Militarise a concorde....?
There was an artist's impression of a Concorde launching a stand off missile in an RAF yearbook many years ago. 1968 I think it appeared. It would be interesting to see it done. There was even a rumour (but maybe just an aeronautical myth) that the team working on the Concorde at Brooklands found evidence of underwing hard points
Underwing hard points....interesting....any idea as to carry what....? I know whiff world an do what we want but.....be interesting to know what it may have ever carried....
Given the era of its development, at the height of the Cold War, I wouldn't be surprised if it'd been designed with a view to it being an emergency nuke bomber (like most Aeroflot aircraft of the period).
Assuming there were pre-located hard-point locations & provisions for pulling through cable-runs, with a week or two in the workshops to strip out unnecessary weight & fit a couple of fuel bladders to give it extra legs, you'd have a half-decent delivery system for a number of nuke weapons.
You'd just have to hope it didn't all go t!ts-up before you got them ready.
I well remember an artists impression of a "Bombcorde" carrying three Blue Steels. One on the centre line and one under each wing.
Here's the pic with the three Blue Steels:
https://flyawaysimulation.com/media/images4/images/bombcorde-finflash-fix-fsx1.jpg
If you search for 'Bombcorde' you'll get a lot hits, several members have done one.
I personally fancy a VIP transport, Concorde in Queen's Flight/Royal Squadron colours.
Cheers......thanks for the help.....I'll have a looksee...
I've seen at least one model Bombcorde, not sure where though. It may have been one of Shasper's about a decade or so ago on the old version of this very site, I'll ask on Facebook.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.keypublishing.com%2Fattachment.php%3Fs%3D3edf9ca98598ac13205b6baae716ddd9%26amp%3Battachmentid%3D111059%26amp%3Bstc%3D1%26amp%3Bd%3D1137959827&hash=4c04d51ec3d9f2120eacd97d0ab991b463b422fb)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg12.deviantart.net%2Fd69c%2Fi%2F2013%2F324%2Fc%2Fb%2Fconcorde_bombers__the_empire_s_twilight__by_the_empires_twilight-d6uk5w4.png&hash=a99a015261b336cb4942673d9c5804f7cabe1d9d)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F67.media.tumblr.com%2Fdcee5a3ff2fb2ed210617027cf020567%2Ftumblr_mstrouLRvV1qbpemno1_1280.jpg&hash=0fb3e8427ebb4f21f32f9b2138c7b716fae37282)
With that lot hanging underneath Mach 2.0 would be somewhat unlikely though.
And they'd have needed to fill the fuselage with fuel tanks to regain the range lost through the extra drag of the weapons.
How about more engines, a belly full of cameras, PRU Blue and of course longer wings?
On a tangent, how about a militarised Tu 144? It would obviously have a tail gunner.
This is my Concorde B.1
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi200.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa263%2Fkitnut617%2FConcorde%2520B1%2FConcordeBuildprogress001.jpg&hash=b24b26276fdc2d39d20703d97780109f79d14155) (http://s200.photobucket.com/user/kitnut617/media/Concorde%20B1/ConcordeBuildprogress001.jpg.html)
I've got some information from Phil Butler (the author) about the real proposal and had decided to build one. He told me that there wouldn't have been the dropping nose nor any reverser buckets. I've change mine to suit. I also shortened the forward fuselage by 2" (it's the 1/72 Airfix kit)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi200.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa263%2Fkitnut617%2FConcorde%2520B1%2FConcordeBuildProgress025.jpg&hash=705e5726322a5faacd8602175cd9405db5ee22fa) (http://s200.photobucket.com/user/kitnut617/media/Concorde%20B1/ConcordeBuildProgress025.jpg.html)
While wanting to use the B-1B nozzles I found I had to do some major surgery to them, somehow Airfix (I think actually it was Heller) completely bolloxed the nacelles up.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi200.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa263%2Fkitnut617%2FConcorde%2520B1%2FConcorde%2520Build%2520Progress%2520019_zpsfyifvwjy.jpg&hash=0794a6c0e96ddcd53955957f263dc402c75431ec) (http://s200.photobucket.com/user/kitnut617/media/Concorde%20B1/Concorde%20Build%20Progress%20019_zpsfyifvwjy.jpg.html)
Here's a pic of the underside, there's not enough room for three Blue Steels like in the picture above (got that in the actual magazine somewhere in the packing boxes), but I've figured out how to do it.
