PDA

View Full Version : aircraft that should have been built


AdA
June 6th, 2011, 10:24 AM
Some aircraft were too good to cancel, and some of them could have had a major impact. My favourite is the MiG ye8, that should have replaced the MiG21 and made the MiG23 unnecessary.
The TSR and Arrow come to mind, as does the He100 from 1939.

Hamurabi
June 6th, 2011, 04:02 PM
Helwan 300 should have been further developed.
It had so much potential, such a light fighter with excellent thrust to weight ratio.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helwan_HA-300

and the Folland Gnat should have further been developed to become an alternative to the F-5...

wiking
June 6th, 2011, 04:09 PM
Fw187 single seater.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_187

Forget the Bf110

Gray Antarctica
June 6th, 2011, 04:11 PM
XB-70, FB-22, F-16XL, and Lockheed X-27 Lancer(Cheaper, faster, and carried about as much payload as the F-16, was basically an F-104 with the problems fixed. Had a much better glide ratio than the -104 too.).

NothingNow
June 6th, 2011, 05:16 PM
Okay, besides the usual selection of the Arrow, TSR-2, P.1154, VAK 191 and VJ 101, some oddballs:
The Convair R3Y- which would have been Amazing with better engines, especially as a vehicle for Supply Ops and ASW/MPA work, basically as a Seaplane/Amphibian version of the Hercules and Orion for the Navy, but better.

The Martin P6M- If it had been intended to serve as an Anti-Shipping Weapon, carrying what amounts to a Modified Terrier, used as an AShM, Preferably configured as an ARM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-radiation_missile) or with SARH (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-active_radar_homing) guidance. The W45 Warhead might be a pragmatic solution as would be the improved engine (increasing range to 40nm) from the RIM-2F. Of course, it'd be fully capable of strategic bombing as well, to get the Taxpayer's money's worth.

The YA-10B - Intended as an Adverse conditions variant of the A-10A, would have been better as a Forward Air Controller then the A-10 and might've made a good Trainer as well.

The Convair F-106 C/D - which was to be fitted with the AN/ASG-18 radar and fire control system from the canceled XF-108, and used as an Interceptor, like the Arrow, and was supposed to carry one AIM-47 Falcon, and two AIM-26A Super Falcon/Nuclear Falcon missiles in it's weapons bay.

The Boeing YC-14 - competed with the YC-15 (later developed into the C-17) in the AMST project as a medium range STOL transport to replace/compliment the C-130. With a short takeoff it could carry 27,000lbs, on half the airfield the C-130 needed for such a load, and with a long run, could carry 81,000lbs. All in a cargo bay twice as wide as the one on a C-130. Of course, since, with a range of 3,000 miles, it wasn't long legged enough for the Air Force Chief of Staff, meaning it got shit-canned like the YC-15, (which was developed then into the longer legged, larger, and more limited C-17, which lacks the fucking STOL capabilities it was initially designed for.) The C-14 was probably the better of the two designs with the Engine placement reducing the risk of dammage from unprepared airstrips.

Additionally, we can't forget the Bell Boeing Quad Tiltrotor design concept, and the retardedly awesome concept that is Seaplane fighters, like the Convair F2Y/F-7, and the Saro SR.A/1.

Asnys
June 6th, 2011, 05:33 PM
The Lockheed CL-1201-1.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8DAL7gPYBiM/TBEathHBOSI/AAAAAAAAAYU/V0dhtqcVR5w/s320/CL1201.jpg

See those little things hanging off the wings? Those are parasite fighters. It's a flying aircraft carrier. Massed 11,000,000 lbs., flight power from a 2 GW atomic reactor running on a liquid-sodium indirect-cycle, takeoff assistance from 180 chemical VTOL jets. Carried 22 fighter aircraft and was able to refuel, rearm, and repair them in flight, with endurance of 40 days.

There was another version proposed that would have been a marine assault vehicle that would also provide artillery support with nuclear IRBMs mounted under the wings. It would also have featured docking ports for 707s on the wings.

Might not have been a very good idea, but I don't think you could find a more awesome airplane.

RogueBeaver
June 6th, 2011, 05:55 PM
The Lockheed CL-1201-1.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8DAL7gPYBiM/TBEathHBOSI/AAAAAAAAAYU/V0dhtqcVR5w/s320/CL1201.jpg

See those little things hanging off the wings? Those are parasite fighters. It's a flying aircraft carrier. Massed 11,000,000 lbs., flight power from a 2 GW atomic reactor running on a liquid-sodium indirect-cycle, takeoff assistance from 180 chemical VTOL jets. Carried 22 fighter aircraft and was able to refuel, rearm, and repair them in flight, with endurance of 40 days.

There was another version proposed that would have been a marine assault vehicle that would also provide artillery support with nuclear IRBMs mounted under the wings. It would also have featured docking ports for 707s on the wings.

Might not have been a very good idea, but I don't think you could find a more awesome airplane.

It must also make for some very expensive SAM or MIG fodder.

Gray Antarctica
June 6th, 2011, 06:00 PM
It must also make for some very expensive SAM or MIG fodder.
I don't think it's going to be easy to shoot down without atleast a nuclear weapon.

kingclumsy
June 6th, 2011, 06:05 PM
I don't think it's going to be easy to shoot down without atleast a nuclear weapon.

So perhaps Fodder for a very expensive SAM :P

but yeah, they should've built it, its a big lump of awesome.

modelcitizen
June 6th, 2011, 07:00 PM
the Nixon-era American SST, which almost --almost-- would have made up for the end of the Apollo program

the Boeing Pelican (http://www.boeing.com/news/frontiers/archive/2002/september/i_pw.html), because Ekranoplan eggs can't just be in one (Russian) basket


and, for sheer morbid curiousity, the Israeli Lavi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Lavi) fighter, which got canceled when American officials got a bit tetchy about the allegedly super-advanced (and expensive) Israeli-designed fighter plane


fwiw (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=1f25bfda3486d8cfcb03ce053aa13c 3b&topic=26059.msg380482#msg380482), a link (http://aviationtrivia.blogspot.com/2010/06/in-aviation-those-who-dare-to-dream-are.html) on the LC 1201, which I hadn't heard of until today. Awesome.

pic of sketches from "up-ship.com" (http://www.up-ship.com/eAPR/ev1n3.htm)

modelcitizen
June 6th, 2011, 07:42 PM
not quite on the same scale as the LC 1012, but...

from a consumer's perspective, astonishing:

The Ford "Flying Flivver" of the late 1920s, an airplane designed (http://www.thehenryford.org/exhibits/heroes/entrepreneurs/flivver.asp) to fit inside Henry Ford's office, would have sold for $500 (http://glanceback.inetempire.com/flivver.htm), flew at a top speed of 85 miles per hour, and weighed 350 pounds (http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-space/article/2001-12/looking-back-henry-fords-flivver).

Apparently, when test-pilot Harry Brooks died when the Flivver he was test-flying crashed, Henry Ford discontinued the project. (I guess a plane available to every person shouldn't be dangerous enough to kill a test-pilot.)

If an ASB could blow a puff of air to keep Brooks from crashing, that machine could have made America look potentially quite different. Imagine an airplane as widely available as the Ford Model T was. Granted, driveways in the suburbs would have been somewhat longer as a result, but, still.....

modelcitizen
June 6th, 2011, 07:51 PM
and in color, fwiw,

Matt Wiser
June 6th, 2011, 08:04 PM
I'd agree with the A-10B: having a second pair of eyes in back can be very useful, and not just from a FAC standpoint.

The A/FX: what the USN wanted to ultimately replace the A-6 after the A-12 debacle. Another victim of the 1990s drawdown, unfortunately.

F-108 Rapier. Not just as an interceptor, but LeMay felt it could be used as a SAC escort fighter.

TBY Seawolf: better than the TBF, according to the Navy. Originally designed by Vought as the TBU, but sent off to Consolidated as Vought was busy with F4U work. Hanky-panky among Consolidated execs (two of 'em got sent to Federal Prison), and delays in getting the factory built meant that only 180 were ever built before VJ-Day, and the two squadrons equipped with the aircraft (VT-153 and VT-154) never deployed.

A-6F: what the Navy should've gotten instead of the A-12. Why SECDEF Cheney didn't restart the program after the A-12 got the ax is something to wonder about.

TheMann
June 6th, 2011, 08:14 PM
A-6F: what the Navy should've gotten instead of the A-12. Why SECDEF Cheney didn't restart the program after the A-12 got the ax is something to wonder about.

Yeah, that was a stupid decision. The Navy tried to use the F-14 for attack roles instead, and Cheney shitcanned that idea as VP, which meant the Navy relies entirely on the Hornet for every role, even EW now. Not smart, if you ask me.

The Oncoming Storm
June 6th, 2011, 08:30 PM
Hawker P.1121 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_P.1121) and P.1081 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_P.1081), Saunders Roe SR.177 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saunders-Roe_SR.177) and the Vickers V.1000/VC-7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_V-1000)

Asnys
June 6th, 2011, 08:33 PM
It must also make for some very expensive SAM or MIG fodder.

I think the idea was that it would kill you before you killed it. And, not sure if it'll do any good, but it's big enough to mount CIWS anti-missile defenses.

archaeogeek
June 6th, 2011, 08:44 PM
I think the idea was that it would kill you before you killed it. And, not sure if it'll do any good, but it's big enough to mount CIWS anti-missile defenses.

5000 tons is just about half the size of Bonaventure, except with a crappier airwing. Also it was closer to 1000.

Dan Reilly The Great
June 6th, 2011, 09:03 PM
ohhh boy, this thread is giving me ideas for more batshit insane stuff to throw into my TL:D.

Winston Smith
June 6th, 2011, 09:12 PM
The AV-16. A better Harrier, and would have provided the QE class with aircraft from the start.

P-26
June 7th, 2011, 03:00 AM
Inspired by Calbear's and truth is life's comments (http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=4623129&postcount=210) on the other thread:

The F-16 as the lightweight day fighter it was originally meant to be.

No BVR missiles and perhaps even no radar (yikes!). Just an honest-to-goodness dogfighter armed with nothing but a cannon and two Sidewinders. Cheap enough to flood the skies with and simple enough to ensure that its pilots get to train, train and train some more.

Jim Smitty
June 7th, 2011, 03:13 AM
A-6F: what the Navy should've gotten instead of the A-12. Why SECDEF Cheney didn't restart the program after the A-12 got the ax is something to wonder about.

Cheney is a jackass. He shitcan the attack verison of the F-14. Now the Navy onl has the F-18 for everyrole under the sun. Something it wasn't design for. And no aircraft can do.

F-20 comes to mind. It would been a good export fighter. Ins't of given unstable countries shit like the F-14 and 16s.

Also what was to replace the EF-111 Raven? The USAF dosen't have its own electronic warfare planes.

Matt Wiser
June 7th, 2011, 03:46 AM
Not sure on the EF-111 replacement, but the expeditionary EW squadrons, which are manned by joint USAF/USN crews, have EA-6Bs. And yes, the AF pilots in these squadrons became carrier-qualified. An upgrade to the EF-111 with new engines, EW systems, and HARM missile capability might have gone ahead if there'd been no 1990s drawdown.

F-107 UltraSabre: it's been said that this is the best fighter the USAF never bought. Unfortunately, the F-4 and F-105 were coming down the pipe.

Tornado Wild Weasel: The USAF was seriously considering the Tornado as an F-4G replacement. A planned competition in 1990 would've pitted the Tornado against WW versions of the F-15E and F-16D. Rockwell International had the license from Panavia for U.S. production, and assembly would've taken place at their Palmdale plant (same one where the B-1 was built). The flyoff was never held, and the F-16C "Weasel Viper" has the Wild Weasel mission.

TheMann
June 7th, 2011, 05:16 AM
Not sure on the EF-111 replacement, but the expeditionary EW squadrons, which are manned by joint USAF/USN crews, have EA-6Bs. And yes, the AF pilots in these squadrons became carrier-qualified. An upgrade to the EF-111 with new engines, EW systems, and HARM missile capability might have gone ahead if there'd been no 1990s drawdown.

The F-111 shouldn't have been retired if you ask me. For strike purposes, the thing is fantastically good - very fast, great for maneuverability, very long legs and tough as nails. If it was me making the decisions for the USAF, I'd order a version of the aircraft be returned to service, using high-end engines and electronics and some updates to the airframe and aerodynamics. The EF-111 would have been the same, but with the ability to use HARM missiles worked in and Sidewinders for self-defense.

Tornado Wild Weasel: The USAF was seriously considering the Tornado as an F-4G replacement. A planned competition in 1990 would've pitted the Tornado against WW versions of the F-15E and F-16D. Rockwell International had the license from Panavia for U.S. production, and assembly would've taken place at their Palmdale plant (same one where the B-1 was built). The flyoff was never held, and the F-16C "Weasel Viper" has the Wild Weasel mission.

The Tornado in USAF service? Seriously? :eek: I'm amazed at that one. It makes perfect sense, mind you, but I have a hard time believing that a European strike aircraft would be adopted by the United States Air Force. The Rockell / Panavia F-24 Tornado? Interesting, indeed.

Aside from the obvious ones (CF-105 Arrow, P.1154, TSR-2), I would agree with the North American XB-70, McDonnell Douglas AV-16, Grumman A-6F, Fairchild-Republic YA-10B, Martin P6M and the Vickers V.1000. (Funny how NONE of those companies are still in the business. Boeing and Lockheed having better lobbyists, perhaps?) The XB-70 would probably have meant no B-1, and I love the Bone, so its hard for me to say that - but the Valkyrie could also have other uses. I'm thinking specifically of what the Russians built the Backfire and later versions of the Badger for, missile carriers for ocean defense. The AV-16, A-6F and A-10B are obvious choices - the AV-16 would be an even better close-air support airplane than it is now, ditto for the A-10B. The A-6F is obvious because the reliance on the Hornet and its derivatives is going to one day blow up in the faces of the USN.

The P6M is in this for the usefulness. Use it as a killer of merchies, and if you fit it with a sonar you could easily enough use it as a submarine hunter a la the P-3 Orion. Land on the surface or drop Sonobuoys to listen in, if you find something, track it down and kill it. The fact that the Seamaster could go 1100 kilometres an hour on the deck is incredible by any standard and difficult for many modern planes to touch, half a century later. Another aircraft that if built may well still be with us today.

