What if

Hot Research Topics => Aircraft, Armor, Weapons and Ships by Topic => Topic started by: joncarrfarrelly on April 11, 2019, 02:07:27 pm

Title: Boulton-Paul VTOL craziness
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on April 11, 2019, 02:07:27 pm
A few B-P notions.

(http://photos.smugmug.com/OLDPB/i-qcq6Vrk/0/13ac7a78/O/BP_P130_01.png)
(note that the drawing does not show the fan location, I'll be adding that in myself, and will update the post.)

(http://photos.smugmug.com/OLDPB/i-jL2QRxC/0/fec8cbc8/O/BP_P132_01.png)

(http://photos.smugmug.com/OLDPB/i-trNFvzK/0/bc5f2bcd/O/BP_P132_02.png)

(http://photos.smugmug.com/OLDPB/i-vWtmX82/0/9fef5727/O/BP_P136_01.png)
Title: Re: Boulton-Paul VTOL craziness
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on April 11, 2019, 02:20:34 pm
More.

(http://photos.smugmug.com/OLDPB/i-2NLg8G6/0/4c2d1038/O/BP_P140_01.png)

(http://photos.smugmug.com/OLDPB/i-w7tZDFG/0/734c358f/O/BP_P141_01.png)

(http://photos.smugmug.com/OLDPB/i-QnmPTmD/0/18ce0e46/O/BP_P144_01.png)

(http://photos.smugmug.com/OLDPB/i-VKf4Xvb/0/353ad693/O/BP_P145_01.png)

(http://photos.smugmug.com/OLDPB/i-VZqVXTx/0/fd692656/O/BP_P146_02.jpg)

(http://photos.smugmug.com/OLDPB/i-w3MNdFt/0/ba46265d/O/BP_P146_01.png)
Title: Re: Boulton-Paul VTOL craziness
Post by: zenrat on April 12, 2019, 05:09:45 am
I can't help but view lift engines as nothing more than dead weight.
Title: Re: Boulton-Paul VTOL craziness
Post by: rickshaw on April 12, 2019, 06:01:05 am
I can't help but view lift engines as nothing more than dead weight.

They aren't seen that way by the engine manufacturers...   :banghead:
Title: Re: Boulton-Paul VTOL craziness
Post by: kitnut617 on April 12, 2019, 06:07:09 am
I can't help but view lift engines as nothing more than dead weight.

Probably why you never see any aircraft in production powered like it. But I'm in total agreement with your comment, on of my main pet peeves -- dead weight being only used for 1% of the operational time (and I think that's being generous too)
Title: Re: Boulton-Paul VTOL craziness
Post by: NARSES2 on April 12, 2019, 06:19:30 am
True it is/was a design dead end, but that doesn't stop them looking amazing. One or two are extremely futuristic looking. I wonder if some of the prop designers on things like Thunderbirds originally worked in the aircraft industry ?
Title: Re: Boulton-Paul VTOL craziness
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on April 12, 2019, 09:34:42 pm
I can't help but view lift engines as nothing more than dead weight.

They aren't seen that way by the engine manufacturers...   :banghead:

????????

Nobody makes lift-jets anymore.
Title: Re: Boulton-Paul VTOL craziness
Post by: rickshaw on April 13, 2019, 06:12:56 am
I can't help but view lift engines as nothing more than dead weight.

They aren't seen that way by the engine manufacturers...   :banghead:

????????

Nobody makes lift-jets anymore.

No, they don't.  However, when they did, they weren't seen that way, Jon.
Title: Re: Boulton-Paul VTOL craziness
Post by: Captain Canada on April 13, 2019, 06:28:16 am
That's some neat stuff ! Thanks for sharing. So many ideas out there.....
Title: Re: Boulton-Paul VTOL craziness
Post by: Old Wombat on April 13, 2019, 09:32:21 am
True it is/was a design dead end, but that doesn't stop them looking amazing. One or two are extremely futuristic looking. I wonder if some of the prop designers on things like Thunderbirds originally worked in the aircraft industry ?

The P.146 has a very strong Gerry Anderson / Thunderbirds vibe happening. :mellow:
Title: Re: Boulton-Paul VTOL craziness
Post by: Air21 on April 15, 2019, 05:25:52 am
Quote
They aren't seen that way by the engine manufacturers...   :banghead:

Sure, like in the F-35b the lift fan only adds value in a very narrow range of the flight envelope but it's function is essential to that very special purpose.  So as a manufacturer I get to upsell you on this magical feature, then put a premium on spares for that whole assembly because if one part of my Rube-Goldberg flying contraption doesn't work then what you have is an overweight F-35a with no gun and less fuel.

