Topic: The most beautiful aircraft is...?

Looks like a right bag of spanners.

I apologise for that comment right now - just getting teasy because of the weather I think.
Mind you, you never see an F4 in nice colours do you? Even the Spit came in pink.

I apologise for that comment right now - just getting teasy because of the weather I think.
Mind you, you never see an F4 in nice colours do you? Even the Spit came in pink.

There was a dayglo orange drone version.

Also, this:

Beat me to that one Yoyo

Phantom=Fugly

Venom=Vivacious

Agreed. But when you've got that far and the airframe is in the bag you can go with what you have at the time. The platform was there to do with as they pleased.

We've covered this before - TSR2 would never have been finished to a mission-capable state. Its whole operational concept (long-range supersonic cruise and low-level attack) was dependant on an integrated radar nav-attack system that was so far beyond the capabilities of the available technology that it was unachievable.But they didn't have the systems engineering science at the time to understand the complexity of the task they'd taken on.

The "airframe" element was also a fairly minor part of the weapon delivery system. Military effect needs weapon delivery systems, not aeroplane (or ships, or subs, or missiles or grunts with throwing-arms). An airframe without its mission systems and weapon systems is just a paperweight - something of no military value at all.

As I've said before, if you want the *real* story of the TSR2 project then a good reference is "Project Cancelled" by Derek Wood. This book covers a lot of projects, but roughly a third of it is devoted to the TSR2 project.

PDR

Im aware of all that really. I used to work in the aerospace business for about 13 years. But there was great sentiment at the site I used to work re TSR2 - probably because the cancellation nearly finished the company.

In fact it DID finish the company because it had to be rescued by Lucas Aerospace.

Thanks for the extra info though I will try and get that book - I would like to know more about the project.

Pete, whilst I wouldn't argue with what you have written re technical reasons for TSR 2 cancellation, the real scandal was the manner of the deed.
(i)  The political lies (no intention to cancel) etc told by Wilson and his cronies to ensure they got elected immediately prior to cancellation
(ii)  The fact that the completed airframes were not kept and used for aerodynamic and sustained supersonic flight research.  This could have been both a political face-saver and yielded some very valuable data for little additional cost.
(iii)  Worse still than grounding the aircraft, the order to immediately destroy all the jigs, tools etc seems extraordinary and led, at the time to all sorts of stories about Wilson doing a deal with the USA to ensure that this competitor was wiped out without delay.
(iv)  The scandalous waste of money ordering F111 aircraft from GD without due diligence and then cancelling the order shortly afterwards once the unsuitability of that aircraft for our needs was realised.  This wasted (if I recall correctly) £50m which was an extraordinary sum in the early 1960s.

Still, at least we got some Phantoms in the end - Whilst a great aircraft it is difficult to see how it remotely met the original TSR2 requirement .....

Still, at least we got some Phantoms in the end - Whilst a great aircraft it is difficult to see how it remotely met the original TSR2 requirement .....

Is it true, as I have heard claimed in the past, that by fitting our Phantoms with Spey engines, we ended up with the slowest, noisiest, smokiest F-4s extant (although I believe they had greater range)?
Mike

I can vouch for the noise!

The whistling death! F4U Corsair. That snub nose, those gull wings sleek intakes bubble canopy and tappering down to sleek tail section. Big radial engine with a 3 blade prop with lots of grunt. Sure she's full figured but so was Marylin Monroe. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Corsair

The whistling death! F4U Corsair. That snub nose, those gull wings sleek intakes bubble canopy and tappering down to sleek tail section. Big radial engine with a 3 blade prop with lots of grunt. Sure she's full figured but so was Marylin Monroe. MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Corsair

Yeah, but look where it gor her. 

Still, at least we got some Phantoms in the end - Whilst a great aircraft it is difficult to see how it remotely met the original TSR2 requirement .....

Neither did the TSR2 though. It never would. A case in point on the moving fashions can be seen with the B52..High level, low level, high level...Cruise missile platform, Nuclear weapon platform, Iron bomb platform... The thing is, the Septics just threw money at it (that we can't possibly match) and remarkably it's still in service.

Neither did the TSR2 though. It never would. A case in point on the moving fashions can be seen with the B52..High level, low level, high level...Cruise missile platform, Nuclear weapon platform, Iron bomb platform... The thing is, the Septics just threw money at it (that we can't possibly match) and remarkably it's still in service.