The V-1000 was a massive politics fuckup by Great Britain, even compared to a period where they screwed up so many times it was incredible. Effectively, between that and the problems with the de Havilland Comet, Britain could have ushered in the jet age years ahead of the Americans, and forced McDonnell Douglas and Boeing to scramble to make the DC-8 and 707 work better to beat the British. Oops. The VC10 ultimately made it into the air, but hardly sold in any numbers, because it was years late and got sabotaged from inside.

Matt Wiser
June 7th, 2011, 05:45 AM
The Varks were just getting old, anyway. And the pre-1991 plan to replace all of them with F-15Es was just too expensive in the days of the "peace dividend."

Rockwell International was serious enough to get the license. And California's Senators and Congresscritters were lining up to support it. Especially with the B-1 program having wound down, a lot of Rockwell workers would've been back on the job if the Tornado had won.

The P6M was designed for sea-based strike missions, not ASW. A major rework of the aircraft was necessary for the latter role.

Another "should have": NATF (Navy Advanced Tactical Fighter). Essentially a navalized F-22 or F-23, depending on the outcome of the ATF competition. Not funded after 1991.

Mann: check your PMs: there's one on the way for you.

Peabody-Martini
June 7th, 2011, 05:53 AM
From a different era, the Sopwith Dragon. It was a very promising design in 1918. There very little chance that it could have seen service in the first world war. However with a 150 mph top speed and a service ceiling of 25,000 feet it was a world beater when it first flew. The trouble is that the Dragonfly 1A radial engine built by the ABC Motors never lived up to its initial promise and proved too unreliable, its defects were never solved.

http://upload.wikipedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/Sdra.jpg/300px-Sdra.jpg

The Oncoming Storm
June 7th, 2011, 08:57 AM
The V-1000 was a massive politics fuckup by Great Britain, even compared to a period where they screwed up so many times it was incredible. Effectively, between that and the problems with the de Havilland Comet, Britain could have ushered in the jet age years ahead of the Americans, and forced McDonnell Douglas and Boeing to scramble to make the DC-8 and 707 work better to beat the British. Oops. The VC10 ultimately made it into the air, but hardly sold in any numbers, because it was years late and got sabotaged from inside.

I feel like crying anytime I read about the V-1000 :( BOAC gets the blame for it's demise but in their defence they'd had their fingers badly burnt with the Comet and the Brittania and were probably fed up with being used as a guinea pig by the Air Ministry. So when the stories started about the Conway not meeting it's targets during the bench tests they seemed to go "FFS here we go again!" The irony is of course that they subsequently wanted the Conway for it's 707's when it proved what a good engine is was! Had the V-1000 gone into service then the VC-10 probably wouldn't have been the same aircraft as IOTL, perhaps a larger V-1000 with nacelle mounted engines. In hindsight that was the correct way to go, for all the aerodynamic advantages of a clean wing, nacelles mean new engines can be added without having to rebuild the entire wing.

To get the V-1000 into service you probably need the Comet to fail it's pressurisation tests meaning a redesign and avoiding the disasters off the coast of Italy. BOAC dont become wary of British aircraft and the Comet would have sold much better, it was never going to be big enough to fight the 707 or DC-8 but the V-1000 would have.

Atlantic Friend
June 7th, 2011, 12:04 PM
The Bugatti P 100. (http://photos.kitmaker.net/data/500/medium/277.jpg)

Ain't that (http://warbirdsforum.com/showpost.php?p=31888&postcount=51) a beaut'?

Slowpoke
June 7th, 2011, 12:16 PM
The Bugatti P 100. (http://photos.kitmaker.net/data/500/medium/277.jpg)

Ain't that (http://warbirdsforum.com/showpost.php?p=31888&postcount=51) a beaut'?
That is one seriously sexy bird.

Then again, it's a Bugatti.

abc123
June 7th, 2011, 01:22 PM
I feel like crying anytime I read about the V-1000 :(

Me too.
:(:(:(:(:(

kingclumsy
June 7th, 2011, 01:39 PM
I feel like crying anytime I read about the V-1000 .

Me too.
:(:(:(:(:(

I didn't even know about it until now, now I've been informed about it. I do too.

edvader
June 7th, 2011, 02:29 PM
Matt Wiser:Why no F-107?I've seen the aircraft and it looks fantastic.Believe it was a two seater and a fighter bomber.Had a real wild air scope over the cabin.Was it cancelled because of the F105?

AdA
June 7th, 2011, 03:02 PM
Matt Wiser:Why no F-107?I've seen the aircraft and it looks fantastic.Believe it was a two seater and a fighter bomber.Had a real wild air scope over the cabin.Was it cancelled because of the F105?

The F107 was meant for export, and the europeans bought the F104G, killing it. It had a serious rear visibility issue with the intakes above and behind the cockpit...

In my opinion the sale of the century should have gone to a land based, multirole evolution of the F8E, that could have turned into a 60s F16.

I'm surprised with the lack of interest for russian Aircraft in this thread. Nobody longing for a production MiG 1.44?

AdA
June 7th, 2011, 03:29 PM
MiG's most beautiful product. Shame they axed it. Could have at least sold the blueprints to the Chinese...

AdA
June 7th, 2011, 03:34 PM
If you see a F107A doing a low altitud attack run just aproacch from behind and above it until you're so close not even an AA2 will miss it. The Amrican will never see you coming camerade!

P-26
June 7th, 2011, 03:45 PM
The intake . . . yikes! Does the ejection seat fire up or down?

AdA
June 7th, 2011, 04:03 PM
The intake . . . yikes! Does the ejection seat fire up or down?

Down in an attack plane will kill you (since you'll probably be flying low when the AA gets you)
Up and you find out why they called this plane the manheater.
It looks like they needed someone to invent a sideways ejector seat for this one to work :)

CalBear
June 7th, 2011, 04:11 PM
.

... would agree with the North American XB-70, McDonnell Douglas AV-16, Grumman A-6F, Fairchild-Republic YA-10B, Martin P6M and the Vickers V.1000. (Funny how NONE of those companies are still in the business. Boeing and Lockheed having better lobbyists, perhaps?) ...

Grumman is still very much in business, although it was purchased/absorbed by Northrop (which is a Fortune 100 company). It just doesn't build anything named xxxxCat.

McDonnell-Douglas & North American were both bought by Boeing, Martin by purchased by Lockheed; it seems that Boeing and Lockheed had better accountants, not lobbyists.

Matt Wiser
June 7th, 2011, 06:39 PM
The F-107 lost to the F-105. Scott Crossfield damaged #3 in an aborted takeoff. A/C #1 is at the Pima Air and Space Museum in Tuscon, AZ (I've seen it, and no, I'm not sure I would've wanted to fly it with that intake right above and behind the cockpit). Number two is at the USAF Museum.

VictorLaszlo
June 7th, 2011, 07:02 PM
The Horten H IX, also called Ho 229
Role Fighter/Bomber
Manufacturer Gothaer Waggonfabrik
Designed by Horten brothers
First flight 1 March 1944
Number built 3

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Horten_Ho_IX_line_drawing.svg

wiking
June 7th, 2011, 07:33 PM
The Horten H IX, also called Ho 229
Role Fighter/Bomber
Manufacturer Gothaer Waggonfabrik
Designed by Horten brothers
First flight 1 March 1944
Number built 3

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Horten_Ho_IX_line_drawing.svg

I thought that aircraft has sever stability issues and wobbled uncontrollably in flight?

Workable Goblin
June 7th, 2011, 07:52 PM
The F-107 lost to the F-105. Scott Crossfield damaged #3 in an aborted takeoff. A/C #1 is at the Pima Air and Space Museum in Tuscon, AZ (I've seen it, and no, I'm not sure I would've wanted to fly it with that intake right above and behind the cockpit). Number two is at the USAF Museum.

It's strange because (according to wiki, at any rate) they were planning on having a chin intake at first, but moved it to the top of the plane. I mean, really.

Now, aircraft I would have liked to see fly--how about the Space Shuttle Booster "Aircraft" from the original TSTO Shuttle proposals? They had transatlantic ferry capabilities, IIRC (had to, so that they could get back from the TAL sites they would have landed at to Kennedy), which I should think allows them to count as an aircraft as opposed to just a rocket with some incidental flight capabilities.

Or maybe the X-24C hypersonic research aircraft that was proposed but not built in the late '70s? It would have explored an interesting flight regime. Of course, it might have as a black project, considering the circumstances of its cancellation.

Winston Smith
June 7th, 2011, 08:00 PM
Never heard of the V-1000 before. Now that I have, I can only say that it should never have been cancelled.

Oh, new entry: The Lockheed L-133. The USA could have had a jet fighter seeing combat in World War 2!

NoOneFamous
June 7th, 2011, 08:09 PM
Would have loved to have seen the X-29 in operational service

zoomar
June 7th, 2011, 08:21 PM
Is this post about aircraft that really should have been put in production because they were actually better than the alternatives, or aircraft that are just completely cool, regardless of reality or airworthiness?

Taking the last group first, here's the fun stuff (P6Ms, Flying wing passenger planes, ZRCV airships, B-70, etc). These are just cool - and sometimes very advanced - concepts, but they would almost certainly have been a major waste of money and effort if put into service. Take, for example, the B-70. The B-70 was intended to replace all other US manned strategic bombers (such as the B-52)with a super high speed, high altitude plane capable of penetrating heavily defended Soviet airspace to drop a few nukes. More than likely the thing would have been retired from service less than 10 years (like the B-58) and then there might be no B-52's. Can you imagine imagine B-70's trundling over Vietnam, Iraq and wherever unloading tons of dumb bombs.

Regarding the others, normally aviation engineers and air ministries are pretty reasonable and realistic. I would argue that there are really few examples of rejected designs or prototypes that clearly should have been put in service, but there are a few possible candidates that warrant at least some consideration, some of which have been mentioned:

Pre-1945:

Martin-Baker MB-3 and MB-5 (undeveloped British WW2 fighters)
Republic P-69 (advanced development of P-47)
Blohm und Voss Bv-141 (assymetrical recon cooperation plane)
Focke Wulf Fw-187 (single seat, twin engine fighter)
Martin B-42 (twin engines bomber w/ engine driving single contrarotating prop at tail)
Savoia-Marchetti SM 91 and 92 (twin boom fighters)

Workable Goblin
June 7th, 2011, 08:33 PM
Regarding the others, normally aviation engineers and air ministries are pretty reasonable and realistic. I would argue that there are really few examples of rejected designs or prototypes that clearly should have been put in service, but there are a few possible candidates that warrant at least some consideration, some of which have been mentioned:

Normally, true, but sometimes they don't make the decisions. That's responsible for things like the many failed British aircraft projects (well, a lot of those at least), the CF-105, or the Cheney decisions at the end of the Cold War--I mean Peace Dividend sure, but killing the A-6F or Bombcat in favor of F/A-18s and/or the A-12? Really?

wietze
June 7th, 2011, 08:59 PM
I think they should have picked the Grumman F11F instead of the F104, maybe less performance in 1 or 2 areas, but a much better allround fighter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F11F_Super_Tiger

AdA
June 8th, 2011, 01:27 PM
Is this post about aircraft that really should have been put in production because they were actually better than the alternatives, or aircraft that are just completely cool, regardless of reality or airworthiness?


Pre-1945:

Martin-Baker MB-3 and MB-5 (undeveloped British WW2 fighters)
Republic P-69 (advanced development of P-47)
Blohm und Voss Bv-141 (assymetrical recon cooperation plane)
Focke Wulf Fw-187 (single seat, twin engine fighter)
Martin B-42 (twin engines bomber w/ engine driving single contrarotating prop at tail)
Savoia-Marchetti SM 91 and 92 (twin boom fighters)

About aircraft that should have been built, meaning they had a job to do, that they could do bettet than existing alternatives, and the technology was viable.

The FW187 is a case in point. I would say that the concept was validated when DH built the nearly identical Hornet five years later. The Hornet proves just how good the FW187 could have been.

The B70 is another case. Once the MiG25+AA6 combo had been tested and validated, there was no mission left for a highspeed, high altitude bomber. So canceling it was a good call.
Imagine an alternative Luftwaffe, with the He100D replacing the Bf109E from early 1940 and the Fw187 replacing the Bf110. Maybe if General Wever hadn't died he would have been able to counter Willy Messerchmit political conections...

AdA
June 8th, 2011, 01:28 PM
pretty much the same concept, no?

Commissar
June 8th, 2011, 01:43 PM
The B70 is another case. Once the MiG25+AA6 combo had been tested and validated, there was no mission left for a highspeed, high altitude bomber. So canceling it was a good call.

Wrong, the MiG-25 would have had a hard time trying to keep up with the B-70 at high altitude and production models would have been flying high in the stratosphere where their big wings would have easily outmaneuvered the MiG-25 and AA6, nor would even the modern S-300 would have had a good chance of even touching it.

And thats not considering the fact the B-70 would be shooting back and specialized Wild Weasel Versions would be jamming the shit out of Soviet RADAR.

Even if the Soviets did a good job at defense and downed 20% of the B-70s, their country would have still been utterly devastated.

As for the B-52, that should have been scrapped in favor of a pure bomb truck F-111, which we'll rename the B-111. At Mach 2.5 and with a 31,500 lbs bombload, it will suffice for missions the B-52 does.

AdA
June 8th, 2011, 02:06 PM
Wrong, the MiG-25 would have had a hard time trying to keep up with the B-70 at high altitude and production models would have been flying high in the stratosphere where their big wings would have easily outmaneuvered the MiG-25 and AA6, nor would even the modern S-300 would have had a good chance of even touching it.

And thats not considering the fact the B-70 would be shooting back and specialized Wild Weasel Versions would be jamming the shit out of Soviet RADAR.

Even if the Soviets did a good job at defense and downed 20% of the B-70s, their country would have still been utterly devastated.

As for the B-52, that should have been scrapped in favor of a pure bomb truck F-111, which we'll rename the B-111. At Mach 2.5 and with a 31,500 lbs bombload, it will suffice for missions the B-52 does.

1. The MiG25P was only built after an extensive test program showed it could shoot simulated B70 and SR71 type targets. Go to Yefim Gordon book for detail. If you don't belive russian sources and you think the SR71 stayed out of anyplace that had MiG25s just out of a good sporting attitude you have a point, the point being that you see the world throught US built lenses. (Ray Bans most likely). No matter how optimistic the URSS test program was, a few years latter both the US and the URSS were testing antisatellite aircraft launched missiles. The B70 would have to climb very high by then...
And the intercept profiles against high flying bombers are not of the manouvering kind. The MiG25 would climb, fire two pairs of AA6 at each target on a head on collision course mission. The MiG25/AA6 combo was designed from the onset to be optimised against jamming, not for range, and the idea of a B70 outmanouvering a few missiles is very strange. Was it stressed for 9g+ manouvers?

