Feb. 22, 1957 the ENG in EE R ~97

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Feb. 22, 1957 the ENG in EE R ~97 • Feb. 22, 1957 THE ENG IN EE R ~97 suggested that commercially pure metal be con­ for supersonic aircraft, a wing spar box for a sub­ tests had been done. Treatment with an anti­ fined to 130 and 160. Mr. King (English Electric) sonic design had shown a weight saving of 14 per galling compound might be beneficial in practice. supported these views, saying that the airframe cent in titanium. However, torsional rigidity Major P. L. Teed (Vickers-Armstrongs) asked industry was unanimously in favour of sheet was down- was a higher Young's modulus for comments on the confused and contradictory with a 371 specification suitable for cold working. attainable 1 He shared the view that hot literature concerning the effect of hydrogen. Mr. Barker (Firth Brown) regarded proof forming was insupporta ble. Since stress concentrations were inevitable, he stress and elongation as the important para­ Mr. R. L. Lickley (Fairey Aviation) observed considered fatigue results on smooth test pieces meters ; on austenitic steel a low value of that his firm made little or no use of titanium, meaningless. Fretting was the first stage in proof/ultimate strengths could be accompanied largely because the specifications could not be stress corrosion, and he considered the li a bility by poor elongation and better ductility by a guaranteed and the consistency was not close of titanium to fretting critical. Dr. Jnglis pointed high value of proof/ultimate. He inquired enough. Two commercially pure grades and out that hydrogen contents were now well whether there was known to be a correlation an alloy of 60 to 65 tons, with a proof strength below the levels at which adverse effects had been of this nature. Dr. I nglis thought not ; if a not more than 80 per cent of this, would be observed (see above, .. Research and Develop­ greater ratio of proof to ultimate was wanted, satisfactory. ment ") being J00 to 130 parts per million. He it would be provided at the expense of ultimate Mr. Smyth (Aviation Traders) said that a high did not consider fretting corrosion to have been strength- but the material would never work value of proof/ultimate strength was associated established as a mechanism of failure ; it was like aluminium. Mr. Hall (Rolls-Royce) pointed with bad fatigue life in aluminium. A badly possible that the galling or tearing to which out that sheet to 317 or 318A could readily be fitting rivet allowing fretting corrosion to take titanium was susceptible accelerated fatigue. used from drum-shaped objects, but parts that place had been known to reduce the life of a Mr. Clarke (De Havilland Engine), said that needed to be pressed were more difficult. For specimen by a factor of eight ; was titanium the creep performance of titanium alloys was engine manufacture there was a need for a pre­ subject to fretting corrosion 1 Whether aircraft dubious, because the stability of the material cipitation hardening alloy which would be aged were designed on safe life or fail-safe principles, at high temperatures was not established. Because after fabrication. Where compressor discs and long fatigue lives for components were essential it might result in a material unstable at 400 deg. similar components were concerned, an alloy if the operator was to show a profit, and the Cent., he did not favour quenching 371. Dr. that did not demand a drastic quench was question was whether titanium would excGI R odgers pointed out that 371 was in the alpha wanted : the material was costly, the utilisation aluminium in this respect. Dr. Inglis knew of phase and there was only very doubtful evidence down to 10 per cent, and distortion must be no relationship between fatigue and the proof/ that instability could be observed ; incorrect minimised- the ability to cool in air would be ultimate ratio ; there was none for titanium. quenching might have caused suspicious be­ welcomed. He added that his firm had used The high corrosion resistance of titanium did haviour. Quenching was necessary for the titanium compressor blades without a failure for not render it immune from fretting corrosion, best creep resistance, but an alternative tech­ three or four years. and cases of the latter had occurred, but no nique, recovery from hot working, was sought. APPLICATlONS Mr. R. L. Preece analysed 1956 sales as ~ follows :-(1) 40 per cent rod for compressor blades ; (2) 20 per cent sheet for firewalls ; (3) The Fairey ''Delta 2 '' 20 per cent sheet for exhaust and jet pipe By R. L. LICKLEY, B.Sc., F.R.Ae.S., and L. P. TWISS shrouds ; (4) 5 per cent billet for discs and spacers ; (5) 5 per cent bar for small forgings. On February 14 this joint lecture was given to the Royal Aeronautical Society. In the first