I'd bet the same bearing (naturally with different part numbers) in the lift fan is ten times as expensive as the one in the main engine just because it's running 90 degrees off orientation  :rolleyes:

At least the Harrier could vector thrust in flight to be more maneuverable, the Lightning II not so much.
Title: Re: Boulton-Paul VTOL craziness
Post by: PR19_Kit on April 15, 2019, 08:54:18 am

I'd bet the same bearing (naturally with different part numbers) in the lift fan is ten times as expensive as the one in the main engine just because it's running 90 degrees off orientation  :rolleyes:


I installed the machine that Rolls Royce use to make the F-35B lift fan (RR make ALL the F-35 lift fans here in the UK) and the machine and the associated GINORMOUS hydraulic power supply cost something like 7-8 million!

On that basis I hate to think how much the fans themselves cost.  :o
Title: Re: Boulton-Paul VTOL craziness
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on April 15, 2019, 01:41:22 pm
The F-35 doesn't need to VIFF.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Boulton-Paul VTOL craziness
Post by: PR19_Kit on April 15, 2019, 02:23:18 pm
I don't think Harriers NEEDED to VIFF, they just could, which turned out to be quite handy.
Title: Re: Boulton-Paul VTOL craziness
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on April 15, 2019, 09:27:49 pm
I don't think Harriers NEEDED to VIFF, they just could, which turned out to be quite handy.
Handy for what? Sure it was used in training exercises, however it's doubtful it would have been
a smart move during an actual combat situation with multiple adversaries, you VIFF, he overshoots
his wingman nails you because you've slowed down. Also only of use in a close-in turning fight.
 :rolleyes:

A neat airshow trick, like the Sukhoi "Cobra".
Title: Re: Boulton-Paul VTOL craziness
Post by: Old Wombat on April 16, 2019, 12:33:37 am
I don't think Harriers NEEDED to VIFF, they just could, which turned out to be quite handy.
Handy for what? Sure it was used in training exercises, however it's doubtful it would have been
a smart move during an actual combat situation with multiple adversaries, you VIFF, he overshoots
his wingman nails you because you've slowed down. Also only of use in a close-in turning fight.
 :rolleyes:

A neat airshow trick, like the Sukhoi "Cobra".

Actually, Jon, there were several kills made by Harriers in the Falklands only because they could VIFF, including one where the Harrier pilot was sans any form of weaponry (expended on a ground-pounding mission) - a bit of an "own goal" by the Argentinian pilot, & a couple of incidents where they turned inside incoming AIMs because of VIFFing. I don't know of any publications that have the info, I got it from the pilots &, as I was a sailor & understood the concept of exaggeration, their log books shortly after the Falklands War (gotta say the RN pilots were very forthcoming if you knew how to stroke their commissioned egos right ;)).

Note: Harriers don't have to VIFF only in straight & level flight.
Title: Re: Boulton-Paul VTOL craziness
Post by: PR19_Kit on April 16, 2019, 12:58:24 am
I think it's mentioned in Sharkey Ward's book, but that's buried in my so-called 'Library' just now.
Title: Re: Boulton-Paul VTOL craziness
Post by: kitnut617 on April 16, 2019, 06:41:19 am
I don't think Harriers NEEDED to VIFF, they just could, which turned out to be quite handy.
Handy for what? Sure it was used in training exercises, however it's doubtful it would have been
a smart move during an actual combat situation with multiple adversaries, you VIFF, he overshoots
his wingman nails you because you've slowed down. Also only of use in a close-in turning fight.
 :rolleyes:

A neat airshow trick, like the Sukhoi "Cobra".

The maneuver was actually first done/developed by the USMC Jon, just about as soon as they got their hands on a Harrier (which was when they tested the Harrier before the USMC got them). I read an article about it in AeroMilitaria some years ago now.
Title: Re: Boulton-Paul VTOL craziness
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on April 16, 2019, 12:50:57 pm
I'm aware of who developed it, and the unverified 'claims' of use in the Falklands.
Title: Re: Boulton-Paul VTOL craziness
Post by: Snowtrooper on April 17, 2019, 02:56:14 am
From what I've read, British success in the Falklands was dependent on several factors, most of which had nothing to do with VIFFing.
-Notably better trained British crews
-Better British coordination between fighters and surface radars
-Argentinians were at first unaware that the British had all-aspect missiles, they hadn't trained at all how to fight against such and they didn't have those themselves either
-Argentinians were operating at the extremes of their range, limiting their time over target (and thus available for dogfighting)
Title: Re: Boulton-Paul VTOL craziness
Post by: PR19_Kit on April 17, 2019, 03:17:54 am

From what I've read, British success in the Falklands was dependent on several factors, most of which had nothing to do with VIFFing.