A F111 with 15 tons of boms doing Mach 2,5? what would that get in terms of range. Bombing Ireland from bases in England and refuelling from a KC135 to get back?

Revolutionary Todyo
June 8th, 2011, 02:10 PM
The VTOL from the Resistance series.
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080706112242/resistancefallofman/images/2/22/UH-17_Atlas.jpg

I just think it looks awesome :p

AdA
June 8th, 2011, 02:13 PM
.

Even if the Soviets did a good job at defense and downed 20% of the B-70s, their country would have still been utterly devastated.

If it came to that (all out nuclear war) Trident SLBM would make more sense, no?

The only role left for nuclear bombers when the Missiles got accurate was for a first strike, and that can only be done with stealth...
That's why the B70 got axed, and the even more expensive B2 got built.

Jonathan Kan
June 8th, 2011, 07:38 PM
I think they should have picked the Grumman F11F instead of the F104, maybe less performance in 1 or 2 areas, but a much better allround fighter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F11F_Super_Tiger



The F8 was the ONLY fighter the U.S. designed and put into service after the F-86 until the advent of the F-15. Everything else was an interceptor or a fighter-bomber. That isn't a bad thing, fighter bombers are damned handy, and the U.S. needed interceptors to kill the Bears, but when you list the actual fighters the U.S. built in the Jet era its a damned short list.

F-86
F8
F-15A/C
F-22

Everything else was meant to do something besides kill enemy fighters.

I always wonder if the Fighter Mafia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_Mafia)'s idea was adopted much eariler, Super Tiger would have been Western Bloc's air superiority fighter of choice between F-86 and F-15.

http://combatace.com/files/file/5076-grumman-f11f-1f-super-tiger/
http://combatace.com/index.php?app=downloads&module=display&section=screenshot&full=1&id=5076&record=5858

BlairWitch749
June 8th, 2011, 07:45 PM
I'm going to come out against the FW-187

Considering the ME-110 served competently in the scout, fighter bomber, night fighter (most successful night fighter of the war in terms of kill ratio) the Germans got their money's worth out of the design

The FW-187 was built as an uncompromised fighter and would have had ZERO versatility AND would still have been outperformed by British single engined fighters in the battle of Britain, so if anything, its production as opposed to the ME-110 reduces German strategic options to counter their growing and diversifying air needs as the war progresses

TRX
June 8th, 2011, 08:29 PM
It's strange because (according to wiki, at any rate) they were planning on having a chin intake at first, but moved it to the top of the plane. I mean, really.

It would keep a lot of sand and dirt out of the engine when operating out of dusty/sandy unpaved airfields. But the wheels don't look suitable for that sort of thing.

Mote
June 8th, 2011, 08:51 PM
For my own desires, an F7U Cutlass with better engines and earlier angled decks to handle them better (when they cruised with an angled deck carrier, safety was greatly improved). I just like the looks of it, no better reason.

Wrong, the MiG-25 would have had a hard time trying to keep up with the B-70 at high altitude and production models would have been flying high in the stratosphere where their big wings would have easily outmaneuvered the MiG-25 and AA6, nor would even the modern S-300 would have had a good chance of even touching it.

Maneuvering at Mach 3 and high altitude involves turns the radius of which are the size of countries. It also requires some knowledge of the incoming threat which the B-70 would not have had.


And thats not considering the fact the B-70 would be shooting back

Self-defense weapons were dropped from the B-70 program fairly early on.


and specialized Wild Weasel Versions would be jamming the shit out of Soviet RADAR.

Erm, no. That's a rather fanciful idea not supported by USAF planning or doctrine. The B-70 program, as a potential strategic aircraft, was cancelled years before the USAF realized the need for dedicated Wild Weasel missions and aircraft in fact.


Even if the Soviets did a good job at defense and downed 20% of the B-70s, their country would have still been utterly devastated.

That is the advantage of nuclear weapons over conventional. The B-70, however, was in competition with ICBMs which could do the same job with a higher degree of reliability and a good deal cheaper.


As for the B-52, that should have been scrapped in favor of a pure bomb truck F-111, which we'll rename the B-111. At Mach 2.5 and with a 31,500 lbs bombload, it will suffice for missions the B-52 does.

The USAF was adamantly against using strategic aircraft for conventional bombing.

Winston Smith
June 8th, 2011, 08:59 PM
ICBMs have numerous weaknesses compared to nuclear bombers, you know.

Mote
June 8th, 2011, 09:15 PM
ICBMs have numerous weaknesses compared to nuclear bombers, you know.

Well, yes, they are remarkably less cost effective in the conventional bombing role. They are however:
Cheaper to build on an individual and per warhead basis (especially with MIRV).
Rather more likely to penetrate enemy defenses
Far more survivable under conditions of enemy attack (a note: While bombers can use airborne alert, mobile ICBMs and SLBMs not in garrison/port are effectively the same).
Much easier to disperse away from population centers than are airfields
Far cheaper to maintain and operate than are bombers, especially considering the need for airborne refueling aircraft as well.

Workable Goblin
June 8th, 2011, 10:02 PM
As Mote points out, ICBMs (and their variants) are much more effective in the actual use of nuclear weapons, that is as a deterrent. If you're in a situation where you have to actually nuke something, then the nukes have failed in their purpose (to prevent anyone from doing anything to you that would result in a nuking).

Just Leo
June 8th, 2011, 11:19 PM
The J-79/F-11F could not have entered service because Grumman couldn't bribe their way out of a wet paper bag.

Sior
June 8th, 2011, 11:20 PM
The VTOL from the Resistance series.
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080706112242/resistancefallofman/images/2/22/UH-17_Atlas.jpg

I just think it looks awesome :p

I see your tilt rotor and raise you the Fairey Rotodyne (far more capable than modern tilt rotors)
http://www.mumbling.co.uk/illustrations/FR-03.jpg

Matt Wiser
June 9th, 2011, 04:52 AM
I'd forgotten about the F-11 Super Tiger. Those puppies would've been very useful over North Vietnam alongside F-8s.

B-71: a Kelly Johnson proposal for a bomber version of the SR-71. Four B-43 type gravity bombs along the sides of the aircraft (two to a side and in internal bays-one bomb to a bay), and/or a rotary launcher for SRAMs. Paper design only, but if built, they would've had the same features of the SRs: speed and some stealth.

F-12B: Interceptor version of the SR. Four AIM-47 Falcon AAMs and Mach 3+ speed. Another MacNamara casualty....ugh. That man had no business being SECDEF at all.

FB-111H: super Vark to replace FB-111As in SAC. On paper only, and not pursued after B-1A cancellation.

simssss
June 9th, 2011, 05:10 AM
F-16XL ... especially after having read the Hawk Hunter books
Arrow
Fighter version of lockheed sr-71

Just Leo
June 9th, 2011, 06:32 AM
Nakajima Ki-43 Oscar wings on Ki-44 Shoki. Big engine, big armament, manoeverability.

Matt Wiser
June 9th, 2011, 08:07 AM
Two from Boeing that could've seen service in WW II:

PBB-1 Sea Ranger: probably the best flying boat the Navy didn't acquire in WW II. Cancelled due to the engines being needed for the B-29 program.

F8B: The first real "strike fighter". A plane that not only could tangle with the bad guys air-to-air, but also put a lot of hurt on them in ground attack or war-at-sea ops. Trouble was, the Corsair, Hellcat, and the Bearcat were available (or about to be in the F8F's case) for the former, and the AD Skyraider was in the pipeline.

And one from Beechcraft: A-38 Grizzly. A potentially devastating attack bird, with a 75-mm gun and two .50s in the nose, plus twin .50s in dorsal and ventral turrets. Again, a victim of the engines being needed for the B-29. Reliable, rugged, and easily serviced in the field. AAF test pilots loved it. The aircraft met or exceeded all performance specs, but since the B-29 had priority.....

tallwingedgoat
June 9th, 2011, 10:38 AM
F-108 Rapier. Just because it's cool.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/7/79/20080519030133!Xf-108.png

AdA
June 9th, 2011, 10:57 AM
The original Fw187 was a fighter, but there is no reason it could not have been built in dedicated variants for other roles, such as:
Long range Photo recce. You don't need a co-pilot to overfly targets and take pictures, see all the fine work PR spitfires did;
Ground attack with all kinds of external stores and extra guns
Bomber destroyer (in later versions) with Mk103 30mm guns and DB605 engines. Even later with DB603 engines
Torpedo attack. If they could put a torpedo in a Fw190 why not in the Fw187?
Tank buster with a 50mm Gun and extra armour.

The design had the potencial to take newer engines and do anything that a single seater could do.
For the night fighter role the Germans could build more Ju88 nightfighters at first and than build more of the excelent He219.

As for the F11F, I'd still go for a landbased F8. The later versions could carry a decent attack load. I'd just swap the four outdated guns for a single vulcan.

Another one I'd would have liked to see being built was the Su8.
Massive firepower, great armour, good range, it would have been the ultimate COIN aircraft. Too bad it would have been on the wrong side. Maybe a few of them would have survived to straff UNITA rebels in Angola or Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka.

Just Leo
June 9th, 2011, 02:03 PM
Just a thought.

Revolutionary Todyo
June 9th, 2011, 02:31 PM
I see your tilt rotor and raise you the Fairey Rotodyne (far more capable than modern tilt rotors)
The Resistance VTOL wins on aesthetics :p

ComradeTovarich
June 9th, 2011, 04:11 PM
I call dibs on the Kyushu J7W 'Shinden'

Cos' it looks so darn friggin' awesome!

TheMann
June 9th, 2011, 04:17 PM
Take, for example, the B-70. The B-70 was intended to replace all other US manned strategic bombers (such as the B-52)with a super high speed, high altitude plane capable of penetrating heavily defended Soviet airspace to drop a few nukes. More than likely the thing would have been retired from service less than 10 years (like the B-58) and then there might be no B-52's. Can you imagine imagine B-70's trundling over Vietnam, Iraq and wherever unloading tons of dumb bombs.

I can. The B-70 design is meant for speed, but the thing has massive wings and six engines. What I'm envisioning it doing is just getting there faster, which from a flexibility standpoint is actually a good thing. The B-1 was designed with much the same ideas in mind as the Valkyrie, and its used more often than the B-52s is over Afghanistan, and for that purpose - big loads of dumb bombs. Later B-70s meant for low-level penetration could gain the terrain-following radar from the F-111 and ditched the YJ-39 turbojets for turbofans. This reduces speed into the Mid-Mach 2 area, but takes an aircraft with an already huge range and improves it even further. The B-70 really shoulda been built, because the USAF ten years after it died was looking for a new bomber project again, which is how the B-1 came to be. What did ya spend a billion and a half (in 1960 dollars, no less) for, guys?

Just Leo
June 9th, 2011, 04:40 PM
I call dibs on the Kyushu J7W 'Shinden'

Cos' it looks so darn friggin' awesome!

The picture does not portray the "Shinden". The one portrayed looks more like a Vultee XP-54, an aircraft of limited distinction. Perhaps a Saab.

Russell
June 9th, 2011, 08:39 PM
I hate to disagree but the B-70 and the B-1 were designed, yes for bombing but one at extreme height and at high speed and the other at low level. The B-70 was made obsolete by the rapid development of SAMs (1960 and Gary Powers) along with the introduction of ICBM's - the Missile Gap was a falacy and no longer needed filling. The Valkyrie would have been a massive waste of resources at a time when defense spending was reaching a peak. It's important to remember that the B-1 was only saved from the scrapheap thanks to Regans massive military buildup.

I can understand people’s obsession with massive cutting edge mach whatever+ but the financial, political, social and military realities often escape them.


My list of should have seen service aircraft:

Canada:

Canadair CL-84 Dynavert - Tilt wings wouldn't make good attack platforms but the potential for transport (military, civilian and commercial) and light transport (private flight and military reconnaissance) was extensive and could have given the Canadian aviation industry a considerable boost. Either that, or it would prove to be too small a niche and destroy it completely.


Great Britain

Martin Baker MB5 - Captain Eric Brown, the man who holds the record for the most different types of aircraft ever flown said it was the greatest piston powered fighter he ever flew. Would have been a good long range escort fighter for the Far East as well as giving the RAF a strong and able fighter to plug the fighter gap until second generation jets (and jet engines) were able to completely replace piston powered fighters.

Hawker P.1081 - Could have plugged Britain’s fighter gap in the early 50's - no need for Canadair Sabers. Equally, could have been an excellent competitor to the F-86 and may have allowed the development of the Hawker Hunter as a transonic machine.

Hawker P.1121 - Britain’s answer to the Phantom II. Could have been the first major fighter powered by a turbofan (Conway or Medway). Would have been huge though - at 67 feet for the single seat version (70 feet for the twin seat) but still could have lasted through until the 80's, allowing the venerable but obsolete EE Lightning to be retired either in the late 70's or early 80's. It could have been produced in enough numbers to preserve Britain’s aviation industry into the 70's or even the 80's.


United States

Grumman F11F Super Tiger - Good all round little fighter - cheap and capable it could have been the real freedom fighter. Probably pull the pants down on the Straighter any day of the week.


Russell

abc123
June 9th, 2011, 09:22 PM
Great Britain


Hawker P.1081 - Could have plugged Britain’s fighter gap in the early 50's - no need for Canadair Sabers. Equally, could have been an excellent competitor to the F-86 and may have allowed the development of the Hawker Hunter as a transonic machine.

Hawker P.1121 - Britain’s answer to the Phantom II. Could have been the first major fighter powered by a turbofan (Conway or Medway). Would have been huge though - at 67 feet for the single seat version (70 feet for the twin seat) but still could have lasted through until the 80's, allowing the venerable but obsolete EE Lightning to be retired either in the late 70's or early 80's. It could have been produced in enough numbers to preserve Britain’s aviation industry into the 70's or even the 80's.




Russell

Three questions:

1) if Hawker 1081 is built, would HMG still buy DH Venom/Vampire Javelin and other such aircrafts?

2) was Hawker 1121 single or double engined?

3) if UK buys Avro Arrow, would UK stil buy EE Lightning?

