What if

GROUP BUILDS => Themed Build Repository => Topic started by: Weaver on August 14, 2008, 05:32:47 am

Title: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Weaver on August 14, 2008, 05:32:47 am
Much of the effort on here goes into producing models of ideas, either our own or other people's which are at least credible, or even sometimes good, but which just didn't get built in real life for some reason. But what about the other ideas? The bad ideas, the really, REALLY fruitloop, hatstand, away-with-the-fairies ideas, the ideas that you consider for a nanosecond whilst exploring all the options before consigning them firmly to the pile marked "nah..."?

So here's the challenge: build a model of something that might or might not look cool, and might be considered a jolly good idea by someone who actually knew next to nothing about the subject, but which absolutely would not, under any circumstances, work.  ;D

Some ideas:

The low-wing Harrier. This was what gave me the idea: I was considering how to re-arrange a Harrier, moving all the bits around in my mind, and just for a second, I moved the wing down to the low position: seemed perfectly reasonable....... for a second.

When Petter was designing the EE Lightning, his main concern was how to get the minimum frontal area with two engines, so he started off with the "impossible ideal" of one engine in front of the other and then progressively offset them until the intakes and exhausts would actually work. But what if he'd gone with his original idea: the really, REALLY long and thin first Lightning prototype, right at the back of Warton's museum where they hope no-one will notice it.......

M1-Abrahms based Kettenrad?

How about a modern aircraft carrier arranged like HMS Furious, with central battleship superstructure, really short landing on and flying off decks and some serious cranes in the middle? Could be kitbashed from a Nimitz and a New Jersey kit......

Or the easy option: if someone makes a Rockwell XFV-12 kit, you could just make it OOB..... :wacko:

Over to you......

Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: cthulhu77 on August 14, 2008, 08:42:10 am
In itself, the F4 isn't a bad aircraft.  I just hate them because they are so mind numbingly, soul crushing DULL!  And the Spey ones are the worst.  Waste of good engines...

You wouldn't say that after talking to some of the pilots...yikes. Every single one I know hated flying those things.  I like how they look, with the angled fins and all, but the pilots seemed to loathe them.
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: JoeP on August 14, 2008, 08:59:42 am
A submarine with great, big windows at the bow or on the side.
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on August 14, 2008, 11:06:44 am
A submarine with great, big windows at the bow or on the side.


Aww c'mon, the windows worked fine on the Seaview and the Nautilus respectively.

 ;D

Jon
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: upnorth on August 14, 2008, 11:50:45 am
I have a couple of models of early L-13 Blanik gliders. I could try to rig them up for COIN.

No engine, no armor, no countermeasures, depending on a winch or tow plane to get you and your explosives up there and possibly thermals in all the wrong places or none at all.

Yep, sounds like a winner to me.

Might as well do your COIN with a hang glider and a 12 guage.
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on August 14, 2008, 12:09:13 pm
I have a couple of models of early L-13 Blanik gliders. I could try to rig them up for COIN.

No engine, no armor, no countermeasures, depending on a winch or tow plane to get you and your explosives up there and possibly thermals in all the wrong places or none at all.

Yep, sounds like a winner to me.

Might as well do your COIN with a hang glider and a 12 guage.
The L-13M is a motorized version:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/LET_L-13M_Blanik.jpg/800px-LET_L-13M_Blanik.jpg)

They created a true motor glider from the Blanik, the Vivat.
http://www.nwi.net/~blanikam/ba/prod03.htm (http://www.nwi.net/~blanikam/ba/prod03.htm)
(http://richard.ferriere.free.fr/blanik/l13sw_vivat.jpg)

The SSAKTP SL-2P Twin Blanik is also very cool.
(http://www.ies.si/flylab.jpg)

So combine your L-13 kits and add a small engine or two (maybe a podded turbo-jet) all in the name of getting a heavier load off of the ground of course, the mission profile would still be a silent gliding attack, Aural Stealth doncha know.  ;D

Jon
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: puddingwrestler on August 14, 2008, 03:31:26 pm
So... essentially most of my ideas then :wacko:
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Mossie on August 14, 2008, 04:40:46 pm
Fairey Battle, with a tandem engine arrangement like the Bolkhovitinov Spartak.  Crap single engine aircraft converted to a crapper two engine aircraft. :rolleyes:

Continuing the Fairey theme, Barracuda with a RR Vulture.  A fitters maintainance nightmare turned night-terror!  Not to mention a wee bit uglier!!! :blink:

Lancaster zwilling.  Greater range, can loft even more bombs, great!  Hang on a mo, where's it going to take off from???  :huh:
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Leigh on August 14, 2008, 05:18:54 pm
Well I'm planning on trying to scratch together this truly inspired design, the Sizaire-Berwick Wind Wagon. Lets attach a honking great aircraft engine and monstrous prop to an armoured car. Except we'll only armour the cab and leave the engine and fuel tank exposed to anything that comes at it. Then we'll test it in the desert, sandstorm anyone? God knows how the clutch, gears and braking systems worked  :blink:
(http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/GreatBritain/GB-Sizaire-BerwickAC.jpg)

Thinking the Matchbox 1/32 rolls Royce looks like the best starter kit for this thing.
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Taiidantomcat on August 14, 2008, 05:51:17 pm
Can i do an OOB Super hornet? ;D 
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Weaver on August 15, 2008, 03:11:23 pm
I have a couple of models of early L-13 Blanik gliders. I could try to rig them up for COIN.

No engine, no armor, no countermeasures, depending on a winch or tow plane to get you and your explosives up there and possibly thermals in all the wrong places or none at all.

Yep, sounds like a winner to me.