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi200.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa263%2Fkitnut617%2FConcorde%2520B1%2FConcorde%2520Build%2520Progress%2520011_zpsrhxqetdg.jpg&hash=fc3bc17dbb8f050c8dc8d163ac46a75dd581a25f) (http://s200.photobucket.com/user/kitnut617/media/Concorde%20B1/Concorde%20Build%20Progress%20011_zpsrhxqetdg.jpg.html)
I also decided to steam-line the windshield
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi200.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa263%2Fkitnut617%2FConcorde%2520B1%2FConcorde%2520Build%2520Update%2520004_zpshplhzo4e.jpg&hash=54a9fdeba7b867d295ea2bf42dcb2e5439e49b41) (http://s200.photobucket.com/user/kitnut617/media/Concorde%20B1/Concorde%20Build%20Update%20004_zpshplhzo4e.jpg.html)
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi200.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa263%2Fkitnut617%2FConcorde%2520B1%2FConcorde%2520Build%2520Update%25205_zpsbb13acxr.jpg&hash=9aa66b8c9363f9524111eacdf84681358ffadd56) (http://s200.photobucket.com/user/kitnut617/media/Concorde%20B1/Concorde%20Build%20Update%205_zpsbb13acxr.jpg.html)
Wow, what did you use for the new wind shield? :wub:
Oh I like that......question.....if an IFR probe was to be fitted.....would it be a retractable one or maybe one striking out above the cockpit....? I'm thinking the second option.....
Quote from: Army of One on November 16, 2016, 12:16:03 AM
Oh I like that......question.....if an IFR probe was to be fitted.....would it be a retractable one or maybe one striking out above the cockpit....? I'm thinking the second option.....
I'm going with a retractable one ---- it has to go fast ;)
Quote from: RAFF-35 on November 15, 2016, 11:27:30 PM
Wow, what did you use for the new wind shield? :wub:
It's a modified B-1B windshield
Agreed.....but Lightning had a fixed probe and that was Mach2 capable....
Quote from: Army of One on November 16, 2016, 05:46:00 AM
Agreed.....but Lightning had a fixed probe and that was Mach2 capable....
But only for 5 minutes, if that. ;D
I'm not sure quite why a Bombcorde wouldn't need a droop snoot, the aerodynamics would have been exactly the same so a Bombcorde's alpha on landing would be just as steep as a civvie one. Would the RAF pilots have been issued with 6 ft tall periscopes so they could see the runway on approach?
I will be keeping the droop nose.....just thinking of an armament fit.....stand off anti air.....or stand off ship killer....multiple missiles for each role......I'm thinking an AIM 54 armed weapons platform for stand off attack against waves of incoming attackers.....late 80's style.....
How about a Concorde of the Queen's Flight with self defence capabilities? Various electronic gubbins and a few air to air missiles, purely for deterrent effect.
Quote from: Rheged on November 16, 2016, 10:21:54 AM
How about a Concorde of the Queen's Flight with self defence capabilities? Various electronic gubbins and a few air to air missiles, purely for deterrent effect.
With gun turrets as well? ;D
Quote from: PR19_Kit on November 16, 2016, 11:40:23 AM
Quote from: Rheged on November 16, 2016, 10:21:54 AM
How about a Concorde of the Queen's Flight with self defence capabilities? Various electronic gubbins and a few air to air missiles, purely for deterrent effect.
With gun turrets as well? ;D
Would it need them?
Queens flight....? In red....?
Quote from: Rheged on November 16, 2016, 01:08:24 PM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on November 16, 2016, 11:40:23 AM
Quote from: Rheged on November 16, 2016, 10:21:54 AM
How about a Concorde of the Queen's Flight with self defence capabilities? Various electronic gubbins and a few air to air missiles, purely for deterrent effect.
With gun turrets as well? ;D
Would it need them?
The gunners would have to be careful not to fire forward as the aircraft might well catch up with it's own ammunition and shoot itself down....
Like this?
http://www.aerofiles.com/tiger-tail.html
;D ;D
Quote from: TheChronicOne on November 16, 2016, 02:42:27 PM
Like this?
http://www.aerofiles.com/tiger-tail.html
;D ;D
Almost, but somewhat faster. ;D
Quote from: kitnut617 on November 16, 2016, 03:30:09 AM
Quote from: Army of One on November 16, 2016, 12:16:03 AM
Oh I like that......question.....if an IFR probe was to be fitted.....would it be a retractable one or maybe one striking out above the cockpit....? I'm thinking the second option.....
I'm going with a retractable one ---- it has to go fast ;)
Quote from: RAFF-35 on November 15, 2016, 11:27:30 PM
Wow, what did you use for the new wind shield? :wub:
It's a modified B-1B windshield
Ahh cool, I was thinking about somehow fusing the two together anyways ;D
Quote from: PR19_Kit on November 16, 2016, 09:01:30 AM
I'm not sure quite why a Bombcorde wouldn't need a droop snoot, the aerodynamics would have been exactly the same so a Bombcorde's alpha on landing would be just as steep as a civvie one. Would the RAF pilots have been issued with 6 ft tall periscopes so they could see the runway on approach?
