General Cool pics

[sunday]

8 hours ago, shep854 said:

More of the...eccentric...Canberra; and wait 'til you see where they stuff the nav! 

https://youtu.be/OJ8Zkb-UCFM

Now I realize I did not know some things about the Canberra.

[shep854]

4 hours ago, sunday said:

Now I realize I did not know some things about the Canberra.

A ridiculously versatile aircraft, for sure.

[shep854]

For all my kidding about the appearance of British aircraft, they got the Sea Hawk absolutely right:

Edited September 3 by shep854

[sunday]

Still less chubby than Javelin

https://youtu.be/nvv9jz1H2fM?si=9Or78XF3GoIdAyig

This is a very good YT channel, with some really original footage.

[shep854]

4 hours ago, sunday said:

Still less chubby than Javelin

https://youtu.be/nvv9jz1H2fM?si=9Or78XF3GoIdAyig

This is a very good YT channel, with some really original footage.

Yes, it is!  I'm really enjoying learning about these classic British aircraft.

The view from the pilot's position of the Gannet has to be incredible; more like sitting on the aircraft than in it.

Edited September 4 by shep854

[DB]

The Javelin was a bit of an oddity. Arguably obsolete before it was built it sits quite awkwardly alongside even the transonic fighters that the RAF bypassed by going straight to the Lightning.

I imagine that its size was largely driven by the all weather requirement, hence a large fuselage for the radar and a radar operator.

[Stuart Galbraith]

On 8/24/2023 at 9:48 PM, shep854 said:

Then there were the cockeyed Canberras 🤨

Yes, sat in one of those. Wonderful but weird.

[Stuart Galbraith]

56 minutes ago, shep854 said:

Yes, it is!  I'm really enjoying learning about these classic British aircraft.

The view from the pilot's position of the Gannet has to be incredible; more like sitting on the aircraft than in it.

Here is another for you.

[Ivanhoe]

 

[shep854]

7 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Here is another for you.

That could have been a world-beater.  Whenever the TSR.2 comes up, I have to wonder what got into their tea.

Edited September 5 by shep854

[Ivanhoe]

The TSR.2 looks like it oughta crash on every takeoff. Evolution of British fighter designs from the Camel to the TSR.2 illustrates Britain's slow descent into madness. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Blown flaps. It could IIRC take off within 600 feet IIRC, which knocked pretty much every combat aircraft of the era, other than Harrier, into a cocked hat.

Basically, it did everything F111 did, but without having to lug a Swing wing around with it. They even did a paper evaluation on whether it could land on a carrier. The conclusion was it would, but there wasnt an elevator lift big enough to move it to the hangar.

6 hours ago, shep854 said:

That could have been a world-beater.  Whenever the TSR.2 comes up, I have to wonder what got into their tea.

What's worse, it wasn't just labour that wanted to kill it. I was reading up on it the other day, allegedly the Conservatives were desperately trying to kill it, and arguably just prolonged the development so that Labour would get the job of slaughtering it.

The hilarious thing is the RAF thought they were going to get F111 instead, which was also cancelled, and they ended up with the Buccaneer which they never wanted, and a Phantom version slower than the USAF one. Serves them right really.

[urbanoid]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Blown flaps. It could IIRC take off within 600 feet IIRC, which knocked pretty much every combat aircraft of the era, other than Harrier, into a cocked hat.

Basically, it did everything F111 did, but without having to lug a Swing wing around with it. They even did a paper evaluation on whether it could land on a carrier. The conclusion was it would, but there wasnt an elevator lift big enough to move it to the hangar.

What's worse, it wasn't just labour that wanted to kill it. I was reading up on it the other day, allegedly the Conservatives were desperately trying to kill it, and arguably just prolonged the development so that Labour would get the job of slaughtering it.

The hilarious thing is the RAF thought they were going to get F111 instead, which was also cancelled, and they ended up with the Buccaneer which they never wanted, and a Phantom version slower than the USAF one. Serves them right really.

Why slower?

[sunday]

53 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Why slower?

Different engines. Rolls-Royce Spey instead of the J79 of all the other Phantom versions.

Different wikipedia articles give different detailed reasons for the lower top speed. I thought the main reason was the described in the second link, but now looks the first reason, compressor outlet temperature, could be more reasonable:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Spey#F-4K_and_M_Phantom

Quote

The British versions of the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II (designated Phantom FG.Mk.1 and FGR.Mk.2) replaced the 16,000 lb wet thrust J79 turbojets with a pair of 20,515 lb wet thrust Spey 201 turbofans. These provided extra thrust for operation from smaller British aircraft carriers, and provided additional bleed air for the boundary layer control system for slower landing speeds. The air intake area was increased by twenty per cent, while the aft fuselage under the engines had to be redesigned. Compared to the original turbojets, the afterburning turbofans produced a ten and fifteen per cent improvement in combat radius and ferry range, respectively, and improved take-off, initial climb, and acceleration, but at the cost of a reduction in top speed because compressor outlet temperatures would be exceeded in an essentially subsonic civil design.[7][8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_Phantom_in_UK_service

