Aircraft that where cancelled that so when forward

Jim Smitty

Jim Smitty

Hawker Siddeley P.1154(UK)
It was the a great VSTOL design that could fight with the best fighter of its days.

VJ 101 (West Germany0
Could been a great ground attack VSTOL aircraft.
 

anon_user

Keeping with the V/STOL theme:
Yak-41 - a supersonic V/STOL plane that would've made the Kiev-class have a fighter complement worth worrying about, rather than the shitty Yak-38.
 

BlairWitch749

Banned
the do-335...given the technology and design date it could have been in squadron service in late 1941, and been the best single seat piston engine fighter period... problem was willi messerschmidt was a hitler favorite... this derailed a lot of better designed german planes
 
Jim Smitty

Jim Smitty

A good fixed wing aircraft would been the XF-108 Rapier. Would been a good fighter something the F-4 never was.

For a bomber it would been BAC TSR-2. It would been a good in the tactical and strategic rolls.
 

Geekhis Khan

F-20 Tigershark...awesome aircraft doomed for arriving at exactly the wrong time...right after the F-16 had already taken over as the Free World's multipurpose fighter of choice.
 

corditeman

The Heinkel He162 Spatz...

If it had been introduced a year earlier, it would have decimated the Allied air forces. A cheap and very manoeuverable little jet.
 

Just Leo

The Austin AFB.1 was designed to suit the tastes, and with the input of Albert Ball. The cancellation verified the fact that aircraft weren't built for the men that flew them. Are you listening, Colonel Boyd?

The McDonnell XP-67 Combat Wombat demonstrated the best features of blended wing design, but in the end, proved that experimental aircraft and experimental engines are an unlikely mix.

Seconds on Avro Arrow, P.1154, TSR2, F-20.

Honorable mention of He-100D, FW-187.
 

Bernard Woolley

The HS.1154 would have had problems operating away from main airfields due to the ground erosion problems due to the PCB. It would not have been as flexible as the Harrier.
The RN probably took the right decision in chosing the F-4 over the HS.1154(RN). Test pilot Eric 'Winkle' Brown and the head of HS both thought so.

Much as I'd loved to have seen the TSR.2 in service; it was certainly years ahead of its time; it was probably an over ambitious project. That statement does make me a bit of a heretic, although I'm a TSR.2 enthusiast.
It would probably have been better for the RAF to chose a developed version of the Buccaneer. It would have given most of the capacity of the TSR.2 at a much lower price.

Blackburn P.150 'Supersonic Buccaneer'.
p150.jpg
 

Bernard Woolley

corditeman said:
If it had been introduced a year earlier, it would have decimated the Allied air forces. A cheap and very manoeuverable little jet.
Click to expand...

I think could have might be more accurate. The Germans would have to overcome several major problems.

1: Solve the problem of their jet engines having a life measured in single figures (less than 8 hours often). Conversely British and American jet engines were much more reliable - lasting for hundreds of hours - and much more thrust.

2: Somehow survive against massive Allied air strength and not be blown to bits on the ground, as the Me.262 was on many occasions.

3: Have enough fuel to field an effective force.
 

xchen08

corditeman said:
If it had been introduced a year earlier, it would have decimated the Allied air forces. A cheap and very manoeuverable little jet.
Click to expand...

What, the plane that had a tendency to spontaneously fall apart midair, and is impossible to ditch from without the pilot getting sucked into the engine, which also happened to block all vision to the rear?

Only a nation desperate enough to go kamikaze is going to come up with such a design. It certainly would be quite a boon to the Allies if that had happened to Germany a year earlier...
 

chibile

xchen08 said:
What, the plane that had a tendency to spontaneously fall apart midair, and is impossible to ditch from without the pilot getting sucked into the engine, which also happened to block all vision to the rear?
Click to expand...

Well, the falling apart was mainly due to the glue problems, since they had to change to untested ones as the factory that made the good glue was bombed out just before production. As far as I recall they eventually got the wood laminates to stay together. ^o^
If we postulate production start a year earlier as suggested, the glue won't be an issue. Heck, we might even see it not made mostly from wood.