category, limitations to more We reproduce here the first part of the lecture, read by Mr. Lick/ey, devoted to extensive use were of temperature rather than design and construction. strength ; it was desired to use the same stresses 1 at higher temperatures. However, the manufac­ turers might try developing methods to use HE development of manned supersonic technique and experience of the V.T.O. models tougher alloys than the 40 to 55-ton materials T aircraft in this country suffered a setback at would be of great value, the experiments them­ at present in use. the end of the 1939-45 war, when it was decided selves would be of little use unless they were For firewalls it appeared that wider, thinner that the use of manned aircraft would be too aimed at obtaining specific information on a sheet to substitute for stainless steel was wanted ; dangerous ; however, more realistic views soon layout representative of a typical possible piloted for the shrouds formability was called for, and prevailed and, as a result, th~ ordering of such supersonic aeroplane. We, therefore, began a commercially pure materials were adequately manned aircraft was considered in 194 7 by the design study of such a piloted aircraft as a pre­ strong. Ministry of Supply, and in our submissions to liminary to the design of the pilotless models. Titanium alloy discs and spacers demanded M.o.S. in 1949, we described the aircraft as Our fi rst efforts resulted in a design of high creep (esistance and heat-treatments for 371 having as its primary function" Research Flying sweepback on both leading and trailing edges, suitable for thin sections were being sought ; at Transonic· and Supersonic speeds up to all-moving tip ailerons, conventional tailplane assembly by welding might avoid the difficulty M = l·5." and twin engines in the fuselage fed from a nose of forging to thin sections. The background which led up to this sub­ intake(" P.1" layout). The use of tubes was awaiting enhanced fatigue mission is of interest, as it shows a logical line This design was not proceeded with, but in resistance. Problems associated with galling of development within the company. February; 1949, we were approached by P.D.S.R. were holding back some uses, but various surface In 1947, the company was developing the (A) (then Sir Harry Garner) and asked to con­ treatments such as oxidation, anodising, possibly .. F.D.l." at Stockport and scale models of it at sider an alternative design for a further supersonic cyaniding, electro-plating or chemical deposition Heston, in order to conduct vertical take-off research aircraft, preferably based on a single might help overcome them. experiments. The models were of advanced engine. We had, of course, by this time con­ Dr. H . W. Shaw examined the value of weight design, propelled by a rocket motor with twin siderable background in the problems of design­ saving in a commercial aircraft. Considering combustion chambers controlled in pitch and ing such an aeroplane. We had developed the only the increase in payload possible over ranges yaw respectively by an automatic pilot. Informa­ necessary new techniques of drag and perform­ beyond that to which the maximum payload tion of behaviour in flight was telemetered to ance estimation and had collected together what could be carried, he estimated 1 lb of weight the ground. slender information there was on the stability to be worth a yearly profit of from £17 to £22 on In September, 1947, the company was asked and control characteristics of various con­ short sectors to £70 to £80 on extremely difficult if it could further develop the vertical take-off figurations. We decided to begin our considera­ routes. The cost of saving weight by means of models to fly transonically after ground launching tions afresh and, by the end of the year (Dec­ titanium was not yet established, but in batch as part of the experimental programme. After ember, 1949) had come to a firm proposal production it might be £20 per pound. Where consideration it became clear that, alth0ugh the which differed very little from the aero- · stressed components were concerned, fatigue life in service might override economic con­ siderations, and because of the cost of the material welded components might be expected to emerge. Mr. Boorman (Short and Harland) favoured a reduction in the number of specifications, and disliked the present system, whereby suffixes could be calJed on to differentiate quite different materials. • While titanium was a favoured material • A tnree-figure number is aOoued to each grade or alloy, the firs! figu re of whk:h indicates how many elements are present in appreciable quantity. Thus the numbers 100 to 199 !lre used for nominally pure titanium, the numbers 200 to 299 for bUlary alloys, 300 10 399 for ternary alloys, and so on.
