# The Planes that never were



## Idris2002 (Apr 10, 2016)

Inspired by the weird planes thread, I thought I'd start this one about planes that never made it past the prototype stage, if that.

To start off with, here's the Avro Arrow:









Spoiler: Avro Arrow Documentary








And also the Arrow's sister in failure, the TSR2:


----------



## gosub (Apr 10, 2016)




----------



## bi0boy (Apr 10, 2016)

X-48B still in development











It kinda looks like a normal-sized plane at first but then...


----------



## ffsear (Apr 10, 2016)

The Soviet BURAN orbiter.  Only flew once (unmanned),   before the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Project abbondened in 1993









Only one that was built ever flew,   got destroyed when the hanger it was stored in collapsed.  Another one that never flew remains derelict in a hanger somewhere.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 10, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> X-48B still in development
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm sure I've seen concept drawings for a big passenger aircraft shaped like that (but much bigger, obviously).


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 10, 2016)

gosub said:


>


The Bristol Brabazon! Largest prop-driven passenger aircraft ever, wasn't it?

Interesting piece on that beast here:

http://flightclub.jalopnik.com/the-bristol-brabazon-was-the-prettiest-piece-of-useless-1625961379


----------



## A380 (Apr 10, 2016)

Spruce Goose - Although the Hughes Hercules wasn't made of Spruce... If WWII hadn't ended would there have been fleets of these?


----------



## A380 (Apr 10, 2016)

XB 70 Valkerie.


----------



## ffsear (Apr 10, 2016)

A380 said:


> Spruce Goose - Although the Hughes Hercules wasn't made of Spruce... If WWII hadn't ended would there have been fleets of these?




I think an FW 190 would of made easy work of knocking that out the sky.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 10, 2016)

ffsear said:


> I think an FW 190 would of made easy work of knocking that out the sky.


Wasn't it intended for the New York - Kinshasa run, though? I can't see any FW 190s making it that far south.


----------



## A380 (Apr 10, 2016)

ffsear said:


> I think an FW 190 would of made easy work of knocking that out the sky.


Almost certainly. The Germans learnt that with the 323 Giants in North Africa that were easy pickings for Spitfires and P40 Warhawks.


----------



## A380 (Apr 10, 2016)

A380 said:


> Spruce Goose - Although the Hughes Hercules wasn't made of Spruce... If WWII hadn't ended would there have been fleets of these?


I know it's bad form to reply to your own posts, but just noticed from the shadow that the last picture was probably taken from a blimp / airship...


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 10, 2016)

I bought this DVD a few years ago: Planes That Never Flew [DVD]: Amazon.co.uk: DVD & Blu-ray

"They could have changed the world - had they been built. FOUR full length documentaries tell the incredible stories of the pre-war jet fighter the Lockheed L133, America's SST, the Convair WS-125 'Doomsday bomber' and Britain's rocket-powered interceptor the Saunders Roe SR177.Each aircraft is recreated using advanced computer graphics, and its extraordinary story is told using rare archive footage and exclusive interviews."


----------



## gosub (Apr 10, 2016)




----------



## gosub (Apr 10, 2016)




----------



## fishfinger (Apr 10, 2016)

Bungle73 said:


> I bought this DVD a few years ago: Planes That Never Flew [DVD]: Amazon.co.uk: DVD & Blu-ray
> 
> "They could have changed the world - had they been built. FOUR full length documentaries tell the incredible stories of the pre-war jet fighter the Lockheed L133, America's SST, the Convair WS-125 'Doomsday bomber' and Britain's rocket-powered interceptor the Saunders Roe SR177.Each aircraft is recreated using advanced computer graphics, and its extraordinary story is told using rare archive footage and exclusive interviews."


They're on youtube now:


----------



## ffsear (Apr 10, 2016)

The proposed boeing 747-700


User Photo


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Apr 10, 2016)

Surely the Horton 229 jet powered flying wing made largely of wood must be worth a mention


----------



## Cid (Apr 10, 2016)

Sukhoi-Gulfstream S-21, supersonic business jet.






Not sure whether that's the S21 or more generic 'here's our SSBJ model, please throw money at it'.


----------



## Pingu (Apr 10, 2016)

from


----------



## pogofish (Apr 10, 2016)

The Saunders Roe P.192 - Or SARO Queen

A jet flying boat commissioned by P&O, intended to replace their liners!


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 11, 2016)

Aircraft that never were but should have been are a more interesting sub-genre...






Mirage 4000. A 25% bigger Mirage 2000 (which was already a fantastic aircraft and very sporty ride) with 100% more power and 200% more fuel. It could hit M2.0 at FL500 from a standing start in under 4 (very exciting) minutes. The whole project went south when the Saudis opted for the F-15. The UK should have bailed from the Typhoon project when the post-unification Germans got cold feet and done this as a joint venture instead.


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 11, 2016)

Also from the should have been but never was file, the McDonnell-Douglas A-12 Avenger II.






Cancelled by Dick Cheney (who loved cancelling projects) which set back the cause of US Navy low observable carrier strike aviation by about 25 years.


----------



## Lancman (Apr 11, 2016)

The Spruce Goose's cruising height was so low that a U-boat could have taken it down.


----------



## pogofish (Apr 11, 2016)

Bungle73 said:


> I bought this DVD a few years ago: Planes That Never Flew [DVD]: Amazon.co.uk: DVD & Blu-ray
> 
> "They could have changed the world - had they been built. FOUR full length documentaries tell the incredible stories of the pre-war jet fighter the Lockheed L133, America's SST, the Convair WS-125 'Doomsday bomber' and Britain's rocket-powered interceptor the Saunders Roe SR177.Each aircraft is recreated using advanced computer graphics, and its extraordinary story is told using rare archive footage and exclusive interviews."



The reactor/engine test beds for the Convair-WS125 are currently on public display somewhere on the plains of Idhao.






You don't need to be in any hurry to see them as it looks like they will be sitting there for the next couple of hundred years at least - till they cool down enough to be cut-up.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 11, 2016)

pogofish said:


> The Saunders Roe P.192 - Or SARO Queen
> 
> A jet flying boat commissioned by P&O, intended to replace their liners!


Amazing. But surely (if it had been built)  an airborne Titanic in the making?


----------



## pogofish (Apr 11, 2016)

Given the provenance of other big jet-boats of the era, I have no doubt it would have been!


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 11, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> X-48B still in development
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is pic 1 even it's final form?

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 11, 2016)

ffsear said:


> The Soviet BURAN orbiter.  Only flew once (unmanned),   before the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Project abbondened in 1993
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Derilect in Kazakhstan iirc

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk


----------



## T & P (Apr 11, 2016)

Boeing's Sonic Cruiser. No airline was interested. Probably just as well. A lot of effort for just 15% or so faster cruise.


----------



## stuff_it (Apr 12, 2016)

I know an out of work rocket scientist and a heavy lifting expert if Proletarian Democracy can somehow foot the bill to rescue the Buran space program.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 12, 2016)

Horten Ho-229


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 12, 2016)

Saul Goodman said:


> Horten Ho-229



Wouldn't this have been essentially unflyable, given the instability of the design?


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 12, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Wouldn't this have been essentially unflyable, given the instability of the design?



No, it flew fine although apparently it was a bit of a handful on approach. Erwin Ziller was supposed to have beaten an Me-262 in a dogfight in the second prototype and flew it at 500mph. Ziller was killed by an engine failure hopefully due to sabotage by slave labour at the Junkers factory.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 12, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> hopefully due to sabotage by slave labour at the Junkers factory.



Well, it's nice to think so (and thanks for the response).

How much (if any) of what the Horten  brothers did is present in today's similar looking aircraft? Did they get paperclipped after 1945?


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 12, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Well, it's nice to think so (and thanks for the response).
> 
> How much (if any) of what the Horten  brothers did is present in today's similar looking aircraft? Did they get paperclipped after 1945?



The Hortens legged it to Argentina once festivities ended where they tried to build cargo aircraft with little success.

The Northrop-Grumman pedigree in flying wing designs predates WW2 and so wasn't directly influenced by the Hortens' work. Jack Northrop drew influence from earlier American and French designers. (As did the Hortens.)


----------



## A380 (Apr 12, 2016)

stuff_it said:


> I know an out of work rocket scientist and a heavy lifting expert if Proletarian Democracy can somehow foot the bill to rescue the Buran space program.


But we don't need to go and refill spy satellites with 60 miles of film anymore.... Although perhaps retro espionage could be a kind of cool thing.


----------



## pogofish (Apr 12, 2016)

Do hang gliders get a look-in?

The Ryan XV-8 Flexwing.

Good for dropping everything from your ass, to missiles and re-entry vehicles from space plus much inbetween.





















From the ever amazing and inspiring collection of the SDASM Archives - SDASM Archives
Which if you take the time to have a good dig contains a great number of one-offs, special projects and mad ideas from Convair/General Dynamics and associated companies.

And yes, they did get something in the air:


----------



## HAL9000 (Apr 12, 2016)

Boeing idea  (probably just wanted some pork) never got off the drawing board.   Like the spruce goose it would fly very low to exploit the ground effect.   It might be an idea that appears in the future when most cargo is flown by robots and the costs are similar to ships.

Boeing Pelican - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## A380 (Apr 12, 2016)

pogofish said:


> Do hang gliders get a look-in?
> 
> The Ryan XV-8 Flexwing.
> 
> ...



Gemini with wing. They have just got one of the two test models at the Leicester Space Centre.


----------



## A380 (Apr 12, 2016)

Blue Gemini and Big Gemini as well, maybe capsules would have been better than the fantastic dead end that was the shuttle?


----------



## A380 (Apr 12, 2016)

The Soviet LK Luna module. I saw it at the recent Science Museum Cosmonauts exhibition.


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 13, 2016)

Blohm und Voss P170 Schnellbomber. This was probably a decent concept from the ever fertile mind of Doktor Vogt but the design was overlooked by Ehard Milch's (Luftwaffe head of aircraft production) increasingly manic obsession with jet engines.






Charming historical footnote: At the end of the war Feldmarschall Milch surrended his marshal's baton with great ceremony to a British army Brigadier who duly accepted the baton and broke it over the Nazi's head.


----------



## gosub (Apr 13, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> Blohm und Voss P170 Schnellbomber. This was probably a decent concept from the ever fertile mind of Doktor Vogt but the design was overlooked by Ehard Milch's (Luftwaffe head of aircraft production) increasingly manic obsession with jet engines.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fuel tank to engine ratio looks shit


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 13, 2016)

gosub said:


> Fuel tank to engine ratio looks shit



It was a very efficient low drag design and the central fuselage is one giant fuel tank ~6,200lbs. I didn't know that number. There are limits even to my tragically encyclopeadic knowledge of aircraft. I had to look it up in my copy of _Luftwaffe Secret Projects: Ground Attack and Special Purpose Aircraft_.


----------



## gosub (Apr 13, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> It was a very efficient low drag design and the central fuselage is one giant fuel tank ~6,200lbs. I didn't know that number. There are limits even to my tragically encyclopeadic knowledge of aircraft. I had to look it up in my copy of _Luftwaffe Secret Projects: Ground Attack and Special Purpose Aircraft_.



Hand n't figured on the rear of the engine gondoliers being fuel tanks, 2000litre each apparently.  Say 0.69 kg/l


Empty weight 9100kg.   Max take off weight 13300kg.......I now know who came up with the addition tanks on the ACJ319


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 13, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> my copy of _Luftwaffe Secret Projects: Ground Attack and Special Purpose Aircraft_.



Which you keep under the bed, with your back issues of _Big Ones Monthly. _

_



_


"The *Avro 730* was a planned Mach 3 reconnaissance aircraft and strategic bomber for the Royal Air Force. If it had proceeded into service, the aircraft would have replaced the V bombers as the primary nuclear weapons delivery system for Britain's nuclear deterrent.[2] It was cancelled in 1957 along with other development on manned aircraft as part of the 1957 Defence White Paper."


Avro 730 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 13, 2016)

bi0boy said:


> X-48B still in development
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Lancman (Apr 13, 2016)

I would hate to have an outboard engine failure at V1 in the Schnellbomber.


----------



## A380 (Apr 13, 2016)

Fairey Rotordyne.

If we were all deaf it would have been great.


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Apr 13, 2016)

A380 said:


> Fairey Rotordyne.
> 
> If we were all deaf it would have been great.




Could be one to revisit appearenty the yanks felt threatened by its combination of heavy lift capacities and cost v chinnock I once read


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 14, 2016)

East Germany's attempt to build a passenger jet, the Baade 152. Never got beyond the first steps.

Baade 152 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Baade 152: The First German Airliner That Never Flew Passengers - AirlineReporter

According to this piece from 1959, that was likely due to the inability of the wider DDR economy to support it, something they hoped to fix via deals with  the other side.


1959 - 0863.PDF


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 14, 2016)

Lancman said:


> I would hate to have an outboard engine failure at V1 in the Schnellbomber.


Yes, but you could die a happy Nazi, saying "hey at least I'm flying the SCHNELLBOMBER", as you plummeted to your doom.


----------



## Sea Star (Apr 14, 2016)

am I the only one who thought this was going to be a 9-11 consipracy thread?


----------



## gosub (Apr 14, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Yes, but you could die a happy Nazi, saying "hey at least I'm flying the SCHNELLBOMBER", as you plummeted to your doom.


corkscrew more than plummet


----------



## gosub (Apr 14, 2016)

would have been really good at the zurabatic cartwheel though


----------



## Hulot (Apr 14, 2016)

Fokker's proposal for an early - if not the first - jet airliner:


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 14, 2016)

Hulot said:


> Fokker's proposal for an early - if not the first - jet airliner:


What year was this?


----------



## Hulot (Apr 14, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> What year was this?


They exhibited a model of it at the Paris Air Show of 1946.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 14, 2016)

Hulot said:


> They exhibited a model of it at the Paris Air Show of 1946.


----------



## twentythreedom (Apr 14, 2016)

ffsear said:


> The Soviet BURAN orbiter.  Only flew once (unmanned),   before the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Project abbondened in 1993



I can't quite put my finger on it but I'm sure I've seen something like this before somewhere


----------



## kebabking (Apr 14, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Which you keep under the bed, with your back issues of _Big Ones Monthly. _
> 
> _
> 
> ...



i'm begining to be persuaded of the view that Duncan Sandys should be dug up, his corpse tried for Treason, and left swinging from the battlements of the Tower of London...


