PDA

View Full Version : Would the british been first to go supersonic? Eric Brown on X-1 and M52



F19_Olli72
10-08-2005, 04:21 AM
Just saw an interesting show on Discovery with interview clips with Captain Eric Brown. Seems U.S.A was first to go supersonic with the Bell X-1 because they got the idea of a moving tailplane from the british.

The british worked on their own supersonic plane, the m52. Another brit (didnt catch his name) said the brits knew the nessecity of a moving tailplane already in 1943. In the 70s it was estimated that M52 couldve done 1 and times supersonic, about 1600 km/h.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/research/m52/m52_01.jpg

In 1948, Eric brown flew supersonic for the first time in a display in the U.S (kinda missed this part but i belive they said it was in a russian jet, the russians copied the british engine). They had to prove it was supersonic by making the 'bang' over the field. So Brown did it and broke a generals greenhouse, he was not happy and wanted to be payed 30 dollars for the damage(!).

MrBlueSky1960
10-08-2005, 05:32 AM
Ohhhhh Yes... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif We would have done it no doubt about that, if not for some shenanigans with the powers that be€¦ The M-52 would have gone super sonic with a jet, and not I may add with some oversized fire cracker stuffed up the tail... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif And been able to take-off and land under her own steam. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

The Americans came over to the Miles factory in 44 on a €˜You show me yours and we will show ours€ visit€¦ The Miles team were told to let them have whatever they wanted, and were promised that they would be able to do the same with the American data€¦ Unfortunately for them, when the time came for the Americans to play their part of the bargain they welshed€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif We were told it would not be forthcoming as it was detrimental to the nations security€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

And then to cap it all we see Mr Chuck Yeager, the man who broke the sound barrier, saying it was all down to the Bell Aircraft Corp, with "their" all moving tail... Talk about rubbing salt in the wound... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

With friends like that, who needs enemies... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Then there's the Atom Bomb... But thats another story... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

blairgowrie
10-08-2005, 06:15 AM
Just wait until our American cousins wake up. They will have something to say about this lol.

F19_Ob
10-08-2005, 06:16 AM
Kind of pitty they didn't model the Meteor for this game. (although I'm happy with what we got)
We would have had use of the jets then.
Although the meteor and 262 never met it would anyway been fun to pit them against eachother in some DF mission.
As it is now jets really have very limited use.

anyway.... thanks for posting bro.

SkyChimp
10-08-2005, 06:46 AM
The British would have been the first to do a lot, if it weren't for other people doing it before them. **** them. **** them all to hell.

Chuck_Older
10-08-2005, 06:50 AM
It's all been discussed before. Yeager's flight was very carefully documented. The Science of it was scrutinized. All the T's were crossed and the I's dotted. The attempt to break the sound barrier by Yeager was for a certain date, at a certain time, under certain conditions, and verified by certain Scientific means


A sonic boom over an airfield. Sure, that's supersonic, fine. How fast was he going? Can you have an Official speed record verified without knowing how fast that speed was? or the conditions that prevailed so as to correct for that and get the true speed? At the time, you couldn't just have the boom and that was proof enough

It's like any other World Record attempt. Certain criteria must be met, certain things must be verified, or it is not Official. Yeager's attempt is called officially "the first" because he did it under those conditions

I'm sorry it rankles folks but it's the way it is. Doesn't matter if it was carried by a B-29 or kicked into the air by the Amazing Field-Goal Kicking Mule, or if it was a rocket, a jet, or a steam engine. The X-1 was a technology test bed and it worked. So what if the technology was a dead end. It was explored, used, evaluated, and ultimately rejected as practical

F19_Olli72
10-08-2005, 07:03 AM
Dudes, i just posted it cos i thought it was interesting subject. Dont make it a flame thread please.

And Chuck, about the boom over the field. That was Eric Brown words that they had to prove it by a 'boom'. I dont know more than he said. But obviously it was good enough for the american brass. He was there, you and I werent.

And it wasnt a record attempt in any way, it was a flight display for military brass showing supersonic planes.

BaldieJr
10-08-2005, 07:07 AM
I love it. Tell me more about these supposedly smart english persons.

F19_Olli72
10-08-2005, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by BaldieJr:
I love it. Tell me more about these supposedly smart english persons.

What do you want to know about Eric Brown? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Chuck_Older
10-08-2005, 07:15 AM
Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
Dudes, i just posted it cos i thought it was interesting subject. Dont make it a flame thread please.

And Chuck, about the boom over the field. That was Eric Brown words that they had to prove it by a 'boom'. I dont know more than he said. But obviously it was good enough for the american brass. He was there, you and I werent.

You misunderstand completely. Eric Brown and the American brass certainly felt and heard what they felt and heard. I am not refuting it

But there isn't much in the way of actual data recorded is it?

You're looking at this from the "Well obviously it happened" standpoint, and I am telling you that it must be looked at the "Well here's the way we conducted the experiment" standpoint for it to be Officially the first supersonic flight

I am not arguing and will not argue that it happened before Yeager's flight. I will however argue that in order for it to be recognised as "the first time" by the scientific community that it must be done under controlled conditions, and the experience of the pilot and the American brass does not meet this requirement.

It was a scientific acheivement; why is it so hard to understand that it must be properly documented to be proven as scientific fact? Without the eggheads saying "yup, or numbers prove out", it wasn't a recognised acheivement. The experiment must be documented and analyzed.

No variables must be ignored. A bunch of non-scientists standing around hearing a thunderclap and a push in the chest, and some broken windows are all very real evidence....but evidence is all it is. proof is proof and in this case it needs real data, not a physical event that was unrecorded by science and undocumented by science. All data must be hard and proven. It's not a question of "Well we know it happened". It's a question of "We know it happened, here's our test data, our monitored conditions, our findings, and the results which prove it"

F19_Olli72
10-08-2005, 07:17 AM
Eh..that display wasnt described as 'first' supersonic flight. That was posted as Eric Browns first supersonic flight. A misunderstanding about a misunderstanding.

Browns flight was in 1948. Chuck Yeager broke the soundbarrier 1947.

Chuck_Older
10-08-2005, 07:21 AM
??? I'm just commenting on the nature of the "first" supersonic flight. We all know where the discussion will end up. It always comes down to "Yeager wasn't the first" no matter the nature of the discussion. I'm just trying to make a point about why something that happened six months after it really happened for the first time can still be actually "the first"

I shouldn't have keyed on Brown's flight because of the dates

F19_Olli72
10-08-2005, 07:30 AM
No you misunderstand my post again. The first part and the header of this post is the british moving tailplane and its use on X-1. Meaning hypothetically the british couldve been first hadnt the americans and X-1 gotten the moving tailplane thingy from the british.

Chuck Yeager was the first, no doubt about it. And im not disputing that at all (dont know why you think i would).

The second part of the post is Eric Browns recollections of his first supersonic flight. Not really related at all to X-1 and Yeager but cool info nevertheless. At least to me.

Chuck_Older
10-08-2005, 07:32 AM
No, I understand you now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I never should have used Brown's flight to illustrate my point. To be honest, I had this story confused with one in which the Brits claim to have gone supersonic prior to Yeager's flight- Which is almost certainly true- but can't be proven

MrBlueSky1960
10-08-2005, 07:34 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif 'Sigh' I€m sorry, but my argument is not €˜who€ did it. But, by the way it was done€¦ Tell me, is it not a fact that the information €˜given€ to the Americans that culminated in the ability to €˜break the sound barrier€ was formulated and tested in Great Britain, by the Miles M-52 Project Team and was, in an act of international friendship, between two countries with a €˜Special friendship€ passed to the Bell Team with the understanding that they would allow the Miles Team the same privilege€¦ Is that what was supposed to happen, or have I been misinformed€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

If it is, don€t you think, to put it in a way that people think we English speak, namely, it was €˜Not playing Cricket€ that the Americans welshed on the deal. And even now don€t admit that the Bell X-1, Chuck Yeager and the Bell Corp, owe their undeniable wonderful success to the Miles Team in breaking this thorny aeronautical problem€¦

p1ngu666
10-08-2005, 08:23 AM
the miles m52 project was dropped quickly after the war, and no one really knows why http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

chucks flight was probably the first to break sound barrier in level flight?

Xiolablu3
10-08-2005, 08:41 AM
Theres a prog on the History Channel about Whittle soon and how he was done over with Interviews of Whittle himself....

Not sure what the story is but I heard a clip of it where he says - ' We the ones who pioneeered the thing, were in the end not even allowed in the project' or something similar...

Don't think its connecyed with what you are talking about but interesting nontheless, wasnt his Jet engine the one that is not in use today? (Something about Centrifugal flow or something :P)

Daiichidoku
10-08-2005, 09:07 AM
hahahah

all so funny

yeagar's flight was the first "official" SS flight, with proper documentation

was there SS flight before that?
maybe
there are reports of (AFAIK) george welch diving an F 86 transonicially a few weeks prior to the X-1s SS flight
and supposedly of a 262 doing this somtime as well

who knows? the possiblilty certainly exists of it happenening pre-X1, but no real proof has come to light...atleast here, to the nUBIe wolrd conference of aerospace engineer/pilot/technicians


i have almost no doubt, personally, that some poor geezer in a 262 or 163 went SS in 44 or 45....but on a one-way trip to 16feetundergroundland, complete with all the extra "speed holes" he would never need

one thing for sure...had meier goering not swtiched away from attacking RAF's family jewels in 1940, the germans would have been first in this regard 100%


here in canada, there is a LOT of media we get from the states...im quite familiar with americans and american things being the "first" at everything
its eother ignorance of facts, or ignorance of context, that being that USA "is the world" (irrefutable...what was common GI vernacular for USA in vietnam?), thus whatever they DID do first, was, first in "the world"

example: so many times one will read or hear on tv about boeings 707...the "first" jet airliner (or "first" transcontinental JL)
first for the states, sure...they rarely mention that insignifigant detail though

guess its too embarrassing to let all-american boys know the tea-sippin poofs in fogland were the first...and thier half-tea-sippn, half-eskimo cousins in igloo-land were second


and i use to think that communist russia was an over-centralized system, lol

Daiichidoku
10-08-2005, 09:10 AM
BTW

von ohain kiks whittles A S S http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

jimDG
10-08-2005, 09:22 AM
As far as hear-say goes, the first supersonic a/c was D-346, a supersonic rocket plane project started in Germany and completed in Russia. However, it went supersonic with a German pilot, so the even was not publicized, and when the flight was repeated with a russian pilot the prototype crashed.

MrBlueSky1960
10-08-2005, 09:36 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
hahahah

all so funny

yeagar's flight was the first "official" SS flight, with proper documentation

There€s not an argument about who went supersonic€¦ It€s about who invented the €˜All moving€ and or €˜Flying Tail€ that enabled the Americans X-1to go SS€¦ And the fact that the British Miles team are given no credit for it in American supersonic literature€¦

AnyWhoo... If you want to upset a Yank, ask him/her to name a 10th Generation, born 'New' American relation... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BaldieJr
10-08-2005, 10:41 AM
Wright Flyer 3 had moving tail.

The real issue here is the geneology of the Wright Brothers. Thier ancestors would clearly be the leading conributors to aeronitcs, and the nationality of those people would simply have to be superior in every way.

I'd like to point out how very busted crop duster is again.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Von_Rat
10-08-2005, 11:02 AM
being 1st is very over rated.

its what people do with it afterward that really counts.

even if britain had done it 1st, would they have had money and resources to delvelop super sonic flight the way it was in us and russia.

same goes for Abomb,britain was far ahead, but lacked money resources to see it though.

ARCHIE_CALVERT
10-08-2005, 11:08 AM
http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/specs/bell/x-1.htm

p1ngu666
10-08-2005, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
being 1st is very over rated.

its what people do with it afterward that really counts.

even if britain had done it 1st, would they have had money and resources to delvelop super sonic flight the way it was in us and russia.

same goes for Abomb,britain was far ahead, but lacked money resources to see it though.

yeah, we woulda made a supersonic passenger airliner http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Von_Rat
10-08-2005, 11:24 AM
and we all know how well that turned out, did it ever make any money?

