I had a sift through the stash today and rediscovered my Italeri XB70 Valkyrie, It would make a great what if? as Britain's fourth V'Bomber in anti flash white and low vis national markings donated from an Airfix Vulcan kit,
617 squadron naturally!
Miko (thinking out of the kit box)
Its name even starts with a 'V' too. ;D
Soooo, which British manufacturer designed and built it? Bristol, Short Brothers, English Electric ... ?
Is there some way to make it look like it was done by the British company?
Fit large Hunter shaped fins to it and say it was made by Hawker?
Or EE Lightning fins, for fins or canards, depending on what size they need to be.
Quote from: perttime on April 14, 2024, 09:18:52 PMSoooo, which British manufacturer designed and built it? Bristol, Short Brothers, English Electric ... ?
Is there some way to make it look like it was done by the British company?
Bristol pursues a merger with Hawker Siddeley circa 1957-'58, rather than being forced into the 1959 mergers that created BAC (British Aircraft Company). Bristol brings along the stainless steel welding techniques developed for the 188 research aircraft. As a result Bristol takes the lead on design but the entire H-S group is involved in the project. Of course this would require a revamp of the H-S Group management and an end to the inefficient structure wherein all of the various divisions of the company were run as semi-independent fiefdoms and the divisions competed amongst themselves for the same contracts. It was a structure that made zero sense and a contributor to the overall ills of the British aerospace industry of the time.
It's a counterfactual narrative that's not too far out because the Bristol and Hawker Siddeley engine divisions merged in 1959.
Another thought, if the new Hawker Siddeley + Bristol company could convince Handley-Page to join, the
new company would be in an even better position to design and build something as complex as the Valkyrie.
Handley-Page went TU because old Fred refused to merge with anybody else.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on April 15, 2024, 12:28:14 AMFit large Hunter shaped fins to it and say it was made by Hawker?
Hawker was severely lacking in experience with the design and manufacture of large multi-engine aircraft.
All they'd done since the beginning was single engined one and two-place fighters. They'd be completely out of their depth with something like the Valkyrie.
Yeah, but this is WhiffWorld.......................
Surely, it has to be a Vickers aircraft.............for alliterative purposes if nothing else.
You could make a reasonable backstory out of Vickers (possibly with old Fred H-P as a partner) building on their earlier V bomber experience to manufacture this machine.
Quote from: perttime on April 14, 2024, 09:18:52 PMSoooo, which British manufacturer designed and built it? Bristol, Short Brothers, English Electric ... ?
Is there some way to make it look like it was done by the British company?
I saw it as more an import after the XB70 was cancelled the blue prints made their way to Bristol's Filton works the home of Concorde and it's larger supersonic aircraft designs, also the designer of the Olympus turbojet
Quote from: jcf on April 16, 2024, 04:35:44 PMIt's a counterfactual narrative that's not too far out because the Bristol and Hawker Siddeley engine divisions merged in 1959.
Had the infamous 1957 defence white paper not been published the de Havilland super powerful 'Gyron' turbojet could have powered a licence built BAC Valkyre B1
Quote from: Rheged on April 17, 2024, 04:01:26 AMSurely, it has to be a Vickers aircraft.............for alliterative purposes if nothing else.
You could make a reasonable backstory out of Vickers (possibly with old Fred H-P as a partner) building on their earlier V bomber experience to manufacture this machine.
Nice idea, but for me it couldn't be Avro, Handley Page or Vickers, these companies were already invested in V' bombers, the same for Shorts who were working on the fail safe Sperrin, has to be Bristol who were considering Concorde at the time
Even in Whifworld , I think the magnitude of the cost of developing such a thing would ensure it would never survive an encounter with its deadliest enemy - beancounterus politicus! The XB-70 was cancelled after $800 million had been spent on developing and building just two prototypes. I believe that's getting on for $8 billion in todays money. Why go to the expense of development anyway! Just build the bloody thing under licence!! ;) ;D .
By the way, I don't like boring,grey jets and, I like boring, white jets even less. I was thinking that, given the natural, metallic blue colour of the high strength, light weight Unobtainium used in construction, it might look nice left in its natural state with multi toned panelling? Anybody remember the 1966 "Thunderbirds are go" and, the magnificent Zero-X experimental spacecraft? That sort of finish! :thumbsup: .