Quote

Although there were minor differences between the two types of Phantom built for the UK, there were many significant ones between the British Phantoms and those built for the United States. The most obvious was the substitution of the Rolls-Royce Spey turbofan for the General Electric J79 turbojet. The Spey was shorter but wider than the J79, which meant that the British Phantoms' intakes had to be redesigned for a higher airflow, making them 20% larger (with a consequent increase in drag), while the fuselage was widened by 152 millimetres (6 inches). The position of the afterburner also meant that the rear of the fuselage had to be made deeper.[100] Auxiliary intake doors were fitted on the rear fuselage.[101]

Performance estimates of the British Phantom compared to its American equivalent indicated that the former had a 30% shorter take-off distance, 20% faster climb to altitude, higher top speed, and longer range.[100] The Spey was more efficient at lower altitudes, and had better acceleration at low speed, giving British Phantoms better range and acceleration, which was shown during the deployment of 892 NAS to the Mediterranean aboard USS Saratoga in 1969, when the F-4K was repeatedly quicker off the deck than the F-4J used by the Americans.[102] It was less efficient at higher altitudes, the British Phantoms lacking speed compared to J79-powered versions owing to the increased drag of the re-designed fuselage.[18][100] This discrepancy became apparent when the F-4J was obtained by the UK in 1984; it was regarded as being the best of the three variants to serve in the RAF.[88]

Edited September 5 by sunday

[urbanoid]

Ah, yes, the paper parameters are not everything. I kinda remembered that Speys had more power than J79s, that's why I assumed that British F-4s would be, if anything, faster than the original ones.

[sunday]

9 hours ago, shep854 said:

That could have been a world-beater.  Whenever the TSR.2 comes up, I have to wonder what got into their tea.

TSR.2 reminds a me a bit of the North American A-5 Vigilante. Great airframe and performance, but perhaps a bit overspecialized.

[shep854]

1 hour ago, sunday said:

TSR.2 reminds a me a bit of the North American A-5 Vigilante. Great airframe and performance, but perhaps a bit overspecialized.

Now that you mention it, they do seem to have been conceived for the same general mission--nuclear strike--but the US was able to repurpose the Viggie as a recce aircraft, where it found success.

[sunday]

14 minutes ago, shep854 said:

Now that you mention it, they do seem to have been conceived for the same general mission--nuclear strike--but the US was able to repurpose the Viggie as a recce aircraft, where it found success.

The "R" on TSR.2 stands for Reconnaissance, also.

[Olof Larsson]

14 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Blown flaps. It could IIRC take off within 600 feet IIRC, which knocked pretty much every combat aircraft of the era, other than Harrier, into a cocked hat.

Basically, it did everything F111 did, but without having to lug a Swing wing around with it. They even did a paper evaluation on whether it could land on a carrier. The conclusion was it would, but there wasnt an elevator lift big enough to move it to the hangar.

And yet (at least on paper) the F-111 was lighter, faster, had much superior flight ceiling, longer range and could carry far more weapons. The TSR-2 had ~30% more internal fuel then the F-111, but with the Olympus engines, it needed that.

But if you intended to fly low and marginally faster then a Buccaneer all the way, with a short & slightly supersonic burst with a fairly small weapons load, the TSR-2 might have been better.

[shep854]

13 hours ago, sunday said:

The "R" on TSR.2 stands for Reconnaissance, also.

True!  The A-5 was designed to defecate nukes, so some rebuilding had to occur for the recce role.

[sunday]

5 hours ago, shep854 said:

True!  The A-5 was designed to defecate nukes, so some rebuilding had to occur for the recce role.

Well, that weapons bay of the Vigilante could easily be converted to carry a fuel cylinder.

[Stuart Galbraith]

On 9/5/2023 at 11:28 AM, urbanoid said:

Ah, yes, the paper parameters are not everything. I kinda remembered that Speys had more power than J79s, that's why I assumed that British F-4s would be, if anything, faster than the original ones.

So did the RAF and RN.

 

[RETAC21]

75 on the 1 to 10 scale:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/the-u-2-dragon-lady-as-you-have-never-seen-it-before

[DB]

On 9/5/2023 at 2:22 AM, Ivanhoe said:

The TSR.2 looks like it oughta crash on every takeoff. Evolution of British fighter designs from the Camel to the TSR.2 illustrates Britain's slow descent into madness. 

And yet, it wasn't the airframe nor the gangly undercarriage (for austere field performance) that killed TSR.2. The hints are there - the mission avionics were... tricky, and as usual the money to get them working was not there.

 

[TrustMe]

If you look at post WW2 history. Britian had a massive air industry and was a world leader in jet propulsion technology plus other aera's. I don't know why we have nothing left, does anyone know?