It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

True history of Avro 730

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 02:28 AM
link   
Here's a subject that has been driving me nuts ever since ever since I first managed learn about it's history. Two questions:
1- Just how far did they get on the project? One source says they never started building them, another stated one prototype was nearly complete.
2- What was the final design? I found numerous 3d pictures online, but the configuration is always different. If they started building it, what was it TRULY going to look like? Straight or delta, four engines or eight, and how close was the T.188 in design. In all this speculation, there has to be some shred of truth. It's as bad as SUNTAN. Did they start buliding it or didn't they? But at least with SUNTAN, there's no question what it would have looked like. It would be nice, if they started building the 730, if there was pictures of the work in progress. Otherwise, the official proposal from Avro would be nice.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 02:40 AM
link   
If your talking about the Avro Arrow, 1963?, they built three or four of 'm.
Then Diefanbaker cancelled the project and sent the engineers and scientists down south. They eventually designed and developed the F15.

Dallas



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 03:17 AM
link   
Here's the wind tunnel model of it. That's about all that I could find about it, other than it got cancelled in 1957.

&viewby=images]link
(edit to shorten long link)

[edit on 7-8-2005 by pantha]


jra

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dallas

If your talking about the Avro Arrow, 1963?, they built three or four of 'm.
Then Diefanbaker cancelled the project and sent the engineers and scientists down south. They eventually designed and developed the F15.

Dallas


Firstly the original poster is talking about this

Secondly you're 10 years to far. The concept came about in 1953, with the first one completed in 1957 I believe. Six of them were made (although the 6th one never got a chance to fly). Diefenbaker did can the project, but I wouldn't say he sent the engineers down south, they went there on their own. I don't know anything about them working on the F-15. Perhaps some of them got hired by McDonnell Douglas. Who knows, but about 30+ engineers got hired by NASA.

Sorry TSR2005. I don't know anything about the Avro 730 i'm affraid.

[edit on 14-7-2005 by jra]



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 03:20 AM
link   
Two completely different planes, two different countries. Avro Canada made the CF-105 Arrow. Five were built and flown, with the sixth, production spec aircraft days away. That one I have a book on and already know too much about. I like it, though. (I believe in the Phantom Arrow
)
What I am researching is the British Avro 730 bomber. Designed to a requirement in the early 1950's for replacing the V-bombers (Vulcan, Victor, and Valiant). Would have been world's first supersonic bomber, but was cancelled in 1957 as the result of Duncan Sandy's White Paper on Defence, issued in April of that year. I'm having trouble getting precise information on the plane itself, outside of it's well known cancellation history.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Going from the lack of information, it probably wasn't even far into the windtunnel tests, in which case, you WON'T find much information on it. I'll keep my eyes open for you, but I wouldn't count on finding too much, other than windtunnel models, and the cancellation history.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 04:53 AM
link   
Thanks for that picture, Zaphod58. One of the things I wasn't sure existed anymore. I like the fact it matches the very first drawing I found of that plane, and that drawing took me ten years to find. This aircraft has created a sort of urban legend around itself, not knowing what is real and what people have made up along the way. If anyone wants a reasearch subject that will leave them banging their head against the wall, I highly recommend it. Something just as fun: The Vickers V-1000 (VC-7).



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   
You're a man after my own heart TSR2005, All this stuff is right up my street.

The sources you quote may be confusing two different Avro projects. The Avro 730 had been selected as the Vulcan replacement in preference to the Vickers and Handley Page OR.330 designs and construction of a prototype had begun when it was canned in 1957 but was at an early stage with a first flight planned for 1960.

Another Avro project which was canned in 1957 however was the Avro 720 which was an interceptor fighter of tailless delta design (but yet very very different to the Canadian Arrow, which was superior) Think F-102 with chin intake for the Avro 720. The prototype of this was virtually complete when it was cancelled, even to the point that the RAF roundels and serials (XD727) had been applied to the aircraft but the Ministry refused Avro's pleas to fly the plane and ordered it destroyed, similarly as happened with the TSR 2 eight years later.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 05:21 PM
link   
I've read about that one as well, and it's history is a lot like the 730. 'British Secret Projects - Jet Fighters Since 1950' by Tony Buttler, has good information on the 720, including the fact that the most common picture we see of that plane is not the prototype, but the mock-up. Like the 730, no one's sure just how far they got on the actual plane.
However, I'm focusing on the 730, and am aware of which project is which. I've uncovered a lot of general information on it, but until Zaphod58 provided the picture of the wind tunnel model, the only piece of hareware relating to it was the Bristol T.188. All the information I have managed to find on the 730 relate to the bomber, not the fighter, as it's layout differs greatly from the 720. The basic design is a canard planform, bicycle landing gear, and engines podded out toward the ends of the main wings. But more detailed information about what the finally design was to look like (i.e. wing shape, rudder shape, type and number of engines) and how far the project went is the mystery. I want to seperate the truth from the legend.
By the way, in looking through that book I mentioned, the prototype 720's serials were to be XD696 and XD701, XD696 showing up on the mock-up in 1954.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 12:32 PM
link   
I didn't think you were confusing the two projects, but when you said you had sources saying it was nearly complete I thought that they might be, as the 730 was at least three years away from its first flight when cancelled. It appears that you have all the same sources I have on this aircraft. If you haven't seen them you might try googling for the 'virtual RAF' who have some decent impressions of the 730 on the site.

I have a copy of Putnams 'Avro since 1912' knocking about. If you haven't seen this I could dig it out and see whatr it has to say on the project?



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Don't you hate it when you post a question and later you just happen to come across the very information you're looking for? I do. I posted this question and recently I found a book that told me exactly what I wanted to know. The book is called 'Project Cancelled'. I checked it out from the local library. It explains why there are two designs for the 730. The first design was for the original requirement fora long range recon. aircraft. It's layout was straight main wings and four engines, two mounted over and under in wing tip pods. Later, the design was modified to include bombing as well as recon. The fuselage was redesigned and the wings became deltas, with eight engines, four clusters near te tips. The book also stated that the first fuselage was nearly complete when it was cancelled. I don't know if there are any photos, though.
A curious point about the book. It, too, says the Avro 720 fighter was near completion, showing pictures of the mock up and asuming it was the prototype. Other than that, it's a good book.
Again, thanks for the impute.




top topics



 
0

log in

join