My first thought was English Electric since they had the most experience of high-speed flight and had a raft of high-mach projects such as the P.10:
(https://preview.redd.it/b35ldbw1z1t61.jpg?width=590&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=be9369020cf6fc1806f9e116d0e5a2931e4019b2)
Quote from: Weaver on April 27, 2024, 02:19:30 PMMy first thought was English Electric since they had the most experience of high-speed flight and had a raft of high-mach projects such as the P.10:
(https://preview.redd.it/b35ldbw1z1t61.jpg?width=590&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=be9369020cf6fc1806f9e116d0e5a2931e4019b2)
That's quite a thing! looks like science fiction, where's the air intake, and what engine would power it to multi supersonic speeds, those wings don't appear to be supersonically efficient?
the slot in the front of the entire wing is the intake if im remembering right, with the engine being buried in the wing itself as a ram jet....
Quote from: Steel Penguin on April 28, 2024, 06:32:04 AMthe slot in the front of the entire wing is the intake if im remembering right, with the engine being buried in the wing itself as a ram jet....
Ahhhh, I see! Sort of?
:mellow: :mellow:
Quote from: MikoLee on April 28, 2024, 06:26:27 AMQuote from: Weaver on April 27, 2024, 02:19:30 PMMy first thought was English Electric since they had the most experience of high-speed flight and had a raft of high-mach projects such as the P.10:
(https://preview.redd.it/b35ldbw1z1t61.jpg?width=590&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=be9369020cf6fc1806f9e116d0e5a2931e4019b2)
That's quite a thing! looks like science fiction, where's the air intake, and what engine would power it to multi supersonic speeds, those wings don't appear to be supersonically efficient?
The entire wing is a ramjet. Imagine two Starfighter wings, one above the other, close together, and with vertical walls that divide the space between them into square-section cells. Now put ramp "bulges" and fuel burners in the cells, and you have a ramjet wing. For the innermost cell, duct the air instead to a pair of powerful turbojets mounted Voodoo-style in the lower fuselage, and now you have a means of getting up to ramjet ignition speed.
For higher lift at take off and more subsonic range, it had jettisonable outer wing sections (not shown on the model) which were roughly square in planform, a thick aerofoil in cross section, and full of fuel. The canard was also variable geometry. Just for added weirdness, the cockpit canopy was a small as possible to minimize exposure to heat, so the pilot (the
aftmost of the three crew) would have his seat drop down into the fuselage once established in mach 3 high-altitude cruise in order to get a full dashboard, navigation being by periscopes and cameras.
It was primarily a recce aircraft, but was also studied with free-fall nuclear bombs, one of these being a radical "bowling ball" shaped weapon, the apparent idea being that the shape removed all the issues and problems assoviated with getting a traditional "finned teardrop" out of the bay and cleany away from the aircraft at mach 3.
EE had a whole series of projects in this vein for bombers and escort fighters, some with different propulsion concepts. One of the fighters replaced the two large turbojets with ten small ones mounted in the wing cells, with bypass ducts taking ramjet air over the top of them. Armamemt was three Genies on an internal rotary launcher.
Quote from: Weaver on April 28, 2024, 10:13:54 AMThe entire wing is a ramjet. Imagine two Starfighter wings, one above the other, close together, and with vertical walls that divide the space between them into square-section cells. Now put ramp "bulges" and fuel burners in the cells, and you have a ramjet wing. For the innermost cell, duct the air instead to a pair of powerful turbojets mounted Voodoo-style in the lower fuselage, and now you have a means of getting up to ramjet ignition speed.
For higher lift at take off and more subsonic range, it had jettisonable outer wing sections (not shown on the model) which were roughly square in planform, a thick aerofoil in cross section, and full of fuel. The canard was also variable geometry. Just for added weirdness, the cockpit canopy was a small as possible to minimize exposure to heat, so the pilot (the aftmost of the three crew) would have his seat drop down into the fuselage once established in mach 3 high-altitude cruise in order to get a full dashboard, navigation being by periscopes and cameras.