Might as well do your COIN with a hang glider and a 12 guage.

Of course, if you hang some napalm tanks off it, you can make your own thermals........ :wacko:
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: JoeP on August 18, 2008, 11:25:14 am
The USN's Arsenal ship. No defenses, no armor, and undermanned.
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Bryan H. on August 18, 2008, 12:47:12 pm
The Convair NB-36H, a nuclear-powered B-36 bomber.   :blink:

A truly BAD idea!  I don't think anyone at SAC or Convair thought through a the obvious what-ifs...  What if your NB-36H crashes on take-off, landing or in a bad storm?  What if a crash occurs over an urban area?  The former SAC base, Carswell AFB is located in Ft. Worth - I'm sure other SAC bases were also located near cities.  What if you have an inflight meltdown?

 :cheers: Bryan     
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: B777LR on August 18, 2008, 01:04:06 pm
Hmm, lets see:

Catalina with mid- or low-set wings (and engines)

A-10 with engines located underneath the wings

Hindenburg strategic bomber... :wacko:
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: B777LR on August 18, 2008, 01:05:47 pm
What if you have an inflight meltdown?

Considering how much the radiation from Chernobyl spread, from ground level...
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on August 18, 2008, 01:43:51 pm
The Convair NB-36H, a nuclear-powered B-36 bomber.   :blink:

A truly BAD idea!  I don't think anyone at SAC or Convair thought through a the obvious what-ifs...  What if your NB-36H crashes on take-off, landing or in a bad storm?  What if a crash occurs over an urban area?  The former SAC base, Carswell AFB is located in Ft. Worth - I'm sure other SAC bases were also located near cities.  What if you have an inflight meltdown?

 :cheers: Bryan     

The NB-36H was only a test aircraft conversion of a standard B-36, the reactor was just a payload and did not power the aircraft.
The conversion was one of two planned to support the MX-1589 project, the second modified aircraft, designated X-6, would have
actually been flown using atomic-cycle turbo-jets powered by the reactor.

The production nuke powered aircraft would have been a completely different design, the NX-2.

Jon
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: puddingwrestler on August 18, 2008, 03:38:43 pm
The NB36 was also followed everywhere by a fleet of planes carrying clean-up paratroopers...
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: tinlail on August 18, 2008, 04:10:45 pm
Wimps.

I don't even think Pluto, or Orion are bad ideas.

Not that I think they should be frequent fliers mind you ...
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on August 18, 2008, 04:21:29 pm
Wimps.

I don't even think Pluto, or Orion are bad ideas.

Not that I think they should be frequent fliers mind you ...

Pluto was an extremely bad idea, Orion on the other hand had great potential and could probably be made into relatively safe hardware.

Jon
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: tinlail on August 18, 2008, 05:04:31 pm
Well on Orion it depends on if you are talking about a ground, or space firing. I think actually that the case could be made, That low orbit is the worst, followed by atmosphere, and then deep space.

Pluto, doesn't seem so bad until you remember that after it has run, it is lethally radioactive.
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Weaver on August 20, 2008, 05:20:55 am
Subtle one: short, fuselage-mounted IFR probe on an aircraft with a tractor prop..... :wacko:
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Mossie on August 20, 2008, 05:35:29 am
Well, they put 'em on helicopters so why not!  :lol:
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Weaver on August 20, 2008, 09:48:37 am
Or another one to get the head's a-scratching: an amphibian conversion of a piston-fighter with a very big, very obviously fixed central float on a tall pylon, and the original retractable undercarriage in the wings...... ;D
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: puddingwrestler on August 20, 2008, 03:38:04 pm
That's to stop it falling over sideways if you have to ditch in a field!
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: MMM on August 20, 2008, 06:00:27 pm
How about Bruce McCall's aircraft?

http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/AC/way-weird/weird.php
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Styyro on August 20, 2008, 06:13:20 pm
How about Bruce McCall's aircraft?

Yes... I've always been perversely tempted by the pachydermous Sedlitz-Dombrowski.
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Daryl J. on August 22, 2008, 08:06:06 pm
The jet BD-5/B-52 mistel proposal was always a bad idea in my opinion; it was such a waste of lawn mower wheels!


Daryl J.
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: SPINNERS on August 27, 2008, 02:52:53 pm
In itself, the F4 isn't a bad aircraft.  I just hate them because they are so mind numbingly, soul crushing DULL! 

 :o

I thought that described the F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, F-zz zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: gooberliberation on August 29, 2008, 05:16:25 pm
The Convair NB-36H, a nuclear-powered B-36 bomber.   :blink:

Even better is the Tupolev Tu-95LAL.

Radiation shielding is overrated..... :blink:
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Shasper on August 29, 2008, 05:33:04 pm
Do the words "Thermal exhaust port" and "Death Star" ring a bell? :lol:

Shas 8)
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Weaver on December 15, 2008, 07:07:51 am
If you happen to have some bits from the old 1/24th Airfix Stuka in your stash, why not add the bomb, the dive brakes and the siren to a 1/72nd Vulcan, thereby making the world's first, last and hopefully only nuclear-armed dive-bomber.... :wacko:
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: rallymodeller on December 15, 2008, 08:12:46 am
What about an entire generation of aircraft that are designed and sent to production around an engine that only exists as a paper project? The Westinghouse J-40 was such a crap design that it killed or seriously maimed several US Navy designs, the FD-3 Demon for example. The J40 only ever produced, what, 60% of its target thrust? And with a mean time between catastrophic failures of about six minutes...
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: chrisonord on December 16, 2008, 06:27:55 am
How about an INTER CONTINENTAL NUCLEAR BALLISTIC..............train???
The train would be used to counter threats from Russia, Iran China etc.
Launched from Crewe Strategic command, and sent off along  the west coast mainline through London and onto the chunnel, no one will know what it is where it is or anything because we all know how useless train services and timetables are.
Just make sure you don't user a Virgin train though as it will only go as far as the chunnel entrance. :rolleyes: :lol:   
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Weaver on December 16, 2008, 10:28:26 am
DBLBM: the Diving Bell Launched Ballistic Missile.