When I said "meet the requirement" I was thinking in terms of "capability" rather than solution, so "deep strike" rather than supersonic cruise bomber.  An updated (in a big way for sure - re-engined, new defensive aids suite modern crew systems etc) Vulcan could still be in-service meeting that requirement today!

When I said "meet the requirement" I was thinking in terms of "capability" rather than solution, so "deep strike" rather than supersonic cruise bomber.  An updated (in a big way for sure - re-engined, new defensive aids suite modern crew systems etc) Vulcan could still be in-service meeting that requirement today!

That would have been a great idea. A 'Vulcan2' completely up dated could give the same service as the Buff is likely to give for another 50 years, and be pretty stealthy too!

That would have been a great idea. A 'Vulcan2' completely up dated could give the same service as the Buff is likely to give for another 50 years, and be pretty stealthy too!

There you go then! The task is to design and build an R/C Vulcan 2... Keep costs down so only twin turbines... 

There you go then! The task is to design and build an R/C Vulcan 2... Keep costs down so only twin turbines... 

could maybe run to 4 Jetex.....

There you go then! The task is to design and build an R/C Vulcan 2... Keep costs down so only twin turbines... 

The issue for us would be that the external features would probably look little different except probably in the cockpit area where changes would be required to fit modern ejection and survival gear.  The major changes would be in the C4I, defensive aids and weapons areas all of which are largely invisible to us as they are either electronics or otherwise fitted internally.

The same would be true of a 21st century Concorde, the aerodynamics are fine but a change in materials, powerplant and provision of fly by wire sidestick operated flight controls would result in a far more efficient, quieter airliner which, even if scaled up to a 150 pax 6 abreast seating arrangement would still look much the same in model form!

The issue for us would be that the external features would probably look little different except probably in the cockpit area where changes would be required to fit modern ejection and survival gear.  The major changes would be in the C4I, defensive aids and weapons areas all of which are largely invisible to us as they are either electronics or otherwise fitted internally.

The same would be true of a 21st century Concorde, the aerodynamics are fine but a change in materials, powerplant and provision of fly by wire sidestick operated flight controls would result in a far more efficient, quieter airliner which, even if scaled up to a 150 pax 6 abreast seating arrangement would still look much the same in model form!

Hmm- how about much more rounded surfaces and a V tail instead of the fin, (more stealthy) plus exhausts from a pair of RB211s exiting from slots at the top surface... cover the lot in radar absorbing paint in black, and its a world beater!

Hmm- how about much more rounded surfaces and a V tail instead of the fin, (more stealthy) plus exhausts from a pair of RB211s exiting from slots at the top surface... cover the lot in radar absorbing paint in black, and its a world beater!

Assuming you refer to the Super Vulcan:
Twin canted fins = Good idea reduces radar cross section
Rounded surfaces = Bad idea, usually increases "glint|" which makes radar detection and subsequent tracking a whole lot easier.
It should be noted that IF you detect a stealthy target, subsequent tracking isn't so difficult as all that
RB211's are too big I think and probably inappropriate - Now four EJ200 based engines would certainly fit and would provide more than adequate power and probably a lot lower specific fuel consumption.
Radar Absorbing material to cover the airframe?  Possibly, but careful intake and exhaust design would pay bigger dividends (ensuring that the radar can't "see" the fan blades down the intake and that the exhaust IR signature is minimized.

Assuming you refer to the Super Vulcan:
Twin canted fins = Good idea reduces radar cross section
Rounded surfaces = Bad idea, usually increases "glint|" which makes radar detection and subsequent tracking a whole lot easier.
It should be noted that IF you detect a stealthy target, subsequent tracking isn't so difficult as all that
RB211's are too big I think and probably inappropriate - Now four EJ200 based engines would certainly fit and would provide more than adequate power and probably a lot lower specific fuel consumption.
Radar Absorbing material to cover the airframe?  Possibly, but careful intake and exhaust design would pay bigger dividends (ensuring that the radar can't "see" the fan blades down the intake and that the exhaust IR signature is minimized.

Well, we are on the way. No cockpit dome of course, everything inside the nose. I thought the B2 went to rounder surfaces than the Nighthawk to reduce radar reflections?

Well, we are on the way. No cockpit dome of course, everything inside the nose. I thought the B2 went to rounder surfaces than the Nighthawk to reduce radar reflections?

The F117A was the shape it was because the computers and algorithms they had when it was first designed (in the 60's!) could only model large flat plates, not complex curved surfaces. As for glint (the same as specular reflection in optics) flat plates mean that you only get a flash at one very precise angle, but when you do, it's a REALLY BIG flash. It's also Carp aerodynamically.

