avatar_chrisonord

What to do with a frog Gannet

Started by chrisonord, Yesterday at 10:53:58 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Rheged

#15
Quote from: chrisonord on Today at 04:05:52 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on Yesterday at 02:14:52 PM
Quote from: chrisonord on Yesterday at 12:58:24 PMAh yes, I remember that now, a bit of knife and file work, and a basic cockpit should do, as it will be painted black anyway. Thinking inside the box a tad, would the griffon be powerful enough for it to carry a sizeable load?


It might be a tad short on power, the Griffon had around 2500 bhp and the Double Mamba 3500-4000 bhp. But the Gannet could cruise with only half of the Double Mamba running. Maybe JATO bottles to help its take -off?
I have some spare from  wyvern in my bits boxes, so they could well be used on this.

I would imagine that a Wyvern engine  rescued from your  bits box   (1 × Armstrong Siddeley Python , 3,560 hp +1,100 lbf  residual thrust  according to Wiki)  would be sufficient to persuade  a Gannet  to get up and go, assuming that the overall length of the Python didn't cause CofG  or visibility problems.  I'd be most interested to see such a beast should you choose to build it
"If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you....."
It  means that you read  the instruction sheet

PR19_Kit

Quote from: Mossie on Today at 05:35:00 AMThat's the B-54, packing a Griffon, which answers Chris's question. Blackburn flew it with a piston engine before the Double Mamba (B-88) was ready.


Darn it, I clicked on the wrong pic in my Blackburn library, sorry. :(
Kit's Rule 1 ) Any aircraft can be improved by fitting longer wings, and/or a longer fuselage
Kit's Rule 2) The backstory can always be changed to suit the model

...and I'm not a closeted 'Take That' fan, I'm a REAL fan! :)

Regards
Kit

Gondor

My immediate thought when I read the thread title was, throw it in the bin.  :angel:

Gondor
My Ability to Imagine is only exceeded by my Imagined Abilities

Gondor's Modelling Rule Number Three: Everything will fit perfectly untill you apply glue...

I know it's in a book I have around here somewhere....

Rheged

Quote from: Gondor on Today at 07:40:20 AMMy immediate thought when I read the thread title was, throw it in the bin.  :angel:

Gondor
It wasn't quite that  bad!
"If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you....."
It  means that you read  the instruction sheet

chrisonord

I bought several for a few quid each, just for the engines and wings, the rest didn't even get a thought about any use. I don't have any other wyvern bits, hence the spare griffon being used. I wanted to make something different, as single engined bomber types were a rarety during ww2.
The dogs philosophy on life.
If you cant eat it hump it or fight it,
Pee on it and walk away!!

Gondor

Quote from: chrisonord on Today at 09:14:58 AMI wanted to make something different, as single engined bomber types were a rarety during ww2.

That's because of how poorly the Battle did. Not its fault, the specification for the resulting aircraft was at fault.

Gondor
My Ability to Imagine is only exceeded by my Imagined Abilities

Gondor's Modelling Rule Number Three: Everything will fit perfectly untill you apply glue...

I know it's in a book I have around here somewhere....

chrisonord

Quote from: Gondor on Today at 10:50:24 AM
Quote from: chrisonord on Today at 09:14:58 AMI wanted to make something different, as single engined bomber types were a rarety during ww2.

That's because of how poorly the Battle did. Not its fault, the specification for the resulting aircraft was at fault.

Gondor
I was also thinking of the welsley as they were a bit lacking too.
The dogs philosophy on life.
If you cant eat it hump it or fight it,
Pee on it and walk away!!

Gondor

Quote from: chrisonord on Today at 12:38:02 PM
Quote from: Gondor on Today at 10:50:24 AM
Quote from: chrisonord on Today at 09:14:58 AMI wanted to make something different, as single engined bomber types were a rarety during ww2.

That's because of how poorly the Battle did. Not its fault, the specification for the resulting aircraft was at fault.

Gondor
I was also thinking of the welsley as they were a bit lacking too.

Oh yeah, I forgot about them  :banghead:
My Ability to Imagine is only exceeded by my Imagined Abilities

Gondor's Modelling Rule Number Three: Everything will fit perfectly untill you apply glue...

I know it's in a book I have around here somewhere....

Glenn Gilbertson

!
Quote from: Joe C-P on Yesterday at 12:55:49 PMYou cannot view this attachment.

Ten years old now - but my "Fairey Courier" (amphibian development of a RW project) caused some amusement at the Worthing Show.!
Build thread at https://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php?topic=40714.0





jcf

Quote from: chrisonord on Today at 09:14:58 AMI bought several for a few quid each, just for the engines and wings, the rest didn't even get a thought about any use. I don't have any other wyvern bits, hence the spare griffon being used. I wanted to make something different, as single engined bomber types were a rarety during ww2.
The Grumman Avenger fits, especially if you're using a bomb-bay as the defining feature.
The Avenger saw more use as a level bomber, dropping bombs, depth charges and mines
than it did as a torpedo bomber. It could carry one 2,000lb or four 500lb bombs. RPs were
also commonly used. It's probably closest to what you have in mind.

PFJN

Hi,
I think when talking about single engine bombers during WWII alot of people tend to overlook that single engine bombers were still very much an important tool at sea.  Specifically throughout the war I believe that the USN, RN amd IJN all had single engine torpedo bombers that could also be used as level bombers, while both the USN and IJN flew single engine dive bombers from their carriers throughout the war, while the RN flew single engine Skuas early in the war, but ended up not replacing them in later years for a variety of reasons.