610 FLIGHT

MORE THOUGHTS ON JET LIFT * ^

1.6g. Six of the jets, not required for support, could be kept fully
deflected throughout the landing run, so that, with fifty per cent
reverse thrust from the main engines, the retardation would not fall
below 0.52g at the end of the run, giving a mean figure of about
1.3g. The aircraft could be brought to rest in little more than
10 seconds, burning 1,250 lb of lift fuel in the process; a 5-second
let-down at 230,000 lb weight would consume another 500 lb,
giving a total of 1,750 lb, representing a further saving of 4,500 lb.
This seems to be about the best we can do while still retaining
the ability to take off and land without any ground run. We have
incurred the additional weight of jet deflectors fitted to 30 of the
lift engines; but we have dispensed with the other 20 altogether
and have reduced our gross lift fuel requirement from 18,000 1b
to 7,500 lb, thus increasing the payload by, in round figures,
30,000 lb.
There is a further case yet to be considered. Suppose we take
out another six of the lift engines, retaining just enough to allow
us to land vertically. Then at take-off the aircraft will have an
effective weight of 60,000 1b even with all jets running. It will
have to make a normal take-off from a runway, and with a wing-
loading equivalent to 60 lb per square foot it will run 1,500 feet
before unsticking. It obviously would not pay to run the jets at
all while still on the ground; they would be opened up, vertically,
when the wing lift had risen to 60,000 lb, and thereafter the take-off
would continue as before, except that with only 24 instead of
30 jets available the acceleration would be less; the air-borne pan
of die take-off run would occupy about nine seconds, and the fuel
consumed would be about 1,000 lb. In the landing case, the
reduced lift thrust available would mean a longer landing run of
about 15 seconds, and the total lift fuel consumed would be about
2,000 lbslightly more than before. The net saving in lift fuel
would only be about 1,500 lb, to which must of course be added
the weight6,000 lbof the engines taken out. But it is at least
questionable whether this saving would be enough to compensate
for the extra weight which would have to be built into the under-
carriage to permit of a runway take-off; and when one takes into
consideration that we have lost die very valuable ability to take
off from any surface without ground run, I think it will be agreed
that this is not worth while.
I should like to emphasize that none of the figures I have given
has any pretence to exactitude. In arriving at them I have sim-
plified problems, straightened curves and cut corners generally;
but unless I have been guilty of some egregious howler I hope
that they may be taken as reasonable approximations. If they
are, we should be able to draw certain conclusions from them, as
follows:
(a) The amount of jet lift to be provided need never exceed
die maximum all-up weight of die aircraft.
(b) With jet lift equal to the max. a.u.w., an aircraft could leave
the ground with no run, and if fitted with jet deflectors could
climb away at any initial angle; but steep angles of climb would
entail an appreciable weight penalty and should never be pro-
longed further than necessary. The penalty for angles of 15
degrees or less would be negligible.
(c) Vertical take-off on an even keel would be both expensive
and unnecessary.
(d) An appreciable saving could be effected by compensating
for varying wing lift during the take-off and landing runs by
deflecting all lift jets instead of varying the total liftbut at the
expense of considerable accelerational discomfort to passengers.
(e) When used in the most economical way, the lift engines
would not require an exorbitant provision of fuelnot more than
2-3 per cent of the a.u.w.
(0 No practical advantage would be obtained by providing jet
lift equal to less than the a.u.w.
The results of our various modifications are summarized in the
following table.
Original design ...
" Mk l l "
(lift-a.u.w.)
" Mkl l A"
(deflectors)
"Mk I I I "
(reduced lift)
Take-off
Vertical
No run
No run
Runway
1,500ft
Effective
climb
angle
22O-*
5
Any angle
Any angle
after
unstick
Jet lift
Ib
500,000
300,000
300,000
240,000
Li f t fuel
Ib
18,000
14.000
7,500
6,000
Payload
Ib
w
w +
24,000
w +
30,000
w +
37.500
* 300ft vertically, followed by 7,500ft horizontally.
BREGUET PROJECTS
A Military Version of the Integral, and an Anti-submarine Vultur
/COINCIDENT widi the news of the death of Louis Breguet
^ (see page 606), reports have appeared of yet another of his
famous company's projects. This latest, a military version of the
Breguet 940 Integral, has been given the type designation Br.941.
The layout and principles of the civil-transport Integral were
outlined in Flight of February 25th. Broadly speaking, the object
is to produce a fixed-wing aircraft which could utilize a helicopter's
landing-ground and yet be less vulnerable to engine failure on
take-off. The type 940 has a high unbraced wing widi a span
of 52ft fitted widi double flaps and mounting four 13ft airscrews
driven by four Turbomeca Turmo turboprops mounted in die
BREGUET 941
(Two Twin Turmos)
two inboard nacelles. All four airscrews are linked by a transverse
shaft so diat engine failure will not stop any one airscrew. The
outboard airscrews can be used by the pilot for directional control.
A further small turbojet in the tail is deviated to give additional
directional control at very low speeds.
The type 941, of which a three-view drawing is shown here,
is a military assault-transport version of this project. The fuselage
differs mainly in having provision for a large rear-loading door
under the tail. The four Turmos will be disposed in four separate
nacelles and will each drive one 13ft airscrew. (In the Type 940
die same power is obtained from two twin Turmos in the inner
nacelles.) The Turbomeca Marbore II in the tail is
eliminated. The main landing wheels are no longer on out-
riggers, but are carried on plain compression struts.
Models of the 941 will be on view on the Breguet
stand during the Paris Show in June. The aircraft is
intended to take off in 64yd and to carry a 6,600-lb load
for 620 miles.
Another Breguet project, the single-engined anti-sub-
marine version of the Br.965 Vultur, has now flown. The
first aircraft is in fact die second Vultur prototype con-
siderably rebuilt to house in die after fuselage a retract-
able "dustbin" radar scanner instead of the Nene, and
two large pinion containers (for either weapons or
detection gear) just ahead of the main undercarriage legs.
The ample cockpit canopy now contains only one seg-
ment of transparencies. The modified Vultur is a precursor
of the first prototype Br. 1050s which are due to fly in
the early summer of next year. There will be five of them.
Two types of engines are reported by a French source
to be under considerationeither Armstrong Siddeley
Mamba 6 of 1,650 h.p. or the Rolls Royce Dart RDa.7
of 1,950 h.p. The aircraft will be armed widi a full
range of detection gear, now being tested in the modified
Vultur, and witii rockets and depth charges. Loaded
weight will be 17,900 lb, maximum speed 270 m.p.h., and
ceiling 19,200 ft.