KyleB
June 9th, 2011, 10:37 PM
Another one I'd would have liked to see being built was the Su8.
Massive firepower, great armour, good range, it would have been the ultimate COIN aircraft. Too bad it would have been on the wrong side. Maybe a few of them would have survived to strafe UNITA rebels in Angola or Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka.

Fixed forward-firing armament of 4 x 45mm cannon and 8 x 7.62mm MGs. :eek::eek::eek:


Also: Vickers Venom as an FAA fighter

http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/venom/venomII.jpg

ComradeTovarich
June 10th, 2011, 12:11 AM
The picture does not portray the "Shinden". The one portrayed looks more like a Vultee XP-54, an aircraft of limited distinction. Perhaps a Saab.

Whoops, my mistake. Yeah... It's not the Shinden. The Shinden wouldn't have had looked like a pusher variant of the P-38. It's most definitely a Jap copy of the Saab pusher fighter. Still, you gotta admit that it looks awesome. :D

Just Leo
June 10th, 2011, 12:49 AM
Also: Vickers Venom as an FAA fighter

http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/venom/venomII.jpg


KyleB, if you look closely at the wing on the Venom, you will note that the wing is constant chord and thickness, great if you're building a DH-2 Beaver STOL but not the wing of a high speed fighter. The Gloster F5/34 wasn't very sophisticated in many regards, but it had a better wing. The difference in performance between the Hurricane/Spitfire or Mosquito/Beaufighter is largely in the wing. Also, the difference between the Typhoon and Tempest.

tallwingedgoat
June 10th, 2011, 10:04 AM
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/1295/arsenalds50vf.jpg

The Arsenal VG fighters. Less than 10 served with France before it surrendered. The last variant, the VG-39bis, could have had Yak-3 level performance by late 1940.

See more from this thread:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=2777

wingman
June 10th, 2011, 10:37 AM
F-16XL ... especially after having read the Hawk Hunter books
Arrow
Fighter version of lockheed sr-71


i agree with you!

wietze
June 10th, 2011, 11:34 AM
Instead of the sr-71 they should have built the convair kingfish, much more stealthy

Russell
June 10th, 2011, 11:51 AM
Three questions:

1) if Hawker 1081 is built, would HMG still buy DH Venom/Vampire Javelin and other such aircrafts?

Yes. The P.1081 was a small day fighter (dogfighter) in the mould of the F-86 Saber. The Venom was a stopgap ground attack aircraft - the P.1081 may have been able to do the job but a suitable variant would not have been in service until maybe 1954. However, the Javelin and Sea Vixen were much larger; twin engined all weather interceptors with massive guidance radars (for better AAMs) and a crew of two. The only aircraft that will really be likely be affected in RAF Service, other than Canadair F-86's is the OTL Hunter. At subsonic speeds it would have little to offer above the P.1081. If it is stil built it will most likely be in the mould of the P.1083 - a transonic fighter able to counter the MIG-19


2) was Hawker 1121 single or double engined?



Single engined. It was planned to either use a de Havilland Gyron (massive bulky beast) at high altitude. An RR Conway at low level or a an Olympus for best of both. However, Sidney Camm (its designer) was very interested in the Rolls Royce Medway then under development.

There were two engined developments of the P.1121, however. The P.1125 and P.1129 were both to utilize the same avionics as the P.1121 as well as some design features but for use in the low level attack role.


3) if UK buys Avro Arrow, would UK still buy EE Lightning?


It depends upon the POD. Britain already was, to an extent involved in the development of the Arrow - the RB.106 engines (superior even to Canadian Orenda Iroquois engine) was originally in development for British Mach 2+ interceptors but had been selected by Avro Canada to power their Arrow before being cancelled in 1957. If an earlier (early 50's) agreement to continue developing both the RB.106 and Arrow for Anglo-Canadian use then the inferior looking lightning could be cancelled and the Arrow put in it's place. However, the Arrow probably wouldn’t be in service until at least 1962, nor in suitable numbers until the mid 60's. So that would leave a massive interceptor gap until around 1963-1965. The Lightning was originally only ever meant to fill such a gap in British planning until the Operational Requirement F.155 fighters came into service (Arrow negates these). So it depends how willing the Air Ministry and government was willing to leave Britain poorly defended.

In my personal view the EE Lightning was superior to the Arrow anyhow - not in terms of technology and capability (the Arrow mops the floor here) but in terms of in service date, unit costs and maintaience costs. It may not have been as fancy but Cold War developments (i.e no Mach 3 Soviet Bombers going into service) meant that it stayed as an effective ergonomic interceptor until the late 70's, even into the 80's. If the Arrow had been built in its stead it would have been in considerably smaller numbers - more expensive and fewer to cover the air defense of the country.

Russell

wietze
June 10th, 2011, 12:02 PM
I see your tilt rotor and raise you the Fairey Rotodyne (far more capable than modern tilt rotors)

totally agree here, the Rotodyne definitely something that should have been built.

And I think the Russians should have continued with their Buran spacecraft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Buran

Russell
June 10th, 2011, 12:20 PM
I reguarly wonder which has more utility in both civillian and military applications - Helicopters, Gyronplanes or Tiltwings/tiltrotors?

Russell

Sior
June 10th, 2011, 01:14 PM
I reguarly wonder which has more utility in both civillian and military applications - Helicopters, Gyronplanes or Tiltwings/tiltrotors?

Russell

Gyronplanes win hands down for safety and simplicity, they can safely land in the case of engine failure, and they have none of the complex mechanism (prone to failure) of the helicopter or the tilt rotor.
The problem of noise (at take off and landing not during flight) in the Rotordyne was in the process of being solved when it was canceled (resonence in the hollow rotor blades around the feed tubes, cured by light weight foam insulation 106dba down to around 98dba).

abc123
June 10th, 2011, 02:19 PM
It depends upon the POD. Britain already was, to an extent involved in the development of the Arrow - the RB.106 engines (superior even to Canadian Orenda Iroquois engine) was originally in development for British Mach 2+ interceptors but had been selected by Avro Canada to power their Arrow before being cancelled in 1957. If an earlier (early 50's) agreement to continue developing both the RB.106 and Arrow for Anglo-Canadian use then the inferior looking lightning could be cancelled and the Arrow put in it's place. However, the Arrow probably wouldn’t be in service until at least 1962, nor in suitable numbers until the mid 60's. So that would leave a massive interceptor gap until around 1963-1965. The Lightning was originally only ever meant to fill such a gap in British planning until the Operational Requirement F.155 fighters came into service (Arrow negates these). So it depends how willing the Air Ministry and government was willing to leave Britain poorly defended.

In my personal view the EE Lightning was superior to the Arrow anyhow - not in terms of technology and capability (the Arrow mops the floor here) but in terms of in service date, unit costs and maintaience costs. It may not have been as fancy but Cold War developments (i.e no Mach 3 Soviet Bombers going into service) meant that it stayed as an effective ergonomic interceptor until the late 70's, even into the 80's. If the Arrow had been built in its stead it would have been in considerably smaller numbers - more expensive and fewer to cover the air defense of the country.

Russell

Well, IMHO Lightning wasn't so much inferior in comparison with early Arrow.

Russell
June 10th, 2011, 06:28 PM
Well, IMHO Lightning wasn't so much inferior in comparison with early Arrow.

Well, the early arrow prototype was massivly underpowered - the correct engines did not yet exist but were in development. The final product could probably have made a top speed of mach 2.5 and been capable of supercruise of between mach 1.1 and mach 1.5, although the latter is pushing it. Further developments (highly unlikley to have been ever started upon) could have reached mach 3+. The aicraft avionics and radar suite were also more advanced than the lightning.

However, given the fact that if they ever did see service the most they would ever likley intercept was the old turboprop Tu-142's, all of this would have essentially been like using a bulldozer to swat a fly.

Russell

BlairWitch749
June 10th, 2011, 06:35 PM
The original Fw187 was a fighter, but there is no reason it could not have been built in dedicated variants for other roles, such as:
Long range Photo recce. You don't need a co-pilot to overfly targets and take pictures, see all the fine work PR spitfires did;
Ground attack with all kinds of external stores and extra guns
Bomber destroyer (in later versions) with Mk103 30mm guns and DB605 engines. Even later with DB603 engines
Torpedo attack. If they could put a torpedo in a Fw190 why not in the Fw187?
Tank buster with a 50mm Gun and extra armour.

The design had the potencial to take newer engines and do anything that a single seater could do.
For the night fighter role the Germans could build more Ju88 nightfighters at first and than build more of the excelent He219.

As for the F11F, I'd still go for a landbased F8. The later versions could carry a decent attack load. I'd just swap the four outdated guns for a single vulcan.

Another one I'd would have liked to see being built was the Su8.
Massive firepower, great armour, good range, it would have been the ultimate COIN aircraft. Too bad it would have been on the wrong side. Maybe a few of them would have survived to straff UNITA rebels in Angola or Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka.

on the FW-187... the JU-88 with its longer range was better suited for photo recon so that job is out

its layout in fusilage and wings was not condusive to it being a bomber destroyer or ground attack aircraft; nor could you install hard points for torpedo attack....you would have to thicken and lengthen it up so much to perform in the other roles that it would basically be an ME-110 anyway

NothingNow
June 10th, 2011, 08:13 PM
Well, the early arrow prototype was massivly underpowered - the correct engines did not yet exist but were in development. The final product could probably have made a top speed of mach 2.5 and been capable of supercruise of between mach 1.1 and mach 1.5, although the latter is pushing it. Further developments (highly unlikley to have been ever started upon) could have reached mach 3+. The aicraft avionics and radar suite were also more advanced than the lightning.

Of course, the Lightning is a cheaper design, and a faster climber.
If they had the money for it, a layered system, like the USAF's Aerospace Defense Command might work. With Arrows serving as a Longer-ranged/First line design, and the Lightning filling in for the second line interceptors like the F-104, and serving in places where the Arrows might be too valuable or simply to big to send, like Hong Kong, or Gibraltar.

That, and with the Arrow's better Range and payload, it'd be a better multi-role design, while the Lightning, properly modified (namely, with a better cockpit,) would be a much better dogfighter than the Arrow.

Asnys
June 10th, 2011, 09:40 PM
And I think the Russians should have continued with their Buran spacecraft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Buran

Why? Not disagreeing with you, just curious to hear your reasoning.

Koxinga
June 10th, 2011, 09:52 PM
For me, there are two aircraft that actually were built, but ought to have been mass produced as fighter/attack aircraft; the YF-23, the X-29, and the X-30. These three aircraft filled my youthful dreams and excited my imagination...

The Northrup-Grumman YF-23 ought to have beaten the Lockheed YF-22 for the ATF in the early '90's, imo:
http://www.titantalk.com/forums/attachments/off-topic-discussion/68205d1226671900-new-military-jet-f-37-yf_23a.gif

The X-29 excites any airial affectionado with its forward swept wings and huge forward canards just all hot sex

http://www.aviastar.org/pictures/usa/grumman_x-29.gif

And the X-30, the dream that never even came close to happening, the 80's Reagan battlestar galactica space fetishist dream that would never come close to coming true...

http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/x-30-AC86-0699_a.jpg

Does the Space Station Freedom in the background count? because that's it's own whole category...

wietze
June 10th, 2011, 09:54 PM
Why? Not disagreeing with you, just curious to hear your reasoning.

First of all i think the design deserved a chance.

and second because if the Russians have a craft like that we would be likely to see more of them in space, and hopefully it would force the Americans to think about their spaceprogram. Now the spaceshuttle is gone, and interest in manned spacetravel seems to be on the decrease. Was hoping that with a higher visibility presence of the Russians we would keep some kind of "light spacerace". Maybe even some interest of ESA for manned spacevehicles.
(yes Hermes is on my list too of what should have been built, although Sänger 2 would have been more impressive)

The X-29 excites any airial affectionado with its forward swept wings and huge forward canards just all hot sex
If you like the x-29 then you will love this one too....
The Sukhoi Su-47 Berkut
http://images.wikia.com/military/images/0/07/E0041466_471870bd0463f.jpg

Just Leo
June 10th, 2011, 10:04 PM
Some of the aircraft I think should have, or could have been built.

The Oncoming Storm
June 10th, 2011, 10:10 PM
First of all i think the design deserved a chance.

and second because if the Russians have a craft like that we would be likely to see more of them in space, and hopefully it would force the Americans to think about their spaceprogram. Now the spaceshuttle is gone, and interest in manned spacetravel seems to be on the decrease. Was hoping that with a higher visibility presence of the Russians we would keep some kind of "light spacerace". Maybe even some interest of ESA for manned spacevehicles.
(yes Hermes in on my list too of what should have been built, although Sänger 2 would have been more impressive)

This ("http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki?search=Hotol) would also have helped :cool: Hopefully it's reincarnation (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_Engines_Skylon) will fare better!

wietze
June 10th, 2011, 10:17 PM
never understood why they terminated the Ariane-IV when they got the new Ariane-V after all they do not cover completely the same weight spectrum, and second the Ariane-IV was so reliable it could have been used for manned spacecraft. Although i could see the ESA ATV being converted for manned spacetravel.

Maybe we will see manned launches from Kourou by means of soyuz?

NothingNow
June 10th, 2011, 10:44 PM
F

If you like the x-29 then you will love this one too....
The Sukhoi Su-47 Berkut


Both of which are actually really terrible designs thanks to the odd stresses generated by forward swept wings.

Russell
June 10th, 2011, 10:57 PM
Of course, the Lightning is a cheaper design, and a faster climber.
If they had the money for it, a layered system, like the USAF's Aerospace Defense Command might work. With Arrows serving as a Longer-ranged/First line design, and the Lightning filling in for the second line interceptors like the F-104, and serving in places where the Arrows might be too valuable or simply to big to send, like Hong Kong, or Gibraltar.

That, and with the Arrow's better Range and payload, it'd be a better multi-role design, while the Lightning, properly modified (namely, with a better cockpit,) would be a much better dogfighter than the Arrow.

True - a layered defence was perferable but not really possible given the bidget state of affairs.

The ranges for both aircraft at supercruise were limited and i doubt that the Arrow would have made a much better mutlirole platform than any other pure high end interceptor like the Delta Dart oR MIG 25 which both remained limited to air to air warfare.