Much cheaper than a full-on submarine, and it could still be hiding anywhere in the world's oceans, as long as that hiding place is directly underneath where it starts from......



Dirigible Nuclear Bomber.

Drop the nuke and then wind the wick right up to it's full 70kts in order to escape.....


Dual Aspect Stealth Aircraft.

The flat underside of the F-117 is designed to deflect radar signals from ground-based radars away from the receiver. The DASA was designed to work against airborne lookdown-shootdown radars as well, so it had a flat topside as well as underside. The concept failed because insufficent anorexic super-models could be persuaded to change careers to pilot it.......

(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d165/hws5mp/The%20Whiffery/DASA.jpg)
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Weaver on January 25, 2010, 10:13:23 am
Sorry for the mental image, but I've just got to get this off my chest:

Blackburn Beverly Interceptor.

Olympus in cargo bay with intake and exhaust in the lower part of the nose/tail doors,

Rocket booster in the tail boom,

REALLY big radar in the upper part of the nose fairing,

Three Firestreaks in staggered echelon on each side of the fuselage, which are curiously remeniscent of the pottery ducks flying up Hilda Ogden's wall......
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: PR19_Kit on January 25, 2010, 06:00:43 pm
Blackburn Beverly Interceptor.

ROTFL!  :wub:

What a fantastic idea, you can almost see the 'lines of whizz' from the tips of the fins as it climbs at around 10000 fpm to operational height......  -_-
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Weaver on January 25, 2010, 06:55:18 pm
Actually, I was imagining the accident report:

.....The additional power systems appeared to be functioning perfectly with no problems, right upto the moment where all telemetry and communications from the aircraft suddenly ceased, approximately 1.7 seconds after rocket motor ignition......
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: pyro-manic on January 26, 2010, 08:42:19 am
Blackburn Beverly Interceptor.

ROTFL!  :wub:

What a fantastic idea, you can almost see the 'lines of whizz' from the tips of the fins as it climbs at around 10000 fpm to operational height......  -_-

Hahah, going vertical at the end of the runway. ;D
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Mossie on January 26, 2010, 09:01:11 am
And then horizontal, the old girl didn't need much encouragement to flip on her back in the first place! :drink:
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: lancer on January 26, 2010, 09:58:22 am
And then horizontal, the old girl didn't need much encouragement to flip on her back in the first place! :drink:

I've known a few old girls like that in my time.. :ph34r: :ph34r:


Yeah, I know Shut the door on my way out!!
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: PR19_Kit on January 26, 2010, 01:17:58 pm
And then horizontal, the old girl didn't need much encouragement to flip on her back in the first place! :drink:

I can tell you never flew in one.........  :lol:

Anything more than a 5 deg angle, either upwards or downwards, was difficult in a Bev. Not to mention ruddy frightening!  :o
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Mossie on January 26, 2010, 01:30:53 pm
And then horizontal, the old girl didn't need much encouragement to flip on her back in the first place! :drink:

I've known a few old girls like that in my time.. :ph34r: :ph34r:


Yeah, I know Shut the door on my way out!!

Wish I could say the same, you need to introduce me....  :lol:

And then horizontal, the old girl didn't need much encouragement to flip on her back in the first place! :drink:

I can tell you never flew in one.........  :lol:

Anything more than a 5 deg angle, either upwards or downwards, was difficult in a Bev. Not to mention ruddy frightening!  :o

Well, I've only managed to stand in one, but that was quite an experience itself.  Especially looking down through the paratroop hatch, not a chance you'd get me jumping out of there!  Good place to put that rocket motor..... ;D
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: PR19_Kit on January 26, 2010, 09:35:02 pm
Well, I've only managed to stand in one, but that was quite an experience itself.  Especially looking down through the paratroop hatch, not a chance you'd get me jumping out of there!  Good place to put that rocket motor..... ;D

The Paras loved jumping out of Bevs, the hatch was so big there was no chance that they'd bang themselves on the way out while carrying a load of stuff, there was no engine wake as the main fuselage was in the way, and there was zero chance of hitting the tail as they were well below it anyway.

Watching a stick of them drop from the main cargo bay was amazing (the main bay doors were left behind if they were dropping heavy stuff, so the 'rear door' was a 10 ft x 10 ft hole!) You could see when the drop master opened the hatch, as a black hole appeared in the bottom of the boom, then all of a sudden the stick streamed out of it, one after the other. Memory says they dropped from the left and right sides of the hatch alternately, but it was a long time ago.

As you say, looking down from the hatch on the ground was a sobering experience (not that I'd ever touched alcohol at my age then of course, oh dear me no.........  -_-) and there were a number of instances where some poor groundies fell through the hatch and were killed or severely injured, especially early or late in the day when it was difficult to see the light coming trhough the hatch from outside. The Paull Bev has the guard rails fitted which were designed to stop such accidents when 47 Sqdn was working up on the Bev in the 50s.

[I can see this bit of the thread being moved elsewhere...........  :lol:]
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Weaver on July 01, 2010, 03:07:06 am
Fairey Battle, with a tandem engine arrangement like the Bolkhovitinov Spartak.  Crap single engine aircraft converted to a crapper two engine aircraft. :rolleyes:

Holy thread revival!