ARCHIE_CALVERT
10-08-2005, 11:28 AM
http://www.thespaceplace.com/history/rocket2.html

This was when the U.S. Air Force took over. For the normal pay of a few hundred dollars a week, which included flight pay, an Air Force pilot would make the attempt. The man chosen was World War II ace Captain Chuck Yeager, one of the most junior pilots but also the best. He believed and trusted his chief engineer, Jack Ridley, that it could be done. During trial flights there had been severe buffeting and loss of elevator control at mach .94 but Ridley designed a moving tail that fixed the problem.

http://www.edwards.af.mil/articles98/docs_html/splash/nov97/cover/ridley.html

First and foremost, he was a problem solver, well able to deal with unexpected situations as well as new aerodynamic principles. One such problem was a complete loss of elevator effectiveness which Yeager experienced during his eighth powered flight as his machmeter indicated a speed of Mach 0.94 (his true airspeed was in the range of 0.96-0.99 Mach, just below the speed of sound). At that speed, the little research plane stopped responding to all elevator control inputs, leaving the pilot unable to change his pitch angle, or to raise or lower the plane€s nose in flight. When speed decreased slightly, the problem abruptly disappeared. Analysis suggested that a shockwave was forming along the elevator€s hinge line, leaving it ineffective. Ridley determined in that speed range, the elevator itself could safely be dispensed with and the X-1€s entire horizontal stabilizer, which could be adjusted for trim changes, be used for pitch control. The idea worked, and Ridley€s concept eventually came to be incorporated in all supersonic aircraft €" the "flying tail."

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Te..._X_planes/Tech27.htm (http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/early_X_planes/Tech27.htm)

The X-1 actually had a conventional tail with elevators for pitching the nose up and down. However, at high speeds, a shockwave formed on the tail surfaces near the hinge for the elevators, rendering them useless. But the X-1 also had a system for raising and lowering the entire tail a few degrees to adjust the trim of the airplane in flight (to enable it to fly level). Yeager and the X-1 flight engineers proposed using this system instead of the elevators at high speeds to control the airplane. It worked and this lesson was secretly incorporated into American fighter planes at the time, giving the United States a technological edge over Soviet, French, and British aircraft for several years. Today, all supersonic aircraft use all-moving tail surfaces.

http://www.cebudanderson.com/yeagerdisplay03.htm

Yeager and the rest of the small Air Force test team met at Muroc in late July. After three glide flights in the X-1, he flew it to a speed of 0.85 Mach on his first powered flight on 29 August. He encountered severe buffeting and sudden nose-up and -down trim changes during his next six flights. The, during his eighth flight on 10 October, he lost pitch control altogether, as a shock wave formed along the hingeline of the X-1s elevator. He reached Mach 0.997 that day but, without pitch control, it would have been foolhardy to proceed. Fortunately, the X-1 had been designed with a moving horizontal tail and Capt Jack Ridley convinced Yeager that, by changing its angle of incidence in small increments, he could control the craft without having to rely on the elevator. This had never been attempted at extremely high-speeds before but Yeager was game to give it a try on the next flight.
On the 14th of October, he dropped away from the B-29, fired all four chambers of his engine in rapid sequence and accelerated away from the launch aircraft. Accelerating upward, he shut down two chambers and, while still climbing, tested the moveable tail as his Machmeter registered numbers of 0.83, 0.88 and 0.92. Moved in small increments, it provided effective control. He reached an indicated Mach number of 0.92 as he leveled out at 42,000 feet and relit a third chamber of his engine. The X-1 rapidly accelerated to 0.98 Mach and then at 43,000 feet, the needle on his Machmeter jumped off the scale. Chuck Yeager had just crossed the invisible threshold to flight faster than the speed of sound. He attained a top speed of Mach 1.06 (700 mph).


http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4305/ch10.htm

Wing thickness seems to have been the only design criterion for the XS-1 about which any members of the Langley research staff seriously disagreed. Both Stack and Gilruth wanted Bell to design the airplane's horizontal tail using a thinner airfoil section than it used for the wings, for they knew that if the wing and the tail had the same section thickness, both surfaces would reach the critical Mach number at the same time. The simultaneous experience of high drag rise of the wing and other compressibility effects from the tail could easily cause the pilot to lose control of the plane and crash. Stack and Gilruth also insisted that Bell make the horizontal tail surface all-moving-that is, make the entire horizontal stabilizer adjustable by the pilot in flight. They realized that at subsonic speeds a pilot could ordinarily retain control of his aircraft, if a problem arose, by moving the elevator on a fixed horizontal stabilizer. At transonic speeds, however, they feared that this type of control probably would not be possible. At Langley's suggestion, the NACA also advised Bell to put the adjustable stabilizer high on the vertical fin of its airplane. This position, the laboratory staff had said, would keep the control surface safely above the wing wake.

Abbuzze
10-08-2005, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by ARCHIE_CALVERT:

The X-1 actually had a conventional tail with elevators for pitching the nose up and down. However, at high speeds, a shockwave formed on the tail surfaces near the hinge for the elevators, rendering them useless. But the X-1 also had a system for raising and lowering the entire tail a few degrees to adjust the trim of the airplane in flight (to enable it to fly level). Yeager and the X-1 flight engineers proposed using this system instead of the elevators at high speeds to control the airplane. It worked and this lesson was secretly incorporated into American fighter planes at the time, giving the United States a technological edge over Soviet, French, and British aircraft for several years. Today, all supersonic aircraft use all-moving tail surfaces.


Very interesting, cause thats a perfect description of the Me109 trimming system http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif very effective, a few degree to much noseheavy and pulling up out of a dive was impossible just with the stick, if you trim tailheavy the nose will raise violently.

p1ngu666
10-08-2005, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
and we all know how well that turned out, did it ever make any money?

what, turned out really well?, and yes, it was a tidy little earner for british airways for along time actully.

admittidly it was sold for 1 pound, and the tax payer did end up paying for it, but that didnt matter cos everyone loved it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ARCHIE_CALVERT
10-08-2005, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
and we all know how well that turned out, did it ever make any money?

Does'ent matter if it did or not, it brought into the world something that had not been seen before, it made the world a smaller place, and it took alot of top celeb's and exec's to where they wanted to be in 3hrs, rather than the rest of us pleb's having to suffer a 8hr flight...
But mostly it showed the rest of the world a airliner so advanced that even today it is still at the edge of Aeronautic technology...

p1ngu666
10-08-2005, 12:18 PM
http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666///SIMG6771.JPG

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666///SIMG6773.JPG

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666///SIMG6774.JPG

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666///SIMG6775.JPG

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666///SIMG6777.JPG

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666///SIMG6779.JPG

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666///SIMG6781.JPG

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666///SIMG6782.JPG

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666///SIMG6783.JPG

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666///SIMG6785.JPG

http://premium1.uploadit.org/pingu666///SIMG6786.JPG

Von_Rat
10-08-2005, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by ARCHIE_CALVERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
and we all know how well that turned out, did it ever make any money?

Does'ent matter if it did or not, it brought into the world something that had not been seen before, it made the world a smaller place, and it took alot of top celeb's and exec's to where they wanted to be in 3hrs, rather than the rest of us pleb's having to suffer a 8hr flight...
But mostly it showed the rest of the world a airliner so advanced that even today it is still at the edge of Aeronautic technology... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes it was very advanced, but don't you think theres a reason why the us and russia never really developed theirs. i think the reason was they realised it just wasn't worth the cost. if you count development cost, factored for infaltion, i don't think it made any money, though i could be wrong. and money is the bottom line as far as civilian aviation goes. military is very differant.

as far as im concerned, i'd rather not have my tax dollars used to make celebs lives easier.

BaldieJr
10-08-2005, 12:37 PM
I want you to google OCR.

ARCHIE_CALVERT
10-08-2005, 12:38 PM
p1ngu666, thankyou for that... You have slain the babbling Yahoo's... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Oh, that was good...

Bill_Door
10-08-2005, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:

yes it was very advanced, but don't you think theres a reason why the us and russia never really developed theirs.
as far as im concerned, i'd rather not have my tax dollars used to make celebs lives easier.

What do you mean with "russia never really developed theirs"
Of course they did:
Tupolev Tu-144 (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/TU-144.html) Tupolev Tu-144

And about the tax dollars - there are much worse ways to spend them as to build the most beautiful plane of the planet - which for a change - is not created to kill and destroy.

SkyChimp
10-08-2005, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by Abbuzze:


Very interesting, cause thats a perfect description of the Me109 trimming system http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif very effective, a few degree to much noseheavy and pulling up out of a dive was impossible just with the stick, if you trim tailheavy the nose will raise violently.


Beat me to it. I was gonna say it all sound very Me to me.

luftluuver
10-08-2005, 01:06 PM
There is a difference in a trimmable tailplane and an all moving tailplane. The 109's tail plane did not move with the joystick, only the elevator did.

ARCHIE_CALVERT
10-08-2005, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Abbuzze:


Very interesting, cause thats a perfect description of the Me109 trimming system http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif very effective, a few degree to much noseheavy and pulling up out of a dive was impossible just with the stick, if you trim tailheavy the nose will raise violently.


Beat me to it. I was gonna say it all sound very Me to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Monkey see, Monkey do... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Von_Rat
10-08-2005, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by Bill_Door:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:

yes it was very advanced, but don't you think theres a reason why the us and russia never really developed theirs.
as far as im concerned, i'd rather not have my tax dollars used to make celebs lives easier.

What do you mean with "russia never really developed theirs"
Of course they did:
Tupolev Tu-144 (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/TU-144.html) Tupolev Tu-144

And about the tax dollars - there are much worse ways to spend them as to build the most beautiful plane of the planet - which for a change - is not created to kill and destroy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes and the us had the sst, but neither delvoped them for real use anywhere near as much as concorde.

if i want beauty i'd rather have my tax dollars spent on a painting,,, much cheaper. lol

p1ngu666
10-08-2005, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by ARCHIE_CALVERT:
p1ngu666, thankyou for that... You have slain the babbling Yahoo's... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Oh, that was good...

jeoremy clarksons book, i know youve got soul or whatever its called http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

still a special plane, even in model form. went to a small model aircraft meeting with my dad months ago, guy flew a model concorde there, everyone was quiet, no one else flew at the same time, and when he landed everyone clapped http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

p1ngu666
10-08-2005, 01:26 PM
ever seen one in the flesh rat?

ARCHIE_CALVERT
10-08-2005, 01:28 PM
Von_Rat:

yes and the us had the sst, but neither delvoped them for real use anywhere near as much as concorde.

if i want beauty i'd rather have my tax dollars spent on a painting,,, much cheaper. lol

Would you say the same if it were your space programs acheivements being vilified... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Zyzbot
10-08-2005, 01:32 PM
Vilified? Oh the drama!

ARCHIE_CALVERT
10-08-2005, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Zyzbot:
Vilified? Oh the drama!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ARCHIE_CALVERT
10-08-2005, 02:08 PM
Well, we€ve taken the p#ss out of the Anglo €" French Concord, mentioned that the Wright Bros had a moving tail on the Wright 3, and the German Me109€s trimming system is remarkably similar, Bashed the British€¦ But not one of you have said one word about a nation, that after agreeing to share it€s knowledge on the new science of super sonic aviation, then refused to share it€s own findings with it€s War time ally. Then told the world that they had solved the problem that had them stumped... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


All€s fair in Love and War€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif We should watch our backs€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Big Time€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Von_Rat
10-08-2005, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by ARCHIE_CALVERT:
Von_Rat:

yes and the us had the sst, but neither delvoped them for real use anywhere near as much as concorde.

if i want beauty i'd rather have my tax dollars spent on a painting,,, much cheaper. lol

Would you say the same if it were your space programs acheivements being vilified... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

vilified??? i hope your joking, i didn't vilify anything, i just stated i don't think it made money. is that vilifing it?

it remains to be seen if the space program pays off. but now that the brits and other countrys are sucked in with us, i guess we all lose if it doesn't.

Von_Rat
10-08-2005, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by ARCHIE_CALVERT:
Well, we€ve taken the p#ss out of the Anglo €" French Concord, mentioned that the Wright Bros had a moving tail on the Wright 3, and the German Me109€s trimming system is remarkably similar, Bashed the British€¦ But not one of you have said one word about a nation, that after agreeing to share it€s knowledge on the new science of super sonic aviation, then refused to share it€s own findings with it€s War time ally. Then told the world that they had solved the problem that had them stumped... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


All€s fair in Love and War€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif We should watch our backs€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Big Time€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

yep, much the same thing happened with the abomb research. both sides thought they were taken advantage of, lota bad feelings afterward.

but its not like the brits didn't pull a fast one or two on us poor coloinels during ww2 also. heck they had secret agencys in this country trying to get us involved in the war, by almost any means, fair or foul, before pearl harbor. of course the nazis were also doing the same to keep us out.