Russell

Workable Goblin
June 10th, 2011, 11:25 PM
never understood why they terminated the Ariane-IV when they got the new Ariane-V after all they do not cover completely the same weight spectrum, and second the Ariane-IV was so reliable it could have been used for manned spacecraft. Although i could see the ESA ATV being converted for manned spacetravel.

Maybe we will see manned launches from Kourou by means of soyuz?

The Ariane 4 didn't have the lift capacity to launch manned spacecraft (except I suppose for very limited ones, like Mercury or Gemini), and it was not man-rated. The Ariane 5 worked on both counts, although with the end of the European HSF program it turned out to be somewhat oversized and overexpensive for the satellite launch market it actually ended up servicing.

Does the Space Station Freedom in the background count? because that's it's own whole category...

Oh, yeah. Of course, that was more management failure on NASA's part than anything else--NASA has not been able to build even a vaguely successful mid-long term post-Shuttle program to save its life since the '70s, and that's coming back to bite them in the ass now.

The Oncoming Storm
June 10th, 2011, 11:47 PM
True - a layered defence was perferable but not really possible given the bidget state of affairs.

The ranges for both aircraft at supercruise were limited and i doubt that the Arrow would have made a much better mutlirole platform than any other pure high end interceptor like the Delta Dart oR MIG 25 which both remained limited to air to air warfare.

Russell

Russell if the SR.177 had gone into service then do you think there would have been any need for the Lightning or were they meant for different roles?

KyleB
June 11th, 2011, 03:46 AM
The Miles M52 deserved a chance. It could have even been the first supersonic aircraft.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/MilesM52_1.jpg

The Short Seamew may have been a flawed airplane, but the concept was good and it could have attracted a lot of export orders.

http://wunjopress.com/images/Short%20Seamew%20prototype.jpg

Asnys
June 11th, 2011, 05:19 AM
First of all i think the design deserved a chance.

and second because if the Russians have a craft like that we would be likely to see more of them in space, and hopefully it would force the Americans to think about their spaceprogram. Now the spaceshuttle is gone, and interest in manned spacetravel seems to be on the decrease. Was hoping that with a higher visibility presence of the Russians we would keep some kind of "light spacerace". Maybe even some interest of ESA for manned spacevehicles.
(yes Hermes is on my list too of what should have been built, although Sänger 2 would have been more impressive)


Didn't they need the Energia to launch Buran? And didn't the Energia have all sorts of reliability problems? I mean, I'm all in favor of space travel in any and all forms, I'm just wondering if keeping the Buran alive is the best way to do it. Especially since it seems like the same role could be filled equally well by other vehicles.

wietze
June 11th, 2011, 08:59 AM
The Ariane 4 didn't have the lift capacity to launch manned spacecraft (except I suppose for very limited ones, like Mercury or Gemini), and it was not man-rated. The Ariane 5 worked on both counts, although with the end of the European HSF program it turned out to be somewhat oversized and overexpensive for the satellite launch market it actually ended up servicing.

The Ariane-4 has the same payload as the Soyuz the Russians are using for their manned space vehicles. And although Ariane-4 was not officially manrated, its reliability had reached such high levels that it would have been only a matter of calling it manrated.

That why i didnt understand the retirement of the Ariane-4, as they both served a different portion of the market, the 4 being medium lift and the 5 being heavy lift.

Russell
June 11th, 2011, 04:10 PM
Russell if the SR.177 had gone into service then do you think there would have been any need for the Lightning or were they meant for different roles?

You know, i'm not sure. Both designs originate from the same time with the same intended purpose. The Saro 177 was a simpler (but faster with a greater service ceiling), smaller design with good export potential (so long as you can overcome the Lockheed bribes) but will be totally obsolete by the 70's with little room for upgrades. I'm also not sure about the whole mixed propulsion thing - a rocket engine can get you to height quickly and efficiently but after the fuel is expended then it just becomes dead weight.

Russell

trekchu
June 11th, 2011, 04:22 PM
Besides, as it turned out the Lightning was enough plane for the purpose, I mean this thing did chase intercepts of U-2s from above, i.e. it was flying even higher!

Archibald
June 11th, 2011, 05:27 PM
The Ariane-4 has the same payload as the Soyuz the Russians are using for their manned space vehicles. And although Ariane-4 was not officially manrated, its reliability had reached such high levels that it would have been only a matter of calling it manrated.

That why i didnt understand the retirement of the Ariane-4, as they both served a different portion of the market, the 4 being medium lift and the 5 being heavy lift.

I did the statistics (using Astronautix) one day.

From 1979 to 2003, the Ariane 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 family failed seven times (in 1980, 1982, 1985, 1986, 1990 and two times in 1994, a very bad year).

Five failures were traced to the HM-7 cryogenic stage - the very stage you don't need for low Earth orbit flight, isn't it ?

So two failures remain: the 1980 and 1990 ones.

The 1980 failure happened on the second test flight; destructive pogo on the first stage, which never happened again.

The 1990 failure is so dumb it is hilarious. At the Ariane plant of Les Mureaux, near Paris, some distracted or silly technician forgot a cloth into a Viking cooling tube. Noone noticed it, the tube was bolted to the Viking, the Viking went to Ariane, and Ariane to the Kourou launch pad.
The rocket took off, the cloth made the engine overheating and losing power. The others seven (it was a 44L with podded engines) tried to fill the gap; the rocket veered off course right from the launch, missed the top of its launch tower*** - and a major disaster - by only two meters (!), veered off further, and was destroyed, together with 500 million dollars worth of Japanese communication satellites.

Space balls ! :eek:

*** top of the launch tower was found to be sooted and scorched black by the engines. Had Ariane hit the tower, it would have exploded into a nasty cloud of toxic, hypergolic propellants.
It happened to the Soviets in 1969 with a Proton; it happened to the Air Force Vandenberg pad in 1986 with a Titan 34D. Very ugly disasters !

wingman
June 12th, 2011, 12:15 AM
Space balls ! :eek:


It happened to the Soviets in 1969 with a Proton; it happened to the Air Force Vandenberg pad in 1986 with a Titan 34D. Very ugly disasters !

anybody got pic's?

Workable Goblin
June 12th, 2011, 02:20 AM
The Ariane-4 has the same payload as the Soyuz the Russians are using for their manned space vehicles. And although Ariane-4 was not officially manrated, its reliability had reached such high levels that it would have been only a matter of calling it manrated.

The reliability doesn't actually matter for manrating--you need specialized systems for monitoring engine health for emergency shutdowns and such--it's been an issue with the hypothetical manrating of the EELVs. Probably the fuel had something to do with it as well, since the Ariane 4 used hypergolics. While obviously the Titan II had as well, it had been over 20 years, and safety standards move on. You'd be better off asking someone else though (maybe over at nasaspaceflight, they've got a lot of knowledgeable people), that's not really my area of expertise.

And as for the lift capacity, well, the Soyuz is (and was) actually a fairly limited vehicle. Given that the ESA at the time was developing Hermes--which couldn't be launched on an Ariane 4--and afterwards had totally dropped its own human program, there was no reason to keep Ariane 4 around for human launches. It wouldn't have served any purpose. I suspect the disposal of Ariane 4 also had to do with the use of hypergolics as fuel as much as anything else, those things are nasty and I would suppose that the ESA and EADS were trying to clean up Kourou a bit.

The Oncoming Storm
June 12th, 2011, 02:21 AM
I think the Vandenberg blast is one of those at about 1:08 in this video

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=GB#/watch?v=fJHtkjjwoeg

If you like rocket explosions then you'll like this ;)

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=GB#/watch?v=gL1xUWgBlFw

Archibald
June 12th, 2011, 07:36 AM
Pictures of the exploding Titan 34D-9 - April 18, 1986, Vandenberg, California

http://s76.photobucket.com/albums/j17/TomcatFanatic123/Titan%2034D%20explosion%20pictures/

Mostlyharmless
June 12th, 2011, 09:34 PM
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/1295/arsenalds50vf.jpg

The Arsenal VG fighters. Less than 10 served with France before it surrendered. The last variant, the VG-39bis, could have had Yak-3 level performance by late 1940.

See more from this thread:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=2777
"France 41" could be as interesting a collection of aircraft as the traditional "Luft 46". My favourite puzzle is the performance of the Bloch MB-157 which is quoted as including a maximum speed of 710 km/h or 441 mph at http://www.aviastar.org/air/france/bloch_mb-157.php. This partly comes down to understanding the power of the Rhone-Gnome 14R engine at high altitude as discussed in a thread elsewhere http://warbirdsforum.com/showthread.php?t=1180. Like the Arsenal VG-33 series, the German Heinkel He 100 and Focke-Wulf Fw 187, the MB-157 should have been built in at least sufficient numbers that one would survive. Then we would actually be able to reach a sensible conclusion.

Just Leo
June 12th, 2011, 11:00 PM
The low output of French Gnome-Rhone and Hispano Suiza engines was a curious lapse on their part.

tallwingedgoat
June 12th, 2011, 11:09 PM
"France 41" could be as interesting a collection of aircraft as the traditional "Luft 46". My favourite puzzle is the performance of the Bloch MB-157 which is quoted as including a maximum speed of 710 km/h or 441 mph at http://www.aviastar.org/air/france/bloch_mb-157.php. This partly comes down to understanding the power of the Rhone-Gnome 14R engine at high altitude as discussed in a thread elsewhere http://warbirdsforum.com/showthread.php?t=1180. Like the Arsenal VG-33 series, the German Heinkel He 100 and Focke-Wulf Fw 187, the MB-157 should have been built in at least sufficient numbers that one would survive. Then we would actually be able to reach a sensible conclusion.

Top speed needs to be qualified by weapons and fuel carried. An empty plane is obviously going to be faster than in combat confirguration.

I wonder if the French fighters could be produced in the US. The Arsenal VG series was especially promising. It was made of plywood and thus reduced requirement for strategically important aluminum. the VG-50 variant was designed for the Allison engine due to the shortage of Hispano-Suizas. If France outsource production to America, it could serve as a cheap interium Lend Lease fighter with superior performance to the P-40.

Jonathan Kan
June 14th, 2011, 06:41 AM
I'm going to come out against the FW-187

Considering the ME-110 served competently in the scout, fighter bomber, night fighter (most successful night fighter of the war in terms of kill ratio) the Germans got their money's worth out of the design

The FW-187 was built as an uncompromised fighter and would have had ZERO versatility AND would still have been outperformed by British single engined fighters in the battle of Britain, so if anything, its production as opposed to the ME-110 reduces German strategic options to counter their growing and diversifying air needs as the war progresses

The original Fw187 was a fighter, but there is no reason it could not have been built in dedicated variants for other roles, such as:
Long range Photo recce. You don't need a co-pilot to overfly targets and take pictures, see all the fine work PR spitfires did;
Ground attack with all kinds of external stores and extra guns
Bomber destroyer (in later versions) with Mk103 30mm guns and DB605 engines. Even later with DB603 engines
Torpedo attack. If they could put a torpedo in a Fw190 why not in the Fw187?
Tank buster with a 50mm Gun and extra armour.

The design had the potencial to take newer engines and do anything that a single seater could do.
For the night fighter role the Germans could build more Ju88 nightfighters at first and than build more of the excelent He219.

How about Fw187 instead of early model Bf110. Then as the war progress, Do335 instead of late model Bf110, Me210 and Me410?

Russell
June 14th, 2011, 08:27 PM
This one is one of my favorites.

For those who don’t know, the British Short Belfast was a strategic air lifter designed originally to help provide logistical support to Britain’s V-Bomber force. It was a reasonable design but lacked lift and engine power (its wings were directly copied from the much smaller and lighter Bristol Britannia with RR Tyne turboprop engines). Although capable of transporting any modern Main Battle Tank at the time, it suffered from considerable lackluster performance and was only capable of transporting a maximum payload of 80,000lbs 978 miles.

Therefore, in order to rectify this, Shorts began to design a more modern Turbofan powered model with wings and tail sections based upon those of the USAF C-141 Starlifter (although not directly copied as many sources claim) and powered by four 25,000lb RR Super Conway Engines. As a result, this new aircraft was expected to be capable of carrying a maximum payload of 100,000lbs some 3750 miles! Sadly, the MOD decided that Britain was no longer going to be performing any further strategic operations from the 1960’s onwards…

Regardless, it would have given Britain a unique military asset and export product – the only affordable airlifter capable of transporting a Main Battle Tank outside the Eastern Block (C-5 Galaxy would both come into production half-a-decade later and be far too large and expensive for smaller nations). The market for such aircraft would be small as most European nations are by the 1960’s more concerned with the potential European theatre of war and not larger strategic concerns. However, two countries, namely France and India did show an interest in acquiring large strategic airlifters (Africa with France and the more remote and inaccessible mountainous regions like Kashmir for India).

Russell

Russell
June 14th, 2011, 08:31 PM
Same as above - a contemporary artists impression.

trekchu
June 14th, 2011, 08:32 PM
I see we read the same books! :D

Russell
June 14th, 2011, 08:44 PM
I see we read the same books! :D

Derek Woods "Project Cancelled"?

Russell

The Oncoming Storm
June 14th, 2011, 08:46 PM
I'd never heard of that one before Russell, thanks for putting it up! :)

Edit. Two cargo decks?!

Russell
June 14th, 2011, 09:21 PM
I'd never heard of that one before Russell, thanks for putting it up! :)

Edit. Two cargo decks?!

Yes, the civillian version had two decks - one for passengers and one for cargo. However, both the military and commercial versions had "removable" second decks and it's very likley that had any aircraft been produced such a feature would have been removed all together, leaving only a single cargo space.

NOTE: The aircraft also feature a swing nose feature that would have allowed the transport of large, outsized caro too big to fit ithrough the rear cargo doors.

Russell

abc123
June 14th, 2011, 09:23 PM
Same as above - a contemporary artists impression.

Yes, too bad that RAF didn't get bigger number of ordinary Short Belfasts and that jet Belfast would be a great thing too.
This is one of my personal favourites:

Armstrong-Withworth AW.681

http://www.dumpt.com/img/files/hz1ru8ms7zbr83t8fwaf_thumb.jpg
Provided of course that he should be made as a ordinary transport aircraft, not with VTOL nonsences...

zoomar
June 14th, 2011, 09:45 PM
The picture does not portray the "Shinden". The one portrayed looks more like a Vultee XP-54, an aircraft of limited distinction. Perhaps a Saab.