From what I understand it was to have a much larger radar dish than what was in the civil one, one about the size which was in the V-Bomber fleet. So needs a bigger nose cone, which all led to more weight, which meant a more robust drooping mechanism, which meant more weight -- etc. Reason I reduced the forward fuselage by 12 feet was because of the radar weight without the drooping mechanizm. Main to nose undercarriage distance remains the same though. On top of that Phil had said it was felt the RAF pilots would've had better training for take-offs and landing plus they would have had a flatter trajectory while performing both.
As this was supposed to be a bomber variant, 95% of the cabin wouldn't have been used as a cabin, internal bomb bay(s), fuel tanks and other sundry equipment would have occupied the space, so if I did include a IFR probe in my build it would only to say "I've included one". Because I really don't think it would have needed one.
Quote from: kitnut617 on November 17, 2016, 03:31:22 AM
On top of that Phil had said it was felt the RAF pilots would've had better training for take-offs and landing
Perhaps it was simply the realisation that there would be no where to land when/if they got home ? :-\
Quote from: kitnut617 on November 17, 2016, 03:31:22 AM
On top of that Phil had said it was felt the RAF pilots would've had better training for take-offs and landing plus they would have had a flatter trajectory while performing both.
That's being rather insulting to BA's pilots, many of whom were ex-RAF anyway. And no amount of training reduces the approach alpha of a particular design.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on November 17, 2016, 07:45:09 AM
Quote from: kitnut617 on November 17, 2016, 03:31:22 AM
On top of that Phil had said it was felt the RAF pilots would've had better training for take-offs and landing plus they would have had a flatter trajectory while performing both.
That's being rather insulting to BA's pilots, many of whom were ex-RAF anyway. And no amount of training reduces the approach alpha of a particular design.
I don't know Kit, I'm just repeating what Phil told me. He did say that RAF airfields didn't require as steep of take-off angle as civil ones did. Remember at that time the anti-noise lobby was in full stride.
Quote from: kitnut617 on November 17, 2016, 03:31:22 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on November 16, 2016, 09:01:30 AM
I'm not sure quite why a Bombcorde wouldn't need a droop snoot, the aerodynamics would have been exactly the same so a Bombcorde's alpha on landing would be just as steep as a civvie one. Would the RAF pilots have been issued with 6 ft tall periscopes so they could see the runway on approach?
As this was supposed to be a bomber variant, 95% of the cabin wouldn't have been used as a cabin, internal bomb bay(s), fuel tanks and other sundry equipment would have occupied the space, so if I did include a IFR probe in my build it would only to say "I've included one". Because I really don't think it would have needed one.
Just pointing out that both the Victor and the Vulcan had IFR probes, and both needed them in operational sorties <_<
Woohoo......Base kit won on eBay......Revell 1/144 concorde for £6.50 plus £3 postage.......now...a few days to think about what to do to it......IFR probe will be above the cockpit......mmmm, air to surface ship killer or air to air.....?
Quote from: Army of One on November 17, 2016, 03:25:35 PM
Woohoo......Base kit won on eBay......Revell 1/144 concorde for £6.50 plus £3 postage.......now...a few days to think about what to do to it......IFR probe will be above the cockpit......mmmm, air to surface ship killer or air to air.....?
Awesome!! Can't wait to see your build coming together. Whatever you settle on I'm sure it will be cool. :mellow: :mellow:
Quote from: RAFF-35 on November 17, 2016, 12:08:19 PM
Quote from: kitnut617 on November 17, 2016, 03:31:22 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on November 16, 2016, 09:01:30 AM
I'm not sure quite why a Bombcorde wouldn't need a droop snoot, the aerodynamics would have been exactly the same so a Bombcorde's alpha on landing would be just as steep as a civvie one. Would the RAF pilots have been issued with 6 ft tall periscopes so they could see the runway on approach?
As this was supposed to be a bomber variant, 95% of the cabin wouldn't have been used as a cabin, internal bomb bay(s), fuel tanks and other sundry equipment would have occupied the space, so if I did include a IFR probe in my build it would only to say "I've included one". Because I really don't think it would have needed one.
Just pointing out that both the Victor and the Vulcan had IFR probes, and both needed them in operational sorties <_<
They only went half the speed of the Concorde ---- right ;) The civil Concorde could fly all the way to Rio De Janeiro from Heathrow supersonically on the fuel it carried, the military Concorde would have had twice the fuel, So how many in-flight refuelings did a Vulcan need to get down there
I just love the initial concept art. Very evocative.
Shasper confirms he did one and is tracking down photos to share.