Recommended publications
  • Pioneers to Partners, British Aircraft Since 1945
    Pioneers to Partners British Aircraft since 1945 Christopher Foyle & Leo Marriott Foreword by Marshal of the Royal Air Force, HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, KG, KT spsfojd |EuoiiEUJ9iu| JO(EW snojauunu in jguiJEd |Eiiu9ss9 PUE lUEiJodum UE s\ Xjisnpm UOjlEjAE IjSjljjg 31)1 9J9l|M UOjlEnijS UJ9pOLJU 91)1 01 iinds puE s9|i!)Euosj9d §uu99iioid uo iijnq Xjisnpui UE LJUOJJ 9§UEip ss9|iu9|9J inq 9|iqns 91)1 SUElp >|00q 91)1 '9)111 9lfl. Uj p91E|nsdEDU9 sy 'sdjijSJiB U9A9 puE sj9p||2 'si|mq-9uuoq p S||E19p j9Uq §U|A!§ S9D|pU9ddE l)l|M S|Enp!Alpll! plIE S9!UEdlUOD J9||EUUS 91)1 3-1 H U9HO§JOj 1O[\J uojinquiuoD JofEiu E 9pEUJ SEIJ /Jisnpin qsjiug 9J9qM s9iuuuEj2ojd |Euo!iEUJ9iui jo spnpojd 9SOLJ1 SE ||9M SE pOU3d IBljl UlljljM l^EJDJjE l|mq l)SI!Ug /J9A9JO 'J9pJO )ED!§0|OUOJl)D Uj 'S|jB13p SujpjAOjd Xq A'JOIS ai)i SujiEJisn)!! '/Ep iu9S9jd 91)1 01 c^6|, iiiojj AJisnpu! ^EJDJJE ijsiiug 91)1 Uj 9§UEl)D 91)1 SlJEljD SJ9UJJDJ OJ SJ33L/0/J 'lU9JEddE X||pE9J S/EM|E 10 u sj Xijiuspi qsjiug 3i|i q§noqi|E p9iu9S9jd9j ||9M 9J9M S1SJ1U9DS pUE SJ99U|§U9 'SgjUEduUOD l)SjlUg tpjljM Ul EI1JOSUOD IEUOJ1EUJ91UI Ol p9| S9UUlUEJ§Ojd lU9LJUdO|9A9p l^EJDJIE JOfEUU JO 1SOD pUE 9|EDS J991JS 91)1 X||EniU9Ag S9iEJ9uuo|§uoD lEUisnpuj J9§JE| oiui pgqjosqE X||EnpEJ§ 9J9M pUE||!AE|-) 9p pUE (OlSjjg 'OJA\/ SE ipns S9UUEU snouiiEj PUE Xjisnpui IJEJDJJE 3i)i UjqijM SUOHESJIEJUOIIEJ JOfElU Ol p9| XiqEUEAUj S9pED9p JEMlSOd 31)1 JO Xll|E9J 3l)_|_ 'SS9DDnS LjljM p9UMOJD SXEM|E 1OU 9J9M SIJOJ-P 9S91J1 E qi|M s|i)i uo p|inq 01 iqSnos PUE uo|S|ndojd 13 [ Uj J9pE9| p|JOM 91)1
    [Show full text]
  • Aircraft Manufacturers Partie 4 — Constructeurs D’Aéronefs Parte 4 — Fabricantes De Aeronaves Часть 4
    4-1 PART 4 — AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS PARTIE 4 — CONSTRUCTEURS D’AÉRONEFS PARTE 4 — FABRICANTES DE AERONAVES ЧАСТЬ 4. ИЗГОТОВИТЕЛИ ВОЗДУШНЫХ СУДОВ COMMON NAME COMMON NAME NOM COURANT NOM COURANT NOMBRE COMERCIAL NOMBRE COMERCIAL CORRIENTE MANUFACTURER FULL NAME CORRIENTE MANUFACTURER FULL NAME ШИРОКО NOM COMPLET DU CONSTRUCTEUR ШИРОКО NOM COMPLET DU CONSTRUCTEUR РАСПРОСТРАНЕННОЕ FABRICANTE NOMBRE COMPLETO РАСПРОСТРАНЕННОЕ FABRICANTE NOMBRE COMPLETO НАИМЕНОВАНИЕ ПОЛНОЕ НАИМЕНОВАНИЕ ИЗГОТОВИТЕЛЯ НАИМЕНОВАНИЕ ПОЛНОЕ НАИМЕНОВАНИЕ ИЗГОТОВИТЕЛЯ A (any manufacturer) (USED FOR GENERIC AIRCRAFT TYPES) AERO ELI AERO ELI SERVIZI (ITALY) AERO GARE AERO GARE (UNITED STATES) 3 AERO ITBA INSTITUTO TECNOLÓGICO DE BUENOS AIRES / PROYECTO PETREL SA (ARGENTINA) 328 SUPPORT SERVICES 328 