Which leads us to the engine and its placement, given a wood fuselage and a single engine, this was pretty much the only option. I guess the experience with the similar styled V-1 might have been a factor, too.
Supposedly the He 162 was equipped with an ejection seat, so clearing the jet intake should be just a factor of correct alignment and blast power.

I totally grant you the loss of visibility to the rear. ^o^
Maybe at the speed of this plane and intended targets/opponents it was deemed to be an acceptable limitation. See also the reports of Me 262 pilots and their tactics, relying on superior speed.
 
TheMann

TheMann

The Avro Arrow wins this thread. Period. The Arrow was the greatest fighter in the world when it rolled out of the plant in Malton in 1957, and should have seen decades of service with Canadian Forces and perhaps a number of export customers.
 

EAF602Whizz

Since some of my favourites like the F20 are already picked I'll go with more versions of the Hunter. An earlier interim Hunter (P1081 of course) to counter the MiG/Sabre and the P1083 sonic Hunter to be a contemporary of the MiG 19/Super Sabre.

Also the Martin Baker MB5 was sweet, but admittedly too late in the jet revolution to be adopted perhaps.
 

Dan Reilly The Great

Banned
the YF-12 fighter, sure it's hardly practical, but just imagine an untouchable fighter that can outrun SAM's and AAM's(at the time anyway). Just so sweet.
 

fastmongrel

The Gloster F5/34 was a sweet looking and by all reports sweet handling radial engine fighter that was never produced even though it was almost as fast as the Hurricane on nearly 200 less horsepower. It was overtaken by events big orders had been signed for the Hurricane and Spitfire and the Rolls Royce Merlin to power them there just wasnt the capacity to produce another fighter or its engine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloster_F.5/34
 

KokkenKunten

F - 108 Rapier, F - 12 & Avro Arrow whilst all fine designs are interceptors - not fighters.

Their role would be interception of long range bomber formations carried out at the maximum achievable range. To think they would perform as fighters (F - 108 better than F - 4???) shows a complete lack of understanding. These airframes are stressed for + 5.5 g / - 2.5 g and their aerodynamic design totally precludes such foolishness. Even the mooted weapons for these beasts operate in an engagement envelope totally unsuited to the classic "Knife fight in a phone booth" dogfight.

Putting these beauties into an arena where the opposition fields fighters with the appropriate weapons is going to result in a lot of very expensive, smoking holes in the ground. Given the speed advantage, your only hope in this scenario is to run...

Sorry to be such a pedant but understanding the role and abilities of your asset is key to the effectiveness with which it is deployed!

Regards,
Frank
 

Just Leo

MancFrank said:
F - 108 Rapier, F - 12 & Avro Arrow whilst all fine designs are interceptors - not fighters.

Their role would be interception of long range bomber formations carried out at the maximum achievable range. To think they would perform as fighters (F - 108 better than F - 4???) shows a complete lack of understanding. These airframes are stressed for + 5.5 g / - 2.5 g and their aerodynamic design totally precludes such foolishness. Even the mooted weapons for these beasts operate in an engagement envelope totally unsuited to the classic "Knife fight in a phone booth" dogfight.

Putting these beauties into an arena where the opposition fields fighters with the appropriate weapons is going to result in a lot of very expensive, smoking holes in the ground. Given the speed advantage, your only hope in this scenario is to run...

Sorry to be such a pedant but understanding the role and abilities of your asset is key to the effectiveness with which it is deployed!

Regards,
Frank
Click to expand...

The F-108, F-12, Avro Arrow, and F4 were designed as intercepters. That's why they didn't carry a gun. The Arrow could only pull 2 G's at Mach 1.5 at 50,000 ft. None of them could bring down a manoevering enemy aircraft unless it flew into the fireball of a nuclear Genie. Sparrows had a Pk of nothing against fighters and Sidewinders loved the sun. However, all these aircraft could shoot down bombers, without bothering with pesky enemy fighters due to superior speed.


Regarding the Gloster F5/34, it is typically British that priority was given to production of biplane Gladiators.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top