The plane depicted is Ki-98. A Japanese design never even built in prototype form. The J7W1 was a canard interceptor - one prototype flown in last few days of the war. As much as the real J7W1 is a truly cool-looking plane, it's hard to say it "should have been built" when the nation building actually decided on mass production but only a few more days left. Even in an AH situation with Japan lasting several more years or winning, it's reasonable to imagine it being cancelled in favor of early jets

trekchu
June 14th, 2011, 09:47 PM
Derek Woods "Project Cancelled"?

Russell



Yes. A few years back I was lucky to be able to score a copy of the 1986 edition.

zoomar
June 14th, 2011, 09:58 PM
Whoops, my mistake. Yeah... It's not the Shinden. The Shinden wouldn't have had looked like a pusher variant of the P-38. It's most definitely a Jap copy of the Saab pusher fighter. Still, you gotta admit that it looks awesome. :D

If memory serves, the Ki-98 design study predated the SAAB J-21's first flight, or at least was roughly contemporary so it was not a "Jap copy". Actually several countries toyed with twin boom pusher designs in the 1930s and 1940's and the few actually built - including the SAAB -suffered from poorer than expected performance because of problems cooling the pusher engines. It's reasonable to believe the Shinden would also not have come close to reaching its highly optimistic estimated speed and climb rate for the same reasons

There is a reason all major single engined WW2 fighters were conventional designs with tractor engines. 30 years of aviation history and design experimentation showed this was the best overall approach.

Atlantic Friend
June 15th, 2011, 09:10 PM
The Sud-Ouest 8000 Narval, a proposed embarked attack plane.

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/3769/sudouestso8000narvalaus.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/707/sudouestso8000narvalaus.jpg/)

RogueBeaver
June 15th, 2011, 09:17 PM
The Sud-Ouest 8000 Narval, a proposed embarked attack plane.

http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/3769/sudouestso8000narvalaus.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/707/sudouestso8000narvalaus.jpg/)

Vampire/Venom fuselage, Lightning tail, Do-335 pusher prop? Not very subtle.

Atlantic Friend
June 15th, 2011, 09:24 PM
It even has wings, a pilot, and an engine - total rip-off here. ;)

Nah, it's an Arsenal concept, built around a German Jumo engine.

Kurt_Steiner
June 15th, 2011, 09:30 PM
The Junkers Jumo 213, IIRC.

Atlantic Friend
June 15th, 2011, 09:32 PM
Too bad it came too late. A few years earlier it would have been a nice figter/bomber to have.

Archibald
June 16th, 2011, 09:44 AM
That plane was a beast to fly.

zoomar
June 16th, 2011, 02:38 PM
Vampire/Venom fuselage, Lightning tail, Do-335 pusher prop? Not very subtle.

Really? By your standards there must not have been an original aircraft design since the Wright Flyer.

Torqumada
June 16th, 2011, 03:32 PM
Really? By your standards there must not have been an original aircraft design since the Wright Flyer.

It was a copy of previous Wright designs. ;)

Torqumada

Nihilio
June 16th, 2011, 07:04 PM
Dornier DO-20

http://www.histaviation.com/Do_20_450x202.jpg http://www.histaviation.com/Do_20_Modell_front_view_526x201.jpg

A planned follow-up design to the DO-X, the DO-20 transatlantic flying-boat. A model was exhibited by Domier at the 1936 International Aviation Exhibition in Stockholm. 8 Diesel-Engines of 800-1000hp each were planned to push the giant to a topspeed of 300 km/h and a maximum range of 4000km. This successor of the Do X was supposed for regular transatlantic service. But the Lufthansa saw it as too expensive. (also there was this pesky world-war coming up)

I'd also love a civillian DO-214 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_214) in transatlantic service.

Atlantic Friend
June 16th, 2011, 07:22 PM
The Geddes-I, just for shock value :

http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/9978/geddesplane.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/155/geddesplane.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

NothingNow
June 16th, 2011, 07:22 PM
Dornier DO-20

A planned follow-up design to the DO-X, the DO-20 transatlantic flying-boat. A model was exhibited by Domier at the 1936 International Aviation Exhibition in Stockholm. 8 Diesel-Engines of 800-1000hp each were planned to push the giant to a topspeed of 300 km/h and a maximum range of 4000km. This successor of the Do X was supposed for regular transatlantic service. But the Lufthansa saw it as too expensive. (also there was this pesky world-war coming up)

I'd also love a civillian DO-214 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dornier_Do_214) in transatlantic service.
Eh. The Pan Am Clippers were better, but it'd be good to see more competition in the pre-war era.

Atlantic Friend
June 16th, 2011, 07:23 PM
It was a copy of previous Wright designs. ;)

Torqumada

The Wright brothers ripped da Vinci off! :D

Nihilio
June 16th, 2011, 07:51 PM
Eh. The Pan Am Clippers were better, but it'd be good to see more competition in the pre-war era.

Debatable. Imagine a more adequately motorized DO-X. Even so, don't forget the french. Latecoere and Bleriot built beautiful machines.

What I'd like to see would be a post-WWI Germany only restricted from building airships and a navy, thus boosting the whole aircraft industry. (or a cooperation of Junkers and Dornier, what potential that would have).

This world needs more flying boats!

phx1138
June 19th, 2011, 05:02 AM
Let me nominate the Pulqui (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FMA_IAe_33_Pulqui_II), the He-100 (which was to the Me-109 what the Hurricane was to the Spit, but a better o/a type), the P6M (imagine replenishment of nuclear subs, or insert SeALs anywhere there's a river:eek::cool::cool:), & the I-14.

merlin
June 19th, 2011, 11:10 PM
RAF:
Fighters:

Gloster F.5/34 - if only the first flight was earlier, even six-months would have helped. A good design, handled well, a much better radial option than the Gladiator if any problems with the Merlin! Moreover, good candidate for an 'Empire' fighter.
Boulton-Paul P.88A (Dante) - single-engined Hercules powered 4 x 20 mm cannon fighter (same spec as Whirlwind), treasury wouldn't finance prototypes. Would have given the RAF more time to solve the problems of wing mounted cannons, and been a useful aircraft to have.
Gloster F.9/37 - like the other Gloster aircraft, an earlier first flight should have been possible. All it needed was an earlier adaption of the 'turret fighter' design (same spec as Defiant), with a couple of 20 mm cannon in the nose - in time for the BoB.

Bombers.

Boulton-Paul P.90 (Barnsley) - to spec B.12/36 (same as Stirling), well thought of design, initially placed second after Vickers, but amended after Supermarine lobbying! Have it remain second, result as OTL for Supermarine - but P.90 (with Merlins rather than Kestrels) gets into service not the Stirling.
Bristol (Buckfast) P.13/36 - (same as Halifax & Manchester), smallest of the designs, powered by two Hercules engines. The opportunity is taken to phase out the Blenheim, in favour of the new medium bomber design with bigger bomb-load and faster speed.

Just Leo
June 20th, 2011, 04:45 AM
RAF:
Fighters:

Gloster F.5/34 - if only the first flight was earlier, even six-months would have helped. A good design, handled well, a much better radial option than the Gladiator if any problems with the Merlin! Moreover, good candidate for an 'Empire' fighter.
Boulton-Paul P.88A (Dante) - single-engined Hercules powered 4 x 20 mm cannon fighter (same spec as Whirlwind), treasury wouldn't finance prototypes. Would have given the RAF more time to solve the problems of wing mounted cannons, and been a useful aircraft to have.
Gloster F.9/37 - like the other Gloster aircraft, an earlier first flight should have been possible. All it needed was an earlier adaption of the 'turret fighter' design (same spec as Defiant), with a couple of 20 mm cannon in the nose - in time for the BoB.


Bombers.

Boulton-Paul P.90 (Barnsley) - to spec B.12/36 (same as Stirling), well thought of design, initially placed second after Vickers, but amended after Supermarine lobbying! Have it remain second, result as OTL for Supermarine - but P.90 (with Merlins rather than Kestrels) gets into service not the Stirling.
Bristol (Buckfast) P.13/36 - (same as Halifax & Manchester), smallest of the designs, powered by two Hercules engines. The opportunity is taken to phase out the Blenheim, in favour of the new medium bomber design with bigger bomb-load and faster speed.

I have done design studies of the two Gloster aircraft, which are the only selections actually built. The F5/34 had short range and a weak old engine. A Taurus with some extra volume for fuel "found", or a complete redesign for a Hercules could have resulted in a viable machine.

The F9/37 with Taurus had a warped armament installation which would have rendered it worthless, and a turret installation would render it worse off. The nose area had no room for gun installations, but I checked and found that a Molins gun barrel could pass under the pilot's feet, if the flight controls were shifted to one side. This would have resulted in the ideal tank-buster capable of hitting a tank like the Hurricane IID, but at longer range and penetration, and rendering the over-rated Typhoon to oblivion. A recent investigation of Falais tanks destroyed discovered that Typhoons destroyed two. A previous survey claimed that the Tiffie had a 4% hit rate and a 2% destruction rate. The comparable figures for Hurricane IID were 50% and 25% for tanks up to Panzer IV. The Vickers gun was ineffective for later tanks, and the short range of the gun meant that losses were 12.5%

I lack your faith in the Boulton Paul company, and their proposed P.92 was just too laughable.

The Bristol Buckingham, with Centaurus engines, was curtailed and used for passenger transport, and the lack of speed with the Beaufighter wouldn't translate into an outstanding bomber. A Beaufort with Herculean balls might have been nice.

merlin
June 20th, 2011, 11:33 AM
Just Leo:

I didn't mention the Buckingham, but its intended use was already filled by the Mossie, so the RAF tried to find something else for it, hence it became a 'fast transport'. Not the fault of Bristol IMHO moreso the Air Ministry for changing their mind about the spec and engines.
The Beaufighter was derived from the Beaufort - with slimmer fuselage. A later proposal was the Beaumont (medium & direct support bomber) - a Beaufighter with a new front and centre fuselage - didn't go ahead again Air ministry indecision over requirements.
The Bristol design I refered to was not related to these (though some components of the Blenheim & Bombay were to be used), but a bigger aircraft - but not as big as the other competitors in P.13/36.

I don't see the relevance of the P.92 it was a design to an Air Ministry spec., that the spec was 'laughable' doesn't mean Boulton-Paul was a 'bum' company.

The Gloster twin - original design goes back to F.5/33 - a Bristol Aquila powered turret-armed two seater, brought up to date to meet F.34/35 & F.9/35. Initially F.9/37 was to have a turret, but in 1938 this requirement was dropped. According to BSP - two 20mm cannon were placed beneath the pilot just forward of the rear spar and were inclined at a 'no allowance' angle of 12 degrees. Later an additional three cannon were proposed behind the cockpit - but this was not proceeded with.
A further development of the aircraft was to be the RAF's nightfighter Gloster Reaper - with four cannon beneath the cockpit!
My thought, was that rather than wait till the autumn of '38 to dispense with the 'turret' that this could have been done when F.37/35 was written as a back-up - seems reasonable and plausible - no Blenheim 1F !?

Maybe Gloster should have amended the single-engine design to go for the cannon spec., either way a Hercules powered aircraft would be different e.g. not handle so well. Granted the Gloster F.5/34 is unlikely to have longevity on its side - but as I originally said better than the Gladiator, and wouldn't cope better in hotter regions than the Hurricane it being degraded by the Vokes filter.

Just Leo
June 20th, 2011, 02:10 PM
My distaste for Boulton Paul stems from the pervasive "turret lobby" which existed at the time. A lesson learned in WWI with the Bristol Fighter was that, when attacked, the pilot should turn to face the enemy and use aggressive tactics and a forward facing fixed armament to defeat the enemy, rather than relying on the flexible defensive gun in the rear. There were many in WWII who still espoused the advantages of turret armament which remained inherently defensive and surrendered the initiative to opposing fighters. Boulton Paul's sole contibution to the war revolved around the turret.

Bristol's philosophy of wing design was inherently anchored in an obsolescent belief in thick wings, suitable for a torpedo bomber but less than optimum for a high speed fighter.

The Gloster twin-engine fighter also shared a Bristol-like wing, such that it was 30 mph slower than Whirlwind with the same engines. I found it curious that the Air Ministry showed enough interest in the twin-engine concept, to issue a specification and yet totally ignore the resulting hardware and abort it's development to fruition. They showed less interest in the Gloster than the Whirlwind, and they shunned the Whirlwind.

I don't think it proper to presume that the Hercules-powered F-5/34 would suffer from poor handling. While a Taurus engine would be fittable to something like the original aircraft, a Hercules would require a substantial alteration, allowing for more fuel volume, and suitable power and wing loading factors would have to be addressed which could result in superior performance all around. I attempted the installation on the MS paint program and ended up keeping the original pitot tube.

P-26
June 20th, 2011, 02:54 PM
ARES "Mudfighter" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG9LlHcX8lg)

Lord Dalek
June 20th, 2011, 03:41 PM
The XF-108.

Torqumada
June 20th, 2011, 03:41 PM
ARES "Mudfighter" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zG9LlHcX8lg)

I had forgotten all about that plane. I remember seeing something about it on TV years ago.

Torqumada

merlin
June 20th, 2011, 04:55 PM
Just Leo:

I agree with your comments about 'turret fighters' - a fighter pilot should be that, not a taxi-driver for the gunner! Moreover the Air Ministry infatuation with the 'turret' wasn't just confined to fighters - witness the spec for the B.1/39 heavy bomber with top & bottom turrets with 4 x 20mm cannon - but that is another story!
I think the only good Defiant was the P.94 single-seater.
Yet, I don't think our view on 'turret fighters' should prevent us from considering B-Ps other aircraft designs.

Not quite with you on the 'Bristol wing thickness comment - my suggestion was for a Bomber design - (same spec as Halifax & Manchester) - not a fighter. Though according to BSP "The designers noted that the size of this type of aircraft when fitted with Hercules radials was such that the wing was too small to accommodate the large bomb load."

Beaverbrook hammered the final nail in the Gloster twin coffin, where production was confined to fewer aircraft. While the Air Ministry new they had the Beaufighter to come as a 'heavy fighter'. The Whirlwind was perhaps the exception with a fuselage cross section smaller than that of the engine nascelle, perhaps influenced by the De Haviland Comet!?

Re: performance of Gloster hercules 5/34 - didn't presume it would handle worse, only didn't assume it would handle as well, as you said only thing the same the pitot tube! But then I had previously suggested a Hercules s/s canon fighter - the Boulton-Paul P.88a. Granted the Gloster F.5/34 was powered by the Mercury - but at least its tried and tested, and the hp did go up a little - e.g. 870, 905.