Daiichidoku
10-08-2005, 03:20 PM
Jack Ridley was an RCAF officer

Daiichidoku
10-08-2005, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by jimDG:
As far as hear-say goes, the first supersonic a/c was D-346, a supersonic rocket plane project started in Germany and completed in Russia. However, it went supersonic with a German pilot, so the even was not publicized, and when the flight was repeated with a russian pilot the prototype crashed.


interesting

who started the D-346 project?

have any pics or line drawings?

fordfan25
10-08-2005, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by blairgowrie:
Just wait until our American cousins wake up. They will have something to say about this lol.

na, we dont care. you euro's are always makeing cr&p up http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif like chekove from startrek http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Xiolablu3
10-08-2005, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by ARCHIE_CALVERT:
Well, we€ve taken the p#ss out of the Anglo €" French Concord, mentioned that the Wright Bros had a moving tail on the Wright 3, and the German Me109€s trimming system is remarkably similar, Bashed the British€¦ But not one of you have said one word about a nation, that after agreeing to share it€s knowledge on the new science of super sonic aviation, then refused to share it€s own findings with it€s War time ally. Then told the world that they had solved the problem that had them stumped... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


All€s fair in Love and War€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif We should watch our backs€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Big Time€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Have you heard about the dodgy past of the Lockheed Starfighter? Britain had a fighter in the works which was much better suited to the needs of the European NATO countries and was all set for the go ahead (I forget what it was called). Then Lockheed bribed the countries which were going to buy/fund the British Design (Of course not found out until much later) and so they bought the Starfighter instead (A very unstable dangerous plane) .....There was much shadyness in the US dealings in the 30 years after the war. (maybe today? we will find out in another 30 years)

It was a plane which had a rocket like the Komet to boost it up to high altitudes and then the Jet took over, it was purpose made to intercept high flying Russian bombers in the event of attack and defend the countries which were very close to the Russians such as West Germany.

There was a whole program about it on the History Channel, does anyone know the name of the plane? I think the series was called 'Planes which never flew' or something similar. The prototype flew with much success but it never went into full production.

John_Stag
10-08-2005, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ARCHIE_CALVERT:
Well, we€ve taken the p#ss out of the Anglo €" French Concord, mentioned that the Wright Bros had a moving tail on the Wright 3, and the German Me109€s trimming system is remarkably similar, Bashed the British€¦ But not one of you have said one word about a nation, that after agreeing to share it€s knowledge on the new science of super sonic aviation, then refused to share it€s own findings with it€s War time ally. Then told the world that they had solved the problem that had them stumped... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


All€s fair in Love and War€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif We should watch our backs€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Big Time€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Have you heard about the dodgy past of the Lockheed Starfighter? Britain had a fighter in the works which was much better suited to the needs of the European NATO countries and was all set for the go ahead (I forget what it was called). Then Lockheed bribed the countries which were going to buy/fund the British Design (Of course not found out until much later) and so they bought the Starfighter instead (A very unstable dangerous plane) .....There was much shadyness in the US dealings in the 30 years after the war. (maybe today? we will find out in another 30 years)

It was a plane which had a rocket like the Komet to boost it up to high altitudes and then the Jet took over, it was purpose made to intercept high flying Russian bombers in the event of attack and defend the countries which were very close to the Russians such as West Germany.

There was a whole program about it on the History Channel, does anyone know the name of the plane? I think the series was called 'Planes which never flew' or something similar. The prototype flew with much success but it never went into full production. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.spaceuk.org/sr53/177/sr177.htm

ARCHIE_CALVERT
10-08-2005, 04:37 PM
http://www.unrealaircraft.com/classics/sr_53_177.php

http://jpcolliat.free.fr/trident/images/sr53_5.jpg
This is the SR.53 an earlier Saro flirtation with Mixed-power A/C... Smaller than the proposed SR.54 -SR.177 it to was scrapped, but one survives at RAF Cosford...

You want to check out the Hawker P.1121 If it had been ordered in 1958 - Remember that, 1958 it would have been in operational service by 1964, capable and strong enough to undertake all that the Phantom was purchased to do, but four years sooner... World Beater http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/HawkerP1121.jpg

Hmmm... All the time we thought it was the Labour Gov. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

ARCHIE_CALVERT
10-08-2005, 05:36 PM
http://prototypes.free.fr/p1127/image/p1103_01.jpg

I have a lot of info on these cancelled projects from the Crowood Aviation Series €˜British Experimental Turbojet Aircraft€ Published 2003
Towards the end of the chapter on the Hawker P.1121 it states €œ The constructed elements (1st Prototype) were passed on to Cranfield for instructional purposes, after which it went into the RAF Museum€s reserve collection, but from there the trail runs cold and whether it exists today is doubtful€¦€

Then I came across this:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?p=625887

From a photo in the book, showing the prototype€s nose and centre section in Hawkers experimental section€¦ It looks like the missing prototype has been found€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

jimDG
10-08-2005, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jimDG:
As far as hear-say goes, the first supersonic a/c was D-346, a supersonic rocket plane project started in Germany and completed in Russia. However, it went supersonic with a German pilot, so the even was not publicized, and when the flight was repeated with a russian pilot the prototype crashed.


interesting

who started the D-346 project?

have any pics or line drawings? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

couldn't find any in the net, saw it once in a mag - looked like a bf109 with thin wings and noze glass cockpit for a prone pilot (bit like a mini he-111 front gunner position)

Zyzbot
10-08-2005, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by jimDG:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jimDG:
As far as hear-say goes, the first supersonic a/c was D-346, a supersonic rocket plane project started in Germany and completed in Russia. However, it went supersonic with a German pilot, so the even was not publicized, and when the flight was repeated with a russian pilot the prototype crashed.


interesting

who started the D-346 project?

have any pics or line drawings? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

couldn't find any in the net, saw it once in a mag - looked like a bf109 with thin wings and noze glass cockpit for a prone pilot (bit like a mini he-111 front gunner position) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


This may be what you are looking for: DFS 346

Aircraft under wing of "Soviet" B-29
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Village/4082/mistel1/346_2.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Village/4082/mistel1/346.htm

jimDG
10-09-2005, 04:42 AM
exactly! thanks!

Waldo.Pepper
10-09-2005, 05:57 AM
Lets start a fund to get p1ngu a scanner. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

p1ngu666
10-09-2005, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Lets start a fund to get p1ngu a scanner. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

got one actully, just havent pluged it in http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

think its only usb 1.1 tho, so teh slow http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Aaron_GT
10-09-2005, 10:28 AM
The TSR-2 could also have been a competitor for the F-111. This didn't happen, but some of the tech did make its way into the Concorde. The TSR-2 project was killed in the 1960s, semi-resurrected in the 1970s, and then finally and definitively killed off in the 1980s.

Aaron_GT
10-09-2005, 10:30 AM
Another project that died - the super Buccaneer - a supersonic larger version. One of the problems for the TSR-2 was that Blackburn pitched the super Buccaneer as a competitor in some markets, notably the Austrlian one, as a cheaper alternative. So it helped kill the TSR-2, and then the super Buccaneer project died too...

MB_Avro_UK
10-09-2005, 02:40 PM
Regarding the TSR2 RAF plane that was cancelled in the 1960s...

An uncle of mine was an RAF pilot at the time and said that it was designed to fly at low level at high speed but the G-Forces were too much for the crew to bear and was therefore cancelled. Anyone throw any light on this http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro

ARCHIE_CALVERT
10-09-2005, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Regarding the TSR2 RAF plane that was cancelled in the 1960s...

An uncle of mine was an RAF pilot at the time and said that it was designed to fly at low level at high speed but the G-Forces were too much for the crew to bear and was therefore cancelled. Anyone throw any light on this http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Best Regards,
MB_Avro

Surely that can't be true... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Like driving a car, it only goes as fast as your right foot, so you would only fly at speeds that you could stand... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Mind you, getting back to the reason the Miles project was killed off, it sounds like the stupid sort of reason they would dream up... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

jimDG
10-09-2005, 04:03 PM
No one has yet mentioned the Avro Arrow?

ARCHIE_CALVERT
10-09-2005, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by jimDG:
No one has yet mentioned the Avro Arrow?

Give us a chance, we've only just got to the TSR2... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Thats next on the list...

Daiichidoku
10-09-2005, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by ARCHIE_CALVERT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jimDG:
No one has yet mentioned the Avro Arrow?

Give us a chance, we've only just got to the TSR2... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Thats next on the list... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


the orenda iroquois engine was taken aprt in england, and much of its engineering went into the olympus, powering the TSR 2 and later the concorde

the arrow achieved at least mach 1.8 at 40,000 with room to spare, using 2 P7W J 57s...to illustrate, the iroqouis, in its initial form, ready to fly, (the arrow never saw this installation...a few more weeks would have seen it in the arrow, before cancellation) weighed 1,400lbs less than the J 57 and delivered 40% more thrust...

anyhow, lets keep this TSR 2, at least...
arrow would need its own thread...

(btw, there are plans afoot to remanufacture and FLY an arrow for 2009, the 100th anniversary of powered flight in canada, and the 50th anniversary of the arrow...the greatest aeronautical achievment made by canada, since or ever, which was cancelled 3 days beofre the 50th flight in canada celebrationshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif )

Aaron_GT
10-10-2005, 01:15 AM
An uncle of mine was an RAF pilot at the time and said that it was designed to fly at low level at high speed but the G-Forces were too much for the crew to bear and was therefore cancelled.

They fly the Tornado like this without the crew blacking out. Mind you, in the Tornado the ground following can also be done by just the autopilot, which is pretty impressive.

The Buccaneer had a reputation for being able to pull some impressive low level maneouvers too, until these were curtailed after a wing failure (metal fatigue, requiring repairs to the whole fleet). The supersonic Buccaneer could have been an impressive plane, but the TSR2 would have been better still.

WOLFMondo
10-10-2005, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
being 1st is very over rated.

its what people do with it afterward that really counts.

even if britain had done it 1st, would they have had money and resources to delvelop super sonic flight the way it was in us and russia.


Post war British aviation is considered Britains golden age of flight by somehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Some also think the 30's is as well. Take your pick, allot of innovation happened at both those times. It did take a while, until 1960 to get a truly excellent supersonic fighter (the Lightning).

nakamura_kenji
10-10-2005, 04:00 AM
http://www.parrysound.com/albums/albums/tagboard/AvroArrow.jpg
http://www.f-111.net/images/tsr2-F-111.jpg
http://www.petergoodearl.co.uk/airdays/raf50/lightning.jpg

modern plane boring everyone fly same few varient p_q bring back odd ball

Blottogg
10-10-2005, 05:39 AM
AFAIK, both the Arrow and TSR2 died due to politics and economics, not due to any physiological, or technical, limits.

I know there are several Lightnings flying, or being restored to flight status, but I hadn't heard anything about building an Arrow replica to fly. I don't mean to hijack the thread, but since it's been mentined, I would think this would be very difficult since the politicians who killed it also ordered all the tooling, and even plans, destroyed. There were plans afoot to recover a subscale aerodynamic model fired on the end of rocket for research, which landed in a lake in Canada, but I don't know what ever became of that effort, either.

Thanks to Olli for starting this thread, and posting the Miles M52 picture. Like most Ami's, I hadn't heard about it. Not to take anything away from British innovation, but even with the Bell visit, it is possible that both teams came up with the same solution independently. It wouldn't be the first time in aviation innovation sprang up in more than one location at the same time (Wittle and Von Ohain, anyone?)

luftluuver
10-10-2005, 05:59 AM
There is always the speculation by some that the Arrow was canned because of pressure from the Americans.

All that is left of it

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/AWA1/601-700/walk...5_Varosi/walk663.htm (http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/AWA1/601-700/walk663_Cf-105_Varosi/walk663.htm)

jimDG
10-10-2005, 06:15 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
There is always the speculation by some that the Arrow was canned because of pressure from the Americans.

All that is left of it

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/AWA1/601-700/walk...5_Varosi/walk663.htm (http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/AWA1/601-700/walk663_Cf-105_Varosi/walk663.htm)

it was - the logic being that canadians will not be able to prevent the arrow's technical secrets falling in to the hands of soviet spies.
IMHO the reason was that americans will simply not put their trust their areal defence to another nation (agains bombers flying across the north pole). On the other hand, the Nene engine was powering mig-15s at the time..

p1ngu666
10-10-2005, 08:11 AM
amusingly, there where russians who said it was easier to find out what the americans had, than another russian service. due to the extreme secracy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Daiichidoku
10-10-2005, 12:44 PM
the scale research model WAS recovered from lake ontario, near trenton CFB

there are a surprising number of blueprints, planes, tech reports and hardware the survived, actually

http://www3.sympatico.ca/mkostiuk/arrow.html


dunno what happened to the "arrow alliance" webiste...its a cell phone ad site now...?

arrow alliance, headed by peter zuuring

luftluuver
10-10-2005, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
the scale research model WAS recovered from lake ontario, near trenton CFB

When did this happen? Last I heard all that had been found was booster rockets.