Re-reading this just gave me an idea: since the Battle set such a good example of economy in light bombing, why not emulate it with a single-engined Blenheim?  :wacko:
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: James on July 01, 2010, 06:39:44 am
How about a Tiger Moth Zwilling with two 40mms slung under the centre wing?....  :wacko:  :blink:
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Mossie on July 01, 2010, 07:48:03 am
Awww, poor Tiggy, first time you fired them the wings would tear off!  Kind of a minimalist Mistel, the wings keep flying, but the fuselage is off like a bomb...
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Weaver on July 01, 2010, 08:03:46 am
How about a Tiger Moth Zwilling with two 40mms slung under the centre wing?....  :wacko:  :blink:

That'd produce a result worthy of Dick Dastardly...

CLUNK!


 ;D
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Mossie on July 01, 2010, 09:10:14 am
I was thinking exactly that when I wrote it!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Weaver on July 01, 2010, 09:16:27 am
I saw the recoil stopping the centre wing section so that the two fuselages swung round nose-to-nose. Then they pause just long enough for a "drat and double-drat" before dropping like a stone..... ;D
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Weaver on February 10, 2011, 01:53:15 am
Here's another one, inspired by noting the similarity between one of those Gotha gliders and a C-119:

The glider gunship

Ensures silent approach (until the guns open up)and a greatly reduced infra-red signature (ditto), and with no pesky engines and fuel, there's that much more payload available for ammo too! Got to be a real "people person" though, because after you've spent five minutes straffing someone, you then land right next to them..... :blink:
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Stargazer2006 on February 10, 2011, 06:54:41 pm
I always thought some guys around here were kinda nuts, but I had never fathomed how utterly bonkers everybody was until I read that thread... ROTFL!!!  ;D  :bow:
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: tigercat on May 11, 2011, 04:31:28 pm
Martin Baker evaluation Helicopter

Troop transport with the jump hatch in front of the wing


extendable flying crane joined by a girder that works on the same principle as a firemans ladder.
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Mr.Creak on May 18, 2011, 09:13:53 pm
Close Air Support Blimp.
Yes, we admit that there were 100% losses slight problems with the Mk.1, but the Mk.2 is entirely protected with titanium armour. It will never get shot down. In fact, we're having trouble getting it off the ground at all...
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: NARSES2 on May 19, 2011, 12:48:09 am
Close Air Support Blimp.
Yes, we admit that there were 100% losses slight problems with the Mk.1, but the Mk.2 is entirely protected with titanium armour. It will never get shot down. In fact, we're having trouble getting it off the ground at all...

 ;D ;D ;D Like your thinking  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: tigercat on May 19, 2011, 02:19:10 am
http://www.aviastar.org/air/germany/blohm_bv-40.php

There was a proposal for a Glider fighter with possibly a bomb towed on a cable behind
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Rheged on May 19, 2011, 03:06:19 am
Sorry for the mental image, but I've just got to get this off my chest:

Blackburn Beverly Interceptor.

Olympus in cargo bay with intake and exhaust in the lower part of the nose/tail doors,

Rocket booster in the tail boom,

REALLY big radar in the upper part of the nose fairing,

Three Firestreaks in staggered echelon on each side of the fuselage, which are curiously remeniscent of the pottery ducks flying up Hilda Ogden's wall......

This is so utterly ludicrous that it needs built!   It's even more ridiculous than a Belfast gunship with an ex HMS  Nelson 16 inch gun sticking out the nose. 
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: tigercat on June 17, 2011, 11:25:30 pm
inspired by the Beverely Interceptor

the fighter transport

as fighters move to an all missile armament  it is decided that in order to gain an advantage aircraft need to carry more missiles than the opposition.

transports are deemed to be able to carry more missiles than other aircraft as well as being able to carry more jamming equipment in the cargo bay and more flares and chaff 
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Weaver on June 18, 2011, 02:16:53 am
inspired by the Beverely Interceptor

the fighter transport

as fighters move to an all missile armament  it is decided that in order to gain an advantage aircraft need to carry more missiles than the opposition.

transports are deemed to be able to carry more missiles than other aircraft as well as being able to carry more jamming equipment in the cargo bay and more flares and chaff 

Things like that have been seriously proposed IIRC! It's really the Douglas Missileer concept freed from the restrictions of a carrier deck..... :blink:
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Nils on June 18, 2011, 02:34:21 am
an Avro Lancaster modified for dogfights  ;D
IIRC, the americans did such a thing with a number of B-17's to function as escorts.
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Weaver on June 18, 2011, 02:36:00 am
Here's another one:

HUPLCLAWS: the Human Powered Light CLose Air-support Weapon System.

Based on Gossamer Condor technology, this extremely fuel-efficient combat aircraft is constructed from ultra-lightweight sustainably-forested balsa wood and clad in a skin of highly efficient ballistic polythene. Endurance has proved something of an issue, but the current recruitment drive aimed at the Olympic cycling team is thought to be very promising. Naturally stealthy, the craft is nearly invisible at altitude (theoretically, since it's self-powered ceiling is about 1000ft) and very damage resistant since most small calibre rounds pass through it without hitting anything, or indeed slowing down. Work is underway to enhance maneuverability by expanding the G-envelope beyond the current 0.1G limit.

