aircraft that should have been built

[Russell]

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]

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]

I reguarly wonder which has more utility in both civillian and military applications - Helicopters, Gyronplanes or Tiltwings/tiltrotors?

Russell

 

[Sior]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

my three favorites

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:

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

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...

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

 

[wietze]

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

 

[Just Leo]

Some of the aircraft I think should have, or could have been built.

 

[The Oncoming Storm]

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)

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

 

[wietze]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[TofuTanker]

The Miles M52 deserved a chance. It could have even been the first supersonic aircraft.

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

 

[asnys]

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.