SkyChimp
10-10-2005, 07:34 PM
I don't see the post-war years as the "Golden Age" of aviation for Great Britain. Neither do some aviation historians, most notably Francis Mason - a well renowned historian on British aviation. In fact I see it as just the opposite. I see it as the period where Great Britain decisively fell behind in design and execution and became truly second-rate in terms of innovation and aircraft design. There were a few notable exceptions, but not enough, IMO, to come to any other conclusion.

I don't mean this as an insult, because it had nothing to do with a shortage of competence, but rather primarily a shortage of money. The British were unable to fund the development of new aircraft to the degree the US and USSR did. Additionally, they did not study captured German technology to any significant length, technology which gave the US and USSR invaluable shortcuts in the development of new aircraft.

The British jump-started US jet development in the early '40s. While years ahead of the US early in WWII, it was the US that ended WWII with arguably the best jet fighter to come out of that war, the P-80 Shooting Star. By the late '40s, Britain had clearly lost any lead it may have had in jet fighter development. By 1949, one can argue if the MiG-15 or the F-86A was the world's best fighter. Either way, Britain had nothing comparable. It was 5 more years before Hunters were delivered to the RAF, a jet fighter just then comparable to the F-86 and MiG-15. But by then, the US had the F-100 Super Sabre, a plane significantly exceeding the Hunter in performance.

Mason sums up the issue in the early '50s this way, "The first flight of the Hunter took place from Dunsfold on 16 May 1953, but that even tended to be overshadowed by the cancellation of the P.1803. There is no doubt that the appearance of the North American F-100 Super Sabre, capable of supersonic speed in level flight, had a profound effect on the Air Staff's outlook for, all to painfully, it highlighted RAF Fighter Command's inferiority in first-line aircraft. The F-86 Sabre, a genuinely transonic fighter, had not only been in service for four years but had fought with great distinction over Korea, while the RAF could still boast of nothing better than first generation subsonic Meteors and Vampires."

It appears the Korean War illustrated the dire straights the RAF was in at the time, for the RAF committed no fighters to that war, possibly because it had no fighters worth committing.

Throughout the 1960s, there was the occasional bright spot in British fighter development, most notably the Lightning. But even then more capable multi-role planes were available such as the F-4 Phantom.

It's arguable whether the British have ever caught up. The Typhoon appears to just now be exceeding the capabilities of the F-16, a plane that has been in service for something like 20 years, yet is still significantly behind the F-22.

F19_Olli72
10-10-2005, 10:53 PM
What about the Harrier then? A plane that even the U.S saw the need for and McDonnell jumped on the bandwagon with Hawker. But again, the brits were first. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Daiichidoku
10-10-2005, 11:00 PM
Olli, i think thats why chimp said "a few notable exceptions"

F19_Olli72
10-10-2005, 11:07 PM
Ah well, just thought id mention it. It is after all a very famous 'exception'.

WOLFMondo
10-11-2005, 01:00 AM
SkyChimp, thats why I put arguablehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Some see the advances and designs like the Comet, the V bombers, the Canberra etc as the highlight there, some of the designs that where put together but after WW2 the RAF has always lacked a top of the line air to air fighter, even until now. Allot of the focus was on missile technology which was cheaper. I agree, money was an issue but at the same time the British developed the V force which where superb bombers.


Originally posted by SkyChimp:
It's arguable whether the British have ever caught up. The Typhoon appears to just now be exceeding the capabilities of the F-16, a plane that has been in service for something like 20 years, yet is still significantly behind the F-22.

The F22 won't see the kind of service the F16 does because the cost is prohibitive, loose one and you've lost half dozen F16's in monetary value, they won't be produced in the same sort of numbers. Like the Tornado, the Typhoon is a good plane, can do allot of things and doesn't cost the earth like an F22. Mixed with the JSF I think both will serve the needs of the UK for some time to come. It doesn't need the ultimate dog fighter, it needs precision strike aircraft that can deliver a wide platform of weapons.

Theres 2 types of war that will be fought now, the last world war where having the best fighter means nothing against nukes or wars like we've seen recently, Former Yugoslavia/Kosovo, the Iraq wars, Afghanistan etc, where the action is on the ground and airpower isn't shooting down other planes, its bombing the **** out of the enemy in preperation for invasion, theres no air to air combat and one side is massively overpowering.

F22, nice plane, good for learning new production and design tricks but waste of cash. The cold war isn't on any more.

Blottogg
10-11-2005, 01:59 PM
I tend to agree with SkyChimp's assessment. There was a lot of creative thinking and innovation in the British aerospace industry, but it was chronically underfunded. The '57 White Paper helped pull the rug out from under fighter development too, Lightning notwithstanding.

Here's a funny Lightning story from "Fast Jets" by Chris Allen. Not meant as a dig against the Lightning (it was a great aircraft, just an earlier generation than the Viper):

"After 5-6 minutes in full 'burner (I'd just air-to-air refueled), pulling and pushing into +6/-2G manoeuvres, I allowed myself the thought that I was doing better than OK against Herman's high-tech American hot rod [F-16]. Then it happened. Herman suddenly zocked into my six, taking enough film for a couple of Hollywood movies.
Back on the ground, I asked 'Fox' (Herman's nickname) 'What did you do? -- I mean, you came from nowhere.' Fox replied, 'Oh, I was finding it a bit difficult so I decided to use my afterburner...'"

Now that the F-22 and Typhoon are entering service, I'm afraid that my beloved Viper is entering her twilight years, and her pilots will have to start telling such stories.

I used to think that the F-22 was a cold warrior in search of a mission, but the more I read about it, the more inclined I am to admit it's still got a lot of usefulness in it. Air-to-ground wasn't in the original design, and even creating a whole new family of munitions (the SDB) for it won't give it the flexibility of the F-35 (or the F-15/16/18), but it's unique capabilities give it a useful edge over the 'teen series fighters in some very possible future conflicts.

The same is true of Typhoon, though I think Eurofighter has done a better job integrating A/G usefulness (in the later Tranches). The filp side is that it lacks the LO and supercruise of the F-22, both of which are tactically significant.

We tend to keep buying aircraft to fight the last war, which I find dangerously short-sighted. The servicemen and women are left to figure out how to use what they end up with to accomplish missions that usually had no bearing on the aircraft's design. We're currently in the mindset of orbiting in a benign enviornment with "bomb trucks" dropping weapons at will, when 10-20 years from now we may very well need to operate in a high-threat enviornment again. The first fighter to get whacked by an SA-10 is going to put everyone back down in the weeds, with the possible exception of the F-22 and F-35.

The capabilities of the latest generation of fighters on both sides of the pond will be very useful, but despite our procrastination, not because of it.

Bearcat99
10-11-2005, 02:10 PM
Obviously not...... they didnt.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ROFLMMFAO!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

What is it with you people? LOL..... Do you realize that no members of no other nationality that frequents these boards comes up with this kind of stuff but you Brits? "Our Merlin made your Pony really"..... "Why is the RAF under represented?" "You Yanks are trying to convince the world that you won The Battle of Britain.." "etc.. etc.. etc... and it is always with U.S. (pun intended) LOL!! What's up with that.....? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Aaron_GT
10-11-2005, 02:24 PM
I tend to agree with SkyChimp's assessment. There was a lot of creative thinking and innovation in the British aerospace industry, but it was chronically underfunded.

Undoubtedly underfunded, but still capable of producing excellent designs with the world speed record regularly changing hands back and forth between the UK and USA through the 1940s and 1950s, which isn't bad considering how broken economically the UK was with war debt in 1945.

Aaron_GT
10-11-2005, 02:27 PM
it lacks the LO and supercruise of the F-22, both of which are tactically significant.

It's not so significant for the Typhoon as it isn't intended to strike as far from home bases nor is that capability likely to be needed. (Although having said that circumstances can and often do change).

Capt.England
10-11-2005, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Obviously not...... they didnt.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ROFLMMFAO!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

What is it with you people? LOL..... Do you realize that no members of no other nationality that frequents these boards comes up with this kind of stuff but you Brits? "Our Merlin made your Pony really"..... "Why is the RAF under represented?" "You Yanks are trying to convince the world that you won The Battle of Britain.." "etc.. etc.. etc... and it is always with U.S. (pun intended) LOL!! What's up with that.....? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

As i think a U.S. saying goes:

`Just telling it, as it is!`

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Lets just say that a lot of underhand dealings were/still is, being done to undermine non-U.S. made planes.

BTW, I work partly in the aircraft equipment industry, and have spoken to people involved in some of our greatest cancelled projects. There was a lot of behind the scene's political backstabbing that cost us a lot of jobs going on false equipment promises. What happened to the R.A.F's F-111 order?, for just one example.

p1ngu666
10-11-2005, 03:27 PM
thought the typhoon could supercruise?

mind, i dont really care overly about jets, real aircraft have fans on the front... and back in some cases http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

and real typhoons have 4 20mm hispano, a napier engine, and looks that indicate that yes, u will indeed die by havin ur face owned by 20mm and rockets http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Klarkash
10-11-2005, 03:55 PM
my take on this thread, as neither an American or an Englishman:

first of all, F19_Olli72 (your screenshots are fantastic btw), don't give too much authority to what you read and what you see in documentaries. They are the opinions of the producer/writer/creator. I remember watching back to back histories of WWI on the (British) discovery channel. The first one said, in perfect BBC English, that Haig wanted to win the war before the Yanks turned up so he gambled everything (a lot of lives) on one big push that burned up so many men that the western front almost collapsed, nearly losing the war at that time. Not even an hour later I was listening to another narrator that stated, in perfect BBC English, that Haig knew the Americans were green, untried troops, so he launched a major attack to draw German resources away from the area the Yanks would be deployed so they could establish themselves. Two completely different interpretations of the same information, both presented as fact in a compelling way. All history books and documentaries are likely to be about that accurate.

Eric Brown is a top boy though!

I've heard the stories about the US reneging on the technology swap deal, from an American at that, and I don't doubt there is a lot of truth in it. But the British have a special way of messing up their own Aeronatical feats, as seen in the TSR2 and other products. Just look at the beautiful lines in MrBlueSky1960's sig and ask why those 4x20mm cannon weren't tearing through the bomber formations in the Battle of Britain? Good old British bandobast that's why. Britain knows how to kill all the best aircraft before they get off the ground, how the Spit got through no one will ever know...

BTW MrBlueSky1960, is that a screenshot? what from?

arcadeace
10-11-2005, 04:02 PM
Sorry but I haven€t read any of the previous discussion, its obvious from the thread title Brits and Yanks can have their fill of being bigger, faster, meaner and more intelligent.

I just wanna comment on this: €œLets just say that a lot of underhand dealings were/still is, being done to undermine non-U.S. made planes.€ Talk about playing the ultimate victim card. Its all because America is just too bad http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ARCHIE_CALVERT
10-11-2005, 04:03 PM
The Future€¦

I think after the first half of this century is over we will begin to see gradually more UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) in patrolling war zones, although they will have far more fully autonomous capabilities than anything we have at the moment. Maybe by then if our progress in AI continues as it has over the last 10 €"15 years, they might even be self-aware€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Also I believe there will be a greater use of MAVs (Mini Air Vehicles) and even smaller - Micro Air Vehicles, vehicles of a size less than 15mm diameter. Used for reconnaissance, surveillance, and remote sensing, for use in confined spaces as buildings or even in other vehicles. It would be hoped that all these aerial vehicles would be able to act autonomously of each other, and yet be able to correlate any information and pass it up to the mother UAV who could then take the necessary military action.

nakamura_kenji
10-11-2005, 04:11 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/File00011.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/File00022.jpg

i scan more want?

Blottogg
10-11-2005, 04:15 PM
The Typhoon can no doubt fly faster than Mach 1.0 without 'burner, but not with many weapons, if any. FWIW, a big mouth Block 30 Viper will supercruise (barely) if you take everything including the MAU-12 wing pylons off (I only got to 0.98 with the MAU's.) Unless there were bad guys at the end of the runway, and we wanted to strafe them really quickly, this wasn't a useful feature of the Viper. LO and supercruise will allow the F-22 to use "motorcycle gang" tactics behind enemy lines (assuming a future conflict with territory defined in that way), cruising around looking for trouble. Typhoon will have to use different tactics (onboard/standoff jamming, longer range Meteor missiles) to achieve the same goals in that enviornment. Both will be much more lethal A/A than the current 'teen fighters. And as I said, the Typhoon will be able to use a wider variety of A/G ordanance, once the capability is developed.

Iran, China, North Korea and are all locations of potential future conflicts, as well as others I'm either not imagining, or not mentioning. In 1989, who thought we'd be facing the French Mirage F.1 in combat? FWIW, the SA-10/20 are probably the bigger threat than the FLANKER, FULCRUM or J-10, at least for the next few years.