FlyingDutchman
June 20th, 2011, 07:26 PM
My distaste for Boulton Paul stems from the pervasive "turret lobby" which existed at the time. A lesson learned in WWI with the Bristol Fighter was that, when attacked, the pilot should turn to face the enemy and use aggressive tactics and a forward facing fixed armament to defeat the enemy, rather than relying on the flexible defensive gun in the rear. There were many in WWII who still espoused the advantages of turret armament which remained inherently defensive and surrendered the initiative to opposing fighters. Boulton Paul's sole contibution to the war revolved around the turret.


Churchill and half the RAF were in love with heavy turreted fighters.
You're still right that they should have known better.

Whatever Boulton Paul came short with regards to manufacturing aircraft was more then made up on the field of PR/marketing etc. :p

abc123
June 27th, 2011, 11:25 PM
This one is one of my favorites.

For those who don’t know, the British Short Belfast was a strategic air lifter designed originally to help provide logistical support to Britain’s V-Bomber force. It was a reasonable design but lacked lift and engine power (its wings were directly copied from the much smaller and lighter Bristol Britannia with RR Tyne turboprop engines). Although capable of transporting any modern Main Battle Tank at the time, it suffered from considerable lackluster performance and was only capable of transporting a maximum payload of 80,000lbs 978 miles.

Therefore, in order to rectify this, Shorts began to design a more modern Turbofan powered model with wings and tail sections based upon those of the USAF C-141 Starlifter (although not directly copied as many sources claim) and powered by four 25,000lb RR Super Conway Engines. As a result, this new aircraft was expected to be capable of carrying a maximum payload of 100,000lbs some 3750 miles! Sadly, the MOD decided that Britain was no longer going to be performing any further strategic operations from the 1960’s onwards…

Regardless, it would have given Britain a unique military asset and export product – the only affordable airlifter capable of transporting a Main Battle Tank outside the Eastern Block (C-5 Galaxy would both come into production half-a-decade later and be far too large and expensive for smaller nations). The market for such aircraft would be small as most European nations are by the 1960’s more concerned with the potential European theatre of war and not larger strategic concerns. However, two countries, namely France and India did show an interest in acquiring large strategic airlifters (Africa with France and the more remote and inaccessible mountainous regions like Kashmir for India).

Russell

I figured ( after researching about US strategic transport in that time ) that even USA could be one of users of Jet-Belfast if some US company entered partnership with Shorts.

Russell
June 28th, 2011, 12:25 AM
I figured ( after researching about US strategic transport in that time ) that even USA could be one of users of Jet-Belfast if some US company entered partnership with Shorts.

I doubt it. The Jet Belfast probably wouldn't be in service until the mid to late 60's. By that time the C-5 Galaxy was nearing service (1970) in the USAF. The USAF had already decided that Starlifter/Galaxy combination would be more than enough to meet its needs.

Furthermore, the Belfast is a major product and unlikley to simply to be a short term stopgap product (a stopgap need which never existed in the firstplace). As such, given rampant America's pork-barelling nature it would be near political suicide for anyone in the U.S. who seeks to promote it.

Russell

zoomar
June 28th, 2011, 01:11 AM
My distaste for Boulton Paul stems from the pervasive "turret lobby" which existed at the time. A lesson learned in WWI with the Bristol Fighter was that, when attacked, the pilot should turn to face the enemy and use aggressive tactics and a forward facing fixed armament to defeat the enemy, rather than relying on the flexible defensive gun in the rear. There were many in WWII who still espoused the advantages of turret armament which remained inherently defensive and surrendered the initiative to opposing fighters. Boulton Paul's sole contibution to the war revolved around the turret..

I've always wondered if the turret fighter concept might have worked better in a heavy two-seat fighter with unorthodox design (canard or twin boom with a central nacelle pusher prop) with the turret and gunner positioned in the extreme nose, immediately in front of and below the pilot. That way the pilot could "aim" the aircraft in the normal way with the gunner adjusting his aim to compensate for the poorer turning radius of the airplane - something like the Soviets experimented with aim-able cannon in the Mig-15 and other early cannon-armed jets.

NothingNow
June 28th, 2011, 03:04 AM
I've always wondered if the turret fighter concept might have worked better in a heavy two-seat fighter with unorthodox design (canard or twin boom with a central nacelle pusher prop) with the turret and gunner positioned in the extreme nose, immediately in front of and below the pilot. That way the pilot could "aim" the aircraft in the normal way with the gunner adjusting his aim to compensate for the poorer turning radius of the airplane - something like the Soviets experimented with aim-able cannon in the Mig-15 and other early cannon-armed jets.

Yeah, although really, something like that might be better used as a light Bomber or an Interceptor then as a dog fighter, or as a generalist fighter design.

Just Leo
June 28th, 2011, 02:25 PM
The Vickers Gunbus is what you're talking about. No particular advantage in combat with enemy aircraft with a performance advantage. The Bell Airacuda might be another example, although it was just designed as a bomber intercepter. It couldn't catch bombers. Perhaps the P-61 Black Widow, although the turret actually delayed introduction into service. I can't imagine what it's like trying to hit a moving target in a turret gun while the aircraft is pulling G's under someone else's control.

Anyway, it works on helicopters.

zoomar
June 28th, 2011, 07:48 PM
The Vickers Gunbus is what you're talking about. No particular advantage in combat with enemy aircraft with a performance advantage. The Bell Airacuda might be another example, although it was just designed as a bomber intercepter. It couldn't catch bombers. Perhaps the P-61 Black Widow, although the turret actually delayed introduction into service. I can't imagine what it's like trying to hit a moving target in a turret gun while the aircraft is pulling G's under someone else's control.

Anyway, it works on helicopters.

I hadn't considered the WW1 pushers. The Airacuda was such a strange concept. As you reference, I'm imagining a late war (1942-45) design for a heavy fighter or interceptor with a foreward fuselage setup like that in a helicopter gunship, with the front gunner operating a powered turret or being actually within a ball turret carrying a couple of 20mm cannon or four .50s. If a twin boom layout was chosen, a single engine plane such as the Sud-Ouest design pictured previously might work. I might see either a single or twin engine canard. You're right, there must be some inherent problem with the concept, but it sure seems to make more sense than an arrangement like the Defiant or Roc.

Just Leo
June 28th, 2011, 09:44 PM
Technology has caught up with the desire. The combination of helmet-mounted sighting and off-boresight all-aspect missiles means that the turret lobby's desires are now fulfilled. Isn't science grand!

tallwingedgoat
June 30th, 2011, 12:09 PM
Avro Atlantic, the Vulcan bomber based passenger jet which was to take on the Boeing 707.

http://www.nevilshute.org/PhotoLine/PLD-1951-1960/Graphics/avroatlantic.jpg
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a94/WtMiller/6954346b.jpg

Kurt_Steiner
June 30th, 2011, 12:17 PM
Simply awesome.

tallwingedgoat
June 30th, 2011, 12:25 PM
Simply awesome.

Can you imagine being a 1960's playboy with one of these as your private jet?

wietze
June 30th, 2011, 01:12 PM
I could see hugh hefner with one.

Registration G-PBOY or N-PBOY ;)

Name of the plane : The Bunny Bomber ;)

Hendryk
June 30th, 2011, 03:45 PM
Avro Atlantic, the Vulcan bomber based passenger jet which was to take on the Boeing 707.
I note that the seats are rear-facing. Perhaps good for security, but I'm not sure it would go down well with passengers susceptible to travel sickness.

Just Leo
June 30th, 2011, 03:48 PM
That's the silliest thing I ever hoyd! Amurica can do better.

Asnys
June 30th, 2011, 04:02 PM
That's the silliest thing I ever hoyd! Amurica can do better.

What is that thing? It looks like a passenger version of an SR-71.

Just Leo
June 30th, 2011, 06:10 PM
What is that thing? It looks like a passenger version of an SR-71.
Financially better for the company than the L-1011? Good for when you gotta get there yesterday. Based on the concept of the passenger version of the Republic Rainbow.

zoomar
June 30th, 2011, 06:17 PM
Financially better for the company than the L-1011? Good for when you gotta get there yesterday. Based on the concept of the passenger version of the Republic Rainbow.

Well, at least the L-1011 was a mass-market airliner for regular folks. A passenger SR-71 might work as a one-of executive jet, but not a commercial airliner.

Huh? I'm pretty sure the Republic Rainbow was an experimental high speed four-engined piston engined photo-recon plane. It was schemed as an airliner just after WW2, but it would take a lot of redesign and about 25 years to turn it into a mach-3 airplane.

Asnys
June 30th, 2011, 06:17 PM
Financially better for the company than the L-1011? Good for when you gotta get there yesterday. Based on the concept of the passenger version of the Republic Rainbow.

Dang, I was kind of hoping it was a passenger version of an SR-71. For when you were supposed to be there three months ago, and you're hoping to distract your boss from the fact you weren't. :D

Just Leo
June 30th, 2011, 06:37 PM
A combination of mods factually performed on the MiG-21. Dollar store pricing too.

Cymraeg
June 30th, 2011, 06:40 PM
One of the biggest what-ifs of British aircraft design in the Second World War - what if the Martin Baker 3 prototype never crashes? What if the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin-Baker_MB5 is built as a result?

Doctor Imperialism
June 30th, 2011, 06:49 PM
Don't know if this has been posted yet but . . . holy shit. . .

http://englishrussia.com/2009/01/25/russian-flying-fortresses/

I mean, imagine being some small country that Mother Russia has decided to pick on, and see these behomeths fly into your country - your soldiers would be too busy urinating in fear to do anything.

zoomar
June 30th, 2011, 07:09 PM
Interesting melange of the real and a much larger CGI fantasy. Good to know somebody has something to use against flying saucers.

Kurt_Steiner
June 30th, 2011, 07:11 PM
Well, at least the L-1011 was a mass-market airliner for regular folks. A passenger SR-71 might work as a one-of executive jet, but not a commercial airliner.

It might be the US answer to the Concorde, perhaps.

zoomar
June 30th, 2011, 07:15 PM
It might be the US answer to the Concorde, perhaps.

Maybe, but it's probably far too small to compete. Now, how about a civil B-70?

AMF
June 30th, 2011, 07:29 PM
Two British planes that have already been mentioned: BAC TSR. 2 and Hawker P.1121. I think the looks of the Hawker plane (the one in the background) are not generally well known.

AndyC
June 30th, 2011, 07:31 PM
Maybe, but it's probably far too small to compete. Now, how about a civil B-70?

I remember seeing an artists impression of a B-70 with windows for passengers. However, it did apparently raise some eyebrows - during a tour, a Senator asked what happened if the wingtips did not come back up after flight and prevented landing. The test pilot replied "We'd eject".

Senator raises eyebrows. "All three hundred of you!?"

AMF
June 30th, 2011, 07:33 PM
How the TSR-2 might have looked in action, perhaps over Iraq:

tallwingedgoat
June 30th, 2011, 10:27 PM
I could see hugh hefner with one.

Registration G-PBOY or N-PBOY ;)

Name of the plane : The Bunny Bomber ;)

I was thinking more of Austin Powers. Cue music.

wietze
July 1st, 2011, 10:09 AM
I was thinking more of Austin Powers. Cue music.

Good one, Austin in the british plane and hugh in that american one that was posted later.

Austins plane... the Supersonic Aero Shagger ;)

Russell
July 1st, 2011, 11:51 AM
Two British planes that have already been mentioned: BAC TSR. 2 and Hawker P.1121. I think the looks of the Hawker plane (the one in the background) are not generally well known.

Apologies for sounding like a heretic, but I often struggle to appreciate some of these military mega projects. While I appreciate the loss of the Hawker P.1121, the loss of super expensive and often impractical designs like the p.1154 was most likely a blessing in surprise. It's design, for instance would most likely never have been practical for its intended purpose (rough field V/STOL operations) while the problems with gas in gestation would have been disastrous.

The TSR.2 - a fundamentally great aircraft but the costs and limited export potential limiting the numbers which could have been operated made it a white elephant and would have left the air force without enough tactical fighter support. A smaller but reasonably ranged tactical/strike fighter ala the AFVG or an original spec Tornado (before the Germans and Italians cut it's balls off) would have been much better for both the British military and the countries export market. Such an aircraft could also be a good multi role strike/interceptor for the navy.

The Avro Arrow - probably the greatest pure interceptor ever in terms of design time frame and electronic technology used. But it was vastly more aircraft than the RCAF ordered and had a limited, nay non existent export market given:

A - How thorough bred it was in terms of being a pure standoff high altitude missile platform. Probably very limited versatility given this and taking into consideration other such similar designs like the MIG-25, Delta Dart and the EE Lightning. The best aircraft of the era were the likes of the Mirage III and Phantom II that could effectively multitask and do so for a good price.

B - For Canada at least, but by the time the Arrow first flew the main threat to the country was no longer long ranged bombers but ballistic missiles. Such a high performance race horse was no longer needed and simply ate funds away from where it was really needed - the RCN's sub hunting ability.

C - It was monstrously expensive. Even before development had ended (and costs rise further) it already cost four times that of the Delta Dart. Much like the TSR-2 this would effectively limit the numbers operated both domestically and for export.

Sadly, all in all even more of a white elephant than the TSR-2.

However, for those of you who love the P.1121 and other what if's, I found this just the other day - enjoy!

http://www.bisbos.com/aircraft_cancelled.html

Russell

AdA
July 1st, 2011, 03:09 PM
Maybe, but it's probably far too small to compete. Now, how about a civil B-70?

MiG did scale models and maybe some research on a passenger carrying MiG25 derivative. Why the soviets wanted to design the worlds fastest executive jet is anyone's guess. Maybe just to scare up the US airdefences while doing a visit to Cuba...

AdA
July 1st, 2011, 03:57 PM
Here´s a model. If I was secretary General I would have one built...
Than I could say to reagan: You capitalists are soo slow...

KyleB
July 1st, 2011, 06:21 PM
Bristol M.1 fighter--good potential, but rejected for service on the Western Front because the British didn't like monoplanes.

http://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acimages/bristol_m1c_jenneycoffey.jpg

wietze
July 1st, 2011, 07:36 PM
The TSR.2 - a fundamentally great aircraft but the costs and limited export potential limiting the numbers which could have been operated made it a white elephant and would have left the air force without enough tactical fighter support. A smaller but reasonably ranged tactical/strike fighter ala the AFVG or an original spec Tornado (before the Germans and Italians cut it's balls off) would have been much better for both the British military and the countries export market. Such an aircraft could also be a good multi role strike/interceptor for the navy.