SUPPORT SERVICES GMBH (GERMANY) AERO JAEN AERONAUTICA DE JAEN (SPAIN) AERO KUHLMANN AERO KUHLMANN (FRANCE) 3XTRIM ZAKLADY LOTNICZE 3XTRIM SP Z OO (POLAND) AERO MERCANTIL AERO MERCANTIL SA (COLOMBIA) A AERO MIRAGE AERO MIRAGE INC (UNITED STATES) AERO MOD AERO MOD GENERAL (UNITED STATES) A-41 CONG TY SU'A CHU'A MAY BAY A-41 (VIETNAM) AERO SERVICES AÉRO SERVICES GUÉPARD (FRANCE) AAC AAC AMPHIBIAM AIRPLANES OF CANADA (CANADA) AERO SPACELINES AERO SPACELINES INC (UNITED STATES) AAK AUSTRALIAN AIRCRAFT KITS PTY LTD (AUSTRALIA) AEROALCOOL AEROÁLCOOL TECNOLOGIA LTDA (BRAZIL) AAMSA AERONAUTICA AGRICOLA MEXICANA SA (MEXICO) AEROANDINA AEROANDINA SA (COLOMBIA) AASI ADVANCED AERODYNAMICS AND STRUCTURES INC AERO-ASTRA AVIATSIONNYI NAUCHNO-TEKHNICHESKIY TSENTR (UNITED STATES) AERO-ASTRA
    [Show full text]
  • Bristol Airport - Wikipedia Coordinates: 51°22′58″N 002°43′09″W Bristol Airport
    09/06/2021 Bristol Airport - Wikipedia Coordinates: 51°22′58″N 002°43′09″W Bristol Airport Bristol Airport (IATA: BRS, ICAO: EGGD), at Lulsgate Bottom, on the northern slopes of the Mendip Hills, in North Bristol Airport Somerset, is the commercial airport serving the city of Bristol, England, and the surrounding area. It is 7 nautical miles (13 km; 8.1 mi) southwest of Bristol city centre.[2] Built on the site of a former RAF airfield, it opened in 1957 as Bristol (Lulsgate) Airport,[4] replacing Bristol (Whitchurch) Airport as Bristol's municipal airport. From 1997 to 2010, it was known as Bristol International Airport.[5] In 1997, a majority shareholding in the airport was sold to FirstGroup, and then in 2001 the airport was sold to a joint venture of Macquarie Bank and others. In September 2014, Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan bought out Macquarie to become the sole owner. In 2019, it was ranked the eighth busiest airport (overtaking Glasgow International Airport from the previous year) in the IATA: BRS · ICAO: EGGD United Kingdom, handling over 8.9 million passengers, a 3% Summary [6] increase compared with 2018. A passenger survey carried Airport type Public out in 2015 found that 32.5% of journeys using the airport started or ended in the city of Bristol, 9.6% in Gloucestershire, Owner Ontario Teachers' 24.5% in Somerset and 16.9% in Devon.[7] Pension Plan Serves Bristol, Somerset, Airlines with operating bases at the airport include EasyJet Gloucestershire, and Ryanair. The airport has a Civil Aviation Authority Public Herefordshire, Use Aerodrome Licence (number P432) that allows flights for the public transport of passengers and for flying instruction.