Quote from: kitnut617 on November 17, 2016, 05:26:34 PM
Quote from: RAFF-35 on November 17, 2016, 12:08:19 PM
Quote from: kitnut617 on November 17, 2016, 03:31:22 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on November 16, 2016, 09:01:30 AM
I'm not sure quite why a Bombcorde wouldn't need a droop snoot, the aerodynamics would have been exactly the same so a Bombcorde's alpha on landing would be just as steep as a civvie one. Would the RAF pilots have been issued with 6 ft tall periscopes so they could see the runway on approach?
As this was supposed to be a bomber variant, 95% of the cabin wouldn't have been used as a cabin, internal bomb bay(s), fuel tanks and other sundry equipment would have occupied the space, so if I did include a IFR probe in my build it would only to say "I've included one". Because I really don't think it would have needed one.
Just pointing out that both the Victor and the Vulcan had IFR probes, and both needed them in operational sorties <_<
They only went half the speed of the Concorde ---- right ;) The civil Concorde could fly all the way to Rio De Janeiro from Heathrow supersonically on the fuel it carried, the military Concorde would have had twice the fuel, So how many in-flight refuelings did a Vulcan need to get down there
Ahhhh touché :thumbsup: but would the added weight and drag alter that figure at all?? And I've also seen a missile truck type bombcorde before somewhere, so a ship hunter would be entirely new (to my knowledge) :lol:
That's the thing with stash movements and a messy loft. I have a cardboard box full of 1/144 kits....a reasonable sized box. I was going to rob kits for ordinance in preparation for their hosts arrival. But, can I find said box amongst all the other reasonably sized plain boxes in said messy loft...... :banghead:
Kit has arrived.....gotta say n I don't know why but, it's bigger than I thought....also, with the stash move around the 1/144 box was located. Unfortunately the three kits of one type that I thought had what I wanted.....don't. I have one kit. Same plane but different marks....plenty of guided bombs but bugger all Harpoon. Maybe a 'Wild Weasel' with some ordinance to finish the job....? Still got loadsa AAM so stand off interceptor still on...
Interesting idea's here...found myself a relatively cheap 1/100 veb plasticart Tu-144 Charger. Will work for 1/72....Also got two B-1 enginepods in the partsbin......now what to do with it?! long range interceptor, mach bomber, surface attacker or intelligence& survaillance?
David
Depends what ordinance you have....
Quote from: Army of One on November 25, 2016, 01:01:38 AM
Kit has arrived.....gotta say n I don't know why but, it's bigger than I thought
Pic on my 'shortened' Concorde with the XB-70
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi200.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Faa263%2Fkitnut617%2FConcorde%2520B1%2FConcordeXB70.jpg&hash=1a68b8d0dba5748cc1ed1fa3f23c7758967e90f2) (http://s200.photobucket.com/user/kitnut617/media/Concorde%20B1/ConcordeXB70.jpg.html)
Interesting photo mate. I would never have thought they were similar in length
Great thread love the Bombcorde idea
Well, it has been done here before....
http://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php?topic=21766.0
And this one is quite nice....
http://airfixtributeforum.myfastforum.org/sutra455970.php
Especially like this shot....
http://s1005.photobucket.com/user/albrite_photos/media/004-18.jpg.html
Quote from: NARSES2 on November 26, 2016, 05:11:59 AM
Interesting photo mate. I would never have thought they were similar in length
Concorde was longer, I had chopped 2 inches out of the forward fuselage on my project, both models here are in 1/72 scale
Quote from: major on November 26, 2016, 09:10:16 AM
Well, it has been done here before....
http://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php?topic=21766.0
And this one is quite nice....
http://airfixtributeforum.myfastforum.org/sutra455970.php
Especially like this shot....
http://s1005.photobucket.com/user/albrite_photos/media/004-18.jpg.html
Yep! I had seen those before, but mine preceded those by a few years. Just haven't finished it as it was started before my house move (which to my amazement was nearly 10 years ago now) and got packed away and is still in the packing boxes.
http://airfixtributeforum.myfastforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=80&t=14247&hilit=Concorde
Quote from: kitnut617 on November 26, 2016, 02:27:27 PM
Quote from: NARSES2 on November 26, 2016, 05:11:59 AM
Interesting photo mate. I would never have thought they were similar in length
Concorde was longer, I had chopped 2 inches out of the forward fuselage on my project, both models here are in 1/72 scale
I knew you'd chopped her but didn't realise it was 2". If I'd have been asked previously I would have said the XB-70 was longer, now I know :thumbsup:
Having consulted with my Oracle I have decided on a standoff interceptor of sorts. Fuselage doors and windows have been filled and sanded.....I will sort pics an a build thread out soon....
That sounds wicked. Nice choice!