Hmmz maybe get the airforce to use the Blackburn Buccaneer earlier in the strike role, think it is a great plane.

Bureaucromancer
July 1st, 2011, 09:58 PM
Hmmz maybe get the airforce to use the Blackburn Buccaneer earlier in the strike role, think it is a great plane.

Military correct but damnit this thread is about the aircraft :p

Russell
July 2nd, 2011, 02:41 PM
Hmmz maybe get the air force to use the Blackburn Buccaneer earlier in the strike role, think it is a great plane.

I could not agree more! If the government had been less clumsy about how they coordinated Fleet Air Arm and RAF procurement then a joint Navy/Air Force buccaneer could have developed. In order to soften the blow to the RAF's ego a deal could have been struck where the Bucc got a brand new digital attack system as opposed to the analogue one of OTL. As such, the much improved Buccaneer S.1 enters service circa 1962 as OTL with the S.2 shortly after while potentially a supersonic S.3 model (probably mach 1.8 max) could be developed at a low cost for the end of the decade. Come to the 80's, it could be replaced by the Panavia Tornado (or hopefully, a more capable equivalent) before being totally phased out in the 90's. A good, solid but also cost efficient strike fighter/bomber with reasonable export potential to places like Germany, India, S. Africa and perhaps even Australia in lieu of their somewhat costly F-111's.

Russell

abc123
July 2nd, 2011, 02:50 PM
Apologies for sounding like a heretic, but I often struggle to appreciate some of these military mega projects. While I appreciate the loss of the Hawker P.1121, the loss of super expensive and often impractical designs like the p.1154 was most likely a blessing in surprise. It's design, for instance would most likely never have been practical for its intended purpose (rough field V/STOL operations) while the problems with gas in gestation would have been disastrous.

The TSR.2 - a fundamentally great aircraft but the costs and limited export potential limiting the numbers which could have been operated made it a white elephant and would have left the air force without enough tactical fighter support. A smaller but reasonably ranged tactical/strike fighter ala the AFVG or an original spec Tornado (before the Germans and Italians cut it's balls off) would have been much better for both the British military and the countries export market. Such an aircraft could also be a good multi role strike/interceptor for the navy.

The Avro Arrow - probably the greatest pure interceptor ever in terms of design time frame and electronic technology used. But it was vastly more aircraft than the RCAF ordered and had a limited, nay non existent export market given:

A - How thorough bred it was in terms of being a pure standoff high altitude missile platform. Probably very limited versatility given this and taking into consideration other such similar designs like the MIG-25, Delta Dart and the EE Lightning. The best aircraft of the era were the likes of the Mirage III and Phantom II that could effectively multitask and do so for a good price.

B - For Canada at least, but by the time the Arrow first flew the main threat to the country was no longer long ranged bombers but ballistic missiles. Such a high performance race horse was no longer needed and simply ate funds away from where it was really needed - the RCN's sub hunting ability.

C - It was monstrously expensive. Even before development had ended (and costs rise further) it already cost four times that of the Delta Dart. Much like the TSR-2 this would effectively limit the numbers operated both domestically and for export.

Sadly, all in all even more of a white elephant than the TSR-2.

However, for those of you who love the P.1121 and other what if's, I found this just the other day - enjoy!

http://www.bisbos.com/aircraft_cancelled.html

Russell

I agree.
Only bad thing aout Hawker 1121 is maybe that it is a very large aircraft ( about 22 m long IIRC ).
Maybe TSR-2 would be a good aircraft if they make it with VG wings like Vickers V.589.

Also, can you tell me more about that "original" Tornado?:confused:

Russell
July 2nd, 2011, 03:17 PM
I agree.
Only bad thing aout Hawker 1121 is maybe that it is a very large aircraft ( about 22 m long IIRC ).
Maybe TSR-2 would be a good aircraft if they make it with VG wings like Vickers V.589.

Also, can you tell me more about that "original" Tornado?:confused:

Yes, the P.1121 was huge - the single seat version was 67 feet long while a proposed two seat interceptor was nearer 70 feet! Too damn big! Personally, if I were doing it, in 1957 I would have Sydney Camm design a scaled down version of his P.1103, single seat and powered by something like the RR Medway. At less than 60 feet it would have been a good fighter - just the thing the RAF needed.

As for the TSR-2, there was nothing wrong with the aircraft - it was, like the Arrow a superb machine! It was the concept of a long range semi-strategic strike bomber that made costs rise (along with the usual political fucking about). A smaller strike fighter bomber would have been ideal.

As for the "original Tornado". Britain originally wanted a much longer ranged VG aircraft capable of both strike roles (a single 2500lb nuclear device at a range of roughly 1000 miles) and interception (including the ability to loiter over airspace) to replace its Buccaneers. However, both Italy and Germany only wanted a lightweight short ranged strike fighter to replace their F-104's in the ground attack role. As a result a compromise followed and the Tornado Spec was watered down to what we have today with less fuel and weaker engines. Had Britain pressed on alone and suceeded it is highly likley that both the Germans and Italians would have bought this superior aircraft either way.

Russell

The Oncoming Storm
July 2nd, 2011, 04:09 PM
I've never been a TSR.2 fan myself for the reasons Russell has set out. During the early 1960's Lord Mountbatten waged a one man war against the TSR.2 trying to get potential export customers to pick the Buccaneer. He used to arrive at meeting with a briefcase from which he would take out 5 models of a Buccaneer and one of a TSR.2, he would then tell the potential buyer "You can have 5 of them for 1 of that!" While his tactic was crass and probably made the RAF determined to kill CVA.01 so as to get back at the Navy his point was totally spot on, TSR.2 was too costly and an enhanced "Super Buccaneer" could have fulfilled most of it's role during the 1960's while AFVG or something similar was developed to come into service during the 1970's.

abc123
July 2nd, 2011, 04:11 PM
Yes, the P.1121 was huge - the single seat version was 67 feet long while a proposed two seat interceptor was nearer 70 feet! Too damn big! Personally, if I were doing it, in 1957 I would have Sydney Camm design a scaled down version of his P.1103, single seat and powered by something like the RR Medway. At less than 60 feet it would have been a good fighter - just the thing the RAF needed.

Russell


P.1103 with the rocket boost or without?

KyleB
July 2nd, 2011, 05:09 PM
The Avro Arrow - probably the greatest pure interceptor ever in terms of design time frame and electronic technology used. But it was vastly more aircraft than the RCAF ordered and had a limited, nay non existent export market given:

A - How thorough bred it was in terms of being a pure standoff high altitude missile platform. Probably very limited versatility given this and taking into consideration other such similar designs like the MIG-25, Delta Dart and the EE Lightning. The best aircraft of the era were the likes of the Mirage III and Phantom II that could effectively multitask and do so for a good price.

B - For Canada at least, but by the time the Arrow first flew the main threat to the country was no longer long ranged bombers but ballistic missiles. Such a high performance race horse was no longer needed and simply ate funds away from where it was really needed - the RCN's sub hunting ability.

C - It was monstrously expensive. Even before development had ended (and costs rise further) it already cost four times that of the Delta Dart. Much like the TSR-2 this would effectively limit the numbers operated both domestically and for export.

Sadly, all in all even more of a white elephant than the TSR-2.

BURN THE HERETIC!!

Still, I have to agree with you there. The white paper was right.

Russell
July 2nd, 2011, 06:14 PM
P.1103 with the rocket boost or without?

Without. No longer an interceptor and more of an air superiroity/dogfighter the need for boosters is more or less gone. A direct Hunter replacement.

Russell

abc123
July 2nd, 2011, 06:38 PM
Without. No longer an interceptor and more of an air superiroity/dogfighter the need for boosters is more or less gone. A direct Hunter replacement.

Russell

Do you maybe have a some picture of P.1103?

Russell
July 2nd, 2011, 07:30 PM
I do but I can't upload it. Do an image search on google - there are a few images out there.

Russell

wietze
July 2nd, 2011, 07:56 PM
http://www.rp-one.net/f_155_t/graphics/h_p1103_85sqdn_raf_1.png

picture of P1103

Winston Smith
July 2nd, 2011, 08:25 PM
Looks a bit like the F-16 to me.

abc123
July 2nd, 2011, 08:28 PM
Hawker P.1121/1103 or Fairey Delta 2?

Wich one is better solution for RAF and UK in 50s-60s?

wietze
July 2nd, 2011, 09:22 PM
the FD 2 was a research aircraft never intended for combat

abc123
July 2nd, 2011, 09:30 PM
the FD 2 was a research aircraft never intended for combat

Well, some combat version of his?
He looks like Mirage...

Kurt_Steiner
July 2nd, 2011, 09:45 PM
Looks a bit like the F-16 to me.

And to me, too.

Russell
July 2nd, 2011, 10:02 PM
the FD 2 was a research aircraft never intended for combat

Fairy did propose a combat capable variant of the FD.2. For all intents and purposes it would have been more or less completely identical to the Mirage III. However, like the mirage III it would have been little more than a cheap multipurpose interceptor. Hawkers design, like all Sidney Camm aircraft are fighters first. Fast and agile I recon it would have run circles around the likes of the Mirage III and Phantom II

Russell

merlin
July 3rd, 2011, 09:16 PM
RAF
WW2

Bombers:

Hawker Henley - if the RAF weren't so 'anti' dive-bombing it could have played a useful role, faster and a better bombload than the Battle. Though it has been pointed out here it had a tendency to spin, yet the Typhon was perceived with despite the crashes.

Boulton-Paul P.90 (Barnsley) to spec B.12/36 - originally place second after Vickers before Supermarine lobbying - powered by 4 Kestrels (change to Merlins) est. max speed 290 mph, bombload 14,000 lb. Ordered instead of Stirling - more Sunderlands available.

Bristol (Buckfast) to spec P.13/36 - the smallest of the designs at 79 ft span, powered by two Hercules engines (Deerhound alternative). Perhaps as well as the Manchester and Halifax, this is also ordered, but intended as an early replacement for the Blenheim and Hampden - with the Torpedo carrying capability retained.

Just Leo
July 4th, 2011, 11:53 PM
The Henley lacked a good engine. That could have happened. On the right, a better canopy, lengthened tail, dive brakes and armament could have made it a contender.

I have a multitude of WI Fairey Delta aircraft that could have been. Less an aircraft than the EE Lightning, but a much better weapon.

Russell
July 5th, 2011, 11:03 AM
I have a multitude of WI Fairey Delta aircraft that could have been. Less an aircraft than the EE Lightning, but a much better weapon.

It would certainly have been an excellent EE Lightning substitute - easier to build, cheaper and in service much earlier. Fairey was highly interested in producing a further test variant powered by the Avon successor the Rolls Royce RB.106 "Thames". It was believed that it could be capable of Mach 2.5 and a supercrusie of around 1.3. The RAF was supposedly interested by this proposal as both an intermediate interceptor and potential contingency should FT.155 program fail.

Russell

SactoMan101
April 26th, 2012, 03:51 AM
Pity that the RAF didn't take up on the F-111K order. The RAF could have ended up by 1975 with a VERY capable low-altitude ground attack platform (equivalent of what the FB-111A became) carrying a large bomb load that could attack targets well into eastern Europe from British bases. And maybe with a 100-120 plane fleet, could have retired the V-bombers by the middle 1970's except for a small fleet converted to tankers. And through various upgrades (e.g., modified Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 engines and an electronics suite similar to that of the F-15E Strike Eagle), these planes would still be operational even in 2012.

The Oncoming Storm
April 26th, 2012, 06:21 AM
Another option the RAF could have chosen was a stretched version of the Mirage IV with Spey turbofans and British avionics. I've always thought the standard Mirage IV was one of the most beautiful aircraft ever but it was never developed to its full potential

Here (http://airlinebuzz.com/forums/showthread.php?26998-FLIGHTS-OF-FANTASY-Royal-Air-Force-Dassault-Mirage-IV) is a thread from another forum that about an RAF Mirage that has some profiles of what it could have looked likez

Just Leo
April 26th, 2012, 01:00 PM
Another option the RAF could have chosen was a stretched version of the Mirage IV with Spey turbofans and British avionics. I've always thought the standard Mirage IV was one of the most beautiful aircraft ever but it was never developed to its full potential

Here (http://airlinebuzz.com/forums/showthread.php?26998-FLIGHTS-OF-FANTASY-Royal-Air-Force-Dassault-Mirage-IV) is a thread from another forum that about an RAF Mirage that has some profiles of what it could have looked likez

There was a pondered version of Mirage IV with a pair of P&W J-75s, but it was deemed too expensive.

SactoMan101
April 27th, 2012, 07:29 AM
Another option the RAF could have chosen was a stretched version of the Mirage IV with Spey turbofans and British avionics. I've always thought the standard Mirage IV was one of the most beautiful aircraft ever but it was never developed to its full potential


The problem with the Mirage IV was the fact the bomb load was just too small--after all, if I remember correctly, it only carried a single nuclear weapon for its primary nuclear deterrent mission! The F-111K could have carried a very large variety of bomb loads like the F-111D/E/F models; carrying two WE177 nuclear bombs internally plus four external fuel tanks, the F-111K probably had an operational radius probably well into the Soviet Union from British bases.

viewcode
August 12th, 2013, 03:58 AM
Some aircraft were too good to cancel, and some of them could have had a major impact. My favourite is the MiG ye8, that should have replaced the MiG21 and made the MiG23 unnecessary.
The TSR and Arrow come to mind, as does the He100 from 1939.


If we widen the field to include spacecraft, may I suggest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-Derived_Heavy_Lift_Launch_Vehicle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIRECT

Cook
August 12th, 2013, 08:16 AM
Pity that the RAF didn't take up on the F-111K order...And through various upgrades (e.g., modified Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 engines and an electronics suite similar to that of the F-15E Strike Eagle), these planes would still be operational even in 2012.

Don't count on it; Australia retired its F-111 fleet in 2010, and had for several years been operating them on restricted flight hours. They'd simply racked up too many hours on the airframes to keep them operational any longer.

wietze
August 12th, 2013, 10:17 AM
If we widen the field to include spacecraft, may I suggest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-Derived_Heavy_Lift_Launch_Vehicle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIRECT

how about these

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOTOL
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/saegerii.htm