    [Show full text]
  • MAA Approved Organizations
    UK Military Aviation Authority Approved Organizations Version: 20210920-MAA_Approved_Organizations_Publishing.xlsx This document lists all Approved Organizations that are part of: Air Traffic Management Equipment Approved Organization Scheme, Contrator Flying Approved Organization Scheme, Design Approved Organization Scheme, Maintenance Approved Organization Scheme Name Full Name Locations Scope Cert Latest No Sched Latest No Scheme All Platforms Aquila is the service provider for Marshall which is divided into three areas: Marshall Technical UK.MAA.AAOS.0013 Aquila Air Traffic Management Services Ltd Fareham Services, Marshall Air traffic control service and Temporary Technical Services. 0 5 AAOS No Aircraft Queen Elizabeth Class - Combat Management System - CMS 1 (QEC Variant) / Air Traffic Control. Queen Elizabeth Class - Shared Infrastructure - Version 3. Queen Elizabeth Class / Type 45 - METOC. UK.MAA.AAOS.0018 BAE Systems Surface Ships Limited (BAE Systems Naval Ships Combat Systems) New Malden 0 0 AAOS QE Class Carriers 2D Land Based Radars, including Watchman Air Traffic Control Radar 3D Land Based Radars, including T101 & T102 Air Defence Radars 2D Naval Radars, including RT994 Surveillance Radar 3D Naval Radars, including Sampson Multi-Function Radar, S1850M Long Range Radar, ARTISAN Medium Range Radar Type 997 UK.MAA.AAOS.0003 BAES Maritime Services (Product and Training Services) Cowes Advanced Digital Tracker (ADT) 0 3 AAOS No Aircraft UKASACS Command and Control System (UCCS) at CRC's Boulmer and Scampton. Flight Plan Dissemination
    [Show full text]
  • MAA Approved Organizations
    UK Military Aviation Authority Approved Organizations Version: 20210927-MAA_Approved_Organizations_Publishing.xlsx This document lists all Approved Organizations that are part of: Air Traffic Management Equipment Approved Organization Scheme, Contrator Flying Approved Organization Scheme, Design Approved Organization Scheme, Maintenance Approved Organization Scheme Name Full Name Locations Scope Cert Latest No Sched Latest No Scheme All Platforms Aquila is the service provider for Marshall which is divided into three areas: Marshall Technical UK.MAA.AAOS.0013 Aquila Air Traffic Management Services Ltd Fareham Services, Marshall Air traffic control service and Temporary Technical Services. 0 5 AAOS No Aircraft Queen Elizabeth Class - Combat Management System - CMS 1 (QEC Variant) / Air Traffic Control. Queen Elizabeth Class - Shared Infrastructure - Version 3. Queen Elizabeth Class / Type 45 - METOC. UK.MAA.AAOS.0018 BAE Systems Surface Ships Limited (BAE Systems Naval Ships Combat Systems) New Malden 0 0 AAOS QE Class Carriers 2D Land Based Radars, including Watchman Air Traffic Control Radar 3D Land Based Radars, including T101 & T102 Air Defence Radars 2D Naval Radars, including RT994 Surveillance Radar 3D Naval Radars, including Sampson Multi-Function Radar, S1850M Long Range Radar, ARTISAN Medium Range Radar Type 997 UK.MAA.AAOS.0003 BAES Maritime Services (Product and Training Services) Cowes Advanced Digital Tracker (ADT) 0 3 AAOS No Aircraft UKASACS Command and Control System (UCCS) at CRC's Boulmer and Scampton. Flight Plan Dissemination
    [Show full text]
  • Part 4 — Aircraft Manufacturers Partie 4 — Constructeurs D’Aéronefs Parte 4 — Fabricantes De Aeronaves  4
    4-1 PART 4 — AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS PARTIE 4 — CONSTRUCTEURS D’AÉRONEFS PARTE 4 — FABRICANTES DE AERONAVES 4. COMMON NAME COMMON NAME NOM COURANT NOM COURANT NOMBRE COMERCIAL NOMBRE COMERCIAL CORRIENTE MANUFACTURER FULL NAME CORRIENTE MANUFACTURER FULL NAME NOM COMPLET DU CONSTRUCTEUR NOM COMPLET DU CONSTRUCTEUR FABRICANTE NOMBRE COMPLETO FABRICANTE NOMBRE COMPLETO ( A (any manufacturer) (USED FOR GENERIC AIRCRAFT TYPES) AERO DESIGNS AERO DESIGNS INC (UNITED STATES) AERO GARE AERO GARE (UNITED STATES) 3 AERO ITBA INSTITUTO TECNOLÓGICO DE BUENOS AIRES / PROYECTO PETREL SA (ARGENTINA) 328 SUPPORT SERVICES 328 SUPPORT SERVICES GMBH (GERMANY) AERO JAEN AERONAUTICA DE JAEN (SPAIN) AERO KUHLMANN AERO KUHLMANN (FRANCE) 3XTRIM ZAKLADY LOTNICZE 