The question of armament remains fluid at the moment. Early static tests with Hellfire missiles and 2.65" rockets had to be abandoned after the 01 prototype was burnt to a cinder, and the problem of a single round doubling the take-off weight of the aircraft was never solved. Special bombs designed to be carried within the disposable payload limits of the aircraft have been tried, but proved difficult to evaluate since the range scorers failed to notice them exploding. The 02 protoype suffered catastophic structural failure when it's M60 machine gun was fired in another static test, and current research revolves around a concept known as Minium Impact Recoil Attenuated Kinetic Low-level Engagement, or MIRAKLE, which consists of a Mauser Broomhandle pistol with reduced charge ammunition and a really, really long barrel......
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: James on June 18, 2011, 07:27:05 am
This is so utterly ludicrous that it needs built!   It's even more ridiculous than a Belfast gunship with an ex HMS  Nelson 16 inch gun sticking out the nose. 

I want to see one of those!  RAF SEAC....Vietnam.... :wacko: Like an extreme version of the Halifax with a 75 mm in the nose that is on my work bench.
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: GTX on June 18, 2011, 12:59:33 pm
Quote
HUPLCLAWS: the Human Powered Light CLose Air-support Weapon System.

Mind you, the additional power available during engagement with the enemy (i.e. due to adrenalin) would be useful... ;)
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Martin H on June 18, 2011, 01:12:21 pm
Quote
HUPLCLAWS: the Human Powered Light CLose Air-support Weapon System.

Mind you, the additional power available during engagement with the enemy (i.e. due to adrenalin) would be useful... ;)

Certainly would bring in a new meaning for the term "After burner"
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: rickshaw on June 20, 2011, 03:43:43 am
Quote
HUPLCLAWS: the Human Powered Light CLose Air-support Weapon System.

Mind you, the additional power available during engagement with the enemy (i.e. due to adrenalin) would be useful... ;)

Certainly would bring in a new meaning for the term "After burner"

Mmm, the Indians could be particularly good at providing fuel for the motor...
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: tigercat on June 20, 2011, 04:23:04 am
HUPLCLAWS: the Human Powered Light CLose Air-support Weapon System

The nomenclature leaves open the possibility for a

HUPHCLAWS or Heavy maybe based round a tandem

~*~


A340 Railbus.   Rail mounted aircraft based round a train carriage

No need to worry about that extra runway just find a nice long  straight bit of rail line  of course landing might be a problem

but  stop the designers of Crewe Aircraft  have thought of this and the A340 Railbus  is amphibious

~*~

Avro Lancaster crop duster squadron 634 "Apres nous le DDT."
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: James on June 20, 2011, 08:20:11 am
~*~

Avro Lancaster crop duster squadron 634 "Apres nous le DDT."

How about using a Mossie instead?  ;D
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Skyler on July 23, 2011, 09:23:27 am
This is a really bad idea- the Mosquito fire bomber.  :wacko:
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Nils on July 23, 2011, 09:46:23 am
an air defence version of the A-10 or Predator UAV  :-\
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: lenny100 on July 23, 2011, 09:55:56 am
hos about a nuclear powered space craft built with 1960s technology and no scram or radiation shielding in case of a runaway reactor
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Weaver on July 23, 2011, 10:49:12 am
hos about a nuclear powered space craft built with 1960s technology and no scram or radiation shielding in case of a runaway reactor

Hmm, yeah - perhaps based on the idea that somebody actually bought into all the pro-nuclear "but these are good atoms Johnny" propaganda of the 1950s.... ;D
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Taiidantomcat on July 31, 2011, 03:24:14 pm
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4048/4324300920_dd7082fb39_o.jpg)

 ;D
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: pyro-manic on July 31, 2011, 06:00:48 pm
I think you made a mistake there, TTC - that's clearly a proposal for the best idea GB. It can do everything, after all.
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: wagnersm on July 31, 2011, 06:47:29 pm
an Avro Lancaster modified for dogfights  ;D
IIRC, the americans did such a thing with a number of B-17's to function as escorts.

Yep, Boeing-Lockheed YB40

They did the same thing with B24, XB41

Steve
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Weaver on September 11, 2011, 06:34:00 pm
Stealth-bomber cable car: you never know when it might get you! (if you're directly under it's cable, that is.....)
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Litvyak on September 11, 2011, 07:44:29 pm
TTC, I've been laughing nonstop since I saw that thing. To the point of it having gotten difficult to breathe for a few moments.

That's what'd happen if some dude's stoned and thinks "hey waitasec... JFS manages to merge requirements into a single design suitable for all service branches... why don't we take that a step further? No more need for different ship/aircraft/tank/etc designs, this does it ALL!"

Possibly bad idea from DND: Stealth snowmobile?
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: tigercat on September 12, 2011, 12:05:27 am
14 inch gun  armed frigate
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: NARSES2 on September 12, 2011, 02:39:52 am
14 inch gun  armed frigate

Called a monitor isn't it  ;D
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Rheged on September 12, 2011, 03:51:22 am
14 inch gun  armed frigate

Called a monitor isn't it  ;D

Is it true that monitors do 5 knots at full ahead  and 9 knots astern  when propelled by recoil?
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Weaver on September 12, 2011, 04:03:31 am
One of them had an 18" gun that only fired sideways: hope it had good rudders.... :o
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: tigercat on September 12, 2011, 04:21:35 am
they did flirt with the idea of converting some River class I believe into monitors for normandy but the draft was too deep.




ASW Battleship
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: NARSES2 on September 12, 2011, 08:15:52 am
14 inch gun  armed frigate

Called a monitor isn't it  ;D

Is it true that monitors do 5 knots at full ahead  and 9 knots astern  when propelled by recoil?