No-one was claiming that it was a major factor. The point at issue was that it was 'handy', to quote my original post.
Title: Re: Boulton-Paul VTOL craziness
Post by: Weaver on April 17, 2019, 03:58:47 am
As far as I know, VIFFing wasn't used at all in the Falklands. Probably the best opportunity for it would have been during the downing of Major Tomba's Pucara by Sharkey Ward. However he states in his book that he used dropped flaps, not VIFFing, to stay behind the much slower aircraft.

VIFFing is useful where your need to force an attacker to overshoot is so desperate that any price, including losing a ton of speed, is worth paying. That's an entirely plausible situation, but it's a very narrow and particular one, and I don't think any fighter pilot would argue with the idea that it would be MUCH better not to get into that situation in the first place.

Another factor in the UK victory in the air was the Argentine choice of tactics. The Argentine leaders instructed their pilots to avoid air-to-air combat if possible and concentrate on hitting ships. This was partly due to an exaggerated view of the SHAR's capabilites (helped along by some UK psyops), and partly because they thought, somewhat correctly, that sinking or damaging key ships was the most effective thing they could do to turn the situation around. Most Argentine aircraft downed by SHAR's were trying to get away after dropping their bombs.

Sharkey Ward is of the opinion that this tactic was a mistake. In his book he offers the view that the Argentine Air Force should have gone out of their way to kill SHARs at the start of the conflict, even accepting unfavourable kill-to-loss ratios to do so, because the SHARs were a very small force with no replacements available, and once they were gone, the British Task Force, lacking air cover, would have had no option but to withdraw.
Title: Re: Boulton-Paul VTOL craziness
Post by: zenrat on April 17, 2019, 05:09:58 am
Now there's an alternate history to play with.
UK task force is forced to withdraw from the Falklands after losing its air cover.
Argentina massively fortify the islands rendering them impossible to retake.
Thatcher, not getting the popularity boost the victory would have given her looses the '83 election.
Prime Minister Foot carries out CNDs unilateral nuclear disarmament policy and asks US forces to leave the UK...

Title: Re: Boulton-Paul VTOL craziness
Post by: PR19_Kit on April 17, 2019, 05:28:24 am

Now there's an alternate history to play with.
UK task force is forced to withdraw from the Falklands after losing its air cover.
Argentina massively fortify the islands rendering them impossible to retake.
Thatcher, not getting the popularity boost the victory would have given her looses the '83 election.
Prime Minister Foot carries out CNDs unilateral nuclear disarmament policy and asks US forces to leave the UK...


I think I prefer the real version myself................
Title: Re: Boulton-Paul VTOL craziness
Post by: Rheged on April 17, 2019, 06:32:23 am
Another couple of alternative scenarios (scenarii??)

A) Mrs T instructs the navy to launch a concrete headed polaris at the outskirts of Buenos Aires, with the threat that the next one would be targeted on the Casa Rosada (presidential palace)   This  apparently was discussed as an option in a general sort of way, it was reckoned that USA and USSR would both be so concerned that live rounds might be next that they'd help remove the occupying forces in order to preserve the peace.

B) The Welsh community of Patagonia, who did actually have considerable issues with the central government, rise up and cause sufficient mayhem that a landing in the area, supported by Chile, leads to the formation of the Independent Republic of  South  Cymru  (the name New South Wales already having been taken elsewhere)
Title: Re: Boulton-Paul VTOL craziness
Post by: Weaver on April 18, 2019, 12:47:30 am

Now there's an alternate history to play with.
UK task force is forced to withdraw from the Falklands after losing its air cover.
Argentina massively fortify the islands rendering them impossible to retake.
Thatcher, not getting the popularity boost the victory would have given her looses the '83 election.
Prime Minister Foot carries out CNDs unilateral nuclear disarmament policy and asks US forces to leave the UK...


I think I prefer the real version myself................

Seconded... :o
Title: Re: Boulton-Paul VTOL craziness
Post by: Captain Canada on April 23, 2019, 08:37:16 am
Interesting read from one of my favourite eras of aviation. Cheers guys !

Having seen these two perform together at Yuma, my favourite aeroplane is still a star  :wub:

(https://scontent-yyz1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/53560527_10219058947330870_958044969937928192_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&_nc_ht=scontent-yyz1-1.xx&oh=25a1a472cad1eccde5732a16659016ef&oe=5D735317)
Title: Re: Boulton-Paul VTOL craziness
Post by: kitnut617 on April 23, 2019, 10:38:25 am
I like them both Todd, but like the B-52, the Harrier is a '50's design. My attempt to upgrade the Harrier ended up as a complete new airframe.

(http://village.photos/images/user/8f3973c9-3f0e-4b54-80e2-017121c0bf9f/46636f3c-04bb-45c0-a1b3-b1a27ced4153.jpg)