3XTRIM SP Z OO (POLAND) AERO MERCANTIL AERO MERCANTIL SA (COLOMBIA) A AERO MIRAGE AERO MIRAGE INC (UNITED STATES) AERO MOD AERO MOD GENERAL (UNITED STATES) A-41 CONG TY SU'A CHU'A MAY BAY A-41 (VIETNAM) AERO SERVICES AÉRO SERVICES GUÉPARD (FRANCE) AAC AAC AMPHIBIAM AIRPLANES OF CANADA (CANADA) AERO SPACELINES AERO SPACELINES INC (UNITED STATES) AAK AUSTRALIAN AIRCRAFT KITS PTY LTD (AUSTRALIA) AEROALCOOL AEROÁLCOOL TECNOLOGIA LTDA (BRAZIL) AAMSA AERONAUTICA AGRICOLA MEXICANA SA (MEXICO) AEROANDINA AEROANDINA SA (COLOMBIA) AASI ADVANCED AERODYNAMICS AND STRUCTURES INC AERO-ASTRA AVIATSIONNYI NAUCHNO-TEKHNICHESKIY TSENTR (UNITED STATES) AERO-ASTRA (RUSSIA) ABHCO ARAB BRITISH HELICOPTER COMPANY (EGYPT) AEROBRAVO AEROBRAVO INDUSTRIA AERONAUTICA LTDA ABS ABS AIRCRAFT
    [Show full text]
  • Southend's New Lease of Life
    southend rrr:1 Articles 18/11/09 14:20 Page 36 maintenance facilities. It’s a great place to train, and to visit.” I must say, when I was sitting in North SoSoutheuthend’snd’s London deciding where to learn to fly back in 1984, Southend never crossed my mind, I don’t know why – it was as accessible as any other London-area airfield. I flew there on my qualifying cross country (and to Ipswich, of blessed memory) and Southend has the singular advantage of being dead easy to find. And of course, it is inextricably linked with some of the great aviation names – Freddie Laker was a Southend boy, and Mike Keegan’s British Air Ferries operated from here. There’s been an airport at Southend since 1914, when the Royal Flying Corps began training at RFC Rochford; the RNAS later flew against Zeppelins from what was known as RNAS Rochford, but it was returned to farmland in 1920. An airfield was re-established at Rochford in 1931 before the current site was chosen for Southend Municipal Aerodrome in 1935, and was appropriated as RAF Rochford during the Second World War. Back in municipal hands in 1946 it became the home base of Freddie Laker’s Aviation Traders Ltd, new lease of life later subsumed into British United Airways. new lease of life Aviation Traders built the famous Carvair conversion of the DC4 at Southend, which was upgraded with tarmac runways in 1955. The It calls itself ‘London Southend Airport’ and it has 1950s and 60s might be seen as Southend’s ambitious plans for the future, as Pat Malone reports heyday, but plans are afoot to recreate similar levels of traffic.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of the Australian Aerospace Industry
    School of Mechanical Engineering MECH ENG 3016 Aeronautical Engineering 1 The History of the Australian Aerospace Industry Authors: Jarryd Pfeiffer 1132307 Kelly Balnaves 1132985 Bradley Darlington 1132806 Michael Cannizzo 1131304 Christian Rogers 1130940 Alex Horstmann 1131838 Submitted 3 rd October 2007 Lecturer: Dr. Maziar Arjomandi 1 ABSTRACT The Australian Aerospace industry began with the work of Lawrence Hargrave in the late 19 th century, which preceded and most likely influenced the first aeroplane ever built. Throughout the early 20 th century Australian aviators such as Bert Hinkler and Sir Charles Kingsford Smith made history by completing record-breaking flights all over the world. The Royal Australian Air Force and later the RAAF played an important role in both World Wars, aiding allied troops in locations as diverse as Europe, the Middle East and China. Australia’s size and scattered population made it important to establish an aviation industry as early as possible. Commercial aviation began in 1920 when Qantas was founded, later on; Australia became home to the world’s first flying doctor service. To this day, both Qantas and the Royal Flying Doctors Service are still operating. Throughout the 1950’s and 1960’s, the outback town of Woomera in South Australia became an important testing ground for the Australian and British military. Later on it was used as a base to launch a number of rockets and satellites. More recently, the Woomera range has played host to the University of Queensland’s HyShot Hypersonics program and is slated to become the launch site of the Kistler K1 reusable launch vehicle.