 ;D


My dad was very, very nearly temporarily posted to one of the Monitors slated for Normandy but was sent to help man one of the LCT's converted to an AA vessel instead as he was an 20mm guner. He said one look at the things was enough to make him want to volunteer for the Marines  ;)

I think that one at least had no engines and had to be towed across the Channel ?
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: tigercat on September 20, 2011, 01:52:52 am
Monitor converted into an Aircraft carrier
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: pyro-manic on September 20, 2011, 02:06:37 am
ASW Battleship

Dreadnought rammed and sunk a U-boat in 1915. ;D
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: bobbo on June 22, 2012, 01:28:24 pm
Turbojet-powered PBY-5a?  Maybe a pair of J-47s?

I know, I've had too much to drink . . .

bobbo
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: PR19_Kit on June 22, 2012, 02:28:07 pm
Turbojet-powered PBY-5a?  Maybe a pair of J-47s?

A ROCKET powered PBY! Not much range but it gets there REALLY fast!  ;D
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: arkon on June 22, 2012, 03:23:37 pm
black powder musket gatling gun
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Weaver on June 22, 2012, 04:36:09 pm
black powder musket gatling gun

Muzzle-loading, of course.... :wacko:
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Weaver on June 22, 2012, 04:37:45 pm
Recoilless tank gun. That is, a standard recoilless rifle fitted in a standard tank mantlet, with the breech inside the turret.... :wacko:
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Mr.Creak on June 22, 2012, 05:06:13 pm
Recoilless tank gun. That is, a standard recoilless rifle fitted in a standard tank mantlet, with the breech inside the turret.... :wacko:
Great idea!
Because that would mean it's NBC-"proof" since it generates its own internal overpressure. :lol:
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: JoeP on June 26, 2012, 07:24:12 pm
Remembered another one that was rumored.

A nuclear hand grenade.

No, really.
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Supertom on June 28, 2012, 05:48:43 am
The Luftwaffe had a head start on this themed build by coming up with a dive bomber called the He-177.  :banghead:
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: bobbo on June 28, 2012, 07:01:35 am
Fisher P-75?

bobbo
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Rheged on June 28, 2012, 11:12:58 am
Would  that  ridiculous Italian THING  that looked like a refugee  from the Spanish Armada  (caproni  ca60)  fit into this thread?

Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: PR19_Kit on June 28, 2012, 12:24:46 pm
Would  that  ridiculous Italian THING  that looked like a refugee  from the Spanish Armada  (caproni  ca60)  fit into this thread?

PERFECTLY!  ;D
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Old Wombat on June 28, 2012, 06:38:59 pm
Caproni Ca.60 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Ca.60) (From Wikipedia)

Quote from: wikipedia
The aircraft attained an altitude of only 18 m (60 ft), then dove and crashed, breaking up on impact. The pilot escaped unscathed. Caproni had the wrecked airplane towed to shore, and announced that he would rebuild it, but that night it burned to ashes

Sounds like the pilot wanted to remain unscathed! ;D
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: scooter on June 28, 2012, 07:28:54 pm
Remembered another one that was rumored.

A nuclear hand grenade.

No, really.

Closest the US Army got was the M-388 Davy Crockett

Quote
The M-28 or M-29 Davy Crockett Weapon System(s) was a tactical nuclear recoilless gun for firing the M388 nuclear projectile that was deployed by the United States during the Cold War. Named after American soldier, congressman, and folk hero Davy Crockett, it was one of the smallest nuclear weapon systems ever built.

The M-388 round used a version of the W54 warhead, a very small sub-kiloton fission device. The Mk-54 weighed about 51 lb (23 kg), with a yield equivalent to somewhere between 10 or 20 tons of TNT ó very close to the minimum practical size and yield for a fission warhead.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Recoilless_gun_155mm_Davy_Crockett3.jpg/450px-Recoilless_gun_155mm_Davy_Crockett3.jpg)

(I particularly like the "Handle With Care" warning on it)
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Weaver on April 11, 2013, 04:19:21 am
Thread revivial!!!!!!

Just thought of another one: a municipal Parks-and-Garden Dept. helicopter with a big spike on the bottom for picking up litter.......
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: tigercat on April 11, 2013, 05:15:33 am
They could use the rotas to trim the hedges
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: eatthis on April 11, 2013, 11:46:52 am
would a us navy starfighter fall into this category? i imagine landing 1 on a pitching deck would concentrate the mind somewhat!
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Weaver on April 11, 2013, 06:37:51 pm
would a us navy starfighter fall into this category? i imagine landing 1 on a pitching deck would concentrate the mind somewhat!

I'd have thought so: you could "improve" it even further by removing the flap blowing in order to give it folding wings.....

Rating : "MISSILE ATTACK ASTERN!!!"

CPO : "No son, that's just an F-104N coming in to land..."
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Thorvic on April 11, 2013, 10:18:54 pm
Mind if i correct that

would a us navy starfighter fall into this category? i imagine landing 1 on a pitching deck would concentrate the mind somewhat!

I'd have thought so: you could "improve" it even further by removing the flap blowing in order to give it folding wings.....

Rating : "MISSILE ATTACK ASTERN!!!"

CPO : "No son, that's just an F-104N coming in to land..."

CPO : "ALL HANDS TO AIR CRASH STATIONS, LAUNCH RESCUE HELO !!!!!"

The Naval F104 is in US Secret Projects- Fighters BTW
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: kerick on April 12, 2013, 06:15:33 pm
Remembered another one that was rumored.

A nuclear hand grenade.

No, really.

Closest the US Army got was the M-388 Davy Crockett

Quote
The M-28 or M-29 Davy Crockett Weapon System(s) was a tactical nuclear recoilless gun for firing the M388 nuclear projectile that was deployed by the United States during the Cold War. Named after American soldier, congressman, and folk hero Davy Crockett, it was one of the smallest nuclear weapon systems ever built.