It was primarily a recce aircraft, but was also studied with free-fall nuclear bombs, one of these being a radical "bowling ball" shaped weapon, the apparent idea being that the shape removed all the issues and problems assoviated with getting a traditional "finned teardrop" out of the bay and cleany away from the aircraft at mach 3.
EE had a whole series of projects in this vein for bombers and escort fighters, some with different propulsion concepts. One of the fighters replaced the two large turbojets with ten small ones mounted in the wing cells, with bypass ducts taking ramjet air over the top of them. Armamemt was three Genies on an internal rotary launcher.
Wow, seems well ahead of it's time, I wonder if the technology of the time existed for these to go into production?
Weren't 'Genie's' air to air nuclear missiles to bring down formations of Soviet bombers? Seems three might be a bit excessive!
With the problems they had politically with TSR2 it's difficult to see how any of those projects would 'get off the ground' (pun very much intended)
But, that's why we're here, to explore the possibilities of 'what if'
Quote from: Weaver on April 27, 2024, 02:19:30 PMMy first thought was English Electric since they had the most experience of high-speed flight and had a raft of high-mach projects such as the P.10:
(https://preview.redd.it/b35ldbw1z1t61.jpg?width=590&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=be9369020cf6fc1806f9e116d0e5a2931e4019b2)
That is some serious wow factor especially considering it was a real world design and not just whiff!
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/English_Electric_P.10_%2850096670131%29.jpg/1280px-English_Electric_P.10_%2850096670131%29.jpg)
Scale model at the RAF museum, Cosford
And it's in blue so there's an option.
Quote from: MikoLee on April 28, 2024, 10:55:18 AMWeren't 'Genie's' air to air nuclear missiles to bring down formations of Soviet bombers? Seems three might be a bit excessive!
Yes and no. The AIR-2A Genie was an unguided air-to-air nuclear rocket. The idea that it was supposed to take down "formations" of Soviet bombers was Cold War propaganda though: the Soviet bombers wern't coming in formations. The real reason for the nuke was to acheive a head-on kill as soon as possible. 1950s electronics weren't capable of getting a missile within the lethal radius of a sensibly-sized HE warhead in that scenario, so the only option was to increase the lethal radius, and a half-kiloton nuke with a lethal radius of 1000ft at 30,000ft altitude would do nicely, thank you.
F-89 Scorpions and F-101B Voodoos carried two Genies each, while the F-106 Delta Dart carried one, but they were all defensive interceptors AND had conventional AAMs (three or four Falcons) as well. For an escort fighter trying to get its bombers all the way to Moscow, three Genies seems a little light to be honest...
Quote from: Weaver on April 28, 2024, 05:11:17 PMF-89 Scorpions and F-101B Voodoos carried two Genies each, while the F-106 Delta Dart carried one, but they were all defensive interceptors AND had conventional AAMs (three or four Falcons) as well. For an escort fighter trying to get its bombers all the way to Moscow, three Genies seems a little light to be honest...
I'm pretty sure I saw a photo if a Lightning with a genie fitted, I suppose now i have to go find it! Ha!
Quote from: kerick on April 28, 2024, 12:11:19 PMAnd it's in blue so there's an option.
English Electric blue was a thing for sure, they used to paint their trains EE blue
Also the prototype Canberra A1 was blue, sometimes described as 'Petter Blue' it's said WEW Petter designer of the Canberra had his car painted in that shade of blue
Here's my Canberra A1 (https://i.postimg.cc/JtVgxbC2/P7133271-Copy.jpg)
Miko (prototypist!)
Quote from: MikoLee on April 29, 2024, 08:06:42 AMQuote from: Weaver on April 28, 2024, 05:11:17 PMF-89 Scorpions and F-101B Voodoos carried two Genies each, while the F-106 Delta Dart carried one, but they were all defensive interceptors AND had conventional AAMs (three or four Falcons) as well. For an escort fighter trying to get its bombers all the way to Moscow, three Genies seems a little light to be honest...
I'm pretty sure I saw a photo if a Lightning with a genie fitted, I suppose now i have to go find it! Ha!
I don't know if they ever got as far as test-fitting one, but the RAF certainly wanted it, for all the same reasons as the USAF. What knocked it on the head was the political requirement for any UK nuclear weapon to use British fissile material, and the low quantities of fissile material that the UK nuclear programme was producing. Basically, we only had enough for our strategic deterrence weapons in the 1950s and couldn't spare any for defensive/tactical ones. Then when more because available in the late 1960s, tactical nuclear bombs like WE.177 got the priority for it. The same shortage also killed the nuclear-armed version of the Ikara ASW missile.