    [Show full text]
  • Aircraft Type Designators by Manufacturer
    ECCAIRS 4.2.8 Data Definition Standard Aircraft type designators by manufacturer The ECCAIRS 4 aircrafts type designators are based on ICAO's ADREP 2000 taxonomy. They have been organised at two hierarchical levels. Note that for FlightOps purposes there is a separate table 'Aircraft Make Model' 17 September 2010 Page 1 of 127 ECCAIRS 4 Aircrafts type designators Data Definition Standard A.V.Roe & Company (United Kingdom) 20400 A504 A504 : 504, Replica 20401 AVIN AVIN : 594, 616 Avian 20402 TUTR TUTR : 621 Tutor 20403 ANSN ANSN : 652 Anson 20404 LANC LANC : 683 Lancaster 20405 SHAC SHAC : 696 Shackleton 20406 A748 A748 : 748 (C-91) 20407 RJ70 RJ70 : RJ-70 Avroliner 20408 RJ85 RJ85 : RJ-85 Avroliner 20409 RJ1H RJ1H : RJ-100 Avroliner 20410 A.V.Roe & Company Ltd (United Kingdom) 20500 A504 A504 : 504, Replica 20501 AVIN AVIN : 594, 616 Avian 20502 TUTR TUTR : 621 Tutor 20503 ANSN ANSN : 652 Anson 20504 LANC LANC : 683 Lancaster 20505 SHAC SHAC : 696 Shackleton 20506 A748 A748 : 748 (C-91) 20507 RJ70 RJ70 : RJ-70 Avroliner 20508 RJ85 RJ85 : RJ-85 Avroliner 20509 RJ1H RJ1H : RJ-100 Avroliner 20510 AAC Amphibian Airplanes of Canada (Canada) 100 PETR PETR : SeaStar 101 AB Malmö Flygindustri (Sweden) 82400 JUNR JUNR : MFI-9 Junior 82401 MF10 MF10 : MFI-10 Vipan 82402 AB Radab (Sweden) 106900 WDEX WDEX : Windex 106901 ABS Aircraft (Germany) 500 RF9 RF9 : RF-9 501 ABS Aircraft AG (Switzerland) 600 RF9 RF9 : RF-9 601 ACE 10000 SPGY SPGY : BABY ACE MODEL D 10001 STAL STAL : Stallion, Super Stallion 10002 Ace Aircraft Manufacturing and Supply (United
    [Show full text]
  • CAA - Airworthiness Approved Organisations
    CAA - Airworthiness Approved Organisations Category UK Part 21 SpJ Name 21J Aerodesign Limited (UK.21J.0632) Address Capability House,Building 31,Wrest Reference Number UK.21J.0632 Park, Category UK Part 21 SpJ Silsoe Website www.21j.co.uk Bedfordshire Regional Office Gatwick MK45 4HR Approval Date 01/01/2021 Organisational Data Exposition AW\Exposition UK.21J.0632-DOH ISSUE 01 01 JUNE 2021 Name 2Excel Design Ltd T/A Leading Edge (UK.21J.0321) Address Hangar 3, Fourth Avenue Reference Number UK.21J.0321 Category UK Part 21 SpJ Doncaster Sheffield Airport Website www.2excelaviation.com/lines- of-business/leading-edge South Yorkshire Regional Office Manchester DN9 3GE Approval Date 13 APRIL 2019 Organisational Data Exposition AW\Exposition\Part 21 DOA Handbook LE-DOH-001 ISSUE 08 REV 00 26 JULY 2021 Ratings AW\Ratings\Part 21 DOA\Product Class\Balloons Structures, Cabin Ratings AW\Ratings\Part 21 DOA\Product Class\CS-25 Flight, Structures, Cabin, Avionics, Electrical Name 365 Aerospace Ltd (UK.21J.0575) Address Unit 9 Titmore CourtTitmore Reference Number UK.21J.0575 GreenLittle Wymondley Category UK Part 21 SpJ Hitchin Website www.365.aero Herts Regional Office Gatwick SG4 7JT Approval Date Organisational Data Exposition AW\Exposition\Part 21 DOA Handbook 365AERO/DOH ISSUE 04 POINT 00 01 MARCH 2020 30 July 2021 Page 1 of 23 Name AEM Limited (UK.21J.0205) Address De Havilland House,Airport Reference Number UK.21J.0205 Executive Park,President Way, Category UK Part 21 SpJ Luton Website www.aem.co.uk Regional Office Gatwick LU2 9NL Approval
