum Weight 290,000 lb
Capacity 12 crew and 100 passengers
Maximum Speed 300 mph
Cruising Speed 250 mph
Endurance / Range 5,500 miles
Number built
Type 167 Brabazon I One only – G-AGPW
Survivors
None (Scrapped) Some components are displayed in the Science Museum, London and at the National Museum of Flight in Scotland
 
Last edited:
.... you can see why jet turbine engines are so superior ... the complexity of coupled piston engines and the weight and complexity of counter rotating props .... dinosaur in a turbine age :)
 
Bristol 167 Brabazon 3.jpg

Specification
Powerplants 8 coupled 2,500 hp Bristol Centaurus XX engines
Span 230 ft 0 in
Maximum Weight 290,000 lb
Capacity 12 crew and 100 passengers
Maximum Speed 300 mph
Cruising Speed 250 mph
Endurance / Range 5,500 miles
Number built
Type 167 Brabazon I One only – G-AGPW
Survivors
None (Scrapped) Some components are displayed in the Science Museum, London and at the National Museum of Flight in Scotland
 
michaelmaltby said:
.... you can see why jet turbine engines are so superior ... the complexity of coupled piston engines and the weight and complexity of counter rotating props .... dinosaur in a turbine age :)
Click to expand...

The Brabazon Mk II would have been powered by 4 coupled Bristol Proteus (ie 8 in total) gas turbines. Development difficulty with the Proteus and the Brabazon meant that the Mk II was never built.

The Mk II would have had similar or more power, and a reduction in weight of 10,000lb (4540kg)!

But I guess the Mk II would have been stuck with those thick wings - how deep do they have to be to house a Centaurus completely inside?
 
The major cost items were the building hangers etc. and runway. This was returned in their use in the Concorde program so it was not as great a loss as it appeared. Still. Had they gone for cheap seats then 300 passengers transatlantic in one lift with no fuelling stops and a cruising speed only 17% slower than the later US piston competition, it could have been a viable business model and this is on the Mk1 figures. Today passengers cope (badly in some cases) with durations non stop that are even longer. More Loftleidir CL44 than Concorde.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back