Bearcat, look at it from their perspective. After WWII, despite rebuilding at home, and dismantling their Empire (quite a blow to national pride in itself, and in no small part because of U.S. insistance), Great Britain continued testing and developing advanced aircraft (the first production jet airliner, first VTOL fighter, a whole family of nuclear strike bombers...) And in the middle of all this shoe-string development, their government publishes a paper that says that fighters are obsolete, missiles will defend the home islands from air attack, effectively pulling the rug out from under a lot of promising projects. Only the Lightning survived the purge, and by the time they realized that the white paper was just so much smoke, they were well behind the development curve. I'd be a little torqued if I'd seen that much national talent left underutilized. I'm less sure about how much was stolen by Bell, or crushed by the U.S. out of pride, especially given the severity of the common threat faced.

The U.S. has exercised more than its share of ignorance/arrogance, but that doesn't mean we're ALWAYS doofuses. The guys at Bell, North American, Grumman, McDonnell, Douglas, Lockheed, and the rest of the U.S. aircraft industry at the time put in a huge amount of work and creative thought into the aircraft they designed and produced. The U.S. aircraft industry didn't live off of crib notes from their buddies.

ARCHIE_CALVERT
10-11-2005, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Obviously not...... they didnt.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ROFLMMFAO!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

What is it with you people? LOL..... Do you realize that no members of no other nationality that frequents these boards comes up with this kind of stuff but you Brits? "Our Merlin made your Pony really"..... "Why is the RAF under represented?" "You Yanks are trying to convince the world that you won The Battle of Britain.." "etc.. etc.. etc... and it is always with U.S. (pun intended) LOL!! What's up with that.....? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Maybe it's because we feel were stuck between a rock and a hard place and we can't get free... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Aaron_GT
10-11-2005, 04:46 PM
and real typhoons have 4 20mm hispano, a napier engine, and looks that indicate that yes, u will indeed die by havin ur face owned by 20mm and rockets

Hmmm - Hawker development - Tornado, Typhoon, Tempest, Fury.

European fighter development - Tornado, Typhoon. Does this mean in about 20 years time EADS will be developing the Tempest?

Aaron_GT
10-11-2005, 04:47 PM
Good post, Blottogg.

Aaron_GT
10-11-2005, 04:48 PM
Do you realize that no members of no other nationality that frequents these boards comes up with this kind of stuff but you Brits? "Our Merlin made your Pony really".

Maybe we're just trying to make up for the stereotypes of bowler hats, the Queen, tea at 4 and bad teeth!

p1ngu666
10-11-2005, 05:50 PM
proberly aaron http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bearcat99
10-11-2005, 05:55 PM
Oh behave!!

I hear ya..... but see.. when I think of Brits I do think of all those things.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I'll admit... but I also thing of Mountbatten.... I think of Churchill.. I think of Bader... I think of Queen E the first (She wasnt as pretty as Kate Blanchet but D@MN was she tough... ) I think of Jane Seymour and ... I think of Francis Drake..... and I think of John Steed.... and Emma Peele..., and Benny Hill, and Monty Python, and Charles Dickens ....and Emma Peele.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

p1ngu666
10-11-2005, 05:59 PM
http://narcissedesigns.com/images/WSL/emmapeele.jpg

her bearcat? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

britian has had great potential todo stuff for ages, mainly because ppl from all over the world come here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

p1ngu666
10-11-2005, 06:00 PM
ffs.

http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=gmail&q=Emma%20Peele&sa=N&tab=wi

SkyChimp
10-11-2005, 06:55 PM
I also have to say that, despite whatever bickerings Americans and Brits engage in, no two countries, in the history of history, ever complimented each other militarily as well as the US and Great Britain.

Slickun
10-11-2005, 07:45 PM
Cancelled projects?

YF-12A. Top that.

BTW. The F-101B could supercruise back in the 60's. Well, sorta. Get it up to about mach 1.5 in burner, throttle back to military, and it would stay supersonic a LONG time.

MrBlueSky1960
10-12-2005, 02:19 AM
BBushe

"BTW MrBlueSky1960, is that a screenshot? what from?"

FS2004.... I know, I know.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif But it was the only way I could get to fly a Whirlwind http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I messed with it some in PhotoShop... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.combatfs.com/index.php?page=news&loc=news&newsid=462

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/images/wirl/wirl_003.jpg

F19_Olli72
10-12-2005, 02:38 AM
BBushe; well ill agree to that. But as you indicated Eric Brown has to be concidered an authority in aviation and aviation history. Theres no reason to doubt or question his words.

I'll just add this. Theres a psychological model how ppl respond in stages to feedback/critisism.

It goes as follows:

1: Anger
2: Rejection
3: Excuses
4: Acceptance

SkyChimp follows this pattern quite well, his first post on page one in this thread is a clear no 1 response. On page four he has worked through to a no 3 response.

Most ppl on these forums never gets past the first or second stage for whatever reason, despite if the point is correct.

And no, im not british either. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MrBlueSky1960
10-12-2005, 02:48 AM
Is it any wonder you can produce such fabulous aircraft€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif Your budgets are huge compared to the ones we have had to adhere to in the past. That being so, don€t you think it pretty amazing that we could produce aircraft that were ground breaking at the time, on a shoe string budget which was still probably less than what your nation spends on €˜Pink Lemonade€ consumption in a year€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

http://www.taylor.org/~argus/all/local/orkand/pink_lemonade.JPG

Don€t drink it all at once now€¦ Else it will chill your tummy, tum, tum€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

BaronUnderpants
10-12-2005, 05:33 AM
Only thing i say is:

B-18. Worlds fastest twin engined bomber 42-43.

J-22. 1944-45 (Prop) American combat pilots deliverying P-51 mustangs to the swedish airforce wondered why we bought P-51 when we allredy had the J-22

J-21/J-21R 1945/46. ( Twin tailboom design but with 1 engine behind the cockpit. ) Only succesfull conversion from propplane to jetpowered in the world.

J-29 Tunnan ( barrel ) Was togheter with Mig-15 and F-86 considered to be the best fighter of its time. Proved itselfe in Kongo in the 50`s.
2 world speed records.

J-32 Lansen. 1956. First swedish built jet that broke the sound barrier.

J-35 Draken ( Dragon ) 1955, The worlds first double delta jetfighter desined to be both a high alt. bomber interceptor an a low level dogfighter hence the double delta configuration. Took until 1977 before any european country had a better radar system in a ac, and that was when US F-15 was stationed in Germany. Still in active service in some countries.

J-37 Viggen. 1971. Kicked F-18 *** in a spontanious mock dog fight that developed when a patroling J-37 intercepted a F-18 over/arround swedish territorial waters.

J-39 Gripen. State of the art multirole jet fighter that entered service in 1997.

All this from a country with a smaller population than New York or London. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

WOLFMondo
10-12-2005, 05:47 AM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
I also have to say that, despite whatever bickerings Americans and Brits engage in, no two countries, in the history of history, ever complimented each other militarily as well as the US and Great Britain.

Very diplomatic yet never a more true statement made.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

nakamura_kenji
10-12-2005, 05:49 AM
sweeden alway confuse me build nice unsual plane but ugly boring car so v_v

make s-tank (basic modern tank destroyer) also ^_^

i find funny ho people claim such thing is there coutry design good example m1 abrams use british armour design and german gun design probably other thing also. japan similar as have type-90 which base on early leo-2 design believe.

BaronUnderpants
10-12-2005, 11:12 AM
Naaaa.....Volvo S 60 R and S 80 T5 are real nice cars. runs like he** http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

p1ngu666
10-12-2005, 11:58 AM
volvo are owned by ford, gm owns saab i think?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

ploughman
10-12-2005, 12:33 PM
Really. Does that mean General Motors has an air force? Or is it like Rolls Royce, where the toffmobiles are owned by the Germans but the cool things they strap to jets (to make them jets) aren't?

Daiichidoku
10-12-2005, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by Slickun:
Cancelled projects?

YF-12A. Top that.

BTW. The F-101B could supercruise back in the 60's. Well, sorta. Get it up to about mach 1.5 in burner, throttle back to military, and it would stay supersonic a LONG time.


i HATE the voodoo...well...cuz it was flying in place where the arrow SHOULD have been http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


ok, the YF-12 was cancelled....you still got the SR-71 out of the deal....and that AINT bad http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Daiichidoku
10-12-2005, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
sweeden alway confuse me build nice unsual plane but ugly boring car so v_v

make s-tank (basic modern tank destroyer) also ^_^

i find funny ho people claim such thing is there coutry design good example m1 abrams use british armour design and german gun design probably other thing also. japan similar as have type-90 which base on early leo-2 design believe.


NK, i always see your sig: sorry english not good....but i think (and im sure many others here do) that your english is WAY better than many others here...considering some of the cr@p they spew http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


BTW, did you draw your avatar and sig pic? if so, nice work....lets see a pic of you, and see how close you managed to draw yourself http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

p1ngu666
10-12-2005, 08:31 PM
better than mine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

AWL_Spinner
10-13-2005, 06:29 AM
BTW. The F-101B could supercruise back in the 60's. Well, sorta. Get it up to about mach 1.5 in burner, throttle back to military, and it would stay supersonic a LONG time.

The English Electric Lightning could supercruise back at the end of the fifties, but let's not get the rabid Anglophobes started again!

Oh, actually, I can't resist. C'mon, we all like celebrating our aviation heritage and Britain's is as strong as any. These aircraft make me go misty-eyed for the good old days - I remember seeing Vulcans and Lightnings at airshows as a lad.

The specification for the Lightning actually grew out of the same Air Ministry requirements that had led to the (then-cancelled) Miles M.52.

At least this beast of an aircraft survived the political backhand deals that cost the UK the M.52 and later the TSR.2 (cancelled to buy inferior F-111s, which never materialised in RAF colours).

The Lightning shared the M.52's shock cone, all moving tailplane and other innovations and flew for the first time from RAF Boscombe Down on 4th August 1954.

During it's time-to-height record dominating career the Lightning was also successfully able to intercept a U2 at almost 88,000ft; it was also the only NATO fighter aircraft able to overhaul the equally inspiring Concorde in a stern chase at 57,000ft and Mach 2.2 - something the F104, F14, F15 and F16 were unable to manage.

Along with the Spitfire, the classic British interceptor, huge amounts of performance offset by the limited range required for the defence of a small island.

"God's own sportscar" also looks incredibly cool, to this day -

http://www.explore-africa.de/jets/planes/images/YP2000BBD.jpg

Picture from Thunder City (http://www.thundercity.com/welcome.htm), where you can fly in one, if you have the money (it's an ambition of mine)!

Off-topic, but UK people - should you get to see Will Young's latest video (not something I'd usually advocate) - it's worth while as it features Thunder City's Buccaneers and Hunters.

nakamura_kenji
10-13-2005, 07:07 AM
father describe lightning "dart with engine" ^_^ how no love fighter that missile age still have cannon main weapon 2x AA only missile? i go see lightning fly very little I vist airbase with father he work for british mod, so loud ^_^.

in bit tonight scan picture book on harrier/lightning maybe vulcan


orignal quick sketch sig pic
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/File078.jpg

photoshop magic ^_^
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/File0017psd.jpg

picture me while ago hair much longer now i mix race so look odd v_v
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/v_v.jpg

Lucius_Esox
10-13-2005, 07:22 AM
Ahhhh, some of us got it,,, most aint http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Good thread despite the baiting. I truly think the US and Britain compliment each other in so many ways,, jeeez, like a *****in couple..

BaronUnderpants
10-13-2005, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Really. Does that mean General Motors has an air force? Or is it like Rolls Royce, where the toffmobiles are owned by the Germans but the cool things they strap to jets (to make them jets) aren't?

Exactly. Saab Aero is a independent developer...would be scary otherwice http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

ImpStarDuece
10-13-2005, 07:31 AM
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
Only thing i say is:

B-18. Worlds fastest twin engined bomber 42-43.

Not quite. Only if the B-18B model traveled back in time 2 years.

The Mosquito, in service in November 1941, could do 370 mph. The first B-18A prototype didn't fly until June 1942. It could only do about 290 mph maximum.

The B-18B, which first flew in June, 1944 and was fitted with DB605Bs, could do about 355 mph. At the same time some Mosquito variants were doing 415-425 mph. Some German bombers were doing close to 400 mph at a similar period.

MrBlueSky1960
10-13-2005, 11:27 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Hah...! No lets not give in to anyone who belittles, or otherwise scorn our Aviation history and why should we not shout about our countries technological achievments... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

As I said before, if we had the money to chuck at any problem, just think what we could have achieved then... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Huraah... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Low_Flyer_MkII
10-13-2005, 12:35 PM
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/flag.gif


http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/Lightning.jpg

Aaron_GT
10-13-2005, 02:17 PM
During it's time-to-height record dominating career the Lightning

Skychimp assured me that the Lightning's climb was less than the maximum climb of US aircraft of the same period.