    [Show full text]
  • 602 1927 Modified Version of Avenger. Span 32', Height 9'9” Engine Unspecified. Not Built. 603 1927 8 Passenger Monoplane
    602 1927 Modified version of Avenger. Span 32’, Height 9’9” Engine unspecified. Not built. 603 1927 8 passenger monoplane to Australian Govt. spec’n. 3x A-S Lynx Not built. 604 1927 ANTELOPE. 2-seat high performance day bomber to Spec.12/26. 480hp R-R F.XIB. Span 36’/32’,Length 31’2”,Height 10’9”, AUW 4,550lb. Prototype only built, in competition with Fairey Fox & Hawker Hart. 605 1927 AVIAN III or IIIA.Type No. allocated to floatplane version. Length 25’,Height 9.5’,AUW 1,600lb. 605A 1927 Type 605 fitted with 100hp Avro Alpha. Not built. 605B 1927 Type 605 fitted with 80hp A-S Genet. Not built. 606 1927 Monoplane maritime patrol flying boat to Spec.4/27, with square-section hull.3x 505hp Bristol Jupiter VII. Span 110’ AUW 21,050lb Not built. 607 1927 As above with round-section hull. Span 96’4”,Length 66’9”, Height 20’ Not built. 608 1927 HAWK. 2-seat biplane fighter based on Type 604. 425hp Bristol Jupiter. Re-worked into Type 622 during construction. Span 36’/32’ AUW 5,150lb 609 1927 3-seat military seaplane based on Type 608. Not built. 610 1928 SALOON. 5-seat high wing cabin monoplane. A-S Lynx. Span 43.5’ AUW 3,140lb Not built. 611 1928 CIERVA C.8L Mk.I. autogiro based on Type 504N. Rotor dia. 39’8”, AUW 3,535lb 1 built 612 1928 CIERVA C.17 Mk.I. Autogiro based on Avian IIIA. 90hp ADC Cirrus III. Rotor dia.33’3”,Length 28’9”,Height 11’1”,AUW 1,455lb.
    [Show full text]
  • MAA Approved Organizations
    UK Military Aviation Authority Approved Organizations Version: 20210406-MAA_Approved_Organizations_Publishing.xlsx This document lists all Approved Organizations that are part of: Air Traffic Management Equipment Approved Organization Scheme, Contrator Flying Approved Organization Scheme, Design Approved Organization Scheme, Maintenance Approved Organization Scheme Name Full Name Locations Scope Cert Latest No Sched Latest No Scheme All Platforms Aquila is the service provider for Marshall which is divided into three areas: Marshall Technical UK.MAA.AAOS.0013 Aquila Air Traffic Management Services Ltd Fareham Services, Marshall Air traffic control service and Temporary Technical Services. 0 5 AAOS No Aircraft Queen Elizabeth Class - Combat Management System - CMS 1 (QEC Variant) / Air Traffic Control. Queen Elizabeth Class - Shared Infrastructure - Version 3. Queen Elizabeth Class / Type 45 - METOC. UK.MAA.AAOS.0018 BAE Systems Surface Ships Limited (BAE Systems Naval Ships Combat Systems) New Malden 0 0 AAOS QE Class Carriers 2D Land Based Radars, including Watchman Air Traffic Control Radar 3D Land Based Radars, including T101 & T102 Air Defence Radars 2D Naval Radars, including RT994 Surveillance Radar 3D Naval Radars, including Sampson Multi-Function Radar, S1850M Long Range Radar, ARTISAN Medium Range Radar Type 997 UK.MAA.AAOS.0003 BAES Maritime Services (Product and Training Services) Cowes Advanced Digital Tracker (ADT) 0 3 AAOS No Aircraft UKASACS Command and Control System (UCCS) at CRC's Boulmer and Scampton. Flight Plan Dissemination
    [Show full text]