Things like the F22 and F35 are nice and curvy, much better fliers than the F117A and yet significantly more stealthy.

Assuming you refer to the Super Vulcan:
Twin canted fins = Good idea reduces radar cross section
Rounded surfaces = Bad idea, usually increases "glint|" which makes radar detection and subsequent tracking a whole lot easier.
It should be noted that IF you detect a stealthy target, subsequent tracking isn't so difficult as all that
RB211's are too big I think and probably inappropriate - Now four EJ200 based engines would certainly fit and would provide more than adequate power and probably a lot lower specific fuel consumption.
Radar Absorbing material to cover the airframe?  Possibly, but careful intake and exhaust design would pay bigger dividends (ensuring that the radar can't "see" the fan blades down the intake and that the exhaust IR signature is minimized.

All you need now is to find a mission requirement that needs these force effects to justify your design choices (although conventional practice would be the other way around)...

PDR

Things like the F22 and F35 are nice and curvy, much better fliers than the F117A and yet significantly more stealthy.

Well yes and no. What you are looking at is the external (and largely transparent) shell, not the underlying structure or (more to the point) how these two interact.

PDR

All you need now is to find a mission requirement that needs these force effects to justify your design choices (although conventional practice would be the other way around)...

PDR

Well, it's a lot "FOAS" like" - And that need remains only partly met .... and then only on paper at present!

All you need now is to find a mission requirement that needs these force effects to justify your design choices (although conventional practice would be the other way around)...

PDR

Well we dont care. We will start a war if needs be, although that may not be needed if the Iraqis carry on....

The V-bomber fleet was designed for a single mission requirement - to deliver nuclear weapons a relatively short distance across europe into the USSR. We currently don't see that as a required mission, so we have no real need for the aeroplane you're designing.

I only mention this because if we ignore it Richard will be screaming that the money wastyed on this should have been spent on better central heating, maid-service and gourmet restaurants for infantry regiments.

PDR

...

What we could do is (as was the practice); invite all our home grown aircraft manufacturers* to come up with a design for the aircraft we're looking at. Give them four years to get to prototype stage at their expense; then just as they're ready to submit the design for evaluation we cancel the project; say thanks but no thanks, and then invite bids on a completely different set of parameters, and look aghast and appear indignant when they leave lorry loads of horse s**t outside our office of total incompetence. 



*This is all virtual you understand.

I said Iraqis and meant Iranians! Come on then Pete- how come the US needs buffs and stealths and we don't?

Sent from my BlackBerry 9300 using Tapatalk

I said Iraqis and meant Iranians! Come on then Pete- how come the US needs buffs and stealths and we don't?

Sent from my BlackBerry 9300 using Tapatalk

Cos they is gonna wup his ass...whoever 'he' is. We haven't quite the same catastrophic bid to be totally and utterly bankrupt; the septics have and so can 'afford it'.

I said Iraqis and meant Iranians! Come on then Pete- how come the US needs buffs and stealths and we don't?

The americans have (or rather "had") the aspiration to project power globally - we don't.

PDR

Not sure the politicians in the UK understand that though. 

The americans have (or rather "had") the aspiration to project power globally - we don't.

PDR

Well, not since "Tony" stood down!  The trouble was he wanted to project power globally but wouldn't pay the price.

The V-bomber fleet was designed for a single mission requirement - to deliver nuclear weapons a relatively short distance across europe into the USSR.

Effectively that objective was blown out of the water by the advent of high speed guided surface to air missiles. This was obviously recognised because Blue Steel missile was developed when it was realised that you couldnt guarantee do deliver the goods in person and had to resort to a big stand off bomb. Albeit a very smart one.

The problem with designing something with such tight operational parameters is that, like a chess move, if the 'enemy' can come up with a quick decisive deterent you are left with an expensive white elephant on your hands.

The British aircraft industry can never hope to compete with tight budgets and narrow minded objectives. The political will power in this country prefers to sit in the American back pocket, whilst our nearest neighbours can join in with the Eurofighter project, fund the Mirage 4000 project and come up with a (very) creditable machine of their own the Rafale. Thus ensuring that not only does the   French miltary aircraft industry maintain a viable strategic capability through partnerships. But through their own erstwhile endeavors too.

I sometimes wonder who's 'side' our government is on 

I sometimes wonder who's 'side' our government is on 

That's easy - Their own!  (As in not yours and mine! - Regardless of party!)