The M-388 round used a version of the W54 warhead, a very small sub-kiloton fission device. The Mk-54 weighed about 51 lb (23 kg), with a yield equivalent to somewhere between 10 or 20 tons of TNT ó very close to the minimum practical size and yield for a fission warhead.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Recoilless_gun_155mm_Davy_Crockett3.jpg/450px-Recoilless_gun_155mm_Davy_Crockett3.jpg)

(I particularly like the "Handle With Care" warning on it)
Could you imagine trying to recruit a crew to fire this thing? "No son, if the wind is at your back you'll be fine!"
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Go4fun on April 12, 2013, 07:14:29 pm
Remembered another one that was rumored.

A nuclear hand grenade.

No, really.

Closest the US Army got was the M-388 Davy Crockett

Quote
The M-28 or M-29 Davy Crockett Weapon System(s) was a tactical nuclear recoilless gun for firing the M388 nuclear projectile that was deployed by the United States during the Cold War. Named after American soldier, congressman, and folk hero Davy Crockett, it was one of the smallest nuclear weapon systems ever built.

The M-388 round used a version of the W54 warhead, a very small sub-kiloton fission device. The Mk-54 weighed about 51 lb (23 kg), with a yield equivalent to somewhere between 10 or 20 tons of TNT ó very close to the minimum practical size and yield for a fission warhead.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Recoilless_gun_155mm_Davy_Crockett3.jpg/450px-Recoilless_gun_155mm_Davy_Crockett3.jpg)

(I particularly like the "Handle With Care" warning on it)
Could you imagine trying to recruit a crew to fire this thing? "No son, if the wind is at your back you'll be fine!"
Sort of like firing a TOW missile on a real battlefield. A cloud of smoke and a shiny trail of wire the enemy can trace back to the firing point. The whole plan was "Shoot & Scoot"!
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Steel Penguin on April 13, 2013, 01:19:25 am
stick it on the back of a Jeep, and lob it over hills at advancing enemy formations, i belive was its modous operandi.  :blink:   I know some one round here was muttering abought doing an Ontos version armed with these!  any more news on it?
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: ChernayaAkula on August 25, 2013, 12:44:20 am
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Recoilless_gun_155mm_Davy_Crockett3.jpg/450px-Recoilless_gun_155mm_Davy_Crockett3.jpg)

(I particularly like the "Handle With Care" warning on it)

"AIM AWAY FROM FACE!"  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: tigercat on August 25, 2013, 01:46:35 am
Steam powered submarines. Kalamity class
Steam aircraft
Steam Helicopter - the Bristol tramp insert joke here

Even a steam Me 264



Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Weaver on August 25, 2013, 03:47:15 am
Riverine ASW vessel based on a side-wheel paddle steamer with a reciprocating steam engine. Volunteers needed for the position of sonar operator...... ;)
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: arkon on August 28, 2013, 10:02:52 pm
zeppelin for trench clearing......with flame throwers.
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Rheged on August 29, 2013, 09:35:13 am
K class  fleet submarines from WW1  rate a mention here.
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: scooter on August 29, 2013, 02:58:37 pm
K class  fleet submarines from WW1  rate a mention here.

After reading the wiki article, all I have to say is "Yup"  :banghead:
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Weaver on August 29, 2013, 05:42:17 pm
Yeah, it was "K" for "Keystone Cops" wasn't it?  :banghead: :rolleyes:
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: McColm on August 29, 2013, 11:07:32 pm
I'm not sure this idea fits here. So here goes;
Take an F-16 single seater, add the wings from the Eurofighter and the Angels Interceptor T-tail & floats. (instead of the undercarriage ).
As the ground clearance isn't that great the weapons pylons fixed above the Delta wing.
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Weaver on August 30, 2013, 01:28:18 am
Yeah, that'd be good: a ventral intake on a floatplane. Might not make much altitude, but it sure makes a lot of steam.... ;D
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: McColm on August 30, 2013, 03:03:39 am
Or a Ski fighter/interceptor .
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Rheged on August 30, 2013, 05:07:00 am
Yeah, it was "K" for "Keystone Cops" wasn't it?  :banghead: :rolleyes:

You could well be right..........and their successors, the  M class  were no better, M for More Mayhem??

Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: PR19_Kit on August 30, 2013, 06:45:32 am
You could well be right..........and their successors, the  M class  were no better, M for More Mayhem??

Didn't French Navy's infamous 'Surcouf', using the same big gunned submarine idea, work quite well though?
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: NARSES2 on August 30, 2013, 08:15:37 am
You could well be right..........and their successors, the  M class  were no better, M for More Mayhem??

Didn't French Navy's infamous 'Surcouf', using the same big gunned submarine idea, work quite well though?

Not from what I've read and the Wikki article attached.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_submarine_Surcouf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_submarine_Surcouf)
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: PR19_Kit on August 30, 2013, 08:38:54 am
Yes, but the Surcouf's problems, seemed to be mainly political rather than operational.
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: darthspud on August 30, 2013, 10:27:15 am
inflatable dartboard in the aircrew / Pilots briefing facility?
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: NARSES2 on August 31, 2013, 06:50:40 am
Yes, but the Surcouf's problems, seemed to be mainly political rather than operational.

Yup but it seems to have had a few technical problems particularly regarding stability
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: martinbayer on August 31, 2013, 09:37:08 am
I had always a soft spot for the US Navy idea of a ramjet powered inflatable Mach 3 high altitude reconnaissance vehicle that would have required a one mile diameter balloon to lift it to its initial altitude (makes one wonder what kind of ship designs the Air Force would come up with if only anybody let them ;)): http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2978.0/all.html

But with that as a point of departure, how about supersonic or hypersonic airships?