ARCHIE_CALVERT
10-13-2005, 02:26 PM
Beautiful Flag... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

L_F...Due to a software cockup at Ubi, I seem to be unable to login as 'Secudus'... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif And to cap it all I can't re-register as 'Secudus' as Archie_Calvert is registered to my home Email addy and the bloody software won't allow two users on the one Email... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

So, I'm stuck with Archie for the moment http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Greenie reckons, it's a conspiracy by Ubi for telling every one about€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif €˜Whats that Greenie€¦ Hmmm€¦ Yeah, OK!€
Can€t say to much€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Said to much already€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Oh, and Greenie sends hugs€¦
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BaronUnderpants
10-13-2005, 02:44 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
Only thing i say is:

B-18. Worlds fastest twin engined bomber 42-43.

Not quite. Only if the B-18B model traveled back in time 2 years.

The Mosquito, in service in November 1941, could do 370 mph. The first B-18A prototype didn't fly until June 1942. It could only do about 290 mph maximum.

The B-18B, which first flew in June, 1944 and was fitted with DB605Bs, could do about 355 mph. At the same time some Mosquito variants were doing 415-425 mph. Some German bombers were doing close to 400 mph at a similar period. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


My bad, wrong year....but.

Mosquito entered service in early 1942.

Speeds:

Mosquito FB.Mk VI - 362 mph

Later photo-recon could exceed 425 mph ( No guns or bombload )


Saab B18 A/B - 360 mph

Later 18 BT ( Torpedo ) 380 mph


B18 being slightly bigger, heavier and had a 3-man crew ( Mosguito had 2-man crew )

Fair is Fair http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ARCHIE_CALVERT
10-13-2005, 03:02 PM
Beautiful Flag mate... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

L_F... Due to a cockup at the Ubi Registration, I am again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif not able to login as 'Secudus'... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif But I'm able to login as Archie_Calvert... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif I know, don't ask... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
And I can€t just re-register as you use to at the old site as your not allowed to register another user with the same email addy€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Still, Greenie reckons its a Ubi covert op thing to get rid of 'Secudus€€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

AnyWhoo€¦ It is me and not some cheeky, impudent erk€¦

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif Who did that... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Oh, and Greenie sends hugs€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Doh! Now the broadband is on the blink... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Low_Flyer_MkII
10-13-2005, 03:32 PM
The Archie Calvert cover's more secure than Mr Blue Sky.....oh borrocks! I've blown it again!

Can't stop long - watching Channel 4 UFO thingy - nice footage of U2's & Blackbirds....back soon. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ARCHIE_CALVERT
10-13-2005, 03:41 PM
Doh! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif So am I...

Low_Flyer_MkII
10-13-2005, 04:27 PM
Now then, where were we? Oh, yes...

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/26_8_111.gif


http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/Low_Flyer/vulcan.jpg

nakamura_kenji
10-13-2005, 04:35 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/h_2.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/h_1.jpg

^_^ there go i scan more bit

ARCHIE_CALVERT
10-13-2005, 05:19 PM
What could have been€¦

http://www.planespictures.com/data/3Britain/Avro730/Avro730_II_sc1.jpg

http://www.planespictures.com/data/3Britain/HawkerP1134/HawkerP1134i1_sc1.jpg

http://www.planespictures.com/data/3Britain/BAC%20TSR%202/TSR2_sc9.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/Hunter01.jpg

http://prototypes.free.fr/fd2/imagewof/fd2_02.jpg

http://www.century-of-flight.freeola.com/Aviation%20history/flying%20wings/images5/4.jpg

ImpStarDuece
10-13-2005, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:

My bad, wrong year....but.

Mosquito entered service in early 1942.

Speeds:

Mosquito FB.Mk VI - 362 mph

Later photo-recon could exceed 425 mph ( No guns or bombload )


Saab B18 A/B - 360 mph

Later 18 BT ( Torpedo ) 380 mph


B18 being slightly bigger, heavier and had a 3-man crew ( Mosguito had 2-man crew )

Fair is Fair http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Mosquito entered service in November, 1941 and Photo Recon variants flew their first missions in September of the same year. The B. Mk IV flew its first missions in May 1942, with a maximum speed of about 380 mph. The B-18 didn't fly in prototype form until June 19th, 1942.

The Mosquito weighted about 15,000 lbs unloaded and between 22,000 and 26,0000 lbs fully loaded.
The B-18 weighted about 12,000lbs unloaded and between 18,000lbs and 19,500 lbs fully loaded.

The Mosquito had only 50 cm less wingspan and was 1 meter shorter than the B-18. Bomber, figher and photo recon variants had better range than the B-18 as well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif .

The FB. Mk VI flew its first missions in Feburary of 1943. Speed depended on engine fitted (Merlin 21, 22, 23, 25) and boost levels allowed and varied from 360-380 mph. Merlin 25 engines Mosquitos were cleared for +25lbs boost levels with 150 octane fuel, pushing stripped back versions towards 390mph at low levels. Mosquito's shot down ~450 V1's.

Later Mosquito B. Mk XVI could do 415 mph with two stage Merlins.

SkyChimp
10-13-2005, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
BBushe; well ill agree to that. But as you indicated Eric Brown has to be concidered an authority in aviation and aviation history. Theres no reason to doubt or question his words.

I'll just add this. Theres a psychological model how ppl respond in stages to feedback/critisism.

It goes as follows:

1: Anger
2: Rejection
3: Excuses
4: Acceptance

SkyChimp follows this pattern quite well, his first post on page one in this thread is a clear no 1 response. On page four he has worked through to a no 3 response.

Most ppl on these forums never gets past the first or second stage for whatever reason, despite if the point is correct.

And no, im not british either. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'm sorry, my first post was an attempt at levity. Either I'm not very good at it, or it just went over your head.

If you disagree with subsequent posts, maybe you can come up with a counter argument, instead of relegating me to some scoring system you came up with.

p1ngu666
10-13-2005, 05:38 PM
the FBVI had engines for low level work, so was *very* quick down low.
355mph WITH drop tanks at 0 feet
about as slow as those slow *** 109k4s http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
of course, drop the tanks, and u could go past 360mph 366mph was stated in a book i read recently... thats in actual use, coming home after droppin bombs.
that would make it faster than the p51 mustang...

p1ngu666
10-13-2005, 05:57 PM
nice pics http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
google brought up 2 b18s so far

http://www.avrosys.nu/aircraft/Bomb/158B18-2.htm

looks alot like a ju88, which in the S verient was also fast

i came across a american b18 aswell, at which i was abit wtf? that cant be fast

http://www.boeing.com/history/mdc/bolo.htm

SkyChimp
10-13-2005, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">During it's time-to-height record dominating career the Lightning

Skychimp assured me that the Lightning's climb was less than the maximum climb of US aircraft of the same period. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I pointed during a past similar discussion when someone claimed nothing outclimbed the Lightning that the most performant variant of the Lightning (as well as the most produced) - the F6 - could climb to 40,000 feet in 2 minutes, 30 seconds (source: The British Fighter-Since 1912, Francis Mason).

Those numbers aren't really any better than the F-101 Voodoo, or F-104 Starfighter, or F-4 Phantom.

The F-4 Phantom held several world time-to-height records:
1) Feb 21, 1962 - 9,843ft (3,000m) in 34 seconds, and 19,685ft (6,000m) in 48.78 seconds
2) March 1, 1962 - 29,528ft (9,000m) in 61.62 seconds, 39,750ft (12,000m) in 77.15 seconds, and 49,213ft (15,000m) in 114.54 seconds
3) March 31, 1963 - 65,617ft (20,000m) in 178.50 seconds
4) April 3, 1962 - 82,021 ft (25,000m) in 230.44 seconds
5) April 4, 1962 - 98,425 ft (30,000m) in 371.43 seconds, plus an unofficial record to 100,000ft.

If I recall correctly, you also stated during that discussion that the F8F Bearcat held the time-to-climb record to 10,000 feet until it was bested by a F-16. I pointed out that that records had actually been beaten several times, by among other the F3H Demon, and the F4D Skyray.

p1ngu666
10-13-2005, 06:02 PM
intial rate of climb for lightning was 50,000ft per min http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

SkyChimp
10-13-2005, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
intial rate of climb for lightning was 50,000ft per min http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

But it couldn't reach 50,000 feet in one minute. It could only maintain for a very short period.

Jet "initial climb rates" are different than for prop planes. It's an instantaneous measure.

For instance, the F-104 had various rates of climb of 50,000-60,000 feetr per minute. The F-4E Phantom had an intial rate of climb of 61,500 feet per minute. Neither could reach those altitudes in one minute, though.

BaronUnderpants
10-13-2005, 06:35 PM
Merlin 25 engines Mosquitos were cleared for +25lbs boost levels with 150 octane fuel, pushing stripped back versions towards 390mph at low levels.
______________________________________________


Vs a torpedo bomber doing 380 mph http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Weight:

8000 - 11300 kg ( Depending on wich version, IV and VI - 10200 kg ) fully loaded.

B18 A/B - BT arround 9000 kg fully loaded. ( Dont know how that translate into Ibs.

In all fairness, u are comparing every singel Mosquito model to 1 version of B18. Of course u will find 1 thats faster.

BTW....B18 is still a 3-seater http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Where just trying to say: wery small country, wery small budget, first try at developing own twin-engine bomber. Whit that in mind they did a hell of a good job of it.

B18 Wasnt developed further for obvious reasons ( jet age )

Daiichidoku
10-13-2005, 06:41 PM
yes, brits have a lot to be proud of in those early jet years

but $$$ or not, they also unleashed attackers, swifts, javelins, sea vixens (fine lookin girl tho, that vixxie) and other POS's...to say nothing of the sad, sad, guided missles

sure, the V bombers LOOKED nice...but id take a B 52 over any of em anyday, if i wanted to get the job done right

for whatever good they have done, USUALLY its in the shadow of an either slightly, or greatly superior product made in USA (in aeronautical terms, that is)england should stick what theyve been good at since the 50s...trainer types and football hooligans http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


oh, it would be unjust to go without mentioning that britain has, in spite of never having the quality or quantity of aero-naval eq the yanks have enjoyed, **** well KNOW how to use it best, and have always seemed to have to teach americans everything about carrier ops

Daiichidoku
10-13-2005, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
F4D Skyray.

skyray..."ford"..nice...too bad they didnt go ahead with the F5 skylancer...THAT was a jet

and ok, the phantom was great, and did a lot of jobs for a lot of ppl iin a lot of places yadda yadda yadda...but deep inside i wish the CrusaderII "super crusader" won the flyoff...only thing kept it from exceeding mach 2.2 was its windshield...aside from that, close to, or even over mach 3 was envisioned

SkyChimp
10-13-2005, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Jet "initial climb rates" are different than for prop planes. It's an instantaneous measure.



For clarification - MANY published "initial climb rates" are instanteous measures, but not all. If a climb rate looks obscenely high, like for the for the F-101, F-104, Lightning, and F-4, it's best to check time-to-climb numbers.

p1ngu666
10-13-2005, 07:56 PM
yeah, but its still obsencey fast roc http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

vulcan is really nimble aswell, a b52 isnt really

ImpStarDuece
10-14-2005, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
Merlin 25 engines Mosquitos were cleared for +25lbs boost levels with 150 octane fuel, pushing stripped back versions towards 390mph at low levels.
______________________________________________


Vs a torpedo bomber doing 380 mph http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Weight:

8000 - 11300 kg ( Depending on wich version, IV and VI - 10200 kg ) fully loaded.

B18 A/B - BT arround 9000 kg fully loaded. ( Dont know how that translate into Ibs.

In all fairness, u are comparing every singel Mosquito model to 1 version of B18. Of course u will find 1 thats faster.

BTW....B18 is still a 3-seater http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Where just trying to say: wery small country, wery small budget, first try at developing own twin-engine bomber. Whit that in mind they did a hell of a good job of it.

B18 Wasnt developed further for obvious reasons ( jet age )

Alright then, lets compare models of a similar time period. Fair is fair, after all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

B-18A.
Prototype test flight, 19 June, 1942
First operational flight, September, 1943.
Basic (empty) weight; 5550 kg
Maximum weight; 8200 kg

Performance;
289 mph (465 kph) top speed at 6000m,
8000m ceiling
2200 km range
Up to 1000 kg bomb load internally and 400 kg externally.


Mosquito B. Mk IV Srs 2 (long nacelles)
Prototype test flight March 7th, 1942
First operation flight May 31st, 1942
Basic weight 6,100 kg
Maximum weight 9,700 kg

Performance
380 mph (610 kph) top speed at 6,700m
10,300m ceiling
2750 km range
Up to 907 kg internal bomb load.