Been there, done this. A good twenty years back, although mine was an AMT boxing. It's a vile, ill fitting parcel of dog turds and an absolute nightmare to store and transport.
No photos as I don't have the model any longer. It resides in Canada with my cousin and the TSR2 I did for him. In Anti-flash white, IIRC I gave it Victor markings from an old SAM sheet.
Quote from: Weaver on April 29, 2024, 11:03:08 AMI don't know if they ever got as far as test-fitting one,
I remember a small black and white photo with caption of 'Genie nuclear missile' I had no idea what it was
I think it may have been the book
English Electric/British Aircraft Corporation Lightning by Bryan Philpott
Miko
Actually, reading this discussion has made me dust off my own Italeri XB-70 kit. It's now in the pending pile! ;D . I've built two previously. It takes a bit of effort but, I don't mind that and, it's certainly a very impressive looking model once built. None of the assembly issues are insurmountable and, for those that like to whine about the kit, you should try the old Contrail 1/72 vac form kit. Building the Italeri kit was a piece of cake by comparison! ;) ;D
Quote from: Beermonster58 on April 29, 2024, 08:27:29 PMActually, reading this discussion has made me dust off my own Italeri XB-70 kit. It's now in the pending pile! ;D . I've built two previously. It takes a bit of effort but, I don't mind that and, it's certainly a very impressive looking model once built. None of the assembly issues are insurmountable and, for those that like to whine about the kit, you should try the old Contrail 1/72 vac form kit. Building the Italeri kit was a piece of cake by comparison! ;) ;D
Will it have British markings? That will mess with some people!
Quote from: Beermonster58 on April 29, 2024, 08:27:29 PM...........you should try the old Contrail 1/72 vac form kit. Building the Italeri kit was a piece of cake by comparison! ;) ;D
No, you shouldn't, that way lies total madness! I got a Contrail one ages ago and the vertical parts of the fuselage were so thin you really COULD see through them!
The rest of the kit kept me in thin styrene sheet for further Whiffery for some time though............. ;D
I've got an Italeri/AMT one in The Loft still, part built, and it's a MONSTER, but a very impressive one. Just as its RW counterpart, which I saw at the USAF Museum in the 90s once, an awe inspiring moment for sure.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on April 29, 2024, 11:19:22 PMQuote from: Beermonster58 on April 29, 2024, 08:27:29 PM...........you should try the old Contrail 1/72 vac form kit. Building the Italeri kit was a piece of cake by comparison! ;) ;D
No, you shouldn't, that way lies total madness! I got a Contrail one ages ago and the vertical parts of the fuselage were so thin you really COULD see through them!
The rest of the kit kept me in thin styrene sheet for further Whiffery for some time though............. ;D
I've got an Italeri/AMT one in The Loft still, part built, and it's a MONSTER, but a very impressive one. Just as its RW counterpart, which I saw at the USAF Museum in the 90s once, an awe inspiring moment for sure.
;D ;D :thumbsup: I like the Italeri kit despite its shortcomings. On a related note, I've built at least six of the Revell (ex Matchbox) Victors and, as many of the old Airfix Vulcan kits over the years. I don't think either kit is nearly as bad either as people insist. I've also built both the Formaplane and Rareplanes Vulcan and, the Rareplanes Victor B.2. Their injection moulded equivalents were a CINCH in comparison and, that's even allowing for the Rareplanes kits probably being the best vacforms around ;D ;D
Having assembled 3 of the Matchbox victors, as well as 6 old tool Vulcans and the Mach Poo Valiant in a similar timeframe, the Victor is easily the worst of the three.
Quote from: The Wooksta! on April 30, 2024, 02:58:31 AMHaving assembled 3 of the Matchbox victors, as well as 6 old tool Vulcans and the Mach Poo Valiant in a similar timeframe, the Victor is easily the worst of the three.
Well, "worst" is a very subjective term isn't it. As it happens, I disagree with your assessment of the Victor so, we'll have to agree to differ on that one.