Or a nuclear powered hot air airship where a pebble bed reactor also directly heats the internal gas volume (and of course with heat resistant cover materials and some heavy metal cladding all around for radiation protection), a.k.a. an atomic lead zeppelin ;D. Mind you, the Mythbusters have after all shown the feasibility of lead balloons...

Martin
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: McColm on September 05, 2013, 05:05:34 pm
Back in the 1980ís there was an oil crisis ,the RAF boffins came up with a steam powered Tornado GR1. Unfortunately this never made it into production but what a Whiff to build !!
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: scooter on September 05, 2013, 05:56:25 pm
Steam...Powered...Tornado...  :blink: :blink: :blink: :unsure:
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Weaver on September 05, 2013, 06:37:31 pm
According to DK Brown, when the oil crisis was on, there was a cartoon going around the RN Ship Dept at Greenwich of a coal-fired Type 42 destroyer with four thin, smoke-belching funnels and a ram bow.... ;D
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: McColm on September 06, 2013, 07:19:22 am
I was based down at Norrhwood at the time, working with the Navy. Those guys have a dark sense of humor .
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Rheged on September 07, 2013, 02:19:40 am
I was based down at Norrhwood at the time, working with the Navy. Those guys have a dark sense of humor .


The Dark (Blue) Force would say that wasn't humour, it was contingency planning!
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: lenny100 on September 07, 2013, 06:26:01 am
I was based down at Norrhwood at the time, working with the Navy. Those guys have a dark sense of humor .


The Dark (Blue) Force would say that wasn't humour, it was contingency planning!
no just taking things at face value because the politicians will change their minds at least six times before the first of the ship type is in operational service
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: scooter on September 07, 2013, 09:06:14 am
(http://what-if.xkcd.com/imgs/a/21/jetpack_speeding.png)

GAU-8 powered cars?

An idea from XKCD's What If blog Machine Gun Jetpack (http://what-if.xkcd.com/21/)
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: martinbayer on September 07, 2013, 10:25:05 am
GAU-8 powered cars?

First thing that came to mind when seeing the cartoon was the Dillon Aero SUV:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/4221601

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nug5FZgxuk

Martin
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Old Wombat on September 07, 2013, 09:51:38 pm
There aren't enough holes in the police car! ;D

Dillon Aero SUV = Wicked! :wacko:

:cheers:

Guy
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: dadlamassu on September 08, 2013, 12:08:43 am
When I saw it I thought of:

(http://jaguargo.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Picture-of-Jaguar-car-from-the-James-Bond-Film.jpg)

Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Old Wombat on September 08, 2013, 01:09:17 am
Ah! Brosnan, Pierce Brosnan! :P ;)

:cheers:

guy
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: tigercat on September 08, 2013, 01:53:20 am
Given that Ian Fleming wrote both I 've always thought that there was some whiff crossover potential between chitty chitty bang bang and  some of James bonds car s
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: PR19_Kit on September 08, 2013, 04:54:20 am
(http://what-if.xkcd.com/imgs/a/21/jetpack_speeding.png)

I want one of those with a detection system that automatically takes out every BMW within range..............  :wacko:
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: McColm on September 08, 2013, 08:06:21 am
Didnít the Jaguar belong to the baddie ?
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Old Wombat on September 08, 2013, 08:31:57 am
Didnít the Jaguar belong to the baddie ?

Yes, but that doesn't stop it being from a Pierce Brosnan Bond movie. ;)

Bond, James Bond drove an Aston Martin DB.9, iirc. :wub:

:cheers:

Guy
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: scooter on September 08, 2013, 01:39:10 pm
Didnít the Jaguar belong to the baddie ?

Yes, but that doesn't stop it being from a Pierce Brosnan Bond movie. ;)

Bond, James Bond drove an Aston Martin DB.9, iirc. :wub:

:cheers:

Guy

Indeed he did.  Complete with optical camouflage
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: McColm on September 09, 2013, 03:59:43 am
I think it was Goldeneye ,hovercraft and a An-124, North v South Korea
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: scooter on September 09, 2013, 04:09:41 am
I think it was Goldeneye ,hovercraft and a An-124, North v South Korea


Goldeneye was Russia and Cuba with a space-based laser system, a tank, and a BMW

Die another Day had the Aston Martin DB.9 v Jag, an AN-124 and  N v S
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: McColm on September 09, 2013, 04:19:59 am
Thanks ,I get those two mixed up.
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: Old Wombat on September 12, 2013, 12:57:13 am
Iirc, Die Another Day was the re-introduction of the Aston Martin to the franchise after quite a long period of sponsor vehicles (esp. BMW) taking the lime-light.

This, imo, was a very good thing! :thumbsup:

:cheers:

Guy

PS: If I was ever to become insanely rich, a DB.9 would be one of my 1st purchases (despite my wife's disapproval ;D ).
Title: Re: The Really Bad Idea GB
Post by: PR19_Kit on September 12, 2013, 01:30:36 am
PS: If I was ever to become insanely rich, a DB.9 would be one of my 1st purchases (despite my wife's disapproval ;D ).

I'm with you there Guy! There's a guy further up my road who has one, but he doesn't drive it much, and I can recognise the sound of that V12 burbling up the hill even when I'm in bed!  ;D

Mrs_PR19 gave me a Drive Day Xmas pressie last year that involved 10 laps or so of a test circuit in an A-M Vantage. Ok so, that was 'only' a V8 but the experience was mind bending!  ;D