B-18B.
Prototype test flight, June 10, 1944
First operational flight, October, 1945.
Basic weight 6,100 kg
maximum weight 8,800 kg

Performance;
357 mph (575 kph) top speed at 6,300 m.
9,800m ceiling
2600 km range
Bomb load same as B-18A, with provision for underwing rockets.

Mosquito B. Mk XVI
Prototye test flight 1st January, 1944
First operational flight, March 1944
Basic Weight; 7,000 kg
Maximum Weight 11,800 kg

Performance
408 mph (650 kph) with 1820 kg bombload
419 mph (675 kph) without bombload at 8700m
11,000m ceiling
Up to 1814 kg internal bombload and 227 kg external
2900 km range

T-18B
Prototype test flight, ??
First operational flight, 1947
Basic weight 6,100 kg
Maximum weight 9,300 kg

Performance;
380 mph (610 kph) at 6300 meters
9300m ceiling
2,600 km range
Bomb load as other marks (1,400kg), provision for rockes, torpeedos and 57mm and 2x 29mm in nose.


Mosquito B. 35

Prototype test flight, March 12th, 1945
First operation flight, August 1945
Basic weight, 6,600 kg
Maximum weight 11, 500 kg

Performance
423 mph (685 kph) at 8000 m
Up to 2050kg bombload
3,300 km range
11,500 m ceiling

I know which one I would rather be flying http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif And it only has two seats http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

ploughman
10-14-2005, 02:14 AM
If any of you watched that UFO thing on C4 last night you'll've noticed that programme's central assertion was that UFO thing was pretty much a cover story for the exotic recce planes our American buddie were coming up with. You have to hand it to the Yanks, when it comes to post-war aviation, despite the leg up all the captured Nazi technology and scientists gave them, they really are streets ahead in almost every field. I'm sure if we had an bag of cash the size of the Defense Department's budget we'd be knocking out even more amazing aircraft too, but we didn't and we don't. Also, our post war governments have made some pretty short sighted decisions when it comes to aviations. As it is I take it as a great complement that the Yanks have purchased several aircraft types from us, notably the Hawk, Canberra and Harrier. I was fairly brimming with pride when the EH-101, in its guise as US-101, won the contract to supply the Presidency with its Helos. But I am affronted that we now manufacture AV-8Bs under license and call them Harrier GR-9s (how did that happen, those cunning Americanos?).

Having said all that, how about that Vulcan?

http://www.nationmaster.com/wikimir/images/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c5/150px-TPol2003.jpg

Daiichidoku
10-14-2005, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Having said all that, how about that Vulcan?



Vulcan? waddya mean, vulcan? i dont know what your tal

umm oh. yea. the pointed ears...uhh yea, that a vulcan

AWL_Spinner
10-14-2005, 05:15 AM
Two random facts I came across whilst browsing the interweb for Lightning stories earlier I thought I'd share.

1. F-15 vs Apollo

Acceleration in both was impressive, you have all seen the Lighting leap away once brakes are released, the Eagle was almost as good, and climb speed was rapidly achieved. Take-off roll is between 2,000 & 3,000 feet, depending upon MIL or MAX AB powered takeoff. The Lightning was quicker off the ground, reaching 50 feet altitude in a distance of 1,630 feet, and a climb speed of 450kts in 61.8 seconds. The Streak Eagle set the time to climb record in 1975 of 207.8 seconds from brake release to 30,000m (98,425ft). The Streak Eagle also beat the Apollo Moon-shot rocket up to about 50,000ft! Keep in mind that that was a modified Eagle on the coldest day they could get, and a precise profile was flown. However, it gets across the capability of the F-15.

2. The MiG-25 Radar

Semi-conductors would not work above 65?C, so they stuck to using vacuum-tube avionics, even for the radar. It was a monster item of equipment, weighing in at slightly over half a ton. Its pulse-Doppler search and track were basic, but the valve technology and its awesome power gave it unmatched power to burn through the thickest electronic jamming to a range of fifty miles, it would kill a rabbit at one kilometre if activated on the ground.

p1ngu666
10-14-2005, 08:37 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif @ rabbit killing

Daiichidoku
10-14-2005, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by AWL_Spinner:
Two random facts I came across whilst browsing the interweb for Lightning stories earlier I thought I'd share.

1. F-15 vs Apollo


2. The MiG-25 Radar

it would kill a rabbit at one kilometre if activated on the ground[/b].


didnt an Su-27...an unmodified Su-27 squish the streak eagle's record in the early 90's?

dont russian ramp personnel get to have fresh, pre-cooked rabbit everyday?

MrBlueSky1960
10-14-2005, 11:12 AM
SkyChimp€¦

Levity€¦
€œThe British would have been the first to do a lot, if it weren't for other people doing it before them. **** them. **** them all to hell.€

Hmmm€¦ I€m still out on this one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif


I pointed during a past similar discussion when someone claimed nothing outclimbed the Lightning that the most performant variant of the Lightning (as well as the most produced) - the F6 - could climb to 40,000 feet in 2 minutes, 30 seconds (source: The British Fighter-Since 1912, Francis Mason).

Those numbers aren't really any better than the F-101 Voodoo, or F-104 Starfighter, or F-4 Phantom.

If I was being pedantic I could ask you just what you mean by €œThose numbers aren't really any better€ Does that mean they aren€t any better€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Or does it mean they are better, but not by much€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

The F-4 Phantom held several world time-to-height records:
1) Feb 21, 1962 - 9,843ft (3,000m) in 34 seconds, and 19,685ft (6,000m) in 48.78 seconds
2) March 1, 1962 - 29,528ft (9,000m) in 61.62 seconds, 39,750ft (12,000m) in 77.15 seconds, and 49,213ft (15,000m) in 114.54 seconds
3) March 31, 1963 - 65,617ft (20,000m) in 178.50 seconds
4) April 3, 1962 - 82,021 ft (25,000m) in 230.44 seconds
5) April 4, 1962 - 98,425 ft (30,000m) in 371.43 seconds, plus an unofficial record to 100,000ft.

As both sets of numbers show, they can prove or disprove anything€¦ The only sure way is to see for ones self and since that€s out of the question that makes both arguments mute http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

€œThe overall impression was that both aircraft had very similar performance and handling characteristics, both were a joy to fly. Considering the age difference, the Lightning's performance was totally outstanding when introduced into service, and when it finally bowed out, it could still out-climb most of its successors. Its initial rate of climb was 50,000 ft per minute. The Mirage IIIE climbed initially at 30,000 ft per minute; the Phantom F-4M managed 32,000 ft per minute; the MiG-21 could only manage 36,090 ft per minute; the F-16A's initial rate was 40,000 ft per minute, and the Tornado F.3's 43,000 ft per minute. So the Lightning reigned supreme. Only later was it surpassed; the F-15 Eagle, and the MiG-25 both have initial climb rates as good or better. The Lightning's time to FL 360 in re-heat was 2.5 minutes, in this respect the Eagle produced a similar figure, though this could vary depending upon its configuration.€

http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/lightning/memories.html

BaronUnderpants
10-14-2005, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
Merlin 25 engines Mosquitos were cleared for +25lbs boost levels with 150 octane fuel, pushing stripped back versions towards 390mph at low levels.
______________________________________________


Vs a torpedo bomber doing 380 mph http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Weight:

8000 - 11300 kg ( Depending on wich version, IV and VI - 10200 kg ) fully loaded.

B18 A/B - BT arround 9000 kg fully loaded. ( Dont know how that translate into Ibs.

In all fairness, u are comparing every singel Mosquito model to 1 version of B18. Of course u will find 1 thats faster.

BTW....B18 is still a 3-seater http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Where just trying to say: wery small country, wery small budget, first try at developing own twin-engine bomber. Whit that in mind they did a hell of a good job of it.

B18 Wasnt developed further for obvious reasons ( jet age )

Alright then, lets compare models of a similar time period. Fair is fair, after all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .

B-18A.
Prototype test flight, 19 June, 1942
First operational flight, September, 1943.
Basic (empty) weight; 5550 kg
Maximum weight; 8200 kg

Performance;
289 mph (465 kph) top speed at 6000m,
8000m ceiling
2200 km range
Up to 1000 kg bomb load internally and 400 kg externally.


Mosquito B. Mk IV Srs 2 (long nacelles)
Prototype test flight March 7th, 1942
First operation flight May 31st, 1942
Basic weight 6,100 kg
Maximum weight 9,700 kg

Performance
380 mph (610 kph) top speed at 6,700m
10,300m ceiling
2750 km range
Up to 907 kg internal bomb load.


B-18B.
Prototype test flight, June 10, 1944
First operational flight, October, 1945.
Basic weight 6,100 kg
maximum weight 8,800 kg

Performance;
357 mph (575 kph) top speed at 6,300 m.
9,800m ceiling
2600 km range
Bomb load same as B-18A, with provision for underwing rockets.

Mosquito B. Mk XVI
Prototye test flight 1st January, 1944
First operational flight, March 1944
Basic Weight; 7,000 kg
Maximum Weight 11,800 kg

Performance
408 mph (650 kph) with 1820 kg bombload
419 mph (675 kph) without bombload at 8700m
11,000m ceiling
Up to 1814 kg internal bombload and 227 kg external
2900 km range

T-18B
Prototype test flight, ??
First operational flight, 1947
Basic weight 6,100 kg
Maximum weight 9,300 kg

Performance;
380 mph (610 kph) at 6300 meters
9300m ceiling
2,600 km range
Bomb load as other marks (1,400kg), provision for rockes, torpeedos and 57mm and 2x 29mm in nose.


Mosquito B. 35

Prototype test flight, March 12th, 1945
First operation flight, August 1945
Basic weight, 6,600 kg
Maximum weight 11, 500 kg

Performance
423 mph (685 kph) at 8000 m
Up to 2050kg bombload
3,300 km range
11,500 m ceiling

I know which one I would rather be flying http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif And it only has two seats http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
_______________________________________________


Ok u got me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

But the B18 was if not the fastest at least ONE of the fastest twin-engined bombers

And i wouldnt be unhappy if i had to fly the B18 instead of Mosquito http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

On a side not: it seems like there is a historical group in my home state that are actually restoring and rebuilding a He 111 using parts from 2 chrashed He 111, one that crashed in Sweden and one that crashed in Norway. Anyone heard or read anything about this?

Zyzbot
10-14-2005, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:



Ok u got me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

But the B18 was if not the fastest at least ONE of the fastest twin-engined bombers

And i wouldnt be unhappy if i had to fly the B18 instead of Mosquito http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

On a side not: it seems like there is a historical group in my home state that are actually restoring and rebuilding a He 111 using parts from 2 chrashed He 111, one that crashed in Sweden and one that crashed in Norway. Anyone heard or read anything about this?

This one perhaps?


http://www.aeroplanemonthly.com/news/news_archive/Ju88_...u88_lakerecovery.htm (http://www.aeroplanemonthly.com/news/news_archive/Ju88_lakerecovery/ju88_lakerecovery.htm)

I read somewhere that the He-111 was supposed to go to Germany to be restored.

BaronUnderpants
10-14-2005, 02:16 PM
That could be the one, remember the article mentioning the Norwegian He 111 crashing in a lake.

Will see if i can find out more about it, flying He 111 is wery rare arnt they?

Capt.England
10-14-2005, 05:30 PM
sure, the V bombers LOOKED nice...but id take a B 52 over any of em any day, if i wanted to get the job done right



Please search about the V-Bomber thread where I mentioned the last season that the Vulcan bomber was flown and the Yankee airman that was silenced at the display of the Vulcan bomber.

B52 did have the range, but it would never of reached it's target as it's one BMFT (Big Mother Fcuking Target). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Daiichidoku
10-15-2005, 12:11 AM
yea, sure, i know...ppl have rolled vulcans...

ppl have also looped(!) victors...well, coulda been a valiant, but AFAIK victors...

and both victors and vulcans have dived supersonically, whereas the 52 wont

IMO, a b52 and any V bomber has approx the same survivability, especially in a context of today's threats

but the B 52 has (not even counting its longevity in service, $$$ issues or not) far more stretchability, in terms of payload, versatility, range/on station time, etc...one can pack so much more eq in a BUFF to do so many more roles at once, or individually than could any V bomber...and will do so for its lifespan in service, forseeably being about 80 years, given the projected upgrades and remanufacturing USAF has in store for them (the ones that will be left by then after force reductions), V bombers lasted a noble 30 years, but still not up to superfortress snuff



please dont mistake me! i LOVE V bombers, ever since seeing "thunderball" (i actually thought they ditched a real vulcan, lol) a long long time ago

but its kinda like a spit/jug or phantom/(BAe)lightning argument, as to which one is better overall

MrBlueSky1960
10-15-2005, 02:43 AM
Hmmm€¦ As I see it there are two reasons why the B-52 is still about, and they are;

1. America doesn€t have anything else to replace it with, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif and does not want to pay the cost of development and manufacture of one if it is cheaper to keep the old B-52 carcass going€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
2. If you keep throwing money at them, on systems upgrades, refurb€s and replacements, of course they will have a long service record. (What is it now, 2045? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif)

Money buys you longevity€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Daiichidoku
10-15-2005, 05:14 AM
Originally posted by MrBlueSky1960:
Hmmm€¦ As I see it there are two reasons why the B-52 is still about, and they are;

1. America doesn€t have anything else to replace it with, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif and does not want to pay the cost of development and manufacture of one if it is cheaper to keep the old B-52 carcass going€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
2. If you keep throwing money at them, on systems upgrades, refurb€s and replacements, of course they will have a long service record. (What is it now, 2045? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif)

Money buys you longevity€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

1 yes, yes
2 yes(yes)

yes



BTW, number 1 had two reasons, making it 3 reason whyhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
BTW again, there is a fourth reason they keep em...they can take off tail first, nose down http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
BTW again again, a fifth reason..they use so much fuel, that they need a stable middle east for fuel, so they can be in service helping by deterrence and/or striking power, to keep the middle east keep stable, so they can get the fuel they need to keep the middle east stable, by deterrence and/or striking power, to keep the middle east stable, so they can get the fuel they http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

MrBlueSky1960
10-15-2005, 06:05 AM
Daiichidoku... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

arcadeace
10-15-2005, 06:36 AM
Originally posted by MrBlueSky1960:
Hmmm€¦ As I see it there are two reasons why the B-52 is still about, and they are;

1. America doesn€t have anything else to replace it with, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif and does not want to pay the cost of development and manufacture of one if it is cheaper to keep the old B-52 carcass going€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
2. If you keep throwing money at them, on systems upgrades, refurb€s and replacements, of course they will have a long service record. (What is it now, 2045? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif)

Money buys you longevity€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

In "throwing money" to refurbish (upgrade) those carcasses... its all that was necessary, pretty simple.

As far as building something new, don't know what you're talking about. The entire structure of our forces and strategic priorities are different from the 1970s. Much different.

Last I heard they're no longer being used. Its B1s and B2s.

Nothing further to add, except maybe a wink http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

MrBlueSky1960
10-15-2005, 07:29 AM
In "throwing money" to refurbish (upgrade) those carcasses... its all that was necessary, pretty simple.

As far as building something new, don't know what you're talking about. The entire structure of our forces and strategic priorities are different from the 1970s. Much different.

Last I heard they're no longer being used. Its B1s and B2s.

"Nothing further to add, except maybe a wink http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif"

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-52.htm

I think they do drag them out occasionally, to wave the big stick among other things€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

MrBlueSky1960
10-15-2005, 08:43 AM
I miss hearing those Olympus engines€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif Sounding like the beginning of the apocalypse coming for you, making your guts vibrate, and the kids cry€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

http://famousvulcans.co.uk/movies/concorde.avi

http://www.famousvulcans.co.uk/xa903oly593.htm

http://www.avrovulcan.com/vhisavro.htm

Aaron_GT
10-15-2005, 09:09 AM
but the B 52 has (not even counting its longevity in service, $$$ issues or not) far more stretchability, in terms of payload, versatility, range/on station time,

The B-52 was designed to be able to loiter whilst airborne in the polar regions to provide a counter strike. Due to the distances involved and Canada being in the way it was necessary to have them airborne to get there in the required time frame. The V bombers didn't need the same level of range as UK-USSR is simply shorter than lower 48 states to USSR. There was no point in engineering the V bombers to do more than that. Engineering it for more would have been a waste of money. The UK only had a requirement for that level of range in 1982, and managed to do it via refuelling in flight of a Vulcan. At the time it held the record for the longest attack sorties by a bomber (there were several raids on the Falklands) but I suspect this has been broken by the B2 now. In essence, though, the V bombers were designed to a similar requirement to the B-47 rather than the B-52, and the B-47 served alongside the V bombers in the UK during the cold war. Given the different design requirements it makes more sense to compare the V bombers' longevity against the B-47's.

Later on the Vulcan did get pressed into service as a low-level conventional heavy attack bomber, and also as a low level nuclear bomber armed with stand off munitions prior to the advent of cruise missiles.

SkyChimp
10-15-2005, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by MrBlueSky1960:
Hmmm€¦ I€m still out on this one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif


Maybe it wasn't sophisticated enough.




If I was being pedantic I could ask you just what you mean by €œThose numbers aren't really any better€ Does that mean they aren€t any better€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Or does it mean they are better, but not by much€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Since your intent IS to be pedantic, I'll answer your question.

It means just what it says. The Lightning's initial climb rate was a little better than the Voodoo, and a little worse than the Starfighter and Phantom.





As both sets of numbers show, they can prove or disprove anything€¦ The only sure way is to see for ones self and since that€s out of the question that makes both arguments mute http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


It makes it moot, too.




€œThe overall impression was that both aircraft had very similar performance and handling characteristics, both were a joy to fly. Considering the age difference, the Lightning's performance was totally outstanding when introduced into service, and when it finally bowed out, it could still out-climb most of its successors. Its initial rate of climb was 50,000 ft per minute. The Mirage IIIE climbed initially at 30,000 ft per minute; the Phantom F-4M managed 32,000 ft per minute; the MiG-21 could only manage 36,090 ft per minute; the F-16A's initial rate was 40,000 ft per minute, and the Tornado F.3's 43,000 ft per minute. So the Lightning reigned supreme. Only later was it surpassed; the F-15 Eagle, and the MiG-25 both have initial climb rates as good or better. The Lightning's time to FL 360 in re-heat was 2.5 minutes, in this respect the Eagle produced a similar figure, though this could vary depending upon its configuration.€

http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/lightning/memories.html


Whoever wrote this is quoting published initial climb rates while ignoring time-to-climb numbers. These initial climb rates quoted were not sustainable, even for one minute. They were snapshots.

BTW, the British Spey powered F-4M was the least performant production Phantom ever made, with half the initial climb rate was the F-4E.

ARCHIE_CALVERT
10-15-2005, 07:41 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MrBlueSky1960:
Hmmm€¦ I€m still out on this one http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif


Maybe it wasn't sophisticated enough.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">It was anything but, in fact to be blunt I didn't like the tone...</span> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif




If I was being pedantic I could ask you just what you mean by €œThose numbers aren't really any better€ Does that mean they aren€t any better€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Or does it mean they are better, but not by much€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Since your intent IS to be pedantic, I'll answer your question.

It means just what it says. The Lightning's initial climb rate was a little better than the Voodoo, and a little worse than the Starfighter and Phantom.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">The trouble is we don't know how the aircraft were set up on the day... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif There are so many variables that might have been set on the day to give an advantage. How much fuel was carried, what type and how much ordinance was loaded, where was the test taken and was it a cold or hot day... Was it a standard engine tune... See http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif So how can we be sure that any figures given are the absolute true test results and if they are how can we be sure that any other figures given for €˜Time-to-climb€ were tested with the exact same loads, temperature, fuel€¦ Bah! You can spout numbers till the cows come home, but the only way to prove them is by an actual physical test with both the aircraft in question and even then you could get wildly differing results between two aircraft. The test results for the Phantom could be explained by using a particularly good a/c, or use one built on a Friday and the figures could be cr#p€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif The same for the Lightning€¦</span> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">And if the figures are calibrated anything like the American built laser guns our Police are using, they€re wildly wrong and inaccurate€¦ There was a report to day that gave figures of 22mph for a parked car, a cyclist recorded travelling at 66mph and this is the best€¦ A brick wall doing 44mph

But how do we know that the people who tested them had set them up correctly€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Go figure€¦ Eh€¦</span> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif





As both sets of numbers show, they can prove or disprove anything€¦ The only sure way is to see for ones self and since that€s out of the question that makes both arguments mute http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


It makes it moot, too.




€œThe overall impression was that both aircraft had very similar performance and handling characteristics, both were a joy to fly. Considering the age difference, the Lightning's performance was totally outstanding when introduced into service, and when it finally bowed out, it could still out-climb most of its successors. Its initial rate of climb was 50,000 ft per minute. The Mirage IIIE climbed initially at 30,000 ft per minute; the Phantom F-4M managed 32,000 ft per minute; the MiG-21 could only manage 36,090 ft per minute; the F-16A's initial rate was 40,000 ft per minute, and the Tornado F.3's 43,000 ft per minute. So the Lightning reigned supreme. Only later was it surpassed; the F-15 Eagle, and the MiG-25 both have initial climb rates as good or better. The Lightning's time to FL 360 in re-heat was 2.5 minutes, in this respect the Eagle produced a similar figure, though this could vary depending upon its configuration.€

http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/lightning/memories.html


Whoever wrote this is quoting published initial climb rates while ignoring time-to-climb numbers. These initial climb rates quoted were not sustainable, even for one minute. They were snapshots.

BTW, the British Spey powered F-4M was the least performant production Phantom ever made, with half the initial climb rate was the F-4E. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Yeah, that was a balls up... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif We should have built the Hawker P.1121 it would have been in operational service by 64 and could have done all the things that the phantom was purchased to do, but a full four years sooner... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif</span>

Daiichidoku
10-15-2005, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by ARCHIE_CALVERT:
Yeah, that was a balls up... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif We should have built the Hawker P.1121 it would have been in operational service by 64 and could have done all the things that the phantom was purchased to do, but a full four years sooner... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif


the avro arrow would have been in service by 62 and done everything either could do, far better, and looking 100 times better doing ithttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

well, except for carrier ops http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

SkyChimp
10-15-2005, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by ARCHIE_CALVERT:

[i][color:YELLOW]And if the figures are calibrated anything like the American built laser guns our Police are using, they€re wildly wrong and inaccurate€¦


Well, if you are clocking Land Rovers or Minis, you wouldn't need one, cuz Land Rovers and Mini only run one day a month. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Daiichidoku
10-15-2005, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ARCHIE_CALVERT:

[i][color:YELLOW]And if the figures are calibrated anything like the American built laser guns our Police are using, they€re wildly wrong and inaccurate€¦

Well, if you are clocking Land Rovers or Minis, you wouldn't need one, cuz Land Rovers and Mini only run one day a month. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


OUCH! lol


actaully, i always wondered why for a long time the british used totally cr@ppy lucas electrics in thier vehicles, totally unreliable in wet conditions....you'd think theyd be able to make em work right in those conditions, given the non stop rain in england

p1ngu666
10-15-2005, 10:30 PM
it actully does stop rainning in england, and our motor industry imploded, really http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

still alot of small kit and sport car makers about...

and them people that make robin reliants

http://www.mantaworld.com/img/gallery/classic-cars/beaulieu2005/images/DSCF0011_JPG.jpg

theres honda and rover plants near where i live (swindon)

Daiichidoku
10-15-2005, 11:53 PM
another sign of britains economy...saving money on the forth tirehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

and does does the rain stop for? gotta either be for the fog, or for lack of fundshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

SkyChimp
10-16-2005, 08:27 AM
http://www.mantaworld.com/img/gallery/classic-cars/beaulieu2005/images/DSCF0011_JPG.jpg

I love quirky, old British cars. Is this one of them?

ARCHIE_CALVERT
10-16-2005, 09:06 AM
Yep, It's a Reliant Robin, this particular one was in a BBC TV comedy called 'Only fools and Horses' Because its a three wheeler you get cheaper Road Tax... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif I can also see Met Blue Ford Capri Mk1 3.0 GXL, a Met Grey Lotus Elan, a Red Triumph Herald/Vittess, White/Green Mk1 Ford Cortina, and a White Jag 120 or 150...

ploughman
10-16-2005, 09:22 AM
I love quirky, old British cars. Is this one of them?


Tragically, while it is both quirky and British, it is not that old. In my neck of the woods we call them plastic pigs and, despite being held in universal disdain, some people still insist on buying them. There is no accounting for taste.

Aaron_GT
10-16-2005, 12:28 PM
When first introduced the Reliant Robin didn't count as a car for road tax or in terms of the driving test so was a cheap alternative for lots of people. Whilst you saw them around they were never that numerous. It's a scaled up Messerschmitt bubble car concept. Given that they probably get good mileage perhaps the concept will have a renaissance due to higher fuel costs? In terms of the Smart Car perhaps it already has.

Aaron_GT
10-16-2005, 12:29 PM
, some people still insist on buying them.

I thought they wheeled the last one off the production line 3 or 4 years ago in the face of very low sales?