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 14, 2016)

The Avro Atlantic - the Vulcan bomber reimagined as a civilian jetliner.


----------



## gosub (Apr 14, 2016)

twentythreedom said:


> I can't quite put my finger on it but I'm sure I've seen something like this before somewhere


Moonraker


----------



## twentythreedom (Apr 14, 2016)

I did actually have the toy of the Moonraker shuttle


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 14, 2016)

kebabking said:


> i'm begining to be persuaded of the view that Duncan Sandys should be dug up, his corpse tried for Treason, and left swinging from the battlements of the Tower of London...


All in good time, plenty of other Tories to get through first.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 15, 2016)

Bungle73 said:


> I bought this DVD a few years ago: Planes That Never Flew [DVD]: Amazon.co.uk: DVD & Blu-ray
> 
> "They could have changed the world - had they been built. FOUR full length documentaries tell the incredible stories of the pre-war jet fighter the Lockheed L133, America's SST, the Convair WS-125 'Doomsday bomber' and Britain's rocket-powered interceptor the Saunders Roe SR177.Each aircraft is recreated using advanced computer graphics, and its extraordinary story is told using rare archive footage and exclusive interviews."


I watched the one about the American SST project last night. Fascinating stuff, but the whole phenomenon of passenger SSTs seems to have been a technological dead end. Not only were Boeing defeated by the technological requirements of their overly ambitious specification, but there doesn't seem to have even been any spin-offs or breakthroughs from the SST project that they could have used in other craft (or if there were, they weren't mentioned). And the same seems to go for Concorde, and the USSR's El Cheapo knock-off.


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 15, 2016)

kebabking said:


> i'm begining to be persuaded of the view that Duncan Sandys should be dug up, his corpse tried for Treason, and left swinging from the battlements of the Tower of London...



Sandys was completely correct to cancel the 730 though. The appearance of the SA-2 rendered it completely pointless. Sandys' big mistake was not drowning the P1/Lightning at birth.


----------



## HAL9000 (Apr 15, 2016)

A380 said:


> Fairey Rotordyne.
> 
> If we were all deaf it would have been great.



Some these ideas are just waiting for the right combination of technology, X2 is a helicopter rather than a _gyrodyne_

_



_

but it uses a combination of propeller and helicopter to make a fast vertical take off machine.

top speed 250 knots

Inside Sikorsky's Speed-Record-Breaking Helicopter Technology

It has active vibration control to reduced vibrations and I think it reduces the rotor speed as the helicopter goes quicker.


----------



## HAL9000 (Apr 15, 2016)

I also found this on the internet, with the success of X2 may be someone will try to get this to work 

*Sikorsky S-69*






Sikorsky S-69 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## pogofish (Apr 16, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> East Germany's attempt to build a passenger jet, the Baade 152. Never got beyond the first steps.
> 
> Baade 152 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...



I didn't get a chance to go when I was in Dresden last year but it appears you can visit an ongoing restoration of a surviving but incomplete Baade fuselage into a replica of a finished aircraft.  Seems it had sat at Dresden Airport ever since the plane was cancelled.


----------



## pogofish (Apr 16, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> The Avro Atlantic - the Vulcan bomber reimagined as a civilian jetliner.



Think I remember reading something once about Avro punting a VTOL version of that design - with an utterly unfeasable-sounding number of engines!


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 16, 2016)

pogofish said:


> Think I remember reading something once about Avro punting a VTOL version of that design - with an utterly unfeasable-sounding number of engines!


Yes, but what would you need a VTOL Vulcan for?

And did you go to the transport museum in Dresden when you were there?


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 16, 2016)

BLAST FROM THE PAST; a few good ideas may return to the light of day…


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 16, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> BLAST FROM THE PAST; a few good ideas may return to the light of day…



fantastically-interesting! Thanks for posting!


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Apr 16, 2016)

The spaceplane from 2001 A Space Odyssey wonder if that could be made to work Along with the rotating circular space station ??


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 16, 2016)

SikhWarrioR said:


> The spaceplane from 2001 A Space Odyssey wonder if that could be made to work* Along with the rotating circular space station ??*


IS crew experience nausea regularl because they are spinning round the earth very fast (and freefall). Hadfields song has the line 'Can't put my feet up, can't keep my lunch down'

its thought that further rotation would make people impossibly sick, if I recall the article I was reading. And the ISS bods will have been on one of those massive centrifuge things that spins you till you puke to test limits and been found of stable stomach. God knows what it would do to someone who gets a little travel sickness eh!

thats why I recon space tourism will be rubbish till its cheap enough to do two weeks, so you can get used to it. You'll spend the first week puking up your food. In micro g. Nice


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 16, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> IS crew experience nausea regularl because they are spinning round the earth very fast (and freefall). Hadfields song has the line 'Can't put my feet up, can't keep my lunch down'
> 
> its thought that further rotation would make people impossibly sick, if I recall the article I was reading. And the ISS bods will have been on one of those massive centrifuge things that spins you till you puke to test limits and been found of stable stomach. God knows what it would do to someone who gets a little travel sickness eh!
> 
> thats why I recon space tourism will be rubbish till its cheap enough to do two weeks, so you can get used to it. You'll spend the first week puking up your food. In micro g. Nice


But you can spend the second week enjoying "zero g nookie", like at the end of Moonraker.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 16, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> But you can spend the second week enjoying "zero g nookie", like at the end of Moonraker.


*collects Sun tokens*


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 16, 2016)

ViolentPanda said:


> fantastically-interesting! Thanks for posting!


A closer look at yer man's blog does reveal a whiff of loon about him and his ideas, but you're right, it's interesting all the same.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 16, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> *collects Sun tokens*


Keeping the British end up, eh?


----------



## A380 (Apr 16, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Keeping the British end up, eh?[/QUOTE'



'I think he's attempting re-entry sir'


----------



## A380 (Apr 16, 2016)




----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 16, 2016)

A380 said:


>


"On my way to steal your girl".


----------



## A380 (Apr 16, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> "On my way to steal your girl".


Nobody does it better.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 16, 2016)

Makes me feel sad for the rest.


----------



## A380 (Apr 17, 2016)

Westland 30, a civil aircraft based on the flying parts of the mighty Lynx. They built about 40 so not quite an aircraft that never was but apparently they weren't that successful or good at flying... Still at least we never had Heseltine as prime minister.


----------



## pogofish (Apr 19, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> And did you go to the transport museum in Dresden when you were there?



Sadly no - I didn't have nearly long enough in Dresden before heading into Poland.  Just the main artistic/cultural sights and some of the former-DDR stuff.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 19, 2016)

pogofish said:


> Sadly no - I didn't have nearly long enough in Dresden before heading into Poland.  Just the main artistic/cultural sights and some of the former-DDR stuff.


I thought the city was a bit on the creepy side when I was there, to be honest. . .


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 19, 2016)

A380 said:


> Westland 30, a civil aircraft based on the flying parts of the mighty Lynx. They built about 40 so not quite an aircraft that never was but apparently they weren't that successful or good at flying... Still at least we never had Heseltine as prime minister.


Surely even Tarzan would have been preferable to the Evil One (say not her name)?


----------



## hot air baboon (Apr 19, 2016)




----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 19, 2016)

hot air baboon said:


>


Now reincarnated as Skylon. Think it'll ever happen?


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Apr 20, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Surely even Tarzan would have been preferable to the Evil One (say not her name)?



Hmm a choice between the wicked witch of Grantham or Tarzan that is like choosing between a small dog turd or a large dog turd to tread in


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 20, 2016)




----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 20, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Now reincarnated as *Skylon*. Think it'll ever happen?


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Apr 20, 2016)

Pickman's model said:


>



Didnt someone build a copy of that some years back to see if it would have flown


----------



## fishfinger (Apr 20, 2016)

SikhWarrioR said:


> Didnt someone build a copy of that some years back to see if it would have flown


This one?


----------



## SikhWarrioR (Apr 20, 2016)

fishfinger said:


> This one?




Seems to work fine to me


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 20, 2016)

SikhWarrioR said:


> Seems to work fine to me


not built according to original specs tho


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 20, 2016)

fishfinger said:


> This one?



There was a different one where they built one according to the original specifications and launched by having it towed behind a truck.


----------



## likesfish (Apr 22, 2016)

A380 said:


> Westland 30, a civil aircraft based on the flying parts of the mighty Lynx. They built about 40 so not quite an aircraft that never was but apparently they weren't that successful or good at flying... Still at least we never had Heseltine as prime minister.



Think they got palmed off on india where they rotted in a field


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 22, 2016)

MAKS, the USSR's possible alternative to the Buran:






Thats right - it was to be launched from a carrier aircraft. Cancelled in 1988.

MAKS


----------



## HAL9000 (Apr 22, 2016)

Since this thread has slipped into a space plane thread, I should post *Dyna-Soar*






Boeing X-20 Dyna-Soar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neil Armstrong flew the x15, the next step would have been this.   Lesson from the space shuttle is that crude space planes without the escape system that Apollo had are death traps.  Until they can build space planes with the safety of a normal plane, space capsules appear to be much safer.


----------



## kebabking (Apr 22, 2016)

A380 said:


> Westland 30, a civil aircraft based on the flying parts of the mighty Lynx. They built about 40 so not quite an aircraft that never was but apparently they weren't that successful or good at flying... Still at least we never had Heseltine as prime minister.



my dad was on the design team of the WG30 in his youth - but don't worry, he now designs earthquake-proof nuclear refuelling systems...

if anyone is interested, i had a trip in the US V-22 Osprey during the week. it somewhat noisy - if you've ever thought a Chinook was noisy, well, i have a news for you...


----------



## T & P (Apr 23, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> MAKS, the USSR's possible alternative to the Buran:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That looks like it was drawn by a 12 year old boy in the 80s


----------



## existentialist (Apr 23, 2016)

kebabking said:


> i'm begining to be persuaded of the view that Duncan Sandys should be dug up, his corpse tried for Treason, and left swinging from the battlements of the Tower of London...


Having just read a book about the V weapons, that's not the only reason why this should happen.


----------



## NoXion (Apr 23, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> IS crew experience nausea regularl because they are spinning round the earth very fast (and freefall). Hadfields song has the line 'Can't put my feet up, can't keep my lunch down'



Actually I'm pretty sure people in orbit experience sickness because microgravity confuses their vestibular system, and not because of any movement around the Earth. Although seeing fifteen sunsets and sunrises a day might confuse your circadian rhythm.



> its thought that further rotation would make people impossibly sick, if I recall the article I was reading. And the ISS bods will have been on one of those massive centrifuge things that spins you till you puke to test limits and been found of stable stomach. God knows what it would do to someone who gets a little travel sickness eh!



Could you link to that article? Sounds like the author had no clue what they were talking about.

Whether rotational gravity is likely to make someone sick will depend on the rate of rotation. According to this paper [PDF link]:

Up to 2 rpm should be no problem for residents and require little adaptation by visitors.
Up to 4 rpm should be no problem for residents but will require some training and/or a few hours to perhaps a day of adaptation by visitors.
Up to 6 rpm is unlikely to be a problem for residents but may require extensive visitor training and/or adaptation (multiple days). Some particularly susceptible individuals may have a great deal of difficulty.
Up to 10 rpm adaptation has been achieved with specific training. However, the radius of a space colony at these rotation rates is so small (under ~20 m for seven rpm) it’s hard to imagine anyone wanting to live there permanently, much less raise children. But military personnel could be trained to tolerate it.



> thats why I recon space tourism will be rubbish till its cheap enough to do two weeks, so you can get used to it. You'll spend the first week puking up your food. In micro g. Nice



NASA issues medication patches for space sickness, I'm sure they'd happily sell them to any space tourism operators.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 23, 2016)

existentialist said:


> Having just read a book about the V weapons, that's not the only reason why this should happen.


By "V weapons" do you mean the _vergeltungswaffe_, or the UK V-bomber force?

In either case, what was the Duncan Sandys connection?


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 23, 2016)

kebabking said:


> my dad was on the design team of the WG30 in his youth - but don't worry, he now designs earthquake-proof nuclear refuelling systems...
> 
> if anyone is interested, i had a trip in the US V-22 Osprey during the week. it somewhat noisy - if you've ever thought a Chinook was noisy, well, i have a news for you...


NO, I SAID "CHINOOKY AR LA"


----------



## spitfire (Apr 24, 2016)

This just popped up an faceache, never seen it before.

Martin-Baker MB 5 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Martin Baker MB5 experimental fighter


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 25, 2016)

spitfire said:


> This just popped up an faceache, never seen it before.
> 
> Martin-Baker MB 5 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Martin Baker MB5 experimental fighter


So are you going to change your username now?


----------



## spitfire (Apr 25, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> So are you going to change your username now?



No.


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 25, 2016)

If No.1 Fighter Squadron had stayed in business...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 25, 2016)

SikhWarrioR said:


> Didnt someone build a copy of that some years back to see if it would have flown



IIRC the problem was getting the bloody thing out of its attic and launching it, more than whether or not it would fly.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 25, 2016)

DotCommunist said:


> IS crew experience nausea regularl because they are spinning round the earth very fast (and freefall). Hadfields song has the line 'Can't put my feet up, can't keep my lunch down'


They're not spinning - the ISS is in free fall as are the people inside. What happens in 0G is that the fluids in your inner ear slosh around, making your sense of balance confused. Your brain thinks you've eaten some bad plants and makes you want to spew them back up.


> its thought that further rotation would make people impossibly sick, if I recall the article I was reading. And the ISS bods will have been on one of those massive centrifuge things that spins you till you puke to test limits and been found of stable stomach. God knows what it would do to someone who gets a little travel sickness eh!


A rotating space station would simulate gravity but would have weird Coriolis effects (remember the spiraling tea in The Expanse?). Also, if the radius was quite small (eg the Discovery in 2001) then your feet would experience more "gravity" than your head which wouldn't be great for your circulation.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 25, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Now reincarnated as Skylon. Think it'll ever happen?


Skylon's amazing and it would totally work, but SpaceX will achieve full reusability first, removing the business case.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 25, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> If No.1 Fighter Squadron had stayed in business...



Liberate the six counties first thing monday.


----------



## kebabking (Apr 25, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Liberate the six counties first thing monday.



better put the drip trays out then, it leaked like a sieve. a sieve with an enormous hole torn in the middle...

i'm pretty sure the RAF looked at the F-14, and possibly the F-15, in the 70's - but government decided that jobs in marginal constituancies, sorry, i mean strategic investment in critical national infrastructure, was more important than having a fighter with a radar in it, or the ability to overtake a hanglider at any kind of altitude... hence the Tornado F2/F3, the fighter you get when you take a low level bomber and paint it grey.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 25, 2016)

kebabking said:


> better put the drip trays out then, it leaked like a sieve. a sieve with an enormous hole torn in the middle...
> 
> i'm pretty sure the RAF looked at the F-14, and possibly the F-15, in the 70's - but government decided that jobs in marginal constituancies, sorry, i mean strategic investment in critical national infrastructure, was more important than having a fighter with a radar in it, or the ability to overtake a hanglider at any kind of altitude... hence the Tornado F2/F3, the fighter you get when you take a low level bomber and paint it grey.


We'd better go with these, in that case:


----------



## spitfire (Apr 25, 2016)

Onwards to a glorious socialist republic mo chara!


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 25, 2016)

spitfire said:


> Onwards to a glorious socialist republic mo chara!


A _32 county _socialist republic, no less!


----------



## spitfire (Apr 25, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> A _32 county _socialist republic, no less!



Anything else would be unthinkable!


----------



## spitfire (Apr 25, 2016)

We have appeared to stray onto a new topic. States that never were.


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 25, 2016)

kebabking said:


> better put the drip trays out then, it leaked like a sieve. a sieve with an enormous hole torn in the middle...
> 
> i'm pretty sure the RAF looked at the F-14, and possibly the F-15, in the 70's - but government decided that jobs in marginal constituancies, sorry, i mean strategic investment in critical national infrastructure, was more important than having a fighter with a radar in it, or the ability to overtake a hanglider at any kind of altitude... hence the Tornado F2/F3, the fighter you get when you take a low level bomber and paint it grey.



The F-14 and F-15 were both evaluated against ASR.395, the project that eventually gave us the ADV. The main problem with the mighty Tomcat was that its AWG-9 radar was described by the UK MoD at the time as 'too good'. That is, it would be impossible to substitute a UK produced radar as it would be a joke and not a funny one. Simulations at the time demonstrated that the F-14B was three times as effective at killing Backfires as the Tornado ADV.

The F-15 was handicapped by lack of internal volume in the two seater (the RAF were 100% committed to a two person crew for ASR.395) and its UARRSI fuelling system. The RAF then, as now, only had probe/drogue tankers. The F-15 was still the final recommendation of the Chief of the Defence Staff.

Bill Rodgers (for it was he) eventually selected the Tornado ADV in 1976 as he was worried that cancellation would implode the whole Tornado program.

The ADV came good in the end but it took a lot of time and money. After it got HOTAS and the Stage 1+ radar in the early 90s it was a capable platform that could its own. Most of the F3W who flew it held it in high regard. I don't know anyone who would have taken it over the Tomcat though...


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 25, 2016)

spitfire said:


> We have appeared to stray onto a new topic. States that never were.


Patience is a virtue.

Back OT, have a look at this:



Spoiler












SNCASO Trident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## pogofish (Apr 25, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Patience is a virtue.
> 
> Back OT, have a look at this:
> 
> ...



France had quite some imagination in that era - Check-out the Nord 1500/Griffon and the Leduc Ramjet!  

And of course the slightly earlier Fouga GCM-88






Of which there were two versions.  The twin-engined one above and another with a single, much bigger jet engine slung between the fuselages!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 25, 2016)

spitfire said:


> This just popped up an faceache, never seen it before.
> 
> Martin-Baker MB 5 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Martin Baker MB5 experimental fighter



*That* is beautiful!


----------



## gosub (Apr 25, 2016)

spitfire said:


> This just popped up an faceache, never seen it before.
> 
> Martin-Baker MB 5 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Martin Baker MB5 experimental fighter


very P39


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 25, 2016)

The Nakajima G10N, intended for bombing America (but never built):


----------



## Cid (Apr 26, 2016)

Crispy said:


> They're not spinning - the ISS is in free fall as are the people inside. What happens in 0G is that the fluids in your inner ear slosh around, making your sense of balance confused. Your brain thinks you've eaten some bad plants and makes you want to spew them back up.
> 
> A rotating space station would simulate gravity but would have weird Coriolis effects (remember the spiraling tea in The Expanse?). Also, if the radius was quite small (eg the Discovery in 2001) then your feet would experience more "gravity" than your head which wouldn't be great for your circulation.



See NoXion 's response upthread, says the same thing but the paper he posted is quite interesting. A 5-6rpm ring (36-25 metre radius) seems feasible

NASA had a concept design for an exploration vessel, but doesn't seem to have got anywhere:






Difficult to estimate the radius of the ring from that pic, seems a bit on the small side though - 1g at 9m requires 10rpm, which is the least friendly environment in the paper. I suppose you'd get some benefit even from a low gravity/lower rotation environment though.


----------



## HAL9000 (Apr 26, 2016)

what about using a cable to make the radius large



> *TETHERED HABITATS*
> For another example, suppose that the tether is 50 meters long, and the rotation rate is 6 rpm which from the ground experiments would seem an easy rate to adjust to. Then that gives full g once again. Now you travel at a rather faster 16 meters / second, or  36 miles per hour. Your head is at 88% of full g.








Can Spinning Habitats Solve Zero g Problem? And Answer Low g Questions?


----------



## Crispy (Apr 26, 2016)

Yep tethering is a good way of doing it on the cheap.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 26, 2016)

Crispy said:


> Yep tethering is a good way of doing it on the cheap.


Yes, but if you're going to the bother of mounting a manned mission to mars, or anywhere else, why do it on the cheap?

A project like that would cost billions/trillions anyway, or so I'd imagine - if you're going to spend that much, why settle for an El Cheapo tethered habitat?


----------



## NoXion (Apr 26, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Yes, but if you're going to the bother of mounting a manned mission to mars, or anywhere else, why do it on the cheap?
> 
> A project like that would cost billions/trillions anyway, or so I'd imagine - if you're going to spend that much, why settle for an El Cheapo tethered habitat?



Because the costs involved aren't purely monetary. There is the energy cost involved in launching the stuff into orbit and across interplanetary space. Given the same budget in terms of money, a spacecraft with a tethered rotating section is going to be able to haul more mass than a spacecraft with a rigid rotating section.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 26, 2016)

NoXion said:


> Because the costs involved aren't purely monetary. There is the energy cost involved in launching the stuff into orbit and across interplanetary space. Given the same budget in terms of money, a spacecraft with a tethered rotating section is going to be able to haul more mass than a spacecraft with a rigid rotating section.


But the same thing applies, whether you're spending are monetary or otherwise - if you're spending all that money, or energy to get out of the gravity well and across the universe, why skimp?


----------



## NoXion (Apr 26, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> But the same thing applies, whether you're spending are monetary or otherwise - if you're spending all that money, or energy to get out of the gravity well and across the universe, why skimp?



Because budgets are ultimately limited. If you can do more using the same amount of materials, why not go ahead and do it? If you're concerned about structural integrity, then using multiple cables will provide additional failsafes for a marginal increase in cost.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 26, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> But the same thing applies, whether you're spending are monetary or otherwise - if you're spending all that money, or energy to get out of the gravity well and across the universe, why skimp?


When it comes to mass, you want to skimp, because it's so phenomenally expensive to launch each kg.


----------



## A380 (May 7, 2016)

Nimrod AEW3. How many hospitals could we have had if we had brought the A3 Sentry from the start?


----------



## gosub (May 7, 2016)

A380 said:


> Nimrod AEW3. How many hospitals could we have had if we had brought the A3 Sentry from the start?


Probably none but we'd still have harriers for the carrier, vtol trained pilots and a fixed wing FAA


----------



## DownwardDog (May 8, 2016)

A380 said:


> Nimrod AEW3. How many hospitals could we have had if we had brought the A3 Sentry from the start?



It cost about 600m quid; I doubt the NHS can build a bus stop for that sort of money.

The rocky road to the E-3 starts way before the Nimrod AEW. The RAF actually started the project that would end with the E-3 in 1944! They originally wanted to do what they called 'Airborne Control and Interception' using a modified Boeing C-97 Stratofreighter. The British aircraft industy went mildly mental at this proposal and successfully lobbied the government to compel the RAF to select a British built airframe. The lucky winner was the GAC Hamilcar X. It didn't work. After that there was then about four decades of pissing about with various other platforms:

Bristol 170 Freighter
Bristol Britannia
Bristol BEWARE
Three different VC-10 based concepts
Comet with a dorsal E3 style radome (we're getting close, lads!)
Andover AEW with FASS antennae
E-2K Hawkeye (made lots of UK specific 'improvements' so it ended up too expensive)
HS 748 with the radar from the Hawkeye
HS 748 with FASS radar
Nimrod AEW (complete disaster, the wheels actually came off in 1984 when RAF deputation flew on an E-3 and were 'horrified' at its capabilities in comparison to Nimrod AEW but it staggered on until 1986)
Shackleton AEW (a chance to enjoy aviation from another era, but at least made it into service)
P3 with Hawkeye radar
Re-engined BAC 1-11 with 4 x Adour
Hawkrod (Nimrod with Hawkeye radar)

At this point British Aerospace had the absolute fucking cheek to propose that government buy the BAe 844 'Super Tanker' which was an A310 based AAR platform that had the Nimrod AEW's radars bolted on to it. This idea had support in cabinet but was swiftly and mercilessly handbagged by M. Thatcher.

and finally...

Boeing E-3 entered service in 1991, 47 years after the project started.


----------



## DownwardDog (May 8, 2016)

gosub said:


> Probably none but we'd still have harriers for the carrier, vtol trained pilots and a fixed wing FAA



The Sea Harriers were doomed as soon as RR fucked up the Pegasus 106 upgrade that reduced blade life by about 80%. It was also utterly irrelevant by the mid-noughties as it had no PGM capability. The 600m spunked on the AEW fiasco wouldn't have touched the sides when it came to correcting those two massive defects.


----------



## BigTom (May 8, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> It cost about 600m quid; I doubt the NHS can build a bus stop for that sort of money.



Oddly, that's roughly about what it cost to build the QE Hospital in Birmingham.. £627m, although cos of PFI it'll actually cost a couple of billion over the next 30 years or something  QE was opened in 2011 I think, recently anyway and is a big hospital - teaching hospital as well. iirc there are about a dozen bus stops out the front  [/derail]


----------



## A380 (May 8, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> The Sea Harriers were doomed as soon as RR fucked up the Pegasus 106 upgrade that reduced blade life by about 80%. It was also utterly irrelevant by the mid-noughties as it had no PGM capability. The 600m spunked on the AEW fiasco wouldn't have touched the sides when it came to correcting those two massive defects.


I had an old boss who flew on Shackletons up to 1990!

I'm sure most people who look on here know, but it was  basically a Lancaster (well a Lincoln); in service till 91! And some people say we didn't have a coherent defence policy...


----------



## Idris2002 (May 11, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> If No.1 Fighter Squadron had stayed in business...



They might be back in business some day, if this story from last year is any indication. The Irish bourgeoisie like nothing better than trying to imitate the "cool kids" in London and Washington.

"The Irish Government has often used the excuse that since we are such a small country we can’t afford to spend money equipping our air corps with jets. Yet figures show that other countries with similar or smaller GPD per head can afford them."

How much to protect skies above Ireland?

Any jets they do purchase (at what cost to social housing, health care, etc.?) will be bargain basement stuff though, so an Irish F1-11 will remain in the "planes that never will be" file.


----------



## DownwardDog (May 11, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> They might be back in business some day, if this story from last year is any indication. The Irish bourgeoisie like nothing better than trying to imitate the "cool kids" in London and Washington.
> 
> "The Irish Government has often used the excuse that since we are such a small country we can’t afford to spend money equipping our air corps with jets. Yet figures show that other countries with similar or smaller GPD per head can afford them."
> 
> ...



This would explain the otherwise mystifying purchase of 7 x PC-9M . Why buy an advanced turboprop trainer if you've got no fast jets for which to train crew?

There will be plenty of Dutch and Belgian F-16s looking for a new owner in the next few years...


----------



## ffsear (May 11, 2016)

The Russian Luner lander.  Obviously never used!


----------



## Idris2002 (May 11, 2016)

DownwardDog said:


> This would explain the otherwise mystifying purchase of 7 x PC-9M . Why buy an advanced turboprop trainer if you've got no fast jets for which to train crew?
> 
> There will be plenty of Dutch and Belgian F-16s looking for a new owner in the next few years...



We can tug our forelocks to them as they zip past.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 11, 2016)

ffsear said:


> The Russian Luner lander.  Obviously never used!


yeh so few lunes to land


----------



## pogofish (May 11, 2016)

A380 said:


> I had an old boss who flew on Shackletons up to 1990!
> 
> I'm sure most people who look on here know, but it was  basically a Lancaster (well a Lincoln); in service till 91! And some people say we didn't have a coherent defence policy...



Another childhood memory was the Rosehearty Bombing Range - a small bombing/target range in the sea *right by* the town of the same name that served RAF Lossiemouth.  Most of the time it was Buccaneers, Sea Harriers and other jets but on very rare occasions you would get treated to the sight of a Shackleton, right down low above the waves, trying to hit the target - usually in vain!


----------



## HAL9000 (May 11, 2016)

ffsear said:


> The Russian Luner lander.  Obviously never used!


The soviet kit looks too heavy to fly.   American lunar lander struggled to get the weight down so it could be lunched into space

American Lunar Lander


Seats were taken out, just some cables to hold the astronauts in place.
Windows were taken out, to start with it had big windows like a helicopter.  By the end of the design process, 2 small triangular windows for astronauts to look out of.

Aluminum structure was chemically milled to reduce its thickness and save weight.



> _The crew compartment was cylindrical in section in a welded and riveted construction, 92 inches in diameter and 42 inches deep, giving a habitable volume of 160 cubic feet, just sufficient for the two crewmembers to stand side by side. Due to the weight saving programs the compartment skin was reduced to a thickness of 0.012 inches, the equivalent of approximately three layers of kitchen foil._



Apollo LM crew cabin: pressure vessel skin - collectSPACE: Messages


Multiple layers of materials were used to make a thermal blanket around the descent stage, the outer layer being metalized Mylar which looked like gold foil.  This was to stop the tanks in the descent stage over heating and bursting.	  Looked cheap and rubbish, but it worked.
Why does the ascent stage of Apollo 11's lunar module look like it's made of paper?


----------



## Idris2002 (May 12, 2016)

Caproni Campini N.1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This thing might look like a jet aircraft, but it's not.

It's powered by a motorjet, which - well, wiki tells the story:

At the heart the motorjet is an ordinary piston engine (hence, the term _motor_), but instead of (or sometimes, as well as) driving a propeller, it drives a compressor. The compressed air is channeled into a combustion chamber, where fuel is injected and ignited. The high temperatures generated by the combustion cause the gases in the chamber to expand and escape at high velocity from the exhaust, creating a thermal reactive force that provides useful thrust.

Motorjet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Was this mode of propulsion doomed to be a technological dead end from day one, or could it ever have found a useful niche?


----------



## ferrelhadley (May 17, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> We'd better go with these, in that case:


My knowledge of Soviet era fighter aircraft is a little rusty. Is that a Mc 21?


----------



## Idris2002 (May 17, 2016)

ferrelhadley said:


> My knowledge of Soviet era fighter aircraft is a little rusty. Is that a Mc 21?


It's a product of the famous O'Sukhoi factory - old established family, auld Sean O'Sukhoi, a staunch Parnellite who followed the Chief to the very end.


----------



## spitfire (Jul 5, 2016)

Just came across this.....

The Greatest Planes That Never Were public group | Facebook


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 9, 2016)

Nice one spitfire. Found this via the alternatehistory.com boards:






Boulton Paul P.100

The P.100 was one of several designs submitted by Boulton Paul in response to Specification F. 6/42 which called for a 'highly manoeuvrable single seat low attack aircraft'. The P.100 was an innovative and forward-thinking design with features that were maybe too advanced for the time such as the unique 'jaw' at the nose which allowed the pilot to escape without danger of hitting the pusher propeller. The successful submission would have needed to have been in full-scale production by January 1944, The P.100 was completely untested and would have required a leap of faith by the RAF. After assessing this and several other projects it was finally agreed that the role was best suited to a modified existing type: in this case the Hawker Typhoon, Hawker Tempest and a ground attack variant (Mk IV) of the Hawker Hurricane.

Proposed armament included 4 x 20mm Cannon, 2 x 40mm + 2 x 20mm canon, one 47mm Vickers cannon + 2 20mm guns. External weapons including 8 x RP3 Rockets or 2 x 500 lb. bombs. Power was to be supplied by a 1760 hp Rolls Royce Griffon II driving contra-rotating propellers.

Span 40' 2" (12.2m) Length 34' 2" (10.4m) 335 mph (571 Km/h) @ 17,000 ft (5,182m)

Sources:_ Interceptor Fighters_ Michael J. F. Bower,_ British Secret Projects Fighters and Bombers 1935-1950_ Tony Buttler.

And there's more where that came from:

Xplanes3d.com Visualisation of Prototype, Experimental and Unrealised Aircraft


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 23, 2016)

This is interesting - a proposal to convert a Tupolev bomber into a VIP SST passenger aircraft:


----------



## spitfire (Sep 25, 2016)

OK so it is a plane that did but it is a prototype so I'm putting it in this thread.

Prototype 707 doing a barrel roll.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 25, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Caproni Campini N.1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> This thing might look like a jet aircraft, but it's not.
> 
> ...



From the Facebook page, The Greatest Planes that Never Were:






Technological dead end sums it up - could it even have provided a transition to a true jet engine?


----------



## dylanredefined (Sep 25, 2016)

A380 said:


> I had an old boss who flew on Shackletons up to 1990!
> 
> I'm sure most people who look on here know, but it was  basically a Lancaster (well a Lincoln); in service till 91! And some people say we didn't have a coherent defence policy...


 Supposedly survived one nato exercise as the enemy mistook it for the battle of Britain  memorial Lancaster.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 29, 2016)

Early jet liner from Avro Canada, which was basically killed by the Korean war:


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 29, 2016)

This can't have been real, surely - a Kiwi Kombat Kraft?


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 1, 2016)

Check it out you guys - a blog that discusses cancelled spaceflight projects, and thus creates an entire alternate history of the space race:

False Steps

ViolentPanda, you'll want to see this one.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 26, 2016)

Fascinating French site about ramjet propulsion:
Prototypes.com/La saga des statoréacteurs/I. Introduction

It's in French, but you can always look at the pictures.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 26, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Fascinating French site about ramjet propulsion:
> Prototypes.com/La saga des statoréacteurs/I. Introduction
> 
> It's in French



*SHRUGS*


----------



## pogofish (Oct 26, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


> Fascinating French site about ramjet propulsion:
> Prototypes.com/La saga des statoréacteurs/I. Introduction
> 
> It's in French, but you can always look at the pictures.



At least they got some of their ramjet planes into the air - Whilst ours got cancelled before they left the drawing board or made it to completion in the prototype stage.  

Although not strictly a ramjet, wasn't the SARO SR-53 prototype the only UK mixed jet/rocket aircraft to make any significant number of flights?

Always liked the Flying FLask/Leduc Ramjet - Yes, that cockpit is made out of Pyrex!


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 26, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> *SHRUGS*


Eh bien.

pogofish - was that photo taken on Tracy Island?


----------



## pogofish (Oct 26, 2016)

No - France!


----------



## MikeMcc (Oct 26, 2016)

The Dornier Do-31 experimental VTOL transport aircraft.  Two Pegasus (Harrier) engines and 8 other lift engines all balanced by an analogue flight control computer!



1966 - Do 31  - VTOL Experimental Jet Transport

Dornier Do 31 - Wikipedia

One is sat outside the excellent Dornier museum, the other surviving aircraft is in a museum in Berlin I believe. Having worked close to Harriers it must have been an incredibly noisy smelly machine!


----------



## pogofish (Nov 1, 2016)

MikeMcc said:


> the other surviving aircraft is in a museum in Berlin I believe.



Nope, it is at Schleissheim Airfield nr Munich, on display with much of the secondary collection from Deutsches Museum.

I have it down for a visit the next time I'm in Munich (which may be quite soon!  ) as I never got there last time due to the main Museum, BMW and so much other interesting stuff in the city itself.


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 18, 2016)




----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 18, 2016)

Idris2002 said:


>


This is what happens when you don't read your Airfix instructions properly


----------



## HAL9000 (Nov 20, 2016)

DaveCinzano said:


> This is what happens when you don't read your Airfix instructions properly


 Nasa had a go at swept forward wings


----------



## Idris2002 (Nov 25, 2016)

What possible use could there have been for something like this?

"The Blohm & Voss P163-01 Was an Asymmetric Bomber Project with an Daimler-Benz DB 613C engine with contrarotating propellors the project was tested and had some complexity in which the aircraft had to be flown and steered from both condelas at that moment in the war there was no need for complexity in projects max speed of 404mph altitude :39370ft range:900miles"


----------



## pogofish (Nov 25, 2016)

HAL9000 said:


> Nasa had a go at swept forward wings



And the British had a go at both wing formats, at the same time:






The BAE P.1214 - Which began as a Hawker project IIRC and got as far as the model stage of development, with one variant shown to Mrs T as a full-size pre-production model.

As the plane was intended for sale to the US, some of its design work was apparently made available to them and reused on the F35-B!


----------



## kebabking (Nov 26, 2016)

The cockpit and air intake look like they came off an F-16....


----------



## pogofish (Nov 26, 2016)

Yup, that is a speculative model but a very similar cockpit/intake arrangement was there on the only verifiable info:


----------



## kebabking (Nov 26, 2016)

It looks like the bastard offspring of an F-16, Harrier and a Venom(?).

I wonder how it would have flown - and (one for the knowledgeable) why is it that we keep seeing concepts for forward swept wing aircraft, but never see one going I to production? Is it that there are fundamental problems that have solutions, but very expensive solutions, or is it straight forward conservatism among the senior military and political class that no amount of scientific data can overcome?


----------



## T & P (Nov 26, 2016)

HAL9000 said:


> Nasa had a go at swept forward wings


And of course the Russians have a very viable technology demonstrator in the SU-47






Nowadays it's been used as a weapons testbed for the Pak-Fa. I guess the hyper-manoeuvrability of the design has come to be considered less important than good stealth properties.


----------



## DownwardDog (Nov 27, 2016)

kebabking said:


> I wonder how it would have flown - and (one for the knowledgeable) why is it that we keep seeing concepts for forward swept wing aircraft, but never see one going I to production? Is it that there are fundamental problems that have solutions, but very expensive solutions, or is it straight forward conservatism among the senior military and political class that no amount of scientific data can overcome?



Someone asked that on another thread and I opined:



> Horribly unstable in yaw and the wing stalls from the aft of the quarter chord first so it's almost impossible to recover. It might be possible to engineer these deficiencies out with modern FBW systems, although Russia is about as well placed as Burkina Faso to achieve this. The putative advantages just aren't worth discarding 70 years worth of progress and knowledge on normally swept wings



Since the 70s (F-15, F-16, Mirage 2K) we've been able to build airframes that are capable of exceeding the crew's physical tolerance for G anyway so, in a sense, there isn't much point in chasing an airframe with even better energy maneuverability if it GLOCs the crew.

Maybe FSW will come back into vogue when UAS become ubiquitous.


----------



## Cid (Nov 30, 2016)

But they look like sci-fi illustrations, they should be made to work because otherwise this isn't the future.


----------



## hot air baboon (Dec 8, 2016)

MUSTARD - Multi Unit Space Transportation And Recovery Device.


----------



## HAL9000 (Dec 8, 2016)

hot air baboon said:


> MUSTARD - Multi Unit Space Transportation And Recovery Device.



It looks very much like venture star.   Failed single stage to orbit spacecraft 


VentureStar - Wikipedia


----------



## A380 (Dec 10, 2016)

hot air baboon said:


> MUSTARD - Multi Unit Space Transportation And Recovery Device.


From memory...It was supposed to be staged. The vehicles were the same but they would have used three together. Two suborbital boosters and then the third would go on to orbit. Bonkers. Looks cool though.


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 14, 2016)




----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 14, 2016)

hot air baboon said:


> MUSTARD - Multi Unit Space Transportation And Recovery Device.


Son of BASTARD, the British Advanced Space Transport and Recovery Device


----------



## pogofish (Dec 18, 2016)

An undeveloped proposal from Convair for a flyable rocket plane/recoverable booster for the Atlas missile:











It got as far as wind tunnel testing.


----------



## petee (Dec 19, 2016)

re: the seaplanes on the first page. the kernel of what is now Laguardia Airport was a seaplane port. it's been preserved and still functions (though not as a seaplane port). 

Marine Air Terminal - Wikipedia

you may know that already, but still.


----------



## gosub (Dec 19, 2016)




----------



## pogofish (Dec 19, 2016)

The Convair Sea Dart was intended to be close support for this beauty - The Martin P6M Seamaster:
















A "high speed minelayer" (!) that was really intended to bring the nuclear strike crown back into the US Navy's grasp as the B52 of the waves!  

It came within six months of entering service before its propensity to crash spectacularly brought the program to an end. The Seamaster was also the last aircraft produced by the Martin Company before the various mergers that ended-up with its being consumed by Lockheed.

And if that had worked, they had a truly bonkers nuclear powered version waiting in the wings!


----------



## Crispy (Dec 19, 2016)

Thunderbirds are go!


----------



## pogofish (Dec 19, 2016)

If you want real Tracey Island stuff - try the RR Griffith - Supersonic, VTOL!







And yes the US's nuclear powered bomber - which again came disturbingly close to actually happening!  












The engine testbeds are still a bit of a hotspot today:






And the less said about project PLUTO - The nuclear ramjet, probably the better!








> ...a locomotive-size missile that would travel at near-treetop level at three times the speed of sound, tossing out sixteen-plus hydrogen bombs as it roared overhead. Pluto’s designers calculated that its shock wave alone might kill people on the ground. Then there was the problem of fallout. In addition to gamma and neutron radiation from the unshielded reactor, Pluto’s nuclear ramjet would spew fission fragments out in its exhaust as it flew by. (One enterprising weaponeer had a plan to turn an obvious peace-time liability into a wartime asset: he suggested flying the radioactive rocket back and forth over the Soviet Union after it had dropped its bombs.)
> 
> As advanced as it was, Pluto was riddled with bigger issues. Even setting aside the moral issues of using such a weapon, the logistics proved tricky, too. In order to keep it from being detected by Soviet radar, Pluto would need to fly extremely low. That was expected. What wasn’t so well considered was the fact that to get to the USSR at those low altitudes, Pluto would have to fly over the US and/or much of our allies in Western Europe. Which means we would have been terrorizing and killing our own people and friends.
> 
> And, it’s probably worth mentioning the thing couldn’t be turned off, as such. If this was actually used, that’s less of an issue, since if you’re using it you’re pretty much writing off habitability for wherever you’ve sent it to, so you may as well circle it around until it either crashes or everyone’s dead. For testing purposes, the best option they came up with was ditching it deep into the ocean.









Could it get any more mad?


----------



## pogofish (Dec 20, 2016)

And another gem from the wonderful Convair/General Dynamics archive:











Yes, a study for a submersible seaplane for the US Navy.


----------



## High Voltage (Dec 20, 2016)

Apart from using atomic power as a day to day power source, I'd have LOVED to have seen any one (preferably ALL) of those being made


----------



## nuffsaid (Dec 20, 2016)

Kecksburg Acorn, or the nazi Bell, as that's where it came from - or so they say.

first UFO prototype - or so they say....


----------



## gosub (Dec 20, 2016)

pogofish said:


> If you want real Tracey Island stuff - try the RR Griffith - Supersonic, VTOL!
> 
> And yes the US's nuclear powered bomber - which again came disturbingly close to actually happening!
> 
> ...



When I was at Dunsfold 20 years back, prior to selling Alpha Lima we had an X ray crack inspection done, and the giger counters went mad.  We had 4 RR Viper engines in the next room as part of business development we had planned.  turned out a lot of each engine was made of thorium.

Went to Model Engineer exhibition at Ally Pally a few years later and there was a group that were trying to turn a viper into a display thing. They didn't know about the thorium and went white as sheet when i told them.


----------



## pogofish (Dec 20, 2016)

gosub said:


> WWe had 4 RR Viper engines in the next room as part of business development we had planned.  turned out a lot of each engine was made of thorium.



Of course the Viper was never originally intended to power manned aircraft - It was to be a small/light powerplant for drones/remote control applications.  Its use in manned aircraft is just another of those accidents of history - or "value for money" AKA "penny pinching at all-cost, no matter what the risk" economy drives that the British government was all too famous for foisting on the aircraft producers.

IIRC magnesium/thorium/zirconium and magnesium/zinc/zirconium/thorium alloys are still used in some jet components but the thorium content is much more strictly regulated since the 1980s?


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 21, 2016)

1960s British design for a "variable geometry" (I think that's the term) space plane:


----------



## pogofish (Dec 25, 2016)

Finally got my new year trip booked.

Fuck Christmas, Schleißheim here I come!


----------



## 2hats (Jan 8, 2017)

pogofish said:


> Could it get any more mad?


OK, not strictly a plane, but how about >1km long Soviet nuclear zeppelin for some degree of batshit? Complete with what looks like a contra-rotating propellor.


----------



## pogofish (Jan 8, 2017)

Major batshit...!


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 8, 2017)

2hats said:


> OK, not strictly a plane, but how about >1km long Soviet nuclear zeppelin for some degree of batshit? Complete with what looks like a contra-rotating propellor.



A nuclear powered airship the size of a small town? Sounds like a great idea!


----------



## Lancman (Jan 8, 2017)

A contra-rotating propellor would be a jolly good idea considering the amount of torque that a single-disc one would produce.


----------



## Chz (Jan 8, 2017)

To be fair to them, it's a lot saner than a nuclear-powered jet.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 8, 2017)

SHUT UP AND TAKE MY ROUBLES.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 8, 2017)

Guys is this real? A swing-wing EE Lightning? Really?


----------



## gosub (Jan 8, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> Guys is this real? A swing-wing EE Lightning? Really?



Proposed replacement for the Sea Vixen, never built.  F4 bought instead


----------



## kebabking (Jan 8, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> Guys is this real? A swing-wing EE Lightning? Really?



It's certainly not a real photo...

There were two proposals for swing wing lightning's, but the wing swung from much closer to the wing root in both cases - this looks much closer to the Soviet SU-22 Fitter (I think...) solution.

In neither proposal was a mock up built, and certainly no prototype was built.

And, of course, the photo is of a lightning in German service, and Germany never operated them....

I'd say that a swing wing lightning is a catastrophe in search of an idiot with an unlimited budget - I'm quite surprised it didn't get off the ground.


----------



## pogofish (Jan 8, 2017)

A few highlights from Flugwerft Schleißheim:


----------



## Crispy (Jan 8, 2017)

100,000 dmarks to any pilot who dared to fly D-9518


----------



## Cid (Jan 8, 2017)

2hats said:


> OK, not strictly a plane, but how about >1km long Soviet nuclear zeppelin for some degree of batshit? Complete with what looks like a contra-rotating propellor.



Er... I'm not an aviation expert or anything, but they appear to have filled the lifting gas bit with things like people, aircraft and power stations. Many of which are heavier than air.


----------



## Cid (Jan 8, 2017)

What's the jet with 21✠53?


----------



## dylanredefined (Jan 8, 2017)

Cid said:


> What's the jet with 21✠53?



F104 starfighter. Interesting history of that aircraft and the Luftwaffe.


----------



## pogofish (Jan 9, 2017)

My favourite mad F-104 variant:












*Zero Length Launch*  - aka Runways - Pah! We don't need 'em.   


I think 21-53 and definitely D-9518 - as its the only survivor, plus a few other exhibits are on holiday to Schleißheim from the main aviation gallery in Deutsches Museum Munich, which is currently being rebuilt.  Due for completion sometime in 2018.


----------



## A380 (Jan 9, 2017)

pogofish said:


> My favourite mad F-104 variant:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, with an aircraft so safe to begin with what could possibly go wrong?


----------



## A380 (Jan 9, 2017)

pogofish said:


> A few highlights from Flugwerft Schleißheim:


Midweek fares in February Luton Munich £25 each way... This, the science museum and the BMW museum I shouldn't.


----------



## pogofish (Jan 9, 2017)

A380 said:


> Midweek fares in February Luton Munich £25 each way... This, the science museum and the BMW museum I shouldn't.



Yes you should...!  

Get yourself a 4-ring Isar Karte from the MVV stand in the airport, then S1 line straight from the airport to Oberschleißheim and a local bus or 15/20min walk through beautiful baroque palace gardens to the airfield/museum. You could stop in the Blue Carp for a beer on the way.   

Then back to the station and into the Hauptbanhof, then the 16-tram from the Nord Tramstellen, straight to Deutsches Museum - Sorted!  

BMW museum is well worth it too and there is some interesting industrial/auto design stuff - eg an original Porsche model and a Tatra 87 Streamliner at the Pinakothek der Moderne.











Pinakothek der Moderne - Wikipedia

And if you want a truly jawdropping collection of Old Master paintings, the Alte Pinakothek across the road will keep you very happy indeed - And its cheap entry all year because of the renovations.  100 bus from beside the Nord Tramstellen or a tram direct from Karlsplatz (Stacchus), one stop away from the Hauptbahnhof.


----------



## pogofish (Jan 10, 2017)

I had the pics on my other machine:

Here are 21-53 and D-9518 in their old home at the main museum:







> Two prototypes of the EWR VJ 101C single-seat experimental VTOL aircraft were built. Generally similar, they were both of high-wing monoplane configuration, primarily of light alloy construction, had retractable tricycle landing gear and accommodated the pilot in a pressurised cockpit, seated on a Martin-Baker ejection seat. Powerplant comprised six RB.145 turbojets, developed jointly by Rolls-Royce and MAN-Turbomotoren, with two mounted vertically in the fuselage, immediately aft of the cockpit, and two in a swivelling pod at each wingtip.
> 
> Those in the fuselage were used only for VTOL and low-speed flight, those in the wingtip pods for VTOL, low speed, transition from vertical to horizontal flight, and high-speed flight. Control of the aircraft in flight had been explored by a hovering rig powered by three Rolls-Royce RB.108 lift-jets, and by May 1963 this had made a total of 70 flights.
> 
> ...





Wonder where they have squirrelled away the Bachem Natter though..?


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 10, 2017)

I'll just leave this here:


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 13, 2017)

Cid said:


> Er... I'm not an aviation expert or anything, but they appear to have filled the lifting gas bit with things like people, aircraft and power stations. Many of which are heavier than air.


If you look at the section directly above the loading ramp and the green-shaded area, that's labelled 'lift' in Cyrillic. I'm not sure if it would have been big enough to provide lift for the people, aircraft and power stations, mind.


----------



## A380 (Jan 13, 2017)

British Aerospace Cosmiste Multi role recovery Capsule - 1987


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 17, 2017)

A Spitfire. With floats.


----------



## A380 (Jan 17, 2017)

Real or pixels? I hope real...


----------



## pogofish (Jan 17, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> A Spitfire. With floats.



Err....

The Spitfire descends directly from the RJ Mitchell designed, Supermarine Schnider Trophy aircraft - the S4, S5 and S6-B.






All floatplanes.


----------



## pogofish (Jan 17, 2017)

A380 said:


> Real or pixels? I hope real...



Types 355 and 359 - yes they were real, although one type never flew and only a handful of planes were converted to the other before the Air Ministry lost interest.

The idea for the first type was when the invasion of Norway was seriously  considered but the demand for Spits at home was such that it got converted back to wheels for normal service and the second type was intended for the defence of Greek islands but the Germans got-in there before they could be deployed and the few planes converted landed-up in Egypt.  There was also some interest in using them out East but that came to naught too.


The Supermarine 305 however, that's a real plane that never was - A 2-man spit with a movable heavy machine gun turret - based on the Spitfire wings, tail, engine and undercarriage but with a new fuselage - A British equivalent of the Il-2 Sturmovik perhaps?


----------



## pogofish (Jan 17, 2017)

Sacrilege!


----------



## A380 (Jan 17, 2017)

Lancastrian Jet. Not really a plane that never was, more a flying testbed, but still the worlds first jet passenger plane.

Avro Lancastrian - Wikipedia


----------



## pogofish (Jan 17, 2017)

In a similar vein - An afterburning Lincoln...!   






Again a testbed for the Derwent, not intended for production.


----------



## spitfire (Jan 17, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> A Spitfire. With floats.



I'll spare you all a photoshopped image of me in waterwings. It wouldn't be as pretty.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 23, 2017)

"The *Rockwell XFV-12* was a prototype supersonic United States Navy fighter which was built in 1977. The XFV-12 design attempted to combine the Mach 2 speed and AIM-7 Sparrow armament of the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in a VTOL (vertical takeoff and landing) fighter for the small Sea Control Ship which was under study at the time. On paper, it looked superior to the subsonic Hawker Siddeley Harrier attack fighter. However, it proved unable to produce enough thrust for vertical flight, even with an installed engine delivering more thrust than its empty weight, and the project was abandoned."

Rockwell XFV-12 - Wikipedia


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 27, 2017)

pogofish said:


> At least they got some of their ramjet planes into the air - Whilst ours got cancelled before they left the drawing board or made it to completion in the prototype stage.
> 
> Although not strictly a ramjet, wasn't the SARO SR-53 prototype the only UK mixed jet/rocket aircraft to make any significant number of flights?
> 
> Always liked the Flying FLask/Leduc Ramjet - Yes, that cockpit is made out of Pyrex!


And the Leduc Ramjet pilot seems to have found his flying experience . . . memorable, if facial expression is any judge;


----------



## hot air baboon (Jan 27, 2017)

Project Greenglow and the battle with gravity - BBC News

_When, in the late 1980s, the aerospace engineer Dr Ron Evans went to his bosses at BAE Systems and asked if they'd let him attempt some form of gravity control, they should probably have offered him a cup of tea and a lie down. Gravity control was a notion beloved of science fiction writers that every respectable theoretical physicist said was impossible._


...came to nowt ofcourse....




....or _did_ it...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 27, 2017)

suacer nazis in the north pole


----------



## hot air baboon (Jan 27, 2017)

Alternative 3


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 27, 2017)

DotCommunist said:


> suacer nazis in the north pole


MUST DIE


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 27, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> MUST DIE



A Troma production.


----------



## pogofish (Jan 31, 2017)

One wonders what happened to this P3 Orion - A cancelled project or did they simply taxi it into a wall..?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jan 31, 2017)

pogofish said:


> One wonders what happened to this P3 Orion - A cancelled project or did they simply taxi it into a wall..?


----------



## pogofish (Feb 2, 2017)

Again, from the Convair Archive:

Not so much a plane that never was - more an ejection system that never made the grade:






The "type B" - kiss your ass goodbye ejection system.

And some poor guy actually got to test it!











However it remains the USAF's rarest ejection seat - many were produced but fitted to only a few aircraft with the rest rapidly scrapped as the rising number of fatal ejections prompted them to seek an urgent re-design.

It was also notable for needing the firing of around *thirty* different explosive/pyrotechnic charges in order to blast its way out of a fuselage and over the tail of an aircraft at supersonic speeds, *before the parachute could actually be deployed!*.  Pilots were ordered to *never* use it at low speeds/altitudes as there was no chance whatsoever of survival.


----------



## Tankus (Feb 2, 2017)

Wasn't there one that fired downwards


----------



## Ergo Proxy (Feb 2, 2017)

On an ejection seat related note the *BREMONT MARTIN BAKER MBI *



> Since 1946, British aerospace company Martin-Baker has saved the lives of at least 7,450 pilots. That's because it makes ejection seats—one of the most vital pieces of safety equipment on any high-speed aircraft. Martin-Baker seats are the best of the best, tested to the most punishing levels of endurance and extremes of shock, vibration, temperature and more. Amazingly, Bremont's Martin-Baker watches are all put through the same rigours used on the ejection seats, at the same test facility. Fitted with anti-shock movement mounts and Faraday cages, the MB watches are made to be the ultimate endurance chronometer, able to survive just about anything short of a direct meteor strike. Recognised by their red aluminium barrel, original MBI pieces like this one are *exceptionally rare because they are only given to those who have actually ejected during flight*.



One's up for sale atm - yours for around £30,000


----------



## pogofish (Feb 2, 2017)

Tankus said:


> Wasn't there one that fired downwards



There were several IIRC - The XF-104, (Starfighter Prototype) for one:







Which got changed to a conventional upward-firing seat pretty quick:


The Russians quite liked them - At least two aircraft used them, maybe more?

The Myasishchev M50 (Roughly equivalent to B-58 Hustler), although only a couple were ever built.  IIRC only one actually flew?






And the Tu-22, which did go into major serial production:








Although later, the Russian K-36 ejection seat became the safest and most effective ejection system ever designed, with a 97% success rate.  So much so that in 1996, the USAF came close to buying it for themselves!

The K-36 is also the only ejection seat so far designed from the outset to be safe for men and women to use.

We won't mention the K-37 though, a helicopter system that fires the pilot upwards through the (hopefully detached) rotor blades!  

And of course:


----------



## pogofish (Feb 2, 2017)

Had to be done:


 

Raise the tone of bin-race threads a bit!


----------



## A380 (Feb 3, 2017)

Still better than the Vulcan, the four  guys downstairs had no ejection seats but the two pilots did. The rockets of the pilots' seats fired down into the crew compartment; how hard would the decision to bang out have been?

Vulcans - rear crew disabling pilots ejector seats in flight - PPRuNe Forums


----------



## DownwardDog (Feb 4, 2017)

A380 said:


> how hard would the decision to bang out have been?



Faced with the prospect of imminent death, not hard at all, I reckon.

The type of individual who would get in a stew over that sort of decision wouldn't have been flying a V-bomber in the first place. Military aviation is a hard game...


----------



## steveo87 (Feb 4, 2017)

Plus, Norman Tebbitt (sp.) was a Vulcan pilot, so I reckon he'd find it pretty easy, to be fair...


----------



## pogofish (Feb 4, 2017)

steveo87 said:


> Plus, Norman Tebbitt (sp.) was a Vulcan pilot, so I reckon he'd find it pretty easy, to be fair...



I thought Tebbit was most associated with the Gloster Meteor..?


----------



## gosub (Feb 4, 2017)

pogofish said:


> I thought Tebbit was most associated with the Gloster Meteor..?


Meteor, Vampire and BOAC


----------



## A380 (Feb 4, 2017)

steveo87 said:


> Plus, Norman Tebbitt (sp.) was a Vulcan pilot, so I reckon he'd find it pretty easy, to be fair...


And trade union leader....


----------



## kebabking (Feb 5, 2017)

A380 said:


> Still better than the Vulcan, the four  guys downstairs had no ejection seats but the two pilots did. The rockets of the pilots' seats fired down into the crew compartment; how hard would the decision to bang out have been?
> 
> Vulcans - rear crew disabling pilots ejector seats in flight - PPRuNe Forums



What yer man said - with the addition that if the downstairs crew haven't got bang seats then they aren't getting out, as the aircraft commander you have to decide whether your crew would be best served being strapped in a burning, disintegrating aircraft, or getting a blast in the face from Martin Baker's finest...


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 6, 2017)

DownwardDog said:


> This would explain the otherwise mystifying purchase of 7 x PC-9M . Why buy an advanced turboprop trainer if you've got no fast jets for which to train crew?
> 
> There will be plenty of Dutch and Belgian F-16s looking for a new owner in the next few years...


In Ireland, first you get the jet interceptors, then you get the money, then you get the women.

First we get the jet interceptors… And then?


----------



## Chz (Feb 6, 2017)

That's hilarious! Surely Ireland doesn't have any indigenous arms corporations to feed that sort of pork to? If it's not corruption and bribery, then what on earth would the point of it be? Any nation that actually has the capability to attack Ireland from the air could flatten the place in a day, even if they spent 10% of their GDP on defence.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 6, 2017)

Chz said:


> That's hilarious!


I don't see anyone else laughing, to quote Jarvis Cocker.


----------



## Hulot (Feb 6, 2017)

This isn't a toy or something from a terrible plagiarised children's book by Sarah Ferguson. It's a model of the Hawker Siddeley P.139B. It was a proposal for a carrier-based (hence the small dimensions) AEW aircraft with two internal radomes (hence the dumpiness).


----------



## spitfire (Feb 6, 2017)

Looks like an egg plane! 

Hasegawa Egg Planes


----------



## Chz (Feb 6, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> I don't see anyone else laughing, to quote Jarvis Cocker.


Shared it 'round the office. There are now.


----------



## High Voltage (Feb 6, 2017)

spitfire said:


>



and here's what a real one looks like


----------



## spitfire (Feb 6, 2017)

Jeez, imagine taxiing that thing around.....


----------



## High Voltage (Feb 6, 2017)

I LOVE those planes - I remember seeing, I think, the original Hee Bee Gee Bee in a magazine or a boys comic or something - I think that it's a pylon racing plane


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 6, 2017)

Handley Page HP.115, 1961


----------



## kebabking (Feb 6, 2017)

a trip to the TSR2 hanger at the RAF Museum at Cosford (free, good cafe) is excellent for the 'what the fuck were they thinking?' moment. lots of pointy airframes that look like a 5yo designed them and a bunch of Dads in a shed built them...


----------



## pogofish (Feb 6, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> Handley Page HP.115, 1961



Wasn't the one another experimental/testbed aircraft rather than intended for actual production?


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 6, 2017)

pogofish said:


> Wasn't the one another experimental/testbed aircraft rather than intended for actual production?


Pick that nit, why don't you?


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 7, 2017)




----------



## pogofish (Feb 7, 2017)

There was also a fairly serious proposal to modify surplus but still airworthy B52s for cargo and passenger-use by Pan-Am back in the early 1970s and it got surprisingly far down the road - It was the 1973 oil crisis that finally killed it-off.

Any cost saving from the modified planes was going to be completely wiped-out by the cost of keeping them in fuel - And the limitation on passenger numbers (around 80?)/cargo load in the conversions meant they were never going to be able make it cost effective.

I was once stuck at Bremen airport for a few hours and had a ringside seat for the loading of several wings into the old Airbus, Stratofreighter-based Guppy.  That was quite a bit of careful shoehorning with lots of guys clambering about/measuring before they shut the front and when it finally took-off I think it must have needed every inch of the runway!


----------



## A380 (Feb 12, 2017)

A bit off topic, these were built but never really took off (sorry)  but I just had to post this somewhere on here:


----------



## pogofish (Feb 12, 2017)

Once again - from the Convair Archives, the ConvairCar Model 118 :






Oops!


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 13, 2017)

WTF is this?


----------



## spitfire (Feb 13, 2017)

It's a DFS.39 

Lippisch DFS.39

In 1936, the German designer A.Lippish creates a new type of tailless aircraft *DFS.39* ( "Delta" 4c). This experimental aircraft was a nizkoplan a tractor propeller and fuselage, gradually passing into the vertical tail. To improve directional stability, which is particularly difficult to achieve in the scheme "tailless" with a tractor propeller, the aircraft wing ends are folded down. The tests were successful, and the aircraft was declared airworthy. Developing this type of "tailless" Lippish built tailless aircraft with vertical fins DFS.194 larger area (limb ends of the wing down is not provided).

The use of aerodynamic twist along the span of the wing, along with a small sweep angle allowed Lippishu improve the bearing properties of the wings it "tailless". However, a small sweep has resulted, in the opinion of assessors, to the deterioration of the damping characteristics in "beskhvostok" Lippisha. In addition, the effectiveness of enforcement and the longitudinal track control down because of the small shoulder their actions.

As shown by subsequent experience, the system of aerodynamic twist Lippishem proposed, it is not the best. When mounted on the wing tips of the inverted deviation profile differentiated elevons significantly affect the longitudinal balance of the aircraft.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 15, 2017)

Anyway, getting back to the ejector seat thing: Neil Armstrong ejects from a test run of the lunar lander apparatus;


----------



## spitfire (Mar 5, 2017)

*Vickers Valiant Type C*

*Overview*
*Role*
Heavy Bomber
*Type of Propulsion*
Propeller
*Design & Manufacturing*
*Place of Origin*


 United Kingdom
*Manufacturer(s)*
Vickers
*Designed by*
Vickers
*Designed*
1942-1943ish
*Bombs & Torpedoes*
*Max Bomb Load*
10,000kg (22046.2lbs)
*Bomb Loadouts*
25x 400kg
*Dimensions & Construction*
*Weight*
Max Weight: 80,731kg
*Length*
29m
*Wingspan*
64m
*Wing Area*
270 m2
*Powerplant & Parts*
*Powerplant*
6x Unknown model Centaurus Radial. Between 12000 and 19320 horsepower.
*Powerplant Subtype*
Radial
*Performance*
*Max Speed*
615km/h (382mph) @ 7,620m (25,000ft)


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 15, 2017)

The last attempt to keep the Mustang alive, as a counter-insurgency platform:

Piper PA-48 Enforcer - Wikipedia


----------



## gosub (Mar 15, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> The last attempt to keep the Mustang alive, as a counter-insurgency platform:
> 
> Piper PA-48 Enforcer - Wikipedia



Remember seeing Mustangs at Blackbushe in the 80's that had been used operationally in Africa that decade (and seen action)


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 15, 2017)

gosub said:


> Remember seeing Mustangs at Blackbushe in the 80's that had been used operationally in Africa that decade (and seen action)


I suppose you can't remember what bit of Africa?


----------



## gosub (Mar 15, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> I suppose you can't remember what bit of Africa?



Not immediately, but they were picking bits of bullets out of the engine I saw them, that I though  from WW2, to be told the damage was far more recent


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 15, 2017)

gosub said:


> Not immediately, but they were picking bits of bullets out of the engine I saw them, that I though  from WW2, to be told the damage was far more recent


Google says that Sath Efrica swapped its Mustangs for Sabres in the early '50s, and that Somalia also operated the type (but doesn't say 'til when).


----------



## DownwardDog (Mar 16, 2017)

Mustangs and Corsairs (F-4U not F-8) both saw combat in the 1969 'Football War' between Honduras and El Salvador. I think that would be the last combat operations by a WW2 type. Although somebody in Africa or the Middle East has probably flung hand grenades out of a Texan/Harvard since.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Mar 16, 2017)

DownwardDog said:


> Mustangs and Corsairs (F-4U not F-8) both saw combat in the 1969 'Football War' between Honduras and El Salvador. I think that would be the last combat operations by a WW2 type. Although somebody in Africa or the Middle East has probably flung hand grenades out of a Texan/Harvard since.



Someone's bound to have moved troops around in a DC-3 variant since 1969.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 16, 2017)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Someone's bound to have moved troops around in a DC-3 variant since 1969.


Yes, Richard Burton & co. did in _The Wild Geese._


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 5, 2017)

This link, apparently, displays the only surviving footage of the Kyushu J7W, a canard fighter intended to stop the B-29s.

Before it could enter service, a B-29 visited Hiroshima.

The Only Film Of Japan's B-29 Killing Interceptor


----------



## Lancman (Apr 5, 2017)

It'd be an "interesting" beast to keep straight on take-off with all that power, a non-contra rotating propellor,and very little airflow over the rudder. Nosewheel steering would help a bit I suppose, but still a hand (or boot) full.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Apr 8, 2017)

ffsear said:


> The Soviet BURAN orbiter.  Only flew once (unmanned),   before the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Project abbondened in 1993
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Came across some photos of these. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




В спальне бога

There is a certain air to atmosphere photos.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Apr 8, 2017)

DownwardDog said:


> Blohm und Voss P170 Schnellbomber. This was probably a decent concept from the ever fertile mind of Doktor Vogt but the design was overlooked by Ehard Milch's (Luftwaffe head of aircraft production) increasingly manic obsession with jet engines.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry just reading through the thread so an old post but of the top of my head...
Lethal to land as you have no visibility over the nose. 
It will roll like a like a square wheel because of the weight of the engines being so far out board 
One engine fails and you have a totally uncontrollable plane that will yaw heavily and likely pull you into a spin. 
You are going to need an excessive amount of structural strength in the wing for those engines compared with a conventional layout so going to be heavier. 
And the BMW engines were radials. Torque with that much lever arm? 
In the Me 310\410 they tried to get the engines as close together so they gained manoeuvrability. 

Finally not a critical flaw but if you have 3 landing gear then getting shot of the tail dragger would have been a obvious choice?


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 13, 2017)

I got this one off the pinterest CANCELLED page.

"The Hawker Siddeley HS.141 was a 1970s design study and submission for a British V/STOL airliner requirement.[1] Designed by Hawker Siddeley Aviation and tested in wind tunnels neither prototypes nor production aircraft were produced."

I can only ask. . . why a civilian V/STOL project? What's the point?


----------



## The Boy (Apr 13, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> I can only ask. . . why a civilian V/STOL project? What's the point?


 Less runway, more wetherspoons and duty free?


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 13, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> What's the point?



You could ask that about almost every British post war civil aviation project. I'm struggling to think of many that were commercially relevant. Viscount? Maybe... for a bit.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 13, 2017)

rich mans toys?


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 13, 2017)

DownwardDog said:


> You could ask that about almost every British post war civil aviation project. I'm struggling to think of many that were commercially relevant. Viscount? Maybe... for a bit.


That Empire of the Clouds book did paint a picture of a post-war Brit aircraft industry that was utterly dysfunctional, and rendered so by its management cadre of old buffers from the old boy network.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 13, 2017)

The Boy said:


> Less runway, more wetherspoons and duty free?


For inner city airports, maybe?


----------



## hot air baboon (Apr 13, 2017)

paging Boris Johnson...


----------



## The Boy (Apr 13, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> For inner city airports, maybe?



Was what I was thinking. Save the hour commute between the airport and anywhere people might want to actually be.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 13, 2017)

The Boy said:


> Was what I was thinking. Save the hour commute between the airport and anywhere people might want to actually be.


Noise abatement laws might have something to say about that.


----------



## The Boy (Apr 13, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> Noise abatement laws might have something to say about that.



Yeah, well Brexit might have something to say about noise abatement laws


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 13, 2017)

The Boy said:


> Yeah, well Brexit might have something to say about noise abatement laws


"Hold my beer", going on past experience.


----------



## Chz (Apr 13, 2017)

The Boy said:


> Less runway, more wetherspoons and duty free?


It looks a helluva lot larger than what City Airport opened with - Dash 7s and Dorniers. Of course, LCY wasn't even a notion in someone's head in the early 70s so you do still have to wonder what they were smoking.


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 14, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> That Empire of the Clouds book did paint a picture of a post-war Brit aircraft industry that was utterly dysfunctional, and rendered so by its management cadre of old buffers from the old boy network.



Also, for most of the postwar period the British taxpayer was lucky enough to own two airlines who could be directed by government to buy British aircraft. Thus the manufacturers could design and build aircraft without much thought to the value proposition for the customer as BOAC/BEA were going to be ordered to buy them anyway.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 14, 2017)

DownwardDog said:


> Also, for most of the postwar period the British taxpayer was lucky enough to own two airlines who could be directed by government to buy British aircraft. Thus the manufacturers could design and build aircraft without much thought to the value proposition for the customer as BOAC/BEA were going to be ordered to buy them anyway.


Was that all there was to it, though?

Didn't the disaster of the Comet mean that the initial head start in passenger jets was lost? And didn't BOAC, at least, fly 747s a lot? And wasn't the VC-10 that they were ordered to buy actually pretty good?


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 14, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> Was that all there was to it, though?
> 
> Didn't the disaster of the Comet mean that the initial head start in passenger jets was lost? And didn't BOAC, at least, fly 747s a lot? And wasn't the VC-10 that they were ordered to buy actually pretty good?



It wasn't all there was to it. There were many reasons for the death of the British civil aircraft business of which the management complacency and government protectionism were just two.

The hull losses didn't kill the Comet although they certainly didn't help. After all, it was still in production five years later as the Comet 4 with the flaws remedied. The 707 would just fly more people further, faster and cheaper so that's what airlines bought.

The VC-10 was a deeply strange aircraft that should have never made if off the drawing board. It was optimised for the Empire routes such as Nairobi and Karachi. This meant it had incredible T/O performance for hot and high runways. Almost no airlines needed or were willing to pay for such performance. By the time it got into production the Empire routes had receded into irrelevance compared to the new transatlantic routes on which the VC-10 was a prohibitively expensive proposition.

By the late 60s there were simply no viable wide  body British aircraft available and BA began to fill the fleet with Tristars and then 747s. I think  it wasn't until 1960 that non state owned airlines were allowed to buy foreign (ie US) aircraft. There were a some exceptions made for BOAC before then including Stratocruisers in the 40s and a special dispensation to buy DC-7s when the Bristol Britannia project got fucked up.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 14, 2017)

DownwardDog said:


> It wasn't all there was to it. There were many reasons for the death of the British civil aircraft business of which the management complacency and government protectionism were just two.
> 
> The hull losses didn't kill the Comet although they certainly didn't help. After all, it was still in production five years later as the Comet 4 with the flaws remedied. The 707 would just fly more people further, faster and cheaper so that's what airlines bought.
> 
> ...


OK - but take the Empire routes thing. How could anyone in management (or on the shop floor, even) have the vision in the 1950s to realise that the sun was setting at the rate of knots? Look at the propaganda they used to turn out for the Central African Federation - it was assumed that this lash-up of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland was going to be an African Canada, that would experience rapid take-off (but it failed because the African majority weren't mugs, and the white settlers in Southern Rhodesian were a bunch of loonies). Asking people not to base their long-term plans or their short-range procurements not on that sort of idiocy, but instead on the realisation that the game was up was surely not going to happen? And wouldn't that have been true regardless of whether or not the public or private sector was in the driving seat?

E2A: and re: the Comet. The point is not that they couldn't fix the problems (because they did) but because having that problem meant that they lost so many years at a crucial point in time?


----------



## DownwardDog (Apr 15, 2017)

The story of the VC-10 and Comet are strangely intertwined. Vickers original proposal was the V-1000/VC-7 which was a more adaptable design. The government cancelled it to protect the Comet due to the previously discussed difficulties and it was only at that point that Vickers retreated to the Empire route optimised VC-10. The government was ready to die on a cross for the Comet as, at that point, there was the prospect of a second assembly line  in Northern Ireland - a political and economic prize that was considered worth the premature death of the V-1000/VC-7. The NI factory never happened so it was all for nothing. The V-1000/VC-7 would have been a much more credible 707 competitor than the Comet could ever have been so it was a tragically missed opportunity. It was the prospect of the V-1000/VC-7 that caused Boeing to widen the 707 fuselage to 3+3 seating.

There's no doubt that DH lost a lot of time and commercial momentum with the Comet but ultimately what could they have done with that time? It was still fundamentally too small and its performance was limited by its archaic wing design. The only way to fix these was to design a different airframe.


----------



## Idris2002 (Apr 25, 2017)

Two Saunders Roe thingies:


----------



## A380 (Apr 25, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> Two Saunders Roe thingies:


Fighter flying boats. How cool would they have been. Strategically pointless, but cool.


----------



## A380 (Apr 25, 2017)

Convair Sea Dart. I refer to my previous post.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 25, 2017)

A380 said:


> Fighter flying boats. How cool would they have been. Strategically pointless, but cool.


You could deploy air power by sea without a proper aircraft carrier?
You could deploy from an aircraft carrier and recover the plane elsewhere at sea?
Um.


----------



## gosub (Apr 25, 2017)




----------



## gosub (Apr 25, 2017)




----------



## pogofish (Apr 25, 2017)

hot air baboon said:


> paging Boris Johnson...



He'd be a bit late:

Planned for just behind Kings Cross Station and given pretty serious consideration at the time:











My personal favourite is the proposal to build an airport over the Thames, just beside the Houses of Parliament:






Then there is the "Four Airport" plan that was actually agreed and adopted pre WW2 - Only for the Air Minister, Harold Balfour to wreck the whole scheme by performing the illegal land grab for his pal Patrick Abercrombie that foisted Heathrow on us instead.  Strangely, some aspects of the current airport plans for London do echo the four airport plan to some degree.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Apr 29, 2017)

FR1 Fireball one of only a handful of aircraft to be powered by both jet and piston engines. One of the others was the monstrous B-36 bomber.
This one tried to mix the speed of a jet with the range of a piston\prop driven aircraft. But by the time it started production turbo props were arriving solving some of the problems like range and jet were becoming too fast for mating with pistons and more fuel economical.


----------



## existentialist (Apr 29, 2017)

ferrelhadley said:


> FR1 Fireball one of only a handful of aircraft to be powered by both jet and piston engines. One of the others was the monstrous B-36 bomber.
> This one tried to mix the speed of a jet with the range of a piston\prop driven aircraft. But by the time it started production turbo props were arriving solving some of the problems like range and jet were becoming too fast for mating with pistons and more fuel economical.


Calling a plane "fireball" seems to me a bit too much like tempting fate.


----------



## A380 (May 6, 2017)

Doesn't really belong in this thread. But I thought the audience would like it...


----------



## T & P (May 6, 2017)

A380 said:


> Doesn't really belong in this thread. But I thought the audience would like it...
> 
> 
> View attachment 106084


----------



## Idris2002 (May 8, 2017)




----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 5, 2017)

Lifting bodies:

Spaceflight History: A 1964 Proposal for a Small Lifting-Body Shuttle with "Staged Reentry"


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 6, 2017)




----------



## Crispy (Jun 6, 2017)

"carry their testicles around in a small wheelbarrow" by the looks of that thing


----------



## fishfinger (Jun 6, 2017)

I still rate this as a "balls of steel" moment


----------



## Crispy (Jun 6, 2017)

I really miss that show


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 8, 2017)




----------



## pogofish (Jun 10, 2017)

A380 said:


> Fighter flying boats. How cool would they have been. Strategically pointless, but cool.



They made a lot of strategic sense back in the days of Suez and East-of policy.  Being able to operate from sheltered water in places with little infrastructure/support.  In fact most of the designs that did get off the drawing board were intended for middle/far eastern deployment, only becoming redundant with de-colonialisation.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jun 12, 2017)

From pinterest:

"Helwan HA-300 (1964‎) was a single-engine, delta-wing, light supersonic Interceptor aircraft developed in Egypt during the 1960s. It was designed by the famous German aircraft designer Willy Messerschmitt. There were 6 planes in service built before termination of the project in 1969."


----------



## pogofish (Jun 12, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> From pinterest:
> 
> "Helwan HA-300 (1964‎) was a single-engine, delta-wing, light supersonic Interceptor aircraft developed in Egypt during the 1960s. It was designed by the famous German aircraft designer Willy Messerschmitt. There were 6 planes in service built before termination of the project in 1969."




Sadly, the example they have at Schleissheim and Kurt Tank's HF-24 Marut were removed from display for now to accommodate the aircraft displaced from the main Museum renovations.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 19, 2017)

This, apparently, was Yugoslavia's Ikarus 452M.


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 19, 2017)

Short SC1:






Short SC.1 - Wikipedia


----------



## steveo87 (Jul 19, 2017)

A380 said:


> Doesn't really belong in this thread. But I thought the audience would like it...
> 
> 
> View attachment 106084


I had this book as a child, Dad used to read it to me, and laugh, now I know why....


----------



## DownwardDog (Jul 20, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> Short SC1:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Continuing the theme of stillborn VTOL projects, here's the Dornier 31.







The TP was the swashbuckling Drury Wood. He once landed it outside the Rolls Royce pavillion at the Paris air show, strode inside and announced, "That thing's got 10 Rolls Royce engines. Who's buying me a drink?"


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 20, 2017)

DownwardDog said:


> Continuing the theme of stillborn VTOL projects, here's the Dornier 31.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Cool story bro. But did he get served?

More vtol action:


----------



## Crispy (Sep 2, 2017)

Mil Mi-32


----------



## steveo87 (Sep 3, 2017)

Crispy said:


> Mil Mi-32


Filed under 'why the fuck not?'.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 22, 2017)

ffsear said:


> The Soviet BURAN orbiter.  Only flew once (unmanned),   before the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Project abbondened in 1993
> 
> 
> 
> ...


More Buran fun:


----------



## Chz (Sep 22, 2017)

Oh, I like me a Foxbat. Brutal functionality, what the Sovs did best.


----------



## pogofish (Sep 22, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> Cool story bro. But did he get served?
> 
> More vtol action:



And here's the inside of it!  






I couldn't get a good shot of the analog computer that was supposed to keep the whole thing in the air - Most of it may have been shifted to another gallery in DM.


----------



## pogofish (Sep 22, 2017)

DownwardDog said:


> Continuing the theme of stillborn VTOL projects, here's the Dornier 31.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I thought that one was the forward flight only version - It had the wing pods but was only fitted with two main engines.  Its the one in the next post that had the full complement.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 22, 2017)

DownwardDog said:


> The TP was the swashbuckling Drury Wood. He once landed it outside the Rolls Royce pavillion at the Paris air show, strode inside and announced, "That thing's got 10 Rolls Royce engines. Who's buying me a drink?"


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 22, 2017)

pogofish said:


> And here's the inside of it!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I take it the computer was needed to keep all the various engines acting in unison?


----------



## pogofish (Sep 22, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> I take it the computer was needed to keep all the various engines acting in unison?



Exactly!


----------



## pogofish (Sep 22, 2017)

Damm - I just realised that I have no aeronautical interest in my New Year trip this year.

I may have to improvise something, or revisit.  Hmmm....!


----------



## pogofish (Sep 22, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> This, apparently, was Yugoslavia's Ikarus 452M.





In a similar vein - The French SNCASO Deltaviex:






Which survives in somewhat battered condition:


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 25, 2017)




----------



## pogofish (Oct 2, 2017)

Following some new uploads to the Convair Archive:

The Convair Model B58-9 SST.  The Stage-3 variant of the B58 Hustler bomber.






Yes, instead of a big bomb, the weapons Bay was going to carry passengers. Can you imagine how much a flight in one of those would have ended-up costing!


The Convair Model 44:






Convair's attempt to design a plane for the role eventually taken by Grumman F-14 Tomcat.


The Convair Model XA-44 which got as far as the Airforce designation XB-53:






A forward swept wing medium bomber/attacker based on "borrowed" German designs. The two prototypes were cut-up incomplete.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 5, 2017)

I'd never heard of this before today, but apparently there were plans for a "super Concorde" or Concorde B, which would have a much longer range and be less noisy:

Heritage Concorde

It all looks eminently doable, as well, if it weren't for politics nixing the plan.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 5, 2017)

Bonus Blue Steel Concorde:


----------



## pogofish (Oct 9, 2017)

Another couple of Convair projects, although I think these are ultimately Martin designs?






Am I mistaken but does the undercarriage/engine configuration not look a bit Arado-like?







Note the retractable spar buoy/stabiliser concept - its not a slow-flying plane or a very fast sub!


----------



## Crispy (Oct 9, 2017)

That's not making any sense to me... Surely any spar buoy with enough stability to keep that thing level would be far too heavy to take off?!


----------



## pogofish (Oct 9, 2017)

Maybe that accounts for the eight jet engines and project cancellation/non-progression?


----------



## pogofish (Oct 17, 2017)

More Convair/General Dynamics kite-flying:






These are their collected proposals for replacing the A-12/SR-71 - although I doubt the pregnant looking plane on the left could do Mach 3+?







And this is their proposal to replace the B58 Hustler.


----------



## spitfire (Oct 17, 2017)

blue sky thinking.....


----------



## ferrelhadley (Oct 17, 2017)

pogofish said:


> Am I mistaken but does the undercarriage/engine configuration not look a bit Arado-like?


The Ar 234 did not have a landing gear, just a skid. It used a tricycle to get off the ground that it jettisoned.


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 18, 2017)

spitfire said:


> blue sky thinking.....


"Ve haff lost ze var, so ve vill just start pissing about"


----------



## Idris2002 (Oct 28, 2017)

From the Facebook group "Obscure Aircraft of WWII", which says:

Bell XP-52............United States
Powerplant: Continental XIV-1430-5 of 1.250 hp
Max Speed:425 at 19.000 ft
Armament:2x20mm & 6x.50in
Order for Prototype canceled November 25 1941 
Just a Paper airplane


----------



## A380 (Nov 3, 2017)

Idris2002 said:


> From the Facebook group "Obscure Aircraft of WWII", which says:
> 
> Bell XP-52............United States
> Powerplant: Continental XIV-1430-5 of 1.250 hp
> ...



I wonder if this was a/the inspiration for the Optica. A plane that nearly was:


----------



## Crispy (Nov 3, 2017)

!

I remember seeing pictures of that when I was a child and thinking it was the coolest thing I'd ever seen. The view from that cockpit must be incredible.


----------



## LDC (Nov 3, 2017)

A380 said:


>



Didn't that make it into service? I'm sure I saw one in use somewhere obscure years ago?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 3, 2017)

has anyone mentioned the steam-powered aircraft the ussr spent years trying to develop before ww2?


----------



## mauvais (Nov 3, 2017)

The Optica exists, albeit in very low volume, and supposedly is to be built again.


----------



## A380 (Nov 3, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Didn't that make it into service? I'm sure I saw one in use somewhere obscure years ago?


They had some crashes which cost them the company. Although apparently they weren’t down to the design or manufacture.

Every now  and again someone buys the jigs and rights and makes noises about starting production again but it never comes to anything. A pity as I’d love a go.


----------



## 2hats (Nov 3, 2017)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Didn't that make it into service? I'm sure I saw one in use somewhere obscure years ago?


Hampshire Constabulary trialled them as an observation platform (of course). One crashed.


----------



## A380 (Nov 4, 2017)

2hats said:


> Hampshire Constabulary trialled them as an observation platform (of course). One crashed.


Hampshire police were trialing it. I think with a PPL and and observer with a camera and stabilised binoculars. The crash is supposed to have been the tragically  common to low, to slow steep turn. Optica tried to get a finding of pilot error but without evidence the AAIB wouldn’t say that.

The Optica design couldn’t carry  the weight of modern police role equipment (Stabilised video/FLIR camera nite sun search light, radio fit and all the electronics gubbins that go with it). So that probably rules it out for TV filming and power line inspection work too. Also the CAA are never going to let a single engine anything do that kind of work.

I’d love a go though with that visibility. You’d think there would be a market for something with athe visibility of a glider/ helicopter but a single engine PPL capable like design. Although the sky arrow would seem to say not.



I’ve only ever read about it. Anyone know more?


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 1, 2017)

Can't answer that one A380, but I can show you this nice pic of a flying wing bomber:


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 1, 2017)

pogofish said:


> More Convair/General Dynamics kite-flying:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Pretty sure some of those designs were copied from sketches I did on the inside cover of my junior school maths notebook. Blatant plagiarism.


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 1, 2017)

God help us all:


----------



## Poi E (Dec 1, 2017)

No manufacturer's warranty with that.


----------



## A380 (Dec 7, 2017)

The 152. East Germany’s own airliner. Apparently they built five. One crashed. It was out of date on the drawing board and they couldn’t afford it. But it was all built in the DDR, even the engines. There is a fuselage left at Dresden airport.


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 20, 2017)

Yo Dawg, I heard you like cockpits, so . . .


----------



## steveo87 (Dec 23, 2017)

A380 said:


> The 152. East Germany’s own airliner. Apparently they built five. One crashed. It was out of date on the drawing board and they couldn’t afford it. But it was all built in the DDR, even the engines. There is a fuselage left at Dresden airport.
> 
> View attachment 122324 View attachment 122325 View attachment 122326 View attachment 122327


Is that bloke in the display case?


----------



## A380 (Dec 23, 2017)

steveo87 said:


> Is that bloke in the display case?


Yes. They are very harsh in German museums.... they cut his legs off at the knees as well, to stop him leaving.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 23, 2017)

A380 said:


> Yes. They are very harsh in German museums.... they cut his legs off at the knees as well, to stop him leaving.



"Ve told you not to breathe on ze display cases, _schweinhund_!"


----------



## Idris2002 (Jan 10, 2018)

German experimental heavy bomber HE 274, repurposed post-war as a French parasite fighter bus:






From the Facebook group "Obscure Aircraft of World War 2"


----------



## pogofish (Jan 11, 2018)

The Honeywell proposal for the Space Shuttle:


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 8, 2018)

Lovely stuff:






(Hawker P1081)


----------



## pogofish (Sep 19, 2018)

The Convair archive has delivered a few more gems incl this:






The Convair "FISH" (First Invisible Super Hustler)

Which was their candidate for the role that was eventually given to Lockheed's A-12/SR-71

It appears to be a 2-part design with the mothership above and a parasite/drone aircraft that could be launched at altitude to fly over the quarry at high-mach:






And as a stop-gap, it was also designed to be capable of being launched from the B-58 as well.

Needless to say, Lockheed, with their reputation for making advanced designs flyable, in secret and without monumental cost-overruns, won the contract.


----------



## pogofish (Sep 19, 2018)

I hate to think what this was intended for...?


----------



## kebabking (Sep 19, 2018)

pogofish said:


> I hate to think what this was intended for...?



Research into drag?


----------



## DownwardDog (Sep 19, 2018)

pogofish said:


> I hate to think what this was intended for...?



It's a rather fanciful imagining of a US ekranoplan/wing in ground effect transport.


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 24, 2018)

Nicked from the facebook group "British Aircraft Designs and Prototype":






"The Miles M.100 Student was built as a lightweight trainer as a private venture by F.G. and George Miles with development started in 1953. Although not specifically a Miles product, it was promoted as a British Royal Air Force trainer but failed to enter production. The Jet Provost took the contract for which this aircraft was competing."


----------



## DownwardDog (Sep 25, 2018)

The "car door" would have made egressing the aircraft in an emergency quite exciting. I presume the whole door comes out of the frame like a P-39. Thanks, but no thanks!


----------



## Idris2002 (Sep 25, 2018)

DownwardDog said:


> The "car door" would have made egressing the aircraft in an emergency quite exciting. I presume the whole door comes out of the frame like a P-39. Thanks, but no thanks!



"This jet trainer, the only example of its kind, crashed at Duxford on 24th August 1989.

The pilot was Peter Hoare, who was pronounced 'clinically dead' for 20 minutes, but fortunately was resuscitated, and made a full recovery and now flies Airbuses."

Miles M.100 Student

See also here:

https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1955/1955 - 1792.PDF


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 26, 2018)

pogofish said:


> The Convair archive has delivered a few more gems incl this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's gorgeous but why give it such a dubious name just to produce an acronym that's not even anything cool? For a start it's not even invisible, I can clearly see it there look.


----------



## pogofish (Sep 26, 2018)

SpookyFrank said:


> That's gorgeous but why give it such a dubious name just to produce an acronym that's not even anything cool? For a start it's not even invisible, I can clearly see it there look.



The original name ofr the high-mach interceptor/reconnaissance project was "Kingfish" - so maybe that steered their choice of acronym..?

I also wonder if the relative "low observability"/reduced radar signature - ie a step on the road to stealth of the A12/SR-71 design might have had them redesigning the B-58 to make it less of a (very fast) flying barn radar-wise?


----------



## pogofish (Mar 5, 2019)

Another interesting proposal that never happened from the General Dynamics archive:


----------



## mauvais (Mar 5, 2019)

Kind of on this subject, BA have started putting on historic liveries for their 100th anniversary.











Landor next.


----------



## mauvais (Mar 5, 2019)

And they're not the only ones at it:


----------



## A380 (Mar 30, 2019)




----------



## ferrelhadley (Apr 14, 2019)

Megaroc

Megaroc, not a plane but a planned British manned rocket derived from V2 to get into sub orbital flight in the late 40s
But bankrupt and struggling to feed people, we had more pressing issues.


----------



## gosub (Apr 14, 2019)




----------



## Crispy (Apr 15, 2019)

Conroy Virtus - Wikipedia


----------



## A380 (May 15, 2019)

Ryan XV-5 Vertifan STOL .


----------



## BigTom (Jun 17, 2019)

Goodyear Inflatoplane - Wikipedia



> The *Goodyear Inflatoplane* was an inflatable experimental aircraft made by the Goodyear Aircraft Company, a subsidiary of Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, well known for the Goodyear blimp. Although it seemed an improbable project, the finished aircraft proved to be capable of meeting its design objectives, although orders were never forthcoming from the military. A total of 12 prototypes were built between 1956 and 1959, and testing continued until 1972, when the project was finally cancelled.


----------



## Teaboy (Jun 18, 2019)

mauvais said:


> Kind of on this subject, BA have started putting on historic liveries for their 100th anniversary.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Given the age of BA's fleet its probably pretty easy just to peel off the top coat.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Jun 19, 2019)

Sort of a plane that was the future once, I came across this...I might have to arrange a visit
*One of the Last Intact Zeppelin Hangars in the World is in Rio de Janeiro*


----------



## A380 (Jun 20, 2019)

pseudonarcissus said:


> Sort of a plane that was the future once, I came across this...I might have to arrange a visit
> *One of the Last Intact Zeppelin Hangars in the World is in Rio de Janeiro*


Ok it’s not quite Rio, but we have two in Bedford. You don’t realise how big they are till you get close. You see them from the road and think, yeah they’re big. And then you see cars at the bottom and realise you need to double the size you thought they were. I’ve been inside a couple of times and they are amazing.


----------



## A380 (Jun 23, 2019)

Not really *an aircraft that never was, but a mode of transport that wasn’t.*


----------



## hot air baboon (Jan 23, 2020)




----------



## DownwardDog (Jan 23, 2020)

Elements of the swiveling nozzle design from the P.1214/6 ended up in the F35B. Some aspects of the cockpit and forward fuse made it into the Typhoon. The rest was discarded in a rare outbreak of sanity in the MoD when they decided to buy American with the McDD Harrier II.


----------



## pogofish (Mar 3, 2020)

A militarised Gulfstream anyone?

Only one prototype built and after the US lost interest, attempts to market it ti Australia, NZ and even China drew a blank.







In many ways its configuration seemed similar to a bigger Jet Provost.


----------



## spitfire (Mar 3, 2020)

It looks like it may have been a bit of a mover.


----------



## pogofish (Mar 3, 2020)

Another U2 replacement from the early 1980s that never got-off the drawing board:






Seems it was descended from the cancelled Lockheed "Suntan" project and designed to run on liquid methane.  Which was probably its downfall - in order to be able to carry enough fuel for a U2-equivalent mission, the plane had to be enormous.  Which was not good for a "low-observable" design.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 9, 2020)

In the 1970s, Winnebago produced a helicopter camper "van"... $300,000 in the 1970s... they might have sold 6 or 7 of them!













						The Flying Winnebago
					

For some reason the heli-camper never really caught on.




					www.airspacemag.com


----------



## spitfire (Mar 9, 2020)

insert take my money jpeg here


----------



## T & P (Mar 9, 2020)

That’s fucking ace


----------



## BigTom (Aug 27, 2020)

The Caspian Sea Monster



> The *KM* (*Korabl Maket*) (Russian: Корабль-макет, literally "Ship-prototype"), known colloquially as the *Caspian Sea Monster*, was an experimental ground effect vehicle (ekranoplan) developed in the Soviet Union in the 1960s by the Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau. The KM began operation in 1966, and was continuously tested by the Soviet Navy until 1980, when it was damaged in a testing accident and sank in the Caspian Sea.


----------



## BigTom (Aug 27, 2020)

and the thread on Reddit had this gem in it as well

Bartini Beriev VVA-14




> The *Bartini Beriev VVA-14* _Vertikaľno-Vzletayushchaya Amfibiya_ (vertical take-off amphibious aircraft) was a wing-in-ground-effect aircraft developed in the Soviet Union during the early 1970s.[1] Designed to be able to take off from the water and fly at high speed over long distances, it was to make true flights at high altitude, but also have the capability of flying efficiently just above the sea surface, using aerodynamic ground effect. The VVA-14 was designed by Italian-born designer Robert Bartini in answer to a perceived requirement to destroy United States Navy Polaris missile submarines. The final aircraft was retired in 1987.








Which looks a little less weird when seen on video. Was supposed to have vertical take off engines but were never installed.


----------



## Detroit City (Aug 27, 2020)

A380 said:


> XB 70 Valkerie.


developed by the US Air Farce


----------



## T & P (Apr 29, 2021)

Sadly, it doesn't fly...


----------



## spitfire (Apr 29, 2021)

Reminds me of the Eggplane model kits that a mate of mine who is a massive nerd told me about.


----------



## A380 (Sep 25, 2021)

Avro 730 apparently.

And I think a cheeky photobomb from the TSR…


----------



## Crispy (Sep 25, 2021)

BigTom said:


> and the thread on Reddit had this gem in it as well
> 
> Bartini Beriev VVA-14
> 
> ...



Great video on it here:


----------



## A380 (Oct 29, 2021)




----------



## HAL9000 (Nov 4, 2021)

A380 said:


> View attachment 294630


Dyna-Soar​








						Boeing X-20 Dyna-Soar - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## T & P (Nov 4, 2021)

I’m no rocket scientist if you will forgive such cliché expression, but I always thought the self-standing tripod configuration of the rocket in the Tintin comics to be quite clever and plausible, and far more so in the era of self landing boosters and whatnot. I wonder if we’ll ever  someone looking at the design idea seriously…


----------



## HAL9000 (Nov 4, 2021)

T & P said:


> I’m no rocket scientist if you will forgive such cliché expression, but I always thought the self-standing tripod configuration of the rocket in the Tintin comics to be quite clever and plausible, and far more so in the era of self landing boosters and whatnot. I wonder if we’ll ever  someone looking at the design idea seriously…











						NASA Picks SpaceX to Land Next Americans on Moon
					

NASA is getting ready to send astronauts to explore more of the Moon as part of the Artemis program, and the agency has selected SpaceX to continue development of the first commercial human lander that will safely carry the next two American astronauts to the lunar surface.




					www.nasa.gov


----------



## T & P (Nov 4, 2021)

HAL9000 said:


> NASA Picks SpaceX to Land Next Americans on Moon
> 
> 
> NASA is getting ready to send astronauts to explore more of the Moon as part of the Artemis program, and the agency has selected SpaceX to continue development of the first commercial human lander that will safely carry the next two American astronauts to the lunar surface.
> ...


That’s pretty cool, but ultimately you still need a detachable lander vehicle to land on the Moon. Admittedly the size of Tintin’s rocket is probably too vast to make a workable all-round vessel, but if you could hit a sweet spot and make one ship capable of travelling to the Moon, landing and taking off back to Earth, it surely be less risky than needing two vessels instead of one to work perfectly to achieve your mission and get you back home.


----------



## T & P (Nov 30, 2021)

I wonder what the drag of this thing would have been like...


----------



## Crispy (Nov 30, 2021)

T & P said:


> That’s pretty cool, but ultimately you still need a detachable lander vehicle to land on the Moon.


Nope, that's the whole thing. There's a crane/lift for getting down from the top.


> Admittedly the size of Tintin’s rocket is probably too vast to make a workable all-round vessel, but if you could hit a sweet spot and make one ship capable of travelling to the Moon, landing and taking off back to Earth, it surely be less risky than needing two vessels instead of one to work perfectly to achieve your mission and get you back home.


That's what Starship will be capable of. The NASA plan involves the Orion capsule too, because they've built it and have to use it for something, but in theory there's nothing stopping a Starship moon mission launching, being refuelled in orbit, flying to the moon, landing, staying for a while, taking off and returning to land on Earth with no other spacecraft required.


----------



## T & P (Sep 27, 2022)

Have we had the Stipa-Caproni yet?






I guess it never stood a chance due to its looks, but apparently its creators ended up designing and building what could almost be described as a a flying turbojet engine, even though that wasn’t their intention.









						Stipa-Caproni - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Mental looking thing


----------



## existentialist (Sep 28, 2022)

T & P said:


> Have we had the Stipa-Caproni yet?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A short documentary::


----------



## pogofish (Oct 13, 2022)

Nightfighter variant of the ME-262 that never made it to production:








But ended-up at Convair.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 13, 2022)

pogofish said:


> Nightfighter variant of the ME-262 that never made it to production:


Not